Rupert Murdoch arrives to take charge of (phone) hacking crisis

[Baculus]

I was surprised there wasn't a thread on this story, but one of Rupert Murdoch's papers, the now closed News of the World, and its editors, former editors, and even his son, are involved with a scandal which involves phone message hacking and police officer bribery. It's serious stuff, SERIOUS stuff, with Murdoch's son facing charges in both the U.K. and the U.S., and probably ruining News Corp's bid to purchase broadcasting company BSkyB.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14097275

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/10/rupert-murdoch-london-phone-hacking_n_894054.html

Now, I wonder if that "Fair and Balanced" Fox News is covering this story? I mean, gee, they wouldn't want to deceive their viewing audience, would they?

[mjah]

I'm kind of astonished that this doesn't get more discussion in here. It's a major, major breach of the public trust and it makes me wonder whether the entire News Corp apple is rotten to the core (instead of just hopelessly sour). Certainly the rot is evident and thorough at the very top.

Thank goodness the incorruptible Roger Ailes has a firm grip on that Fox News tiller, demanding only the finest in broadcast journalism from his cable network. Otherwise it might be time to cast a wary eye at Fox News, too.

[Bang]

Yeah, but Dan Rather screwed up almost ten years ago.

So suck on that.

~Bang

[mjah]

True, and Rather got to keep his anchor chair so I guess Murdoch's associates going the extra mile with outright theft shouldn't be such a big deal.

Whew -- this was almost something important and worthy of discussion!

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yeah, but Dan Rather screwed up almost ten years ago.

So suck on that.

~Bang

What channel does Dan Rather work for now?

[Bang]

True, and Rather got to keep his anchor chair so I guess Murdoch's associates going the extra mile with outright theft shouldn't be such a big deal.

Whew -- this was almost something important and worthy of discussion!

I think it just display's Murdoch's continuing adherence to the principals of honesty and integrity in journalism.

~Bang

[mjah]

I think it just display's Murdoch's continuing adherence to the principals of honesty and integrity in journalism.

I hear that. Such a shame that the only Fair And Balanced newspaper in all of Britain had to be sacrificed at the altar of the liberal lamestream media, just to show the bleeding-hearts that Murdoch is indeed a man of unassailable professional character.

They ought to just GIVE him BSkyB, as a show of appreciation for the temperate example he sets.

[Baculus]

I'm kind of astonished that this doesn't get more discussion in here. It's a major, major breach of the public trust and it makes me wonder whether the entire News Corp apple is rotten to the core (instead of just hopelessly sour). Certainly the rot is evident and thorough at the very top.

I know -- this whole story has been pretty much met with a ho-hum. Those of us who are critical of Fox News aren't surprised by this at all, and most likely its defenders haven't heard about the story. After all, this MUST be a liberal plot out to destroy Rupert Murdoch and Fox News.

Thank goodness the incorruptible Roger Ailes has a firm grip on that Fox News tiller, demanding only the finest in broadcast journalism from his cable network. Otherwise it might be time to cast a wary eye at Fox News, too.

I know, right? Phew. I'll sleep better at night, knowing that truth, justice, and the American way is safe in his hands.

[Barney B]

So, try this experiment:

Take the tiles from your Scrabble game, and spell out the name 'Keith Rupert Murdoch' (his full name).

Now throw the tiles into the air. When they land, they'll spell out the words, "hum, corrupt kid there".

Happens every single time.

Don't blame me, it's natural forces.

[Hubbs]

What channel does Dan Rather work for now?

I think HDNet.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think HDNet.

Yeah, definitely a leader in journalism.

Dan Rather screws up gets punished.

Murdoch screws up gets defended as Faux's character must not be impinged.

[Burgold]

The big deal right now is who exactly knew, who okayed it, and how deep did it go. You're right that this is a big story.

[thehogs]

When the story broke not one of the Murdoch press (The Sun, The Times etc.) covered it. The same day saw front page headlines on every other newspaper in the UK as well as hourly updates on BBC/ITV news bulletins. In Murdoch world it never happened.

Some serious issues here with police pay offs at the same time that the police had done an investigation of Murdoch papers and claimed they had found nothing.

Another nice link is that one of the key players in this for Murdoch is a guy called Coulson, currently on bail for with holding evidence of phone tapping. Originally a key player at News International he then became the main man working the media on behalf of the Conservative party and David Cameron. Now, of course, Cameron is Prime Minister and had defended Coulson time again no matter what he had been accused of.

