death of Princess Di
and the impeachment of President Bill Clinton suddenly became "technology stories" because news about them was transmitted via the Internet. We had to run headlines like "Internet reacts to Clinton Impeachment." That happened a lot, and it was really dumb.
A similar thing is happening with the News Corp. scandal. As I write this sentence, my many sources of news (RSS feeds, blogs, several social media accounts) are being overwhelmed -- and I don't use that word lightly -- by squibs of information from the hearings in the British Parliament where Rupert Murdoch and his son James are testifying about the News of the World
But I understand it to a degree. The scandal touches on all kinds of
things -- business, politics, and media -- which provides excuses for covering
it no matter who you are. It's both a serious news story and a
scrumptious chunk of lowbrow gossip. It's hard to resist. But more
people should be resisting it.
Don't get me wrong. I cover media and technology (among other things),
and I'm more interested in News Corp. and Murdoch than most people are.
I've been following Rupert Murdoch since he took over my beloved Chicago
in 1984 and tried to turn it into a New York Post
sleaze sheet (Chicagoans never did go for it). Over the years, I've
read several books and countless articles on Murdoch and his company.
And I've been following the current scandal pretty closely. Given that
it could potentially bring News Corp. down (highly unlikely, but
possible), or end the careers of top executives, possibly including even Murdoch himself, it can't be denied that this is a huge
But let's get a grip. Must every detail of the parliamentary hearings be
broadcasted in real time by hundreds of people, basically hijacking the
news. (Actual tweet: "Rupert Murdoch: 'country benefits from
competitive press.'") I'll give media reporters a pass, I suppose (and
yet, even there, what's the point?). But why are general business
columnists and bloggers, technology journalists, and U.S. political
writers spending their mornings hijacking my tech-news Twitter feed
Some of my favorite writers are doing this -- Felix Salmon
, who covers finance. Larry Magid
, who covers geeky tech stuff, and even Jim Fallows
who writes about a wide variety of subjects including China, Microsoft, and the Obama Administration. The technology site AllThingsD (run by
Murdoch's Wall Street Journal
) is live-blogging the hearings
as if they were on a par with John Dean revealing the crimes committed
by the Nixon Administration.
Blogger Kara Swisher is even calling the
scandal (ugh) "PhoneGate."
To some degree, I suppose, people are simply doing this because they
can. Twitter, for example, is still a new mode of dissemination, and
much of this is simply people playing around with it to see how it
should be used. I would guess that in five years, if Twitter or
something like it still exists, there will be relatively little
"live-tweeting" of relatively mundane events.
Still. All that's happening here is that a couple of execs are lying and
covering their asses. It's news, but it's not earth-shattering news.
Certainly, having tech reporters whose usual beats are Cisco and Google
cover it is more than a bit of a stretch. But clearly, "the Internet" is
"reacting" to it, so.
(Addendum: As I was getting ready to post this, Murdoch was hit in the face with a pie
during the hearing. OK, that's worth a tweet or two.)Dan Mitchell has written for Fortune, The New York Times,
National Public Radio, The Chicago Tribune, and many others.
Follow us on Twitter at @TheSnitchSF and @SFWeekly
When I was a staff editor at the tech-news site CNET News.com in the late '90s, one of the top editors there used to insist that we "localize" big news events by writing about how they were being covered and discussed on the Internet. So, for example, the