James Murdoch's Defense Crumbles

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.'"

Comments

Unlikely

[assemblerex]

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

[WrongSizeGlass]

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

[Ephemeriis]

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.

Re:Unlikely

[robthebloke]

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.....

Re:Unlikely

[Captain Hook]

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.

Re:Unlikely

[vlm]

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

[cowboy76Spain]

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:Unlikely

[SenseiLeNoir]

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.

Re:Unlikely

[Relyx]

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

[Joce640k]

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:Unlikely

[SenseiLeNoir]

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.

Re:Unlikely

[nzac]

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

[Saint Fnordius]

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).

Re:Unlikely

[Xest]

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 attention away from the whole scandal because it knows that what will be dug out of it's closet will likely make the News of the World scandal look quite tame, Murodch's press will want to try and silence the issue, and The Daily Mirror amongst others are also looking quite suspect, so I similarly wouldn't expect the press to try and ressurect it in a month or so's time.

Hopefully I'll be proven wrong, but oh well, seeing Rupert and his empire get a well deserved kicking was fun whilst it lasted at least.

Re:Unlikely

[vlm]

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.

Re:Unlikely

[kno3]

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 it is implications of criminal activity perpetrated by so many powerful people in Government and the Met. They have had to all come out and start blaming each other for it, as opposed to leaving it in the long grass where they wanted it. The public reaction hasn't actually been that great, it was a massive media and Westminster reaction though. In some ways you could still call it a storm in a teacup.

Re:Unlikely

[belthize]

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-affirming their notion of a liberal media out to get them.

We shall see, as long as the audiences are incapable of differentiating, news, entertainment and propaganda (both left and right) I'm not horribly optimistic.

Re:Unlikely

[WrongSizeGlass]

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

[Xest]

"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."

OT, but who was it? I missed this.

Re:Unlikely

[Runaway1956]

"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!

Re:Unlikely

[wisnoskij]

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.

Re:Unlikely

[Runaway1956]

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

Re:Unlikely

[deains]

I'd imagine the motivation was more political than financial (insofar as the two are separate things). Remember that the news was broken by a rival newspaper, not some stock broker. They wanted to discredit NewsInt before they took over half the British media.

Re:Unlikely

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re:Unlikely

[gorzek]

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

[Sprouticus]

dont look now, but your bias is showing.

But just for shits and giggles, please site the soldiers killed by the information released in the NYT. Please site the evidence of other news papers/media outlets hacking the phones of murder victims. (mind you I am not saying they wouldn't, just that I have seen no evidence except idle speculation used to reenforce political/social opinions).

The only NYT issue I can recall in recent times was Jayson Blair. And I cannot find any articles/information which said that the editorial staff knew of his activities. Much less the president of the company. He was fired and rightfully so...

I know this may be hard for you to understand, but some of us look at these things with a critical eye, trying to figure out the turrth regardless of political leanings. I don't like NewsCorp. I think they regularly misrepresent the truth in order to make money (unlike many I dont think Murdoch cares one whit about politics). But when all of this came out I gave them the BoD, waiting for evidence and then making my decision. The evidence points to a systemic problem at the paper, one which warrants an investigation of other newscorp outlets in my opinion. I honestly doubt Fox News would do something like this,. Not because they are better, but because their staff is smarter and more risk averse. They already have the best ratings, why risk it.

Re:Unlikely

[bwilli123]

There are 4,000 more names yet to come out.Think we have seen the worst stories yet? Predictions: (1)James will be lucky to miss jailtime. (2) Murdoch Snr. will retire. (3)The newspapers will be sold off. 3(a) Governments will make sure they are sold to separate buyers.(4) Though there seems no great enthusiasm in the US at the moment for prosecutions of Newscorp, past actions in the USA & the eventual weight of events in the UK will tilt the scales. Add your own....

Re:Unlikely

[truthsearch]

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.

Re:Unlikely

[hedwards]

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

[kyz]

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.

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.

Re:Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

The Murdochs have money. Everybody loves money. Worse comes to worse, james moves to the United Arab Emirate and lives out his life in a gilded cage.

Re:Unlikely

[Missing.Matter]

crack in the dam
cover all bases
sharks would have chewed him up and spat him out
ripped to shreds
chinks in his armour
skewer he was wielding
meanest, biggest predator is wounded
tearing him down

I'm all for literary devices, but my god man, every sentence you wrote has as a completely different metaphor. Sometimes two!

Re:Unlikely

[xaxa]

We already are discovering that the practice of cracking voicemail boxes of fools (who never set a pin or set a totally lame one) was a widespread practive in the british tabloid press

They hacked by spoofing their caller ID when calling the voicemailbox number. The service didn't prompt for a PIN, and you could hardly blame the user for that attack.

(I don't have any idea what the rest of you comment is about, I'm not American.)

Re:Unlikely

[julesh]

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

[jo_ham]

It was "sat on" by the police, because they had been bought off by News Corporation. The whole thing should have gone off in 2006 when the "isolated incident"/"one rogue journalist" situation happened. The Met collected all the evidence (10,000 pages of notes in 11 garbage bags) and then said "no, nothing to see here!"

It has been rumbling since then - the Guardian in particular kept running it, and it wasn't until the Millie Dowler revelations that it became front page news.

There have also a been a string of stories and court settlements since 2006 for various celebs who suspected phone hacking.

Re:Unlikely

[hairyfeet]

But he has a point. It is pretty common knowledge that there was someone at the Pentagon who shorted the hell out of