[DRSmith]

I was surprised there wasn't a thread on this story, but one of Rupert Murdoch's papers, the now closed News of the World, and its editors, former editors, and even his son, are involved with a scandal which involves phone message hacking and police officer bribery. It's serious stuff, SERIOUS stuff, with Murdoch's son facing charges in both the U.K. and the U.S., and probably ruining News Corp's bid to purchase broadcasting company BSkyB.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14097275

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/10/rupert-murdoch-london-phone-hacking_n_894054.html

Now, I wonder if that "Fair and Balanced" Fox News is covering this story? I mean, gee, they wouldn't want to deceive their viewing audience, would they?

I started one last week not sure where it went

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I started one last week not sure where it went

Wasn't it about how they hacked the cell phones of British soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan? I thought I remembered a thread on here.

The hacking of the little girl murder victim is horrible too. Some sick ****ing people. No shame whatsoever.

[DRSmith]

Wasn't it about how they hacked the cell phones of British soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan? I thought I remembered a thread on here.

The hacking of the little girl murder victim is horrible too. Some sick ****ing people. No shame whatsoever.

And the victim and families of terrorist attacks, the worst though is the girl because it made her parents believe she was alive.

[Dan T.]

News of the World Staff sneaks in a final shot at Rebekah Brooks, chief exec of New International and the paper's former editor when the **** hit the fan.

Brooks had ordered editors to scour the final edition to make sure there were no hidden shots at her or other execs. They didn't find any. They didn't look close enough. In the paper's quickie puzzle and in the cryptic crossword, numerous clues mocked the former editor. Among the clues in the paper's Quickie puzzle were: "Brook", "stink", "catastrope" and "digital protection". The clues for the Cryptic Crossword seemed to cut even closer to the bone, with examples including: "criminal enterprise", "mix in prison", "string of recordings" and "will fear new security measure".

The clue for 24 Across - which reads "Woman stares wildly at calamity" - is thought to be a reference to a photograph of Mrs Brooks staring furiously from the window of a car as she left News International's Wapping headquarters following the announcement the News of the World was to be shut down. The answer to the clue is not one she would appreciate: "disaster."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8628690/News-of-the-World-final-crossword-has-a-message-for-catastrophe-Rebekah-Brooks.html

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/10/murdoch-s-watergate.html

Murdoch’s Watergate?

His anything-goes approach has spread through journalism like a contagion. Now it threatens to undermine the influence he so covets.

by Carl Bernstein

July 11, 2011

The hacking scandal currently shaking Rupert Murdoch’s empire will surprise only those who have willfully blinded themselves to that empire’s pernicious influence on journalism in the English-speaking world. Too many of us have winked in amusement at the salaciousness without considering the larger corruption of journalism and politics promulgated by Murdoch Culture on both sides of the Atlantic.

The facts of the case are astonishing in their scope. Thousands of private phone messages hacked, presumably by people affiliated with the Murdoch-owned News of the World newspaper, with the violated parties ranging from Prince William and actor Hugh Grant to murder victims and families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The arrest of Andy Coulson, former press chief to Prime Minister David Cameron, for his role in the scandal during his tenure as the paper’s editor. The arrest (for the second time) of Clive Goodman, the paper’s former royals editor. The shocking July 7 announcement that the paper would cease publication three days later, putting hundreds of employees out of work. Murdoch’s bid to acquire full control of cable-news company BSkyB placed in jeopardy. Allegations of bribery, wiretapping, and other forms of lawbreaking—not to mention the charge that emails were deleted by the millions in order to thwart Scotland Yard’s investigation.

All of this surrounding a man and a media empire with no serious rivals for political influence in Britain—especially, but not exclusively, among the conservative Tories who currently run the country. Almost every prime minister since the Harold Wilson era of the 1960s and ’70s has paid obeisance to Murdoch and his unmatched power. When Murdoch threw his annual London summer party for the United Kingdom’s political, journalistic, and social elite at the Orangery in Kensington Gardens on June 16, Prime Minister Cameron and his wife, Sam, were there, as were Labour leader Ed Miliband and assorted other cabinet ministers.

Murdoch associates, present and former—and his biographers—have said that one of his greatest long-term ambitions has been to replicate that political and cultural power in the United States. For a long time his vehicle was the New York Post—not profitable, but useful for increasing his eminence and working a wholesale change not only in American journalism but in the broader culture as well. Page Six, emblematic in its carelessness about accuracy or truth or context—but oh-so-readable—became the model for the gossipization of an American press previously resistant to even considering publishing its like. (Murdoch accomplished a similar debasement of the airwaves in the 1990s with the—tame by today’s far-lower standards—tabloid television show Hard Copy.)

