Size Doesn't Matter, Law-Breaking Does

Before we start, let's talk pause for a moment to pause on the comments of one Ed Miliband:

"I think that we've got to look at the situation whereby one person can own more than 20% of the newspaper market, the Sky platform and Sky News.

"I think it's unhealthy because that amount of power in one person's hands has clearly led to abuses of power within his organisation. If you want to minimise the abuses of power then that kind of concentration of power is frankly quite dangerous."

I love the latter paragraph. Miliband Minor is probably completely oblivious of the fact that it could just as easily be applied to the Nu Labour government as it could to News International. But I digress.

The general feeling coming from both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Prime Minister seems to be that the size of News International is the problem. Of course, there's no doubting that Murdoch has controlled a lot of the press in this country for a long time. Some would say he's controlled too much of it, but I wouldn't, frankly. Because when people talk about the plurality of the press (as Clegg is currently doing) I can't help but notice that there is still a lot to choose from in this country, even before the News of the World was given a metaphorical bullet in the back of the head by its owners. I don't read The Sun and, since it disappeared behind a pay wall, The Times either. I don't have Sky, I don't watch Fox News. Despite the amount of the media that Murdoch owns, it is still perfectly possible to ignore Rupert's acquisitions if you so wish.

Of course, it could be claimed that it doesn't matter to me what News International are up to or what they think as they do not watch my every move and report on it - unlike those who rule our country. The sheer size of the Murdoch empire makes it impossible for the ruling parties to ignore it. But is this actually true? Sure, News International attempt to influence successive governments, but part of the problem is down to successive governments not just acknowledging those attempts, but proactively courting Murdoch and his media outlets. And it doesn't even need aggressive legislation to stop the influence of the Murdoch empire - politicians could just stop seeking and then suckling on the teat that is News International. Of course, it could be argued that what Miliband Minor and Clegg are now starting to do is take on NI - but what they are actually doing is nothing more than shameless bandwagon jumping. This has nothing to do with preventing a repetition of the News International crisis, and has everything to do with get good column inches and poll boosts for two party leaders who have been seriously struggling in recent times to get anywhere.

And you want to know why this is nothing more than bandwagon jumping? Well, the problem with News International isn't its size - it is down to the fact that it broke the law. Having a large organisation does not mean that you will automatically seek to blag and to phone hack. It doesn't automatically mean that you or your employees will systematically seek to break the law. Indeed, it looks as if those at the head of News International do not operate like a normal major multinational plc, but rather like a mafia family or a cult. But let me repeat myself - size doesn't matter, law-breaking does. And there are laws in place to deal with News International - but I've already mentioned this earlier in the week. What Miliband Minor and Clegg should be doing is calling for the enforcement of the existing laws, not new regulations. But they can't do that, they won't do that because they are, basically, out and out cowards who are more interested in not missing a populist bandwagon than they are in crucial political principles such as the importance of the rule of law and the need to avoid legislation and regulations designed to do nothing more than please the fitful, ever-changing and oh-so-temporary baying mob.