All reaches of News Corp. are under the spotlight following the phone hacking scandal and evidence of the cover up by the organisation including admissions at the most senior level.
The hacking of phones, thousands apparently, and acknowledgment by News International boss Rebekah Brookes of payments to police in the UK and an acknowledgment by James Murdoch of approving as payment to victims in apparent return for silence naturally calls into question the ethics of this worldwide media company.
As Margaret Simons pointed out yesterday at crikey.com, there are implications for News Ltd here in Australia. Simons rightly honed in on the company’s Code of Conduct for journalists because John Hartigan, Australian Chairman, pointed to this in a communication relating to the UK scandal. Simons called for journalists to respond on their knowledge of the Code. Check out some responses at The Content Makers blog.
Given the declared behaviour it is appropriate that the spotlight is on all News Corp. businesses including their Australian businesses. Since News appears to have sat on or hidden the extent of this scandal for many years we can only wonder what else there is to be discovered.
Australian newsagents could consider the ethics of News in the context of their cover price policy which has left us earning less in real terms today than ten years ago – while they have looked after themselves and lifted advertising rates, they have reduced what we earn at retail and for home delivery. An organisation committed to ethical behaviour would ensure that its pricing decisions were fairer to working families.
We could look at newspaper home delivery fees through the prism of ethics – they have fallen in real terms as I wrote here recently. News Limited has presided over distribution newsagents earning less. An organisation which claims to operate ethically would ensure that it approved and facilitated a fair price for those working hard on its behalf as newsagents do. Instead, News caps what newsagents can earn, denying newsagents reasonable business levers which reflect on local conditions.
We could also consider the ethics of News in their approach to the rationalisation of newspaper home delivery. The newspaper distribution system which we have today is a system which they have controlled for decades. Many newsagents are losing their family businesses because of the control News exerts over what they earn. Family assets are disappearing as newspaper distribution is rationalised by News as they create a new model to serve their financial needs. This rationalisation looks set to escalate over the next six to twelve months. An ethical organisation driving rationalisation and laying off employees would have an obligation to compensate the dismantling of the system it created.
Maybe these three examples do not reflect ethical failure – others can decide that. The do, however, reflect a lack of care for and commitment to socially responsible behaviour by News. Yes, they are a business with a sole purpose of driving shareholder value. But they are also a large part of the Australian community and it is reasonable that we expect them to act in a socially responsible way to families and the wider community.
While these behaviours do not compare to the apparent illegal behaviour in the UK, they do reflect on the ethics of the company and the regard (or otherwise) it has for its distribution channel and the community in which it exists.
Of course, News shareholders would disagree. They would say that the company is doing what it needs to do to drive its costs down. They would say that it is also keeping the costs for consumers low. Maybe so. However, on the income side, the non cover price income side, it is not showing a concern for costs which flow on to consumers.
It is possible that the ethical failure exposed by the UK phone hacking scandal is part of a broader ethical weakness in News. Twitter, blogs and even mainstream news outlets are lighting up asking questions and turning on spotlights. While News outposts around the world will be unhappy and uncomfortable with this, it is appropriate. If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to be uncomfortable about.