Then came the unfair and imbalanced politicized “news” of the Fox News Channel—showing (again) Murdoch’s genius at building an empire on the basis of an ever-descending lowest journalistic denominator. It, too, rests on a foundation that has little or nothing to do with the best traditions and values of real reporting and responsible journalism: the best obtainable version of the truth. In place of this journalistic ideal, the enduring Murdoch ethic substitutes gossip, sensationalism, and manufactured controversy.

And finally, in 2007 The Wall Street Journal’s squabbling family owners succumbed to his acumen, willpower, and money, fulfilling Murdoch’s dream of owning an American newspaper to match the influence and prestige of his U.K. holding, The Times of London—one that really mattered, at the topmost tier of journalism.

Between the Post, Fox News, and the Journal, it’s hard to think of any other individual who has had a greater impact on American political and media culture in the past half century.

But now the empire is shaking, and there’s no telling when it will stop. My conversations with British journalists and politicians—all of them insistent on speaking anonymously to protect themselves from retribution by the still-enormously powerful mogul—make evident that the shuttering of News of the World, and the official inquiries announced by the British government, are the beginning, not the end, of the seismic event.

News International, the British arm of Murdoch’s media empire, “has always worked on the principle of omertà: ‘Do not say anything to anybody outside the family, and we will look after you,’ ” notes a former Murdoch editor who knows the system well. “Now they are hanging people out to dry. The moment you do that, the omertà is gone, and people are going to talk. It looks like a circular firing squad.”

News of the World was always Murdoch’s “baby,” one of the largest newspapers in the English-speaking world, with 2.6 million readers. As anyone in the business will tell you, the standards and culture of a journalistic institution are set from the top down, by its owner, publisher, and top editors. Reporters and editors do not routinely break the law, bribe policemen, wiretap, and generally conduct themselves like thugs unless it is a matter of recognized and understood policy. Private detectives and phone hackers do not become the primary sources of a newspaper’s information without the tacit knowledge and approval of the people at the top, all the more so in the case of newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch, according to those who know him best.

As one of his former top executives—once a close aide—told me, “This scandal and all its implications could not have happened anywhere else. Only in Murdoch’s orbit. The hacking at News of the World was done on an industrial scale. More than anyone, Murdoch invented and established this culture in the newsroom, where you do whatever it takes to get the story, take no prisoners, destroy the competition, and the end will justify the means.”

“In the end, what you sow is what you reap,” said this same executive. “Now Murdoch is a victim of the culture that he created. It is a logical conclusion, and it is his people at the top who encouraged lawbreaking and hacking phones and condoned it.”

Could Murdoch eventually be criminally charged? He has always surrounded himself with trusted subordinates and family members, so perhaps it is unlikely. Though Murdoch has strenuously denied any knowledge at all of the hacking and bribery, it’s hard to believe that his top deputies at the paper didn’t think they had a green light from him to use such untraditional reportorial methods. Investigators are already assembling voluminous records that demonstrate the systemic lawbreaking at News of the World, and Scotland Yard seems to believe what was happening in the newsroom was endemic at the highest levels at the paper and evident within the corporate structure. Checks have been found showing tens of thousands of dollars of payments at a time.

For this reporter, it is impossible not to consider these facts through the prism of Watergate. When Bob Woodward and I came up against difficult ethical questions, such as whether to approach grand jurors for information (which we did, and perhaps shouldn’t have), we sought executive editor Ben Bradlee’s counsel, and he in turn called in the company lawyers, who gave the go-ahead and outlined the legal issues in full. Publisher Katharine Graham was informed. Likewise, Bradlee was aware when I obtained private telephone and credit-card records of one of the Watergate figures.

All institutions have lapses, even great ones, especially by individual rogue employees—famously in recent years at The Washington Post, The New York Times, and the three original TV networks. But can anyone who knows and understands the journalistic process imagine the kind of tactics regularly employed by the Murdoch press, especially at News of the World, being condoned at the Post or the Times?

And then there’s the other inevitable Watergate comparison. The circumstances of the alleged lawbreaking within News Corp. suggest more than a passing resemblance to Richard Nixon presiding over a criminal conspiracy in which he insulated himself from specific knowledge of numerous individual criminal acts while being himself responsible for and authorizing general policies that routinely resulted in lawbreaking and unconstitutional conduct. Not to mention his role in the cover-up. It will remain for British authorities and, presumably, disgusted and/or legally squeezed News Corp. executives and editors to reveal exactly where the rot came from at News of the World, and whether Rupert Murdoch enabled, approved, or opposed the obvious corruption that infected his underlings.

