For instance, Lord Levenson said the now defunct News of the World exhibited a “general lack of respect for individual privacy and dignity.” He also said that "reporters regularly obtained illegal information about their subjects, harassed and threatened subjects into cooperating, and concealed their identities in pursuit of stories."
And my favorite observation. The paper was "casual in its approach to truth."
Is there anything worse you can say about a newspaper? I think not. The good news about this whole case is that it looks like it could lead to some new regulation of the press in England. Clearly the press there was a little out of control.
But to be honest, I think Rupert won't be terribly upset by this report. It doesn't conclude that there was widespread corruption between politicians and the paper (although it hints that there was a hidden agenda). It also doesn't conclude that the relationship between the police and the newspapers is a widespread problem.
All in all, it could have been much worse.
