Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Privacy The Courts The Media United Kingdom News

James Murdoch's Defense Crumbles 272

Posted by timothy
from the and-in-the-alternative-no-one-saw-me-do-it dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "Brian Cathcart writes that whatever happens to News Corp., it will surely happen without James Murdoch, the clever, dashing heir apparent to his buccaneer father, Rupert, who has become a liability with little hope of survival. James Rupert told members of Parliament that when he approved a payment of about $1.1 million in 2008 to settle the first lawsuit brought by a phone-hacking victim, he was not shown an email that suggested phone hacking was more widespread at the News of the World, and not limited to one 'rogue' reporter. 'He is saying one thing—that in briefing him they gave an "incomplete picture" — and, remarkably, in a statement Thursday, they publicly denied that,' writes Cathcart. All the News Corp. executives used to tell the same story but one by one as the pressure has grown these people have been cast off or have drifted away and now as the little group has splintered and scattered, and they all need to save their own skins. 'It's not just James who is done,' writes David Carr in the NY Times. 'Rupert Murdoch, as we have long known him, is done as well.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

James Murdoch's Defense Crumbles

Comments Filter:
  • Unlikely (Score:5, Insightful)

    by assemblerex (1275164) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:08AM (#36869260)
    People forget the power wealthy people have, especially one who owns most of the media. I doubt it will impact him past a year.
    • Re:Unlikely (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:23AM (#36869340)

      People forget the power wealthy people have, especially one who owns most of the media. I doubt it will impact him past a year.

      But the Murdochs are hated by many, including those in the media industry. They smell blood and the Murdochs are the chum de jour. I wouldn't be surprised if their phones have been hacked recently by a competitor.

      I don't think Murdoch's company was the only one to use phone hacking. I bet we'll see other media companies getting hit with similar accusations (and maybe even companies that like to harass or sue the public).

      • Re:Unlikely (Score:4, Insightful)

        by vlm (69642) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:33AM (#36869418)

        But the Murdochs are hated by many, including those in the media industry. They smell blood and the Murdochs are the chum de jour.

        The question to ask is why now? Its not like he was doing some Dr Jeckel and Mr Hyde thing and was a sweet little old lady up until last month or so. He's pretty much consistently been himself for longer than the entire "scandal". Who benefits in money or power by it blowing up RIGHT now? I don't really know.

        The reason the superbowel winning football team is reported and fawned over with media puff pieces on the day after the superbowel is because its current news.

        On the other hand, this "scandal" has been quietly festering for about a dogs life. So why have the powers that be blown it up right now? There must be a reason beyond "they're bored" or some anonymous / Lulz / goonsquad "sounds like fun to me".

        • Re:Unlikely (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SenseiLeNoir (699164) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:40AM (#36869464)

          It didnt just "blow up right now". IF you lived in the UK you will know its been going on for some time now. It just was not reported outside. The key thing that changed was that until know it was mainly Celebs, etc who have been havign their phones hacked, and the general public was like "meh".

          When it was found out that Millie Dowler's phone, July 7th victims, and other "normal" peoples phones got hacked that public opinion changed significantly.

          • by kno3 (1327725)
            Well, it has been going on the ages, but I think that it is fair to say it has blown up now. The issue had been swept under the carpet by the police and government until recently. The Guardian have been telling the Met, the Government and the PCC for years that they have all of this information, and if it wasn't investigated properly they would run the stories. Eventually they called time. I don't think it is necessarily the change of public mood that has caused it to explode in such a manner. I think
        • Re:Unlikely (Score:4, Funny)

          by Relyx (52619) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:42AM (#36869480)

          The timing of recent events was in my view largely down to News Intl's BSkyB takeover bid. It was due to be greenlit the very week the Milly Dowler phone hacking revelation broke. Coincidence? I think not.

          • Re:Unlikely (Score:4, Interesting)

            by vlm (69642) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:53AM (#36869578)

            The timing of recent events was in my view largely down to News Intl's BSkyB takeover bid

            Hmm. I wonder who had "interesting" stock options on that deal that profited by the collapse of the deal. There's a reason why the 9/11/2001 stock options positions have never been released, and probably never will.

