Where does the permitted end, and the forbidden begin, when it comes to what a media outlet can do in order to obtain information to boost sales? This is the basic issue at stake in the ongoing controversy in Great Britain these days, about the actions of the tabloid News of the World, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation conglomerate. The debate has lasted ever since readers have received information, and been curious to know, but not just about ordinary news; it has gone farther than this, extending to spying on people's private lives and their bedrooms. Humans are curious by instinct, and this has seen the sales of tabloid newspapers owned by Murdoch in Britain and Australia rise into the millions of copies. Moreover, the simplistic manner of relaying information used by News Corporation's print and television outlets around the world, including the United States, has aided in the spread of these means and the public's interest in them. This is what we are seeing in Britain today, through the changes in The Times and The Sunday Times over the last 30 years, or ever since Murdoch purchased them from the Thomson Group. To this we can add the coverage style of Sky News in Britain and its sister, Fox News in the US. The Murdoch empire is being blamed for allowing, or ignoring, or facilitating the hacking by its journalists of people's phones, and their bribing of police offers to obtain information for a scoop, and thus an increase in sales. However, if the commercial factor prompted the Murdoch empire's newspaper to do such things, what is the motive for some British policemen to be willing to accept bribery in exchange for leaking information? This information, connected to the telephones of wanted people, or the victims of crimes and assaults, or concerning government officials, should be restricted to security organizations alone. Likewise, why are senior officials from various British parties, and not just the ruling Conservatives, ready to provide every kind of support, politically and socially, to Rupert Murdoch and his senior news executives and editors? Is it in exchange for "buying" their silence over political campaigns or scandals that these politicians fear will hit the pages of Murdoch's newspapers, or merely to gain political support for the media owned by this Australian-born mogul? His outlets make up more than 40 percent of the British media market, and their circulation is challenged only by the BBC, which benefits from government financing and support, thanks to a state fee imposed on those who benefit from the BBC's services. In the News of the World scandal, or phone hacking scandal as it is being called, which is now being investigated by the House of Commons, Rupert Murdoch was bolder when it came to defending his stance and his institutions than when offering a deserved apology. He acknowledged that legal and ethical violations had taken place (especially since some of the phones hacked belonged to victims of the July 2005 terror attacks in London, and a kidnapped girl the police were searching for, and later found murdered). He said his company's policy was at odds with such acts and did not permit such things. However, at the same time, he affirmed that he did not support people's absolute right to privacy. Despite the reservations about Murdoch's media methods, it also should be noted that he took the initiative by closing down News of the World, despite the profits it brought in. He also backed off from asking for full ownership of Sky News, in a bid to defuse public anger. As for Scotland Yard, everyone is awaiting the results of the investigation into the relationship between senior police officers and Murdoch, and their leaking of information that should be the sole province of the police to Murdoch's media employees. The British people are also waiting for something else: they want to see details about the relationship between Prime Minister David Cameron and Murdoch and his media firm, and how much prior knowledge Cameron had about the hacking scandal. Cameron has defended himself by saying "I didn't know" to justify his ties to one of the senior Murdoch executives, who was brought down by the hacking scandals under his eyes. But this defense is a double-edged sword, one of ignorance versus lying; either one is lethal to a politician.
