This week’s Rupert Murdoch and News of the World hoopla sure has made for some interesting meta-theatre. Rarely, if ever, has the journalistic community had the opportunity to be so unabashedly self-referential. While the scandal takes over the front pages of every newspaper that isn’t the Wall Street Journal or the New York Post, journalists around the globe have finally been able to use their own pages to dissect one of the industry’s oldest and most condemnatory struggles.
As reporters and eager news readers we can argue all day over whether or not Murdoch is lying about his role in the misconduct, but when it comes right down to it, what he’s done at the News of the World isn’t exactly unprecedented. There have always been those within the industry that will do whatever it takes to sell newspapers, morality and civility be damned.
The only real differences between the head of News Corp. and his duplicitous predecessors are the sheer breadth of his reach and the technological tools that allow him to keep his audience constantly plugged in to whatever it is he’s selling. Take William Randolph Hearst for example. In the first half of the 20th century, Hearst’s brand of yellow journalism—infamous for stirring outrage (and therefore sales) over sensationalized or fictional stories—had a much slower turnover. At the time, daily newspapers probably seemed lighting fast to the general public. But by contrast, News Corp. is able to make money by the second, thanks in large part to the 24-hour news channels and the almost preternatural celerity of reporting on the web.
But profit-based journalism is nothing new. Long ago, the roles of the “corrupt media mogul” and “his band of sycophantic cronies” became archetypal. They are so common in the journalistic annals at this point that even if this phone hacking/police payoff scandal proves to be Murdoch’s “Rosebud” moment, there remains a good chance some other fresh-faced baron will slide seamlessly into the vacant role the very moment it becomes available. This person will probably do so in the same way a fledgling actor sometimes stumbles into a dream role on Broadway; that is to say, because he or she just so happens to fit the costume and/or look the part.
Even so, if you’re apt to drink from the glass half full, there does remain a measured amount of hope that honesty and integrity will prevail. And fittingly enough, its prospects stem from the very same technological boons that have legitimized Murdoch’s inflated version of the news.
The fact is, that in a growingly transparent world, it’s getting harder and harder to lie and get away with it. While certain industry heads may seem impervious to the expiatory bedrocks of guilt and shame, when caught, criminality is just bad business. It hurts a company’s bottom line. At the very least, this News Corp. debacle should shift the balance in the risk/reward scenarios inherent in yellow journalism. You can only sensationalize the news as long as your reputation with your audience can offset your dishonesty. The moment you become blatantly villainous, your spin will fall instantly impotent, regardless of the tolerance and/or faithfulness of your base.
There is no real doubt that News Corp. and Murdoch himself will survive the News of the World scandal. Or that even if he does fall, someone will merely step in and continue the very same unethical behavior. But they will also do so under increased scrutiny. All the money in the world can’t make this one go away. Over the next few months, the cadre of internet watchdogs and the disgruntled public should be able to keep Murdoch and his editors comparatively honest.
But in the end, for the sake of journalism itself, let’s hope that the scandal’s repercussions branch way beyond the humility of one singular man or institution.
Murdoch’s most recent faux pas has all the makings of a catalyst, something that might spearhead a complete overhaul in the system. Maybe, finally, we’ve reached the first step in what can ultimately destroy what has long provided fecund ground for capitalistic journalists, this fraudulent idea that quality reporting and integrity are not enough to keep a media empire in the black.
This may strike the ear as a tad naïve, but one can certainly hope. And at this point, what do we really have to lose?