            • You're a fekking cynic. Do you have any other good traits, or is that your only one?

            • Re:Unlikely (Score:4, Insightful)

              by julesh (229690) on Monday July 25, 2011 @10:43AM (#36870730)

              There's a reason why the 9/11/2001 stock options positions have never been released, and probably never will.

              Yes. And it's the same reason why neither the 8/11 or the 12/11 positions have been released: they're commercially sensitive confidential information that is in all likelihood not retained beyond the end of the day of trading, and which in any case would require a huge amount of effort to collate as almost all of those positions were held by thousands of brokers on behalf of hundreds of thousands of private clients, and only the brokers would know who the clients were.

        • Re:Unlikely (Score:5, Interesting)

          by SenseiLeNoir (699164) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:46AM (#36869510)

          In addition, the entitiy that "kicked this off" was actually the British Public, who after realising that Millie dowlers phone got hacked, as well as teh dead servicemen, and their families, plus 7th July victims. The PUBLIC started a campaign to force the advertisers to not advertise in the NotW. This campaign, which was very grass roots in origin, bit, and advertisers started pulling out. That is what effectively lead up to the closure of NotW, and what we have now. Sure NI's Competitors have been lapping it up, but end of the day it was the British Public, who for once actually stood up, and gave the power.

        • by nzac (1822298)

          Because News International is public enemy number one. Before they messed with a dead girls phone it really was not worth getting worked up over investigation into celebs/politicians lives but they went too far and are now hated worse than the politicians who will cheered on for attacking NI.
          Since they have lost the ability to use the press to defend themselves without risking this spreading to other papers they are a pretty soft target in the UK right now.

          • Re:Unlikely (Score:5, Insightful)

            by hedwards (940851) on Monday July 25, 2011 @09:54AM (#36870232)

            What shocks me is that it's taken this long. They've been known in the US to outright make up stories and be a mouth piece for conservatives for many years now and as a result nobody with two brain cells to rub together takes them seriously as a news outlet.

            And if you read up on their history they've done some pretty rotten things over the years. Such as offering Newt Gingrich a huge sum of money as an advance on a book deal when Murdoch was trying to get the rules for media ownership relaxed. Could be a coincidence, but that's doubtful, the advance was a multiple of how much the previous book made.

        • Re:Unlikely (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Saint Fnordius (456567) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:49AM (#36869538) Homepage Journal

          The reason why now is pretty obvious: the phone scandal was the crack in the dam. The reporter working the story made damned sure to cover all bases, or Murdoch and the entire pool of NewsCorp sharks would have chewed him up and spat him out. When he testified before parliament, he was supposed to be ripped to shreds by bought and paid for ministers, but they couldn't find any chinks in his armour. And then the skewer he was wielding suddenly seemed even more potent.

          So now all of a sudden the meanest, biggest predator is wounded, and all those he intimidated now see the chance to get rid of the one they feared most. All of his riches no longer will help him, since tearing him down all of a sudden seems the more profitable route (profit in terms of power and influence, not mere money).

        • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Monday July 25, 2011 @09:30AM (#36869942) Journal

          Murdoch did a switch when he supported Blair instead of the conservatives. New Labour was now IT in his newspapers and it mattered. What prompted the move? Partly that the conservatives corruption had become so clear there was no saving them any more but also because Blair was about as far away you can get from a socialist without wearing a bed sheet.

          But he changed sides again. Partly because the Labour party had become pretty sleezy. Best to get cleaner then clean Cameron in power instead... and then this broke and Cameron does NOT need this. Labour lost the elections because people were tired of the sleeze. The consevatives didn't win because they were so beloved but because England has no third party... one that matter anyway. So voters flip-flop between the two main parties. Except this time the conservatives didn't even get enough for a standard majority government.

          The last thing Cameron needs is for people to forget about the relative harmless sleeze of Labour (expense scandals which affected all parties btw) and get people to remember why they ditched the tories in the first place.

