By Madelyn Rowley

He’s not a whistleblower, he’s just a responsible reporter — one with a conscience. This is Graham Johnson, a journalist and advocate for press justice who witnessed the phone hacking scandal firsthand in 2001.

As investigations editor for the Sunday Mirror, Johnson was an expert in his field — one who understood the complexities of information retrieval in a cutting-edge journalistic environment. In the early 2000s, as he revealed during a subsequent trial, Johnson was asked by his deputy editor to “intercept” the voice messages of soap star actress Denise Welch. Johnson was also privy or witness to a great deal of other criminal behaviour in the newsroom across his career, including bugging and surveillance; being asked directly by the deputy editor to hack a phone was something extraordinary.

Over a decade later, Johnson came forward to the police with on-the-record statements about his own involvement in the hacking scandal. In doing so, he broke from norms of conformity and industry compliance that had dominated the Mirror Group Newspapers for years. His courage exposed an astounding degree of criminal cover-up, and as a consequence he even faced a custodial sentence — suspended on account of his courage in coming forward.

Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to sit down with Johnson to talk about his experience.

“I think whistleblowing is the wrong word to describe the process,” he said, responding to my descriptions of his contribution to journalistic transparency. “I haven’t necessarily found the right word, but I just thought I was a journalist who was being straightforward about this story. Litigation lawyers like to call people whistleblowers, but it’s a melodramatic word, and it sounds good for their purposes. A whistleblower is someone who finds poison in the water and shouts about it at the local council meeting.”

Instances of press illegality frequently go unreported and underrepresented in the media. With an entirely weak-fisted current regulatory system and no incentive to sign on to a more effective one, unethical conduct, criminal behavior and its subsequent cover-up continues with no consequence. Frequently, this lack of consequence, as opposed to that found within “flashier” crime, results in a form of public ignorance to the extent of intrusion and malevolence. Johnson will have none of this.

“The news groups involved in industrial-scale hacking and blagging are no different from a drugs cartel in Liverpool, or a fraud factory in southeast London or a street gang in Birmingham,” he said. “Newspaper illegality has all of the characteristics of an organised crime group. Number one: the amount of people involved in the process is likely hundreds. Number two, the payments to private investigators are likely in the tens of thousands. And then if you look at the hierarchy — the managing editor and CEO are at the top, who ruthlessly control the organisation. These are properties of organised graft the world over.”

I asked him about the lack of public understanding surrounding this level of criminality. Did he think that this lack of understanding facilitates a continuation of this type of behavior? “One hundred percent,” he said.

Although Johnson’s case took place over two decades ago, instances of press intrusion still run wildly rampant through the digital streets of the United Kingdom — more of it within the law, perhaps, but still horrifically in breach of ethical and regulatory standards.

The Murdoch publishing empire, in most instances, has tackled their hacking-related scandals outside of the courtroom, settling over 1,500 cases and claims of victims across the country. These damages and legal fees have totaled over one billion pounds for News Group Newspapers (NGN), the publisher of The Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times, and formerly the News of the World.

Settlements with well-known individuals, including Hugh Grant and Lord Tom Watson, have cost NGN innumerably in terms of detrimental publicity. Most recently, NGN issued a public apology to the Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, and agreed to pay “substantial damages” over claims of intrusion. It is understood those damages exceeded £10 million. NGN’s apology included an admittance of “incidents of unlawful activity.” Although a  success in a long-fought legal battle for Prince Harry, certainly, this admittance is a dark insistence demonstrating how press illegality remains unchecked by a regulatory system unfit for purpose.

Regulation to curb unethical press conduct is a relatively simple objective, one that press advocates and campaigns —like that of Hacked Off — push for in legislative and journalistic settings. But an additional step, the key to uncovering the extent of criminality in the press, primarily comes down to re-establishing Leveson Part Two: the second stage of the inquiry into press corruption.

Johnson thinks this re-establishment is unlikely to happen, following the Prime Minister’s indications that it is “not a priority,” amid allegations that he has “capitulated” to the influence of the national press. Consequently, Johnson has his own suggestions for the most effective means of resolving the crisis of accountability for decades of illegality in the press.

“The fight for accountability is like an ideological struggle between two very well armed opponents — all very clever people,” he said. “They're both well-resourced and they know what they're doing. But little has changed. My advice is to negotiate with the papers. Sit down in a safe space with them, and de-escalate the Cold War. You’ll probably never get an inquiry or police investigation into the organised criminal activity at the papers. So we’ve got to think, how are we going to improve standards in the press? The answer is cooperation, not opposition.”

The National Union of Journalists and other industry representatives have given their support for Leveson Part Two; the pressure is on newspaper senior executives and owners to make a step toward any meaningful reform. Johnson’s proposal, of getting them in a room, is attractive if it can contribute to progressive discussion and negotiation. But a long-worn history of avoidance permeates the likelihood of any of these proprietors or their representatives to show face in these debates.

Regardless, it is near incomprehensible that publishers could feel anything but impunity as they continue to operate outside of the independent regulatory system. Until that changes, we the public are left in the dark about their behaviour, reliant on reporters with integrity — like Johnson — to bring this truth to light.