Self-serving paper demands judicial oversight for itself, but none for its readers
The Sun’s position on big state intrusion in people’s lives is curiously selective.
Warning of the threat from web-savvy ISIS terrorists, the Sun Says column today endorses the government’s Communications Data Bill:
“So it is vital, as MI5 chief Andrew Parker says, that his spooks have every power to track internet, phone and social media use and crack encrypted apps. […]
Twitter, Facebook and others must prioritise public safety over the privacy of terrorists or their supporters and come forward with suspicious posts.
And Britain must no longer luxuriate in hand-wringing debates about ‘snooping’ when the price is hampering those on the front line of the intelligence war.”
Does this mean the Sun is in favour of handing these powers to the government? Well, not always:
“There is a caveat though.
We trust MI5. By contrast, police have routinely abused anti-terror laws to target the journalistic sources behind stories they find inconvenient.
Their power to analyse data must be overseen, every time, by a judge.“
What the Sun fails to mention is that the investigations it refers to were into alleged criminal activity at… the Sun, and parent company News UK.
Criminal activity, moreover, that included conspiracy to hack phones – i.e. access people’s private information.
How strange the Sun’s analysis is so helpful to its own (undisclosed) interests.
It’s true a number of reporters and their sources have been arrested and prosecuted since the hacking scandal. But the Sun’s moral stand on this collapses when you consider how it was News UK that gave reporters’ names and notebooks to the police.
As for today’s column, the newspaper in effect says the state can rummage through everyone’s phone and social media accounts, in the name of national security, but if you want to ‘analyse data’ held by the Sun, you ought to get approval from a judge.
Judicial oversight for the Sun, none for its readers. How do you spell ‘self-serving’ in tabloidese?
***
Like this story? Support our work: visit our crowdfunding page here.
Adam Barnett is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow MediaWatch on Twitter
Sign up for our weekly email by clicking here.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
5 Responses to “Murdoch’s Sun backs Facebook snooping – but wants protection for its reporters”
Faerieson
The horribly divisive ‘reportage’ in The Sun fuels precisely the sort of anti-establishment feeling that the ‘paper’ professes to abhor. Of course, for the likes of Murdoch, as long as the divsions are of wealth via this spiralling neo-liberal inequality, this would suit the paper just fine. It’s also unlikely that the nature or the extent of the ‘desired’ snooping will ever be fully revealed.
Most free-thinking individuals seem still to be of the opinion that Brookes, Coulson, ‘Hunt’ etc should currently be serving some sort of prison sentence. So, it’s not just the duplicity of it all, it’s also the contempt in which we are being held. ‘Our rulers’ don’t even attempt to hide the lies any more.
Harold
Just do not buy the Sun
Patrick Nelson
Unfortunately millions do. The Left needs an equivalent and the Mirror has started to prove that it is certainly not up to the job.
Rick
Millions buy the Sun because it reflects their values.
Selohesra
In other words the Sun is in favour or snooping in the exceptional circustances of protecting us from savage terrorists but not for lesser offences – that seems a reasonable balance to me