I should correct that. By papers I mean News of the World. How low can you go?!

"the careers of innocent workers" is highly questionable.

People should know what they're getting into when they work for News International.

yes to a boycott, and the innocent workers can quit in a mass protest, or strike until the 'responsible' owners are removed...

or you can just allow 'free market' dynamics find new jobs for these workers as a successful boycott will open up space in the industry for new companies which will need employees.

The news media is out of control. Murdoch should be arrested.

i don't know if that would be legal... and retro-active laws are against the universal declaration of human rights, Putin,do you want to be guilty of crimes against humanity?

But he won't be. On behalf of Australia, I apologise for releasing Rupert Murdoch on the world. The royal family, dead girls and dead soldiers: many enemies in high places.

Sarge -

"the careers of innocent workers" is highly questionable.
People should know what they're getting into when they work for News International.

So everyone who works for a newspaper or TV news, or is a politician etc should be tarred with the same brush? How do we turn failing institutions around if we blame everyone (or don't care about them) when some people do illegal things?

@largeham - can you takehim back now and revoke his passport? Only then will we forgive you.

they lost trust, the employees can carry on like nothing has happened or quit and find employment elsewhere.

a boycott can work if people take a moral stand, and if the employees take a moral stand they will not be an issue.

infact, if all of the employees still there are the ones with no morals to stand for, then i think the concept of 'innocence' is slightly misplaced in them.

And how can you turn failing institutions around? well step one would be to destroy them, and step two re-build them from the ground up. Just like we did with our banking system!

Sarge -

"the careers of innocent workers" is highly questionable.
People should know what they're getting into when they work for News International.

So everyone who works for a newspaper or TV news, or is a politician etc should be tarred with the same brush? How do we turn failing institutions around if we blame everyone (or don't care about them) when some people do illegal things?


There's no need to take such an extreme reaction. I wasn't saying that "everyone" who works for News International had a direct hand in the phone-hacking of 7/7 victims - I was simply saying that corrupt, unethical corporations should not be protected or immune from public criticism simply because they are a large employers. Workers for News International should have a basic awareness of what their company does. They are not forced to work there, it is a choice - economic circumstances might make that a hard choice but nevertheless, if you are going to take an ethical line on something, innocent people may suffer. If it is a choice between discussing and outing the corruption behind News International or sweeping it under the carpet simply to protect British jobs and 'innocent workers', I would much rather take the former. Upholding ethical standards isn't easy or simple but that doesn't mean we should ignore our wider principals just because the process might be difficult.

And just to reiterate, Mani, I stand by my original comment. People should know what they're getting into - people should be responsible and aware when they work for certain corporations - if News International was full of discerning workers then they have chosen to work there because they accept/condone the corruption/propaganda that the company produces. Moreover, it is unlikely that News International would employ the ignorant 'innocent' workers, as you suggest, who are unaware of any of this.

No faith in free speech or the power of individuals to judge for themselves obviously.
I do not read the New of the World, but a boycott to silence a viewpoint is intellectually indefensible. Europeans have lost touch with this concept. Free speech is one of the reasons why America left the British Isles. Any people who make it illegal to denounce the Holocaust have no faith in the power of the truth to unmask liars.

TC, you can continue to be an idiot if you want, but a boycott is not to silence their freedom of speech.

this is a business we're taking a moral position to hit the only thing a business does (And indeed should) care about. boycotting them to hit their profit margins.

This does nothing to damage freedom of speech. They are still free to print whatever they like, but that doesn't mean we have to pay for it.

i'm glad you made this to be about why America left the British Isles, because... no wait, the geography? America was in the British Isles? on this side of the atlantic? my... i'm so glad i can ... mute

"Free speech is one of the reasons why America left the British Isles."
http://www.eyesalt.net/p/r%2Fh%2Frhwmwyewvkpwysjgeusuqdwqpxmhafrazcbkexdlrsgjuwdrmo.jpg

@Sarge - so the guy in the mail room who pushes the mail cart around the office or the janitor who cleans the johns... These people aren't innocent? I call bullshit on that. Every corporation has underlings who don't know the inner workings or details of the less than honorable plans schemed by those higher up and every corporation has corporate greed driving it such that there are always some kind of scheming going on.

I sit here and work on developing software for my company, but just on the other side of my cube wall is the presales people for my product group and I hear their scripts. Nothing illegal and no outright lying, but there is plenty of deception. Things like "Did you receive the diamond bracelet we sent out? No? Well, I should be up front and say it's a simulated diamond bracelet..." They did send out some CZ bracelets, but the script is intended to get the person on the other end excited about a diamond bracelet that doesn't actually exist.