          Labour in the mean time has found Cameron's weekness and Miliband is using it to its fullest and since Murdoch dumped them, he has no reason to be nice to Murdoch.

          That is what has changed, Murdoch has become a poison and you either dump a poison or try to get your opponent to choke on it.

          Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

          • by DarkOx (621550)

            Murdoch's media follows it does not lead. They seem to have lots of influence because their readership thinks the same things their papers print but really its the other way around, as you point out he switches sides from time to time.

            The editors at News Corp and its subsidiaries pretty much have a moist finger in the air on most issues. They figure out what the reader/viewer ship wants to hear and just repeat it. They don't have the political ambition most people seem to think they do. Their ambition i

          • by Carewolf (581105)

            Labour lost the elections because people were tired of the sleeze. The consevatives didn't win because they were so beloved but because England has no third party... one that matter anyway. So voters flip-flop between the two main parties.

            That is just amazingly wrong. Conservatives didn't win, they just didn't lose as much as Labour did. The conservatives got the prime minister post because England HAS a third party, and the third party won big the last election and supported the conservatives for being th

        • by gorzek (647352)

          There's been speculation that this was brought up now in order to torpedo Murdoch's bid for BSkyB, which it certainly did.

          • Re:Unlikely (Score:4, Informative)

            by asdf7890 (1518587) on Monday July 25, 2011 @01:31PM (#36873024)
            Actually, the first of the final straws was provided by Hugh Grant some weeks before the Millie Dowler thing became widely known. Up until that point there had been little publicly available evidence that the accusations (circulated for a few years and thus far dismissed by the police despite the fact they were sitting on a large chunk of evidence that was either being ignored or simply hadn't been properly analysed). Hugh, bitter at being one of the targets, pulled a blinder and managed to record an ex NotW reporter talking about some og the things that had gone on but were being publicly denied.

            This caught the attention of non-Murdoch media anew, which in turn piqued the public interest to the point of forcing the police to (re)review the evidence. At this point the information about Millie's phone came out, particularly the part about them wiping the existing messages so more could come in which did interfere with the investigation (and legally speaking is evidence tampering, which is a serious offence, and morally speaking is completely reprehensible too). Whether this new evidence about Millie came from the police looking at their records again or from "new" information found/provided by other media bodies, I forget.

            Now the public were baying for blood. Celebrities? We couldn't give a monkey's chuff, to be frank. Let them sort their own problems out. They can afford good lawyers. Interfering with the investigation into the disappearance (and, it turn out, murder) of a young girl? Now that is something we got hot under the collar about. The final nails in the coffin were evidence coming out of the woodwork regarding the "hacking" of the voicemail of victims of the "7/7" bombings in London and their families, and the voicemail of injured/killed soldiers. This brought new condemnation from other sources and was what closed the NotW (many organisations, commercial and charitable, call all ties with the paper after those revelations - though why some of them didn't over just the murder case rather than sitting quiet until these new accusations is beyond me).

            Whether Hugh was put up to his actions by someone in the know who wanted to skupper the BSkyB thing (there are many people, both high and low profile, who wanted to see that fail), and/or whether the ex reporter he "stung" was in on it, or whether the timing was coincidental, is subject to debate. Personally I err on the side of coincidence here, partly as the timing would require some impressive orchestration to pull off intentionally, with advantage being taken once the situation arose rather then some group planning it all to start with, but you never know.

            The accusations of 9/11 victims and their families having been invaded in a similar manner are as yet just pure speculation as far as I can see. If good evidence for any such thing ever becomes apparent that could be very series for everyone significant in the organisation, old man Murdoch downwards, especially with this year being the 10th anniversary. I can see many people being most (justifiably) angry, that feeling deepened by thoughts and recollections close to the anniversary, and rival media outlets fanning the flames much enthusiasm, and that would lead to public calls for action against Murdoch in the US (calls too loud for the relevant authorities to ignore, even if they wanted to).
        • Superbowel? (Score:3, Funny)

          by phorm (591458)

          The reason the superbowel winning football team

          Sounds like a shi**y team. I've heard that their players are real crap...

