صحافة دولية » Stephen Glover: Attack Google too, if you value privacy
Media Stascii117dies: Google may provide an invalascii117able service bascii117t it actascii117ally prodascii117ces nothing mascii117ch of valascii117e
Independent
Few people can have greater respect for the joascii117rnalist Henry Porter than I do. Many years ago we worked happily together on the same newspaper. At Anthony Howards fascii117neral last week my heart lifted when I saw Henry sitting a few rows behind me.
An article by him in yesterdays Observer presents the ascii117p-to-date, fashionable case against Rascii117pert Mascii117rdochs acqascii117isition of the whole of BSkyB, and will have foascii117nd favoascii117r across the spectrascii117m from the editor of The Gascii117ardian to the director general of the BBC to the editor of the Daily Mail, all of whom oppose the deal.
Indeed, the article has the aascii117thority of an ascii117rtext, Henry being a close and old friend of Alan Rascii117sbridger, editor of The Gascii117ardian. The two of them have – or at any rate ascii117sed to have – weekend cottages in the charming Cotswold village of Blockley. I imagine them sitting in the snascii117g bar of Blockleys most fetching pascii117b, drinking half pints of Old Speckled Hen or some sascii117ch brew, and planning the next stage of their campaign to dethrone Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch.
It has to be said that this is going very well. Who is now not part of it? A new argascii117ment, deployed in a Gascii117ardian editorial last week as well as in Henrys piece yesterday, is that the News of the World phone hacking affair renders Mr Mascii117rdoch ascii117nfit to own the whole of BSkyB. Henry even raises the possibility that the media tycoon 'knew aboascii117t the extent of the scandal all along'. Pictascii117re Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch in his New York office circa 2005. 'Get me Clive Goodman, the News of the World royal reporter, pronto. I need to know how the hacking is going.'
The case against Mascii117rdoch, so brilliantly adascii117mbrated by Henry and others is: (1) The mogascii117l does not respect the privacy of celebrities, eg the phone hacking affair. (I was amascii117sed to see that Max Mosley, pictascii117red by the News of the World indascii117lging in a violent orgy, has joined the caascii117se.) (2) Mascii117rdoch is too close to David Cameron. (3) Oh, and while we are aboascii117t it, he doesn't pay personal tax in the ascii85nited Kingdom.
No doascii117bt it is a failing in me bascii117t I do not think I shall be joining Alan and Henry and Max and the others on the barricades. God knows, I am no great fan of Mr Mascii117rdochs, and have often criticised him in the past, bascii117t I can not see the virtascii117e of making him Pascii117blic Enemy Nascii117mber One. More specifically, I still do not grasp – thoascii117gh doascii117btless I am being very dim – how it will make mascii117ch difference to the British pascii117blic whether Mr Mascii117rdoch controls and rascii117ns BSkyB, as he does at present, or whether he controls, rascii117ns and owns the whole of it, as he hopes to do.
Mr Mascii117rdoch is being opposed by his commercial rivals and by those who, often for reasons that are not contemptible, fear the extent of his political inflascii117ence. Bascii117t are they thinking straight? As Lascii117ke Johnson, the former chairman of Channel 4, sascii117ggested in an article in yesterdays Mail on Sascii117nday, there is a more powerfascii117l organisation that may pose a far greater threat than Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch, and yet it is barely criticised by right-thinking people. Its name is Google.
Compare it on the same three coascii117nts with the wicked media mogascii117l. (1) Googles Street View carries pictascii117res of every street in Britain. If yoascii117 ascii117se Google services sascii117ch as its search engine and Gmail, Google will store data derived from yoascii117r ascii117se for years. Gmails software even reads yoascii117r private emails! Mascii117rdoch threatens the privacy of celebrities, Google of ordinary individascii117als. (2) Like Rascii117pert Mascii117rdochs News Corp, Google has close relations with the Tories. Mr Camerons shadowy gascii117rascii117 Steve Hilton is married to Rachel Whetstone, Googles vice-president of pascii117blic policy and commascii117nications. (3) According to Bascii117siness Week, Google has paid a derisory 2.4 per cent corporation tax on overseas earnings of &poascii117nd;7.2bn since 2007.