I prefer when they fire right into what our product has done for some of our bigger clients. It's truthful and impressive at the same time. But that's me.

But my point is that every company has something somewhat questionable in the works to get them an edge over their competition. But most employees below a certain level have no clue about it until it is revealed by an outsider and the rest of the world learns about it. Was it CBS that fired the rocket at the pickup truck and showed the resulting explosion as if the gas tank of the truck had just ruptured? Yet nobody not directly involved in that story had a clue what was going on there. And the recent bailouts and mortgage crisis... Do you really think the average worker at any of the banks had a clue about the corruption that was going on?

The point is there *are* innocent workers who didn't have a clue and, in today's economy, can't afford to just up and quit and be without a job. Remember, quitting a job is a sure fire way to *not* get unemployment. Unless you show some sort of employer abuses, quitting on moral grounds won't get you jack out of the government in the US. I can't speak for the other side of the Atlantic, but quitting is a risky proposition here and striking only works if you are part of a union.

Figure of speech largeham for leaving the realm that ruled in the British Isles, but I guess both Freedom of speech and figures of speech escape you. Not surprising in the least.

@TC - This isn't a freedom of speech debate. Just to update you, the NotW hacked into a murdered girl's mobile phone when she was 'missing' and deleted some messages (to make room for others) giving false hope to her parents and interferring in a police investigation. They have also hacked into the voicemail of politiians, celebrities, war widows, and victims of the 7/7 London underground terroe attacks.

@sarge - "There's no need to take such an extreme reaction." I wasn't aware I was, my apologies if my reaction seemed extreme. If I thought a boycott would work and News Corp would be dismantled as a result then I agree with you that some collateral damage of 'innocent' workers is inevitable. What I struggle with isif the boycott affects say 5% of News Corp revenue and as a result 500 people are made redundant and News Corp carries on. I have no problem at all with exposing what News Corp did and asking the court of public opinion to judge them harsely.

@draugnar - it doesn't surprise me that you work for company that would set out to deceive people. I think you should do he honourable thing and fall on your sword. Don't resign - just fall on your sword. :)

Those are your reasons for silencing a paper. You are still talking about silencing a paper are you not?
The proper remedy would be lawsuits would they not? Wouldn't you sue the individuals who hacked the phones? Wouldn't you sue the paper for invasion of privacy?
How does boycotting the paper and putting it out of business relate to this?
Clearly the boycott is a different agenda all together when they courts are there to remedy the hacking episodes.

Maniac, you post a lot about silencing and other falling on their swords.
Passive aggressive.

@TC - no I'm not talking about silencing a paper - whatever gave you that idea?

Why is everyone calling me Sarge? Please don't :)

TC - my question was 'Do Boycotts Work?" I have never or would never suggest silencing a newspaper. I am exploring whether a mass boycott would make NotW and other papers think twice about how they collect their stories. True, people can be prosecued for wrongdoing, but isn't it better to let business know that such things can affect their bottom line?

My apologies Sargmacher for my laziness

"Sarge - so the guy in the mail room who pushes the mail cart around the office or the janitor who cleans the johns..."

Of course - but this scandal is not going to provoke News International to fire on mass a group of janitors. They are not responsible. The people responsible who will most likely lose their jobs are those I meant - and I think you knew that.

I don't think there's any need to boycott:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/07/07/news-of-the-world-to-shut-down-sunday/

I thought we were talking about people fired due to lost revenue from a boycott. Those *would* be the dispensible ones from the mail room and janitorial staff where they can just make someone else work extra hours or pick up extra duties.

But if you mean those responsible (and no I didn't know that was what you meant), then yeah, there are no innocents. In the future, if you mean the people forced to take accountability for their actions are not innocent, please state such. It reduces useless arguments that amount to nothing.

Now, shutting down the paper is going to hurt innocents. Exactly what I said before. Mail room clerks and janitors and press operators and such who have no responsibility to the content or actions of the paper and no knowledge of the wrong doings used to get the stories until they are exposed elsewhere are about to be handy pink slips unless Murdoch relocates them to other positions in his media empire.

"Remember, quitting a job is a sure fire way to *not* get unemployment."

wait, news of the world is a british newspaper right? we're not talking about the US.

also: " in the United Kingdom. Founded in 1843, the paper will cease publication after the 10 July 2011 edition in the wake of a phone hacking scandal." - apparently they corporate elite have sacrificed the paper on the backs of this scandal.

Well at least the employees may still keep their jobs in other areas of the company...