The News of the World scandal has rightly caused public outcry, but should we really be surprised?

Whether we choose to admit it or not, or individually attempt to dissociate ourselves with “the public at large”, it’s a fact that tabloids (in particular) only publish what the masses want to read.

One might try to argue (badly) that — much like the mountain that has to be climbed because it’s there — people only read the salacious celebrity gossip and other trash reporting synonymous with these newspapers because that’s what they provide.

Unfortunately, that position just doesn’t wash. The public (in general) want to know about the private lives of the rich and famous. Though papers like the News of the World like to claim that they broke some important stories — and in fact, throughout their history, that is true — the fact is their mainstay is gossip and tittle-tattle.

The public wants, and the public gets.

As the debate surrounding the role, rights and responsibilities of the media continues, some comments speak volumes about the murky world of tabloid journalism.

In a BBC Newsnight interview, the News of the World’s Deputy Features Editor (1994-2001), Paul McMullan, said, “I’ve always tried to write articles in a truthful way, and what better source of getting the truth is to listen to someone’s messages.”

It’s not difficult for a reasonable person to see a difference between pursuing a celebrity and hacking the phones of ordinary men and women (particularly those experiencing personal tragedy). Yet it takes a certain type of person to overstep the line from public to private when pursuing a story.

Though we are rightly abhorred that journalists and private investigators hacked the voicemail of Milly Dowler, 7/7 victims and the families of dead soldiers, why should be surprised that people willing to point an 800mm lens towards someone’s bedroom to scoop a photo might have gutter morals?

Not all journalists are bad. Most are very good. Some sully the profession and, hopefully, will be properly dealt with.

Last week there was a call for a boycott of the News of the World. Now we know that tomorrow’s edition will be its last, there are predictions for record sales.

If the Sun on Sunday materialises, as many believe it will, it’s likely to be picked up by most of NoW’s current readership. Yet The Sun hardly has an exemplary record.

The public revolts. The public forgets.

The next bit of hard-hitting gossip and in-depth reportage of scandal will have a majority of the populous glued to the tabloids again.

Of course, many of us will not forget. And we’ll continue to put pressure on the media, the politicians and the police until things improve.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke.

Only when the public at large decides it’s not interested in the tabloids’ current fare will we see a change in what editors deem to be in the public interest.

Britain’s media, police and political systems are in a real mess thanks in part to the actions of the News of the World.

For all the rhetoric spouted by senior figures at the News of the World and its parent company, News International, it is ordinary men, women and children who suffer.

Not content with illegally tapping the phones of British soldiers killed on active service, victims of terrorism, and murdered teenagers, or allowing journalists and private investigators to cosy up to politicians and bribe/blackmail police officers — allegedly — the the powers-that-be at News International are now happy to put hundreds of decent journos and workers at News of the World out of a job.

Mr James Murdoch and Ms Rebekah Brooks (among others) should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Perhaps, as Andy Coulson has just discovered, the police will be knocking on their doors in the near future — though I doubt it.

Closing down the News of the World is a token gesture, albeit one tinged with an implicit admission of guilt, which means nothing to anyone but its employees. The Sun (another deplorable tabloid) will simply take its place on Sunday, while News International shifts its attention to taking over BSkyB and monopolising British media.

Police, politicians and media now face difficult times ahead as the trio try to disentangle themselves from one another. And all three establishments have been tarnished. Which individuals and organisations survive, and which will be irrevocably damaged, remains to be seen.

Let’s not be naive here. The News of the World is not the only media outlet to have broken the law. Both tabloid and broadsheet papers have used some dodgy methods to get a story.

Many issues need to be debated in the weeks ahead. How closely should the media get to politicians and the police? How much control should government have over the British press? When is it acceptable, if ever, for the media to break the law to scoop a story? Which stories are public interest and which should remain private?

There has been understandable public outcry over the phone hacking scandals alleged to have been undertaken by the News of the World. It will be interesting to see how this develops over the next few months as police investigations and independent enquiries continue and publish their findings.

I remember the public anger towards paparazzi-style journalists following the death of Princess Diana, with some suggesting that they shouldn’t be allowed to report on her funeral.

There have been plenty of other appalling stories peddled by tabloid newspapers over the years, but in the main they only publish what sells. Public outcry and boycotts are all well and good, but typically they don’t last for long. If they did, titles such as the News of the World, The Sun, The Daily Express and The Daily Mail would fold.

I don’t see the great British public changing its reading or viewing habits. As much as people might like to see the Murdoch empire crumble, they’ll continue to pay their money for a Sky dish in order to be first to watch crappy American drama and overpaid footballers, and get their fix of celebrity trash talk from the tabloids.

Who’s laughing the loudest now? Listen carefully and you may just hear Jimmy and Rupert. They’re immune from reprisals, and now they’ve done their public duty in telling everyone how appalled they are by the scandal they can continue growing their business and raking in the cash.

The BBC bought and used a botnet which hijacked a number of vulnerable PCs to send email to several test accounts, with the blessing of security firm PrevX, in order to make an edition of BBC Click (the fact that the Beeb calls this their flagship technology programme yet it’s only available on BBC News or at stupidly early times, in highlight form, on BBC1 is another issue).

A technology lawyer believes the BBC broke the law even thought the Corporation (which we law-abiding Brits fund to the tune of £140 each per year and rising) didn’t do it with any malicious intent.

Straun Robertson claims, “It does not matter that the emails were sent to the BBC’s own accounts and criminal intent is not necessary to establish an offence of unauthorised access to a computer,” he adds.

“The Act requires that a computer has been made to perform a function with intent to secure access to any program or data on the computer.

“Using the botnet to send an email is likely to satisfy that requirement. It also requires that the access is unauthorised – which the BBC appears to acknowledge.”