None of this is to deny Murdoch’s competitive genius, his superior understanding of the modern media marketplace, or his dead-on reading of popular culture. He has made occasionally dull newspapers fun to read and TV news broadcasts fun to watch, and few of us would deny there are days when we love it. He’s been at his best when he’s come in from the outside: starting Sky News, which shook up a complacent British broadcasting establishment; contradicting conventional American media wisdom that a fourth TV network (Fox) could never get off the ground; reducing the power of Britain’s printing trade unions that were exercising a stranglehold on the U.K. press.

But Murdoch and his global media empire have a lot to answer for. He has not merely encouraged the metastasis of cutthroat tabloid journalism on both sides of the Atlantic. But perhaps just as troubling, authorities in Britain may respond to popular outrage at the scandal by imposing the kind of regulations that cannot help but undermine a truly free press.

The events of recent days are a watershed for Britain, for the United States, and for Rupert Murdoch. Tabloid journalism—and our tabloid culture—may never be the same.

[Bang]

Interesting silence from the usual Fox defenders.

~Bang

[stanleys]

Interesting silence from the usual Fox defenders.

~Bang

I'm confused as to how people are trying to link a tabloid in England to a television network in the US.....

Every major media outlet in the US is owned by a major corporation....does the fact that a GE subsidiary was caught bribing Chinese officials mean that NBC news should be taken off the air?

[Bang]

I'm confused as to how people are trying to link a tabloid in England to a television network in the US.....

Every major media outlet in the US is owned by a major corporation....does the fact that a GE subsidiary was caught bribing Chinese officials mean that NBC news should be taken off the air?

They're both owned by the same guy and practice the same type of "journalism". There is no "trying" to link anything. They're as linked as brothers.

However, thanks for being the usual who will instantly attempt to redirect towards something other than Murdoch's group's misdeeds.

It's hardly a Fox related thread without it.

I've never said Fox should be off the air.

I think they should clean up their act and quit bull****ting so much.

~Bang

[Burgold]

I think it's because some people think that criticizing a GE insurance company scandal may not have a lot to do with NBC News (though how NBC covers it is certainly fair to look at), but examining how a Murdoch run newspaper is behaving may be similar to how a Murdoch run News station is behaving. It's pretty natural to wonder if the top down policies are similar esp. in similar businesses. Mind you, no one is accusing FOX News of being guilty or complicit in the crimes executed over by the World.

[stanleys]

I think it's because some people think that criticizing a GE insurance company scandal may not have a lot to do with NBC News (though how NBC covers it is certainly fair to look at), but examining how a Murdoch run newspaper is behaving may be similar to how a Murdoch run News station is behaving. It's pretty natural to wonder if the top down policies are similar esp. in similar businesses. Mind you, no one is accusing FOX News of being guilty or complicit in the crimes executed over by the World.

No one may be "accusing", but plenty are "implying"...look at Bang's last post for a perfect example.

And if it's fair game to look at two separate Newscorp businesses, then why wouldn't it be fair game to look at two separate GE businesses? After all, the top down culture must be the same.

Look, I dislike Murdoch and believe he's prodded the further denigration of media standards but to think that he's the first, the last or even the best at it is naive at best

[Bang]

No one may be "accusing", but plenty are "implying"...look at Bang's last post for a perfect example.

And if it's fair game to look at two separate Newscorp businesses, then why wouldn't it be fair game to look at two separate GE businesses? After all, the top down culture must be the same.

Look, I dislike Murdoch and believe he's prodded the further denigration of media standards but to think that he's the first, the last or even the best at it is naive at best

Because the two newscorp businesses are NEWS businesses.

I'm not implying anythng. I'm flat out saying that Fox lies and distorts. There's no question about that.

Considering their sister company just got busted being about as sleazy as can be should start some folks to paying more attention to what else Murdoch's media companies do.

But the ones who should pay attention won't, and likely will do the usual " Oh yeah, well look at...." rather than see anything out of order from their side of the story.

Whether he's first or last to ever be sleazy isn't the point. The point is that this thread is about one of his companies. Not about NBC or CBS or anyone else.

And I've never ever seen any other newspaper of such size run out of business practically overnight for a breech in the public trust like this. I've seen journalists fired, newsmen disgraced, (not of Fox, mind you. They can seemingly say anything without reprisal) but never an entire comapny run out of business.

~Bang

[Burgold]

I think it's fair to look at two unrelated businesses with the same boss to see if there is a tree of corruption. I have no problems if you want to say problems at Disneyland means we need to take a gander at ESPN. At the same time, it's just as fair or even more reasonable to apply that scrutiny when the two businesses are in the sam industry, run by the same person and have the same governing philosophy esp. if both businesses have already been found to be rife with ethical questionmarks.