|
|
|
|
|
|
by andyjohnson0
4739 days ago
|
|
|
I consider that the Guardian performed a great public service in relation to the phone hacking investigation. Without it, the illegal activity at NI and associated corruption in the police and prison service would not have been revealed. Multiple people are in prison right now because of this. The prime minister's former press secretary and the former ceo of nI in the UK are about to stand trial. This is a big deal and good journalism. The Guardian retracted the claim about NI deleting the messages because it could not be proved, not because it was shown to be false. The police's opinion as given in the Leveson Inquiry report was that "It is not possible to state with any certainty whether Milly's voicemails were or were not deleted," [1][2]. The Guardian team originally believed, based on police sources, that messages had been deleted. When it couldn't be proved they retracted the claim. How is this not "moral"? Did it really shock you so much? [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/09/milly-dowler-deleti... [2] http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/... |
|
|
Did you read the linked document?
"These events support the suggestion that the voicemail box was full with the 10 messages that could be left, and that on 24th March, some 72 hrs after Millys last sighting, messages could be left again. Mrs Dowler’s call is likely to have been made when one of the previous messages from 21st March had been automatically deleted."
So they probably didn't delete it. People here (including the guy below) have gone to a frankly worrying guilty until innocent mode. If I write something about your firm, I have to be able to prove it, not you disprove it.
Which is my point, they had a scoop, by questionable means they had found out that NoTW had been doing very immoral things. Why not leave it at that, why did they have to crank it up a sensationalist gear?
Oh of course, because when The Guardian does it, it is for the greater good! [1] When anyone else does it, its 'titter tattle'.
This is why I treat the Guardian with a pinch of salt, its not like Sun or Mirror or News of the Screws, they sometimes get some good stuff correct before other sources. It's just often they are very hypocritical, and not quite 100% with the truth. This bugs the crap out of me. Most newspapers are like this. This is why I hate most newspapers. Hell if anyone can recommend something more frequent than the economist I'd be interested!
But on this context of phone hacking, it is funny that their defence is similar to an NSA one isn't it? Intercepting private communications is bad, but when we do it, we have only good motives.
[1] - http://metro.co.uk/2011/08/04/guardian-journalist-phone-hack...