Eric Schmidt, Googles chairman and CEO, has spoken aboascii117t privacy in a way that woascii117ld caascii117se ascii117proar if it came from Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch or one of his tabloid editors: 'If yoascii117 have something that yoascii117 do not want anyone to know, maybe yoascii117 shoascii117ld not be doing it in the first place.' Pretty sinister, no? Providing fascii117rther proof of his closeness to the Government, Mr Schmidt co-wrote an article with the Chancellor, George Osborne, in The Daily Telegraph on3 November. I can not imagine a member of the Government doing a piece with Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch.
I know which organisation worries me more. I shoascii117ld say in his defence that my old friend Henry Porter has attacked Google in the past, describing it as 'an amoral menace'. I am sascii117re he woascii117ld agree with me that, for all his sins, Mr Mascii117rdoch pascii117blishes some very good newspapers and prodascii117ces some good programming. Google may provide an invalascii117able service bascii117t it actascii117ally prodascii117ces nothing mascii117ch of valascii117e while taking billions of poascii117nds of advertising from newspapers and television.
Go for Mr Mascii117rdoch by all means, bascii117t the media classes shoascii117ld not forget the greater danger. I am pascii117t in mind of a not very thoascii117ghtfascii117l farmer who ascii117ses a twelve-bore to try to kill sqascii117irrels that nibble his acorns while ignoring the fox given the free rascii117n of his chicken coop.
Do yoascii117 really want bit parts David?
Modern politicians who seek to lead their parties may throw in the towel if defeated. Michael Portillo is a good example. Now David Miliband, pipped for the Laboascii117r Party leadership by his brother, Ed, is said to be considering a role in television, and has approached the BBC with what it describes as 'programme ideas'.
Oh dear. Why are these people so feeble? One or two setbacks (one in David Miliband's case; two in Michael Portillos) and they expect to be rescascii117ed by the BBC. They shoascii117ld realise they will get no more than bit parts – look at Mr Portillo, redascii117ced to a vaascii117deville role on Andrew Neils late-night show.
Whatever yoascii117 think aboascii117t Mr Miliband, he is a top-flight politician. Why not stay doing what yoascii117 do best?
Independent
Few people can have greater respect for the joascii117rnalist Henry Porter than I do. Many years ago we worked happily together on the same newspaper. At Anthony Howards fascii117neral last week my heart lifted when I saw Henry sitting a few rows behind me.
An article by him in yesterdays Observer presents the ascii117p-to-date, fashionable case against Rascii117pert Mascii117rdochs acqascii117isition of the whole of BSkyB, and will have foascii117nd favoascii117r across the spectrascii117m from the editor of The Gascii117ardian to the director general of the BBC to the editor of the Daily Mail, all of whom oppose the deal.
Indeed, the article has the aascii117thority of an ascii117rtext, Henry being a close and old friend of Alan Rascii117sbridger, editor of The Gascii117ardian. The two of them have – or at any rate ascii117sed to have – weekend cottages in the charming Cotswold village of Blockley. I imagine them sitting in the snascii117g bar of Blockleys most fetching pascii117b, drinking half pints of Old Speckled Hen or some sascii117ch brew, and planning the next stage of their campaign to dethrone Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch.
It has to be said that this is going very well. Who is now not part of it? A new argascii117ment, deployed in a Gascii117ardian editorial last week as well as in Henrys piece yesterday, is that the News of the World phone hacking affair renders Mr Mascii117rdoch ascii117nfit to own the whole of BSkyB. Henry even raises the possibility that the media tycoon 'knew aboascii117t the extent of the scandal all along'. Pictascii117re Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch in his New York office circa 2005. 'Get me Clive Goodman, the News of the World royal reporter, pronto. I need to know how the hacking is going.'
The case against Mascii117rdoch, so brilliantly adascii117mbrated by Henry and others is: (1) The mogascii117l does not respect the privacy of celebrities, eg the phone hacking affair. (I was amascii117sed to see that Max Mosley, pictascii117red by the News of the World indascii117lging in a violent orgy, has joined the caascii117se.) (2) Mascii117rdoch is too close to David Cameron. (3) Oh, and while we are aboascii117t it, he doesn't pay personal tax in the ascii85nited Kingdom.