It’s interesting that security firm PrevX gave their blessing to the experiments, even though (reportedly) most security software companies won’t mess around with computers even if they are infected.

I doubt anything will happen, but remember if you live in Britain you’ve helped to fund this little experiment.

One thing that’s become apparent from the recent attack on Darren is that contextual ads, and others close to content, can be interpreted as being endorsed by the web site owner.

One of Hannah’s criticisms of ProBlogger is that it contains ads with titles like “Easiest Money Ever”. In fact, that is true — that particular ad is for TextLinkAds.com, a link-selling service.

When Hannah visited this blog, she noted that there were “adult links” in the header. Since I don’t explicitly accept or link to “adult” themed web sites, I can only assume that this is something that slipped through the net with Google AdSense, should the accusation in fact be true.

The fact is, choosing to carry nearly any type of advertising on a web site is a risky business. If you use contextual links, there’s a chance it’ll throw up something undesirable to you or your readers. If you accept paid advertising for banner or other graphical ads, but do so through a third-party agency, there’s no guarantee that you’ll get exactly the sort of content you or your readers find acceptable. Even large media organisations have been caught out on this one, when they’ve pushed out the placement of adverts to external agencies. Read the rest of this entry »

There’s a slightly bizarre concept. Now that Dave and Al have moved on ttto new things, I find myself the longest standing current writer on Tech Digest.

Granted, others like Ashley and Kat have worked for longer on the publication overall, but they too have moved on. I’ve outlived three editors, and yet have only been working full-time with Shiny Media for two years.

That’s how fast things change in the online media world. Seems fast to me, anyway.

Still, there’s something nice about being part of the virtual furniture and watching new talent come through, some just cutting their teeth in the world of paid blogging just as I was in 2006.

For all the “joys” of the publishing system and a few quirks here and there, I love writing for Tech Digest. Of course there are trolls to deal with, and people trying to sell mobile phones and dodgy medicine, but then every blog contends with them.

Here’s to the next two years, nay decades, of Tech Digest!

If you turn to today’s Technology Guardian (available online) you’ll see a lovely shot of me standing in my garden with my wife’s laptop, looking seriously at the (blank) screen. It’s for the article Porn bill firm opens new front.

It’s part of The Guardian’s ongoing coverage of the MBS billing software debacle which I first covered in March last year.

It’s given some positive press to the MBS Victims Forum Liz and I set up towards the end of last year.

I wonder what (if anything) it will do for me: “Professional blogger Andy Merrett”.

Welcome to any Guardian readers who’ve been following links!

The BBC has recently started running some seasonal adverts encouraging viewers to buy a DAB digital radio for Christmas, instead of unwanted gifts such as naff perfume or nasty jumpers.

It seems that UK-based “The Perfume Shop” has taken great offence at these humorous ads, to the point that they’re lodging an official complaint to determine whether the BBC’s guidelines have been broken. Oh, and they’ve written to the BBC’s DG, Mark Thompson.

Jeremy Seigal, Managing Director of The Perfume Shop, said, ““The BBC should not be trying to influence what people buy at Christmas solely to promote and protect its own broadcasting future. Their message that aftershave is not a ‘goodÂ’ present is wrong. Each Christmas we sell over one million bottles of aftershave but sadly, our advertising budgets will never be able to match the massive impact of the thousands of ‘freeÂ’ adverts so far run by the BBC.”

Oh, look, the Fragrance Foundation aren’t happy either.

John Ayres, Chairman of The Fragrance Foundation UK said, “This is irresponsible advertising by the BBC. With all the economic forecasters pointing to a poor Christmas and this holiday season being the most important trading time for retailers and fragrances in particular, the BBC should be promoting their own services rather than attempting to deprive other companies of Christmas sales. If the BBC was a more commercial operation and accepted advertising on its stations, it might be a little more careful whom it chose to offend!”

To all you smelly companies, I say, “Please get a life”.

While I don’t agree with masking truly and grossly offensive content in humour, this is supposed to be a gentle poke at the stereotypical “bad present”, which is now fully ingrained in British folklore.

It’s not the first time the BBC has been criticised for covert advertising, but I think that’s a slightly different issue. Buying a DAB radio will allow people to listen to both BBC and commercial radio stations. Perhaps perfumeries would consider taking out cost-effective advertising on the IBA network?

The BBC encourage people to buy “cheaper” DAB radios. Surely there’s enough room in someone’s budget to give other presents too? If that includes aftershave, socks, and bad jumpers then so be it.

Quite honestly, I think the whole argument is petty, and by making such a fuss you’ve actually discouraged me from buying any of your products.

Take a look in the mirror at your phrase, and make it work for you:

“If the [Perfume Shop] must advertise, then possibly it should stick to promoting its own [products] rather than [sending out] negative messages about [national broadcasters]?””

After all, by sending out this press release and making a fuss, you’re presumably trying to get some free publicity. Yes? Just a shame it makes you look stupid.

I don’t think the BBC will be too happy with This Morning’s attribution of “The Royle Family” to ITV Productions:

I was flicking through the new crop of “plus one” channels on Freeview (the ones that hog bandwidth of Freeview but show nothing new, merely the same material as the main channel but an hour later – has no-one heard of PVRs and video recorders?) when I saw this on ITV2+1:

It reads:

Sorry, for legal reasons we cannot broadcast the programme that was shown earlier on ITV2

Apparently, “Die Another Day” is such an expensive, or otherwise restricted, movie that it can only be shown the once — until the next time they show it, of course.

Movies like “Scary Movie” seem to be exempt, though, so it appears just to be the Bond stuff.

Fortunately, I can’t stand James Bond films, so it’s no problem to me. I just thought it a little odd. Anyone know what these “legal reasons” are?