Phone-hacking is a symptom, political influence is the disease

By Jonathan Roberts / @robertsjonathan

Ed Miliband, together with excellent contributions from Labour MPs Tom Watson and Chris Bryant, has helped shape the debate over the latest phone-hacking exposures. They should be congratulated.

Yet this week’s revelations, which get more sickening by the day, are merely a symptom. It is the political power of News International that is the real disease, and if we don’t move to cure it now, we may never have another opportunity to do so.

Whilst these latest symptoms of immorality and arrogance at the top of the Murdoch Empire have appalled everyone, we cannot be surprised at the actions of individuals working in an environment where the dark arts are actively encouraged. Nor should we believe the News of the World is the only media outlet to feel unbounded by the laws of common decency.

For observers of American politics, the poison fed into the minds of the electorate through Murdoch-owned Fox News is evident. None more so than in 1997, where Fox News reporter Jane Akre was asked to report ‘facts’ she knew to be untrue. When she refused, she was fired. In the subsequent legal battle, Fox asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. Fox won the court case, setting a precedent enshrined in law that says the American media has no responsibility to tell the truth, indeed it has a legal right to lie. This is what Murdoch stands for.

Here in the UK, journalism is more heavily regulated, and as a result the criminal underbelly of gutter journalism is hidden deep underground in the use of private investigators and contracted freelancers that deliberately give editors a level of deniability.

So taking Murdoch’s Mafia on is something for only the very bravest and most principled of political leaders – Sir Humphrey may even call such a move ‘courageous’. Indeed, since the rise of Rupert Murdoch no party leader has ever attempted to seriously restrict his influence. The reason why is obvious. They know they would lose.

Neil Kinnock, I’m sure, will be the first among many to bemoan the power of The Sun over its massive readership. His experience of losing what was meant to be a close election is often attributed to the late-in-the-day endorsement of John Major by Murdoch’s most widely read newspaper. Indeed, every political leader since Thatcher has desperately sought the personal backing of Rupert Murdoch because they know how powerful he is. Without him, it could be said, winning an election is impossible. For me, this is a notion that poisons our democracy, and we can no longer accept the whims of a US-based Australian as a significant deciding factor in who governs us.

In the real world, no political leader can stand up to him by himself – the moral high-ground won may be admirable, but it is as good as handing victory to the other side. What is needed is a public agreement between Miliband, Cameron and Clegg that they will neither seek nor welcome the support of any Murdoch-owned paper. It would require a huge amount of strength, and a fundamental display of leadership from all three – but it is the only way to break the cycle of News International’s influence on our politics.

So I call on Ed to lead the way – announce he does not wish the endorsement of News International newspapers, and urge the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister to do the same. In the current news climate neither will have any choice but to agree.

If we are to win the political battle to take our democracy back from Rupert Murdoch, then this is our chance – our only chance – and we must find the strength to take it.