        • Re:Unlikely (Score:5, Informative)

          The question to ask is why now? Its not like he was doing some Dr Jeckel and Mr Hyde thing and was a sweet little old lady up until last month or so. He's pretty much consistently been himself for longer than the entire "scandal". Who benefits in money or power by it blowing up RIGHT now? I don't really know.

          It is most likely that Murdoch, Snr and Jnr, Brooks-Wade, Coulson, et al are all on the receiving end of a pretty well orchestrated operation by British state forces to finally remove them from their positions. It is likely that senior figures in the British establishment--which clearly did not include the Prime Minister--decided that News International had become an over-mighty threat to the state and needed to be dealt with.

          While there were certainly a number of factors and influences in this decision (not least the hacking of the royal household phones), the likely precipitating event was the Vince Cable sting operation and resignation [wikipedia.org] last December 2010. The entrapment and deposement of the Business Secretary, the last remaining obstacle to total NI control of BSkyB, was clearly a step too far for the comfort of the people in charge of Whitehall, who could see a time coming when no scalp would be safe from the media's baleful eye. The experience of the MP Tom Watson was probably also a big factor; the MP was all put placed under interdict by Brookes, apparently for him having rebuffed one of her political requests.

          Essentially, News International had grown over-mighty, and simultaneously too close to the reigns of power. The company and its executives liked to think that they were somehow separate form the maelstrom of political forces they were unleashing, and which they chose to unleash to benefit themselves. Fortunately for the British public, if not the wider world, there are still people in the public service who can see when the feathers of over-mighty Barons, media or otherwise, need to be clipped for the good of all.

      • by belthize (990217)

        I'm curious if you listen to Amy Goodman. I was in a disagreement/argument this weekend with somebody who made exactly the same argument, same phrasing (hated by many, media industry, smell blood, etc) and their source was Amy.

        Not saying it won't happen (or casting aspersions on Amy) but I suspect it may be wishful thinking. News Corp and Rupert are extremely powerful, even if Rupert was found guilty of something I personally doubt it would have that much effect on Fox or their viewing audience beyond re-

        • I'm curious if you listen to Amy Goodman.

          No. I had to Google her to find out who she was. I think Rupert Murdoch has been on a lot of people's radar for a long while and he's finally a piñata that is within reach.

      • Re:Unlikely (Score:4, Informative)

        by kyz (225372) on Monday July 25, 2011 @09:59AM (#36870288) Homepage

        I don't think Murdoch's company was the only one to use phone hacking.

        Many papers did, through arms-length dealing with private detectives.

        The UK government caught some detectives stealing private information, and published which newspapers were buying it Read page 11 of this report [ico.gov.uk].

        The top three newspaper companies buying illegal information were Trinity Mirror (1679 times), Daily Mail and General Trust (1387 times), then News International (only 256 times).

        It's not the quantity of hacking, but who got hacked. The public didn't really care about celebrities being hacked, but went apeshit when they heard a little girl got hacked.

    • People forget the power wealthy people have, especially one who owns most of the media.
      I doubt it will impact him past a year.

      You don't even need power or wealth here in the US...

      Give it a year, and people won't even remember any of this.

      We've got the attention span of gnats.

    • by robthebloke (1308483) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:27AM (#36869364)
      People forget the power 'we' have, espesically when it can bring about the closure of an 168 year old newspaper with close to 3million readers. It has impacted him already, and will continue to do so, for longer than just a year.....
      • From the perspective of his empire, it was a tiny entity, an easy choice. The reason he closed it so quick was to get rid of a bunch of the people involved, trying to show he could clean up the problem easily. He was probably hoping that would immediately wash his hands of this and prevent any serious investigation. I don't think it was from public pressure.

    • Politicians and a lot of people in the public arena have had to put up with Murdoch for a long time, they don't do this because they want to or because they like him, they do it because they have to.

      Individually, they all see an opportunatity to get a monkey off their collective backs.
    • It we were talking about the Alcoa (or Sony) CEO, then yes. The basis of their bussiness and power would be unrelated to the issues at hands, so they may face a public onslaught and continue to have influence.