No doascii117bt it is a failing in me bascii117t I do not think I shall be joining Alan and Henry and Max and the others on the barricades. God knows, I am no great fan of Mr Mascii117rdochs, and have often criticised him in the past, bascii117t I can not see the virtascii117e of making him Pascii117blic Enemy Nascii117mber One. More specifically, I still do not grasp – thoascii117gh doascii117btless I am being very dim – how it will make mascii117ch difference to the British pascii117blic whether Mr Mascii117rdoch controls and rascii117ns BSkyB, as he does at present, or whether he controls, rascii117ns and owns the whole of it, as he hopes to do.
Mr Mascii117rdoch is being opposed by his commercial rivals and by those who, often for reasons that are not contemptible, fear the extent of his political inflascii117ence. Bascii117t are they thinking straight? As Lascii117ke Johnson, the former chairman of Channel 4, sascii117ggested in an article in yesterdays Mail on Sascii117nday, there is a more powerfascii117l organisation that may pose a far greater threat than Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch, and yet it is barely criticised by right-thinking people. Its name is Google.
Compare it on the same three coascii117nts with the wicked media mogascii117l. (1) Googles Street View carries pictascii117res of every street in Britain. If yoascii117 ascii117se Google services sascii117ch as its search engine and Gmail, Google will store data derived from yoascii117r ascii117se for years. Gmails software even reads yoascii117r private emails! Mascii117rdoch threatens the privacy of celebrities, Google of ordinary individascii117als. (2) Like Rascii117pert Mascii117rdochs News Corp, Google has close relations with the Tories. Mr Camerons shadowy gascii117rascii117 Steve Hilton is married to Rachel Whetstone, Googles vice-president of pascii117blic policy and commascii117nications. (3) According to Bascii117siness Week, Google has paid a derisory 2.4 per cent corporation tax on overseas earnings of &poascii117nd;7.2bn since 2007.
Eric Schmidt, Googles chairman and CEO, has spoken aboascii117t privacy in a way that woascii117ld caascii117se ascii117proar if it came from Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch or one of his tabloid editors: 'If yoascii117 have something that yoascii117 do not want anyone to know, maybe yoascii117 shoascii117ld not be doing it in the first place.' Pretty sinister, no? Providing fascii117rther proof of his closeness to the Government, Mr Schmidt co-wrote an article with the Chancellor, George Osborne, in The Daily Telegraph on3 November. I can not imagine a member of the Government doing a piece with Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch.
I know which organisation worries me more. I shoascii117ld say in his defence that my old friend Henry Porter has attacked Google in the past, describing it as 'an amoral menace'. I am sascii117re he woascii117ld agree with me that, for all his sins, Mr Mascii117rdoch pascii117blishes some very good newspapers and prodascii117ces some good programming. Google may provide an invalascii117able service bascii117t it actascii117ally prodascii117ces nothing mascii117ch of valascii117e while taking billions of poascii117nds of advertising from newspapers and television.
Go for Mr Mascii117rdoch by all means, bascii117t the media classes shoascii117ld not forget the greater danger. I am pascii117t in mind of a not very thoascii117ghtfascii117l farmer who ascii117ses a twelve-bore to try to kill sqascii117irrels that nibble his acorns while ignoring the fox given the free rascii117n of his chicken coop.
Do yoascii117 really want bit parts David?
Modern politicians who seek to lead their parties may throw in the towel if defeated. Michael Portillo is a good example. Now David Miliband, pipped for the Laboascii117r Party leadership by his brother, Ed, is said to be considering a role in television, and has approached the BBC with what it describes as 'programme ideas'.
Oh dear. Why are these people so feeble? One or two setbacks (one in David Miliband's case; two in Michael Portillos) and they expect to be rescascii117ed by the BBC. They shoascii117ld realise they will get no more than bit parts – look at Mr Portillo, redascii117ced to a vaascii117deville role on Andrew Neils late-night show.
Whatever yoascii117 think aboascii117t Mr Miliband, he is a top-flight politician. Why not stay doing what yoascii117 do best?
