I have been watching the testimony of Piers Morgan on the BBC website with live streaming.
Its been 1 hour and 8 minutes and I am still struggling to see why apparently high paid lawyers are being paid by the UK taxpayer to interview Piers.
There is a lawyer on at the moment trying to work out why Piers Morgan does not know about a guy who was paid 100 pounds for a story that was not printed over 10 years ago.
I want to know how much the interviewers are being paid to ask these questions.
And now the interviewer is saying that Piers Morgan buried a story about phone hacking to stop the general public from knowing about what was possible.
So Piers Morgan is responsible for suppressing information.
At the end of his testimony Piers Morgan quite rightly highlights that all the good work that the News of the World and The Mirror are being ignored. Piers Morgan is saying all the good work is being overshadowed by the actions of a tiny minority.
In my opinion he is right, so you have to question how it can be justified spending millions on this phone hacking “scandal”
One point that Piers Morgan made which really gets to the core of the whole phone hacking issue and that is;
People who make their money from being in the newspapers, can they really choose when and when they are not featured in the press.
Are celebrities entitlted to media privacy if their livehood is dependant on being in the media?
Piers Morgan, I believe, thinks that celebrities cannot decide when the “taps” are on and off. Either someon decides their life is going to be in the media or it is not. Celebeties cannot choose which stories are published and those which are not.
It is an intersting perspective and is certianly enlightening with regards to how tabloid editors think.
If celebrities acan choose which stories are in the paper and which are not, is that censorship? Is that artifical? Does that make a mockery of the readershiop of a paper if a paper only prints news that the people invloved want it to print.
If that was the case then nothing insightful or “negative” would appear in the press.
No scandals would emerge if papers had to seek permission from the subjects.
The BBC summed up Piers Morgan’s testimony
Piers Morgan tells Leveson: Daily Mirror did not hack phones
Former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan has told the Leveson Inquiry he does not believe phone hacking took place at the paper while he was in charge.
Mr Morgan now works for CNN in the United States and is giving evidence to the inquiry in London via video link.
Denying suggestions hacking was endemic at the Mirror, he said: “I have no reason… to believe it was going on.”
Former News of the World TV editor Sharron Marshall and journalists’ union boss Steve Turner appeared earlier.
Voicemail claim
Mr Morgan was the Mirror’s editor between 1995 and 2004. He told the inquiry into media ethics that he did “not believe to the best of my recollection” that hacking took place during that time. He also edited the News of the World (NoW) between January 1994 and November 1995.
He told the inquiry: “Not a single person has made a formal or legal complaint against the Daily Mirror for phone hacking.”
Mr Morgan said he had not been “directly involved” in the use of private investigators. He also said he had never been aware of police officers being paid for information while he was at the paper.
“Start Quote
Morgan at #leveson : says listening to Paul McCartney’s voicemail message wasn’t unethical, but won’t expand to protect source”
Ross HawkinsBBC correspondent
Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, asked Mr Morgan about a recording of a voicemail message left by Sir Paul McCartney for his then-wife Heather Mills when the couple were suffering marriage problems.
Mr Morgan said he had listened to a tape of Ms Mills’ message but refused to give details of how he came to listen to it.
He said: “I can’t discuss where was played that tape or who played it – it would compromise a source.”
Inquiry chairman Lord Justice Leveson said he was happy to call Ms Mills to see whether she had granted permission for the message to be listened to.
When asked if it was unethical to listen to phone messages, Morgan said: “It doesn’t necessarily follow that listening to someone else talking to someone else is unethical.”
Tuesday’s hearing began with Julian Pike, partner at a law firm used by NoW owner News International, being recalled to the inquiry to explain how he knew actress Sienna Miller was going to make a claim against the now-defunct newspaper before it became public.
He supplied the inquiry with emails from various parties involved and a letter from the Metropolitan Police relating to the matter.
‘Card marked’
Mr Turner, general secretary of the British Association of Journalists, then described a culture of “bullying” at some newspapers.
If people turned up at News International accompanied by a union rep they would have had their “card marked”, he said.
He told the inquiry: “I’m ashamed to be telling you this because we are supposed to be living in a free, democratic country but we are not.
“We are living in a society where people are wage slaves and treated very badly and that’s the circumstance I found at the News of the World.”
Mr Turner said the News of the World was “unique” in using “phoney” disciplinary issues to force staff out of the paper.
“The individual quickly got the message that they wanted him out” and would seek a payout for leaving, he said.
Ms Marshall told the inquiry there were some managers who were not ideal and there could be dispute over the way a story was handled.
But she added: “I wouldn’t say there’s a culture of bullying… maybe you have a disagreement about how story is (done).”
More Stories
Lagarde List – Does Greece Have The Dumbest Media & Politicians In Euro Zone?
Greek Government Culling Pensioners?
Pandemic To Kill Millions Of People In “The Next Few Years” – Leading UK Virologist