      OTOH, Murdoch influence is due the ability of his newspapers and media to influence people. If they are not well received by the public, then his influence will suffer a lot.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Joce640k (829181)

      What I still don't understand is how when the original "climategate" broke, nobody seemed interested in finding the hackers/source.

      And now we know who it was they still aren't locked up. If it was an ordinary person doing this there would be an Interpol arrest warrant out and massive punishments. I guess Murdoch has enough embarrassing photos in his collection to prevent this.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Xest (935314)

      Well, that and a Norwegian terrorist attack followed by the death of a drug addict skank means the whole thing is all but forgotten now. Not to mention the British political class are all off on their holidays for the summer for a few weeks now so simply wont care until late August or September or so when it'll all have conveniently blown over.

      Worse, much of the rest of the British press has found the spotlight shining uncomfortably on it now, The Daily Mail has spent the last week or so trying to deflect a

    • Re:Unlikely (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Monday July 25, 2011 @09:19AM (#36869826) Homepage Journal

      "All the News Corp. executives used to tell the same story"

      Right there is the first indication that they were all lying. When everyone is telling the truth, or as much truth as they know, there will ALWAYS be inconsistencies. When there are no inconsistencies to be found, then you are looking at a conspiracy. Simple human nature tells you that much. You don't even need to have 20 years of investigative experience behind you to figure it out. Hell, ten years of parenting teaches that much to uneducated lackwits! Common sense, people - use it!

    • You are completely right, at the most he will sell his media empire and buy another lower key empire or simple not advertise that he controls the news as much as he currently does.

    • This. Murdoch Sr. is arguably the most powerful person in the world. This article is examining his wound with a microscope and saying it "looks pretty serious." Well if you zoom out it's still just a papercut. He could close down all his UK businesses and it wouldn't be a big problem for him in the grander scheme of things.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:15AM (#36869288) Homepage

    When you are finding yourself in trouble, the first thing you need to do is seek out and buy new friends to help you. Microsoft's sudden interest in lobbying certainly paid off when the first judge was thrown off the case to be replaced by one who was more careful not to offend Microsoft's new friends in congress.

    Seems like Rupert doesn't have many friends in the house and now is apologizing for his son who really is a nut which has demonstrated not falling far from the tree.

    • by dkf (304284)

      Seems like Rupert doesn't have many friends in the house and now is apologizing for his son who really is a nut which has demonstrated not falling far from the tree.

      Rupe and his minions have been terrorizing politicians and celebrities for many years. Now that he's in trouble where it looks like it's going to stick, is it any wonder at all that nobody at all is interested in stepping up to help him out? All the worms have turned; Rupe's only real hope is that an even bigger scandal or event will divert everyone's attention.

      • by vlm (69642)

        All the worms have turned; Rupe's only real hope is that an even bigger scandal or event will divert everyone's attention.

        Maybe he orchestrated it himself intentionally thinking its too small in a year of big news?

        We're busy with the US debt ceiling kabuki theatre, the country of greece financially collapsing along with Iceland, Ireland, and Portugal, while trying to drag France, Spain, and Germany down with them, this spring there were riots in the middle east, civil war in Libya, collapse in the value of fiat currencies vs metals, explosive inflation in food prices, the dead cat bounce in housing prices has ended and decline

      • Rupe and his minions have been terrorizing politicians and celebrities for many years. Now that he's in trouble where it looks like it's going to stick, is it any wonder at all that nobody at all is interested in stepping up to help him out? All the worms have turned; Rupe's only real hope is that an even bigger scandal or event will divert everyone's attention.

        Murdoch controlled newspapers, and that made politicians, especially in the UK, fear him. What were they supposed to do if newspapers attacked them everywhere? Complain "no, I didn't do it, it was evil Murdoch who is behind that"? They would have been laughed at. But now, if a Murdoch newspaper were to attack a politician for disagreeing with Murdock, same complaint "no, I didn't do it, it was evil Murdoch who is behind that"! And this time the public would say "absolutely, I am sure this good politician di

    • and far more importantly you have the Prime Minister who probably believes that he the tougher he is to News International the less bad involvement with them looks.

