by Lorena Cristea
In a move that many have labelled pure hypocrisy, the parent company of the Daily Mail has successfully invoked the Human Rights Act to stop other publishers naming the journalists involved in a recent court case regarding phone-hacking.
According to The Guardian, the court heard that 73 reporters and editorial executives who have worked for Associated Newspapers within the last decades were accused of illegal behaviour by celebrities with the likes of Elton John and Prince Harry.
Nevertheless, lawyers working for Daily Mail said that publishing the names of the journalists involved would breach the Human Rights Act for a fair trial. This comes as a contradiction to their long-term advocacy against the bill, says the online publication.
The crimes that had been done by both the executives and journalists include “illegally intercepting voicemail messages, listening into live landline calls, obtaining private information, such as itemised phone bills or medical records, by deception or ‘blagging’, using private investigators to commit these unlawful information gathering acts on their behalf and even commissioning the breaking and entry into private property”.
No limit of hypocrisy
Social media users have come against the publication owned by Lord Rothermere, stating that the Human Rights Act court argument reflects nothing else but ‘hypocrisy’.
The Belgian liberal politician and advocate of Federal Europe, Guy Verhofstadt, addressed his belief of the trial on Twitter, saying that ‘There is no hypocrisy like Brexit hypocrisy!’
Sydney Celul, a 20-year-old swimming coach, believes that the journalists must be held accountable for their actions, as they are invading people’s personal space and information.
Ana Silva, a 21-year-old who is working in the administration field, agrees. “I do not think is fair for the journalists to remain anonymous. If you are able to find the resources and you are putting yourself in a story, and you are invading someone’s personal life, being even a celebrity or a regular person, you should be held accountable for it.”
21-year-old administration worker Anna Silva, 20-year-old swimming coach Sydney Celul, and 24-year-old receptionist Naomi de Giorgio share their perspective on Daily Mail’s phone-hacking controversy
Catalina-Andreea Serban and Simion Daniel-Adrian, who are both 20-year-old Journalism students in Bucharest, state that a journalist is meant to share factual information, without violating someone’s privacy and consent.
“Considering the situation that The Daily Mail founds itself in right now, I still believe that the identities of the journalists should remain a secret, because, otherwise, sources must be published for every information that uses ‘sources’ as their way of getting the information,” they said.
Phone-hacking scandal is not uncommon in the UK
The phone-hacking scandal comes back to the public attention more than a decade later. In 2011, this led to the closure of the News of The World publication.
According to BBC archives, Rupert Murdoch decided to completely shut down the newspaper after 168 years, after journalists Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson were found guilty of intercepting teenager Milly Dowler’s voicemails in the wake of her abduction and then murder.
“It is quite a big issue. This is not acceptable by any means, and should not be done by anyone,” said Catalina and Simion about the resurrection of phone-hacking in journalism.
Leave a Reply