First published on 25.07.2011.
A wide variety of individuals had their phone hacked in The News of the World scandal.
Indeed it was the escalation of these illegal techniques of investigative journalism to ordinary people (although of course ordinary people living under exceptionally stressful conditions as witnessed by the hacking of the phone of a murdered 13 year girl, the victims of the 7/7 2005 terrorism attacks in London, and the families of soldiers killed while serving in Afghanistan) that broke through the long cover up hiding this story.
(Image: Richard Saker)
Yet, it should not be forgotten that the first victims of phone hacking were celebrities, encompassing the worlds of royalty, entertainment and sports.
Between 2002 and 2007 The News of the World or NOW had over 50 news stories about the personal life of arguably the best known of these celebrities – the football star (and fashion icon) David Beckham,
A few of these stories had a sensational element attached to them concerning affairs Beckham was alleged to be guilty of.
But most of the stories concentrated on the details of the life that Beckham and his wife, Victoria (the former Posh Spice) maintained, including purchases and trips.Moreover, the sweep of the targeting was comprehensive, with evidence unfolding that phone hacking extended to Beckham’s wider family including his parents and in laws.
Nor did the private detective originally hired to do this work only hack a single phone. It is said in at least one newspaper report that this investigator hacked into 13 different sim cards that Beckham possessed.
Unlike the so-called ordinary people the cluster of celebrities such as Beckham derived some compensation from the stories.
Cynically one can take the argument that all publicity was good publicity in that being on the front pages of NOW was valuable for the endorsements.
They also had PR advisors that could manage such stories.
And, as NOW was itself put on the defensive, celebrities had access to a host of techniques of retribution unavailable to ordinary people.
Ultimately they could hire expensive lawyers to sue the Murdoch empire running NOW and a number of other tabloids notably the Sun and the Sunday Sun.
Hugh Grant, another celebrity constantly targeted in his private life, even went on the offensive, taping a conversation with a journalist from NOW and writing a story in the left-leaning New Statesman about the episode including making the call for a judge-led inquiry into the scandal.
Yet, notwithstanding the fact that celebrities can defend themselves more adequately (or most because of it) celebrities have not been accorded a great deal of sympathy over the hacking scandal.
On the contrary there has been a temptation throughout the media to re-victimize them, with an outcry from a wide variety of journalists (and former journalists) that celebrities are involved in backlash of revenge that will simply kill the medium that amplified their fame.
Piers Morgan (himself a former NOW editor) has even gone so far as to publicly ban Hugh Grant from appearing on his CNN talk show because of the actor’s outspoken criticism of the UK tabloids.
Among other serious themes that merit attention, these attacks on the attackers highlight a fact that should be all too obvious – that celebrities are not equal in either their reputation or their capabilities.
Although all too many celebrities are extremely shallow and have little in their repertoire that allows a distinction between the public interest and an interest by the public, David Beckham is different.
If he has a huge amount of endorsements akin to others that have been exposed by the entertainment media (think of Tiger Woods, or Paris Hilton), Beckham has a side of public service – to UNICEF and both the London’ Olympic 2012 successful bid and the unsuccessful bid for 2018 FIFA World Cup.
Such commendable activities, however, do not appear to have provided him with protection even with the award in 2003 of an OBE.
While often publicly lampooned, Hugh Grant has demonstrated that revenge is best when it is least expected.
Although goaded by journalists employed by the tabloids, the commitment-phobe in many movies has shown a steely resolve in a totally unanticipated fashion getting ahead of public opinion on the scandal.
Celebrities are structurally part of a fame-driven industry that thrives on publicity from the entertainment media.
As such they are commonly soft targets in a hard industry, with little wriggle room of avoidance even as with David Beckham when they do a tremendous amount of good deeds.
Equally though attitudes to the targeting of celebrities akin to politicians act as trip wires for what is acceptable in society.
When stories about their private lives are uncovered by legitimate investigative techniques such activities may (as argued by the Murdoch-run media) actually help shape a transparent society and cut down hypocrisy.
But when these stories are gathered by illegal techniques such as phone hacking (as well as via payments made to police in exchange for information) the line of acceptability is crossed.
In such episodes – as clearly the case with NOW for nearly a decade – we should reserve some sympathy for even the highest profile, over the top remunerated celebrities.