      I think having influence over the PM has made NI situation much worse here.

  • by loimprevisto (910035) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:19AM (#36869310)
    I started to write a comment about being glad that Murdoch is finally getting what's coming to him... then I realized that I didn't know why I felt that way. I have a generally negative opinion of him... but all that comes to mind when I think of him is a caricature assembled from various stories I've come. I gather that he's been consolidating several media markets into near-monopolies and there's controversy about him forcing editorial opinions onto his reporters... but is he the guy who single-handedly broke the news business, or just a businessman who got in over his head with yellow journalism?
    • by jhoegl (638955) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:29AM (#36869386)
      I dont know what you mean by yellow journalism, but the reality is that his news corporations sway public opinions through lies, manipulation, and fear.
      It is sad to see the state of Journalism these days, I would think anyone that has given into this type of tyranny should be ashamed for being a part of large amounts of bullshit that could very well send our country into worse than just political crazyness.
      • by polle404 (727386) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:35AM (#36869438)

        for the average geek out there, he's the J Jonah Jameson to our collective Spiderman selves...

        • by Tim C (15259)
          And for the real geek, that should be Spider-Man not "Spiderman".
        • by dkleinsc (563838)

          The Murdoch organization has 2 major differences with the Daily Bugle:
          1. The Daily Bugle doesn't commit crimes, whereas this investigation of News Corp has turned up a bunch (phone hacking, bribery, possibly blackmail, and the suspicious death of a major witness)
          2. J Jonah Jameson can be brusque or opportunistic, but also shows a shred of decency on many occasions.

          • 2. J Jonah Jameson can be brusque or opportunistic, but also shows a shred of decency on many occasions.

            According to an interview I read about a decade ago Murdoch personally agreed to publish Fight Club despite it practically condemning everything he has done. Just saying...

    • where do you draw the line? Aren't ALL businessmen scum in someone's eyes?

      I used to work for a small mom and pop motorcycle accessory shop that did a lot of e-commerce nationwide. The owners were the nicest people around who would do anything for anyone. One day they get slammed by a drunk driver. The mess of medical and legal drama pretty much forced their business to go bust. If you search them on Google nowadays there's nothing but a bunch of dissatisfied customers and generally grumpy people ranting a
    • by glodime (1015179)

      David Carr at the NY Times [nytimes.com] sums up the reason why I think Murdoch deserves what he gets from the outfall of this media cycle. He's established a poor culture within his media subsidiaries, now he's reaping what he's sown.

      • by ShakaUVM (157947)

        I support firing Murdoch as soon as they fire all the other network heads for their bias in reporting the news as well, for slander, and for their unscrupulous and/or illegal acquisition of news sources.

      • Thank you! Your link and the AC's link below were exactly the sort of information I was looking for to fill in the gaps.
      • of course the NYT is giddy with the prospect of News Corps demise, after all the NYT (like most media) is bleeding out.

        No differnt than when Linux fanboys get all giddy whenever a new virus hits windows...

        • by glodime (1015179)

          Of course. But in this case, there appears to be more to it than a witch hunt of a rival.

    • by Alarash (746254) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:52AM (#36869574)
      Being is a business man is okay. Owning media outlets is okay. But when you use the later to help with the former, it's not okay. That's why you're glad this is happening to him.
    • by hey! (33014)

      I'd say it's clear that Rupert Murdoch is not an *average* businessman. He's clearly an *extraordinary* businessman. Some people would say that automatically makes him scum, others that it automatically precludes him from being scum. I think that his special ability and status entails special responsibilities.

      We all know that corporations are amoral profit making machines. So it is up to business leaders to carry the standard of human values. That's tough, because business involves complicated compromises

  • Wait what?

    I know who James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch are, but who's James Rupert?

