The flurry of facts and testimony in the Murdoch phone hacking scandal have kept us busy as they unfold, but let's take a minute to ask ourselves a question that I haven't heard discussed yet: Why would a right-wing tabloid hack the phones of murder and terrorism victims?
"Tabloid" and "right-wing" will suggest a lot of reflex answers, and maybe the hacking was nothing more than a reflex action: We should do it because we can.
But let's assume that there might have been a purpose behind the hacking. What would it have been?
The victims whose phones were hacked weren't rich, powerful, or famous. They were generally the people whom right-wing tabloids like to make heroes of: an innocent white murder victim and victims of extremist Islamic terrorism -- ordinary folk who don't threaten the right-wing economically or culturally. It wouldn't have been in the interests of NotW to debase their character. It wouldn't have fit Murdoch's ideology, nor would it have gone over well with the general public. On the other hand, if NotW wanted to make these victims into heroic figures, it only had to talk with their family and friends, with much less trouble than bribing policemen.
Did NotW think they could break the missing-girl case by hacking Milly Dowler's phone? Or is it more likely that they were looking for a morality play, a way to blame negligent parents or pot-smoking peers?
And the 7/7 and possibly 9-11 victims? Papers like to put out short bios of those killed. What did NotW hope to have in its bios? Secret engagements? Or were they looking for insurance fraud? The faked death? The happy widow?
I didn't hear all of the testimony yesterday, but I listened to a lot of it. I never heard anyone ask the Murdochs why his newspapers hacked the phones. When his associates are forced to answer that question, the public's revulsion will only grow.