In a way it is all of the above.  BUt most directly it is the people who actually did it. THey are most at fault as they could have chosen (possibly risking their employment yes) not to even if ordered to do so.

I agree - where's the box for all of the above???

Rupert Murdoch is the controlling shareholder and the directing mind of the organization which perpetrated these outrages.  Murdoch and his son are the ones who reap the majority of the profits from the operations of News of the World (and the rest of the News Corp. chain).  In short, the buck quite literally stops at Rupert Murdoch and each one is duly deposited to his account.  He takes the money and the credit when the organization succeeds and he must take the blame and the responsibility for its failures and misdeeds.  

To blame the readership of News of the World (even if it is substantially made up of "the great unwashed")  is moralistic tripe that Rupert Murdoch might have invented himself (to throw dust in the eyes of the public) had Wondercafe not beat him to it.

 Similarly, to blame the editors and reporters is, in fact,  Murdoch's present line of defense but it is legalism pure and simple.  The editors and the reporters were delivering what they were paid to deliver.  In business you get what you pay for and   Murdoch was not rewarding or encouraging fine, unbiased, and serious journalism at News of the World but rather he was rewarding (as he has ever done) increased circulation achieved through exploitation of prurient sensationalism.  Of course the editors and reporters were overzealous!  Their zeal was consciously stoked by Murdoch's money and Murdoch's culture.  A CEO's job is to set the tone and direction of the corporation.  Murdoch, indeed, did (and has always done) that (direction setting) very powerfully and we have before us now (in the News of the World scandal) the unfortunate result.

Blame none other than the Murdochs (Rupert and his son James). 

qwerty,

I agree that the blame goes right up the chain.  In fact the blame goes right out to the demand for tabloid style news.  But each individual has the opportunity to decide what he or she will or will not do.  And yes there are consequences to both decisions.

BUt the "only doing what I was told" line has always been a weak defense.

I'm with somegalfromcan. We need an all of the above. I'm taking the second option since that's likely where it started and where it could have been stopped most easily. The public's desire fed the need for more and more of this kind of information, the reporters and editors made the decision to use unethical and/or illegal means to fill that need, the Murdochs and their executive team at least sanctioned it (by not stopping it) and quite likely encouraged it once they realized it was getting them scoops that helped sell papers.

Mendalla

Murdoch ruthlessly exploited an undereducated, underthinking public with a business plan that substituted sleaze and sensation for news... in doing so, he eroded the capacity of journalism everywhere in the West to deliver responsible coverage of significant subjects. He pushed "tawdry" to new depths, he corrupted not just the public but also many of its institutions, including government and the police. There is nothing to admire about the man or his gormless son: scum is as scum does and, unfortunately, we have society in which it too readily rises to the the surface.  There is nothing clever about him or his employees' methods, which are merely unprincipled, ignorant, arrogant and dumbly, immorally self-interested.