  • by zAPPzAPP (1207370) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:43AM (#36869492)

    I don't quite understand the spin to this.
    Unlikely to survive? They are still filthy rich, they own all those companies. They are not trying to win a popularity contest. They are not politicians who need votes to stay in power.
    So, even if that guy gets sentenced to prison and branded as the most evil scum, he can still be the hair to that his father later on. How would public opinion be his downfall?
    Not to mention that owning most of the media gives you a bit of an advantage when handling that...

    • by Tim C (15259)
      The UK public has very much turned against the Murdochs; hacking celebs' phones is one thing, but the phones of the families of murder victims (especially when the victims are children)? That's just not cricket.

      It would be a brave (or foolhardy) company that employed them now. No, this probably isn't going to see them unemployable and living in poverty, but it's going to deal their fortunes (both business and personal) a massive blow.
    • by nedlohs (1335013)

      Unlikely to survive as a media mogul. Unable to survive as owner of said media. You know the normal usage as in : "Politican X is unlikely to survive sex with intern scandal".

      The media is highly regulated in most places. If you are consider "unfit" then your company won't get approval to do things like takeovers (the BSkyB stuff for example). In fact in lost of places you can be deemed unfit to be on the board or be the CEO of such companies, in the UK for example has the Broadcasting Act of 1990:

      """
      3)The C

    • They only own 40% of it. Shareholders (i.e. the other 60%) would not want to see a convicted criminal become CEO, especially when that same person was involved in a scandal that closed the NOTW, and wiped millions off the value of their assets.....
  • by The Second Horseman (121958) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:47AM (#36869522)

    In case anyone can't see why, check out the headline from News International's British tabloid, The Sun, on Saturday.

    http://fleetstreetblues.blogspot.com/2011/07/sun-blames-al-qaeda-for-norway.html [blogspot.com]

    Yes, that's right, they actually use the phrase 'AL-QAEDA' MASSACRE above the headline NORWAY'S 9/11. Now that it's a right-wing extremist, he'll just be a lunatic instead of it being a plot.

    • by baegucb (18706)

      I found this much more offensive (from the Times of London, opened by News Corp.): http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/politicalcartoon.jpg [mediaite.com]

    • When "attention grabbing" antics like the one you pointed out distort to that degree, then real journalism comes closer to sensationalism, which undermines the news business altogether.
      When that happens, how can we trust what we read/hear? How can we be properly educated about current events? How can we make fair democratic decisions?

      I think that a non-sensationalist news outlet that quite simply reports what journalists honestly believe happened, would in fact do very well.

    • So? (Score:2, Insightful)

      Wasn't the killed of Theo van Gogh claimed by your side to be a lunatic and not a plot? The killed of Pim Fortyun not part of a left wing terrorist group but an individual? There is not difference between the killing, just the norway guy killed a lot more but all three thought they were the ones to set the world right according to their views and kill those that dared to disagree.

      But it is always the other side that has extremists, never your own.

  • ...why do people insist on buying the family's newspapers and watching their tv-channels?
  • It's hard to imagine some saying this without trying to be funny:
    “Not in a million years. Not in two million years. Six months, nine months or a year from now, that may happen, but it will not happen in the current circumstances.”

  • by Pigskin-Referee (1389181) on Monday July 25, 2011 @09:26AM (#36869902)

    Has anyone noticed how "News Corp", Murdoch's Fascist media operation has conveniently either avoided or slanted news concerning this news event? Hannity and Limbaugh have tried to paint the entire episode as the liberal media attacking Murdoch and his family over a media created event. Well it was a media staged event, and Murdoch and his media created it. Other News Corp Fascist commentators continue to spew propaganda that would have made Joseph Goebbels proud.

    • by mykos (1627575)
      I'm just glad to see Limbaugh and Hannity tying themselves to him as all their friends throw him overboard.
  • So on earlier stories about this, there were a number of posters claiming that there was no evidence that this went further up than the News of the World staff, and that any attacks on Murdoch and News Corp were politically-motivated "piling on", in the words of Fox and Friends. I hope that they can admit they were wrong now.

There are worse things in life than death. Have you ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman? -- Woody Allen

Working...