Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Support the IDS in College Media Madness! Donate here March 24 - April 8.
Thursday, March 28
The Indiana Daily Student

I’d tap that

I’d tap that.

The expression — once used to express sexual interest in another — may gain a new meaning since the News of the World phone hacking scandal.

As investigative journalism continues into the world of new age media, “I’d tap that” is no longer just a provocative innuendo, but a reference to the future societal norm of wiretapping and phone hacking.

Now, that’s simply my prediction, but let’s look at the series of events during the past few months and years.

When the Rupert Murdoch story struck in July, I was still recuperating in New York from the severe jet lag I had acquired on the way back from London.

I’m sure you’re asking yourself (or at least I’m asking myself), how did I miss one of the biggest stories to hit all summer by just a few days?

I can’t believe it either, but after spending two months working at the London Bureau of Investigative Journalism, it was interesting to watch as the British media quickly became the center of international attention.

If you read a newspaper or watched a broadcast, it was evident that the people of this planet were stunned.

Shocked, even. More so, there was an overwhelming feeling of repulsion, which
assisted in coining the term “intellectual terrorism.”

Criticism and outrage followed shortly after the story broke, and people were quick to turn their noses up as if to say, “We don’t have that same level of ‘chut-zpah’” — as Michele Bachmann would put it — “to pull that kind of scum-of-the-earth move.”

David Cameron went so far as to call the scandal “absolutely disgusting,” and The Federal Bureau of Investigation even launched an investigation into whether News Corp hacked 9/11 victims. 

However, let’s not forget: This is not the first time journalists have “tapped that.” In 1998 the Cincinnati Enquirer tapped the voice mail messages of Chiquita Brands, whom they had accused of violating the law. Despite the allegations, the newspaper printed an apology on the front page and offered about $10 million in compensation.

And in August, The Guardian’s investigations editor and a senior member of the team that uncovered the News Corp phone hacking scandal admitted to hacking phones for their own pieces.

The story was about the punishment associated with phone hacking, specifically about the arrest of Clive Goodman, the former royal editor of News of The World, who served time for hacking voice mails.

Nevertheless, The Guardian’s David Leigh defended his methods and argued that hacking is justified if it serves the public interest.

“Unlike Goodman, I was not interested in witless tittle-tattle about the royal family,” Leigh said. “I was looking for evidence of bribery and corruption. And unlike the News of the World, I was not paying a private detective to routinely help me with circulation-boosting snippets.

“I think the rule should be that deceptions, lies and stings should only be used as a last resort, and only when it is clearly in the public interest.

“And, as for actually breaking the law? Well, it is hard to keep on the right side of legality on all occasions,” Leigh said.

Can there truly be a double-edged sword when it comes to phone hacking? The answer is yes.

Of course, News of The World certainly crossed the line when they hacked the phone of Milly Dowler, a 13-year-old who was abducted and subsequently found murdered. However, when it comes to corrupt politicians and abuses of surveillance powers, investigative journalism is essential. 

Given the climate of today’s competitive, take-no-prisoners media, it is expected that “dubious methods” are used, thus fueling a “paradox,” as NYU professor Simon Chesterman explains in an article “Phone-Hacking, Muck-Raking, and the Future of Surveillance.”

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s Managing Editor Iain Overton acknowledges the discrepancy as well.

“Journalists do not have the right to break the law,” Overton said. 

“However, there are always times when the law itself needs to be broken to reveal a more fundamental iniquity.  Sometimes journalists have to be non-violent activists. I cannot state that phone tapping or hacking should never, ever happen.

“Faced with a corrupt judiciary and government, some journalists in some cultures might be justified to act in this way.

“In Britain, I have yet to come across a case where phone tapping is justified.” While Cameron may claim that British media is in dire need of a makeover, the real concept to take away from this controversy is that hacking and tapping are here to stay.

We live in an instant information age where people want their news as quickly as possible — it’s quantity over quality. It’s not just in London; it’s everywhere.

Ultimately, our society encourages this kind of culture. As long as we progress with new age media, the customs will only get worse with time.  People will expect information at an even more rapid pace, thereby inducing more controversial information gathering methods.

Although hacking and tapping include a hefty amount of legal baggage and privacy violations, I do believe many journalists will be willing to take the risk. 

Indeed, hacking is the latest, most sensationalized trend.  In July, the Pentagon admitted that nearly 24,000 Defense Department files were stolen, which was one of the worst Internet break-ins the Pentagon has suffered.

 A few weeks earlier, the Fox News Twitter account tweeted “the President is dead” only to announce that they, too, had fallen victim to cyber hacking.

To be quite frank, hacking and tapping is not a difficult trade. In the next few years, it will be about as easy to tap a phone or hack a computer as it is to illegally download music or pirate a movie.

Not only that, but more people will get away with it, too.

This culture is certainly a product of the times, and it appears an underground industry is slowly, but surely, forming.

­— esalomon@indiana.edu

Get stories like this in your inbox
Subscribe