Phone hacking scandal deepens

[Jan Klimkowski]

Rupert Murdoch can carry on reading his Big Tobacco PR scripted lines about humility all he likes.

The truth is clear.

News International has no shame, and no boundaries:

Times accused of deflecting phone-hacking row with 'repugnant' cartoon'

Cynical' cartoon by Peter Brookes showing emaciated African children used 'racist caricatures', say academics in letter

Ben Dowell guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 July 2011 17.27 BST

A group of academics from seven leading UK universities have accused a Times cartoonist of using "racist caricatures" in what they say was a crude and offensive attempt to deflect attention from the phone hacking row.

The group of 21 signatories, including 12 academics from seven universities including Cambridge, Sussex and University College London, claim that the 21 July cartoon by award-winning cartoonist Peter Brookes, which showed three emaciated African children under the heading "I've had a bellyful of phone hacking" was "cynical and repugnant".

Their letter acknowledged that the drawing drew attention to a legitimate concern that the phone-hacking scandal had knocked other stories such as the east Africa famine off the news pages.

But the letter said that Brookes's cartoon was "a blatant piece of propaganda" and showed that the Times's parent company News International was guilty of "selfserving irresponsibility" over its coverage of the phone-hacking scandal.

The letter added: "For one of Murdoch's newspapers to use racist caricatures in an attempt to deflect attention from legitimate public scrutiny of its actions is wholly unacceptable.

"The cartoon is cynical and repugnant, a blatant piece of propaganda that demonstrates precisely the self-serving irresponsibility for which News International is being criticised."

It is understood that the letter was accompanied by a note that acknowledged Brookes's reputation as a cartoonist and said that the signatories would be happy for him to view the letter before publication and to respond to its points publicly. It is understood the Times has so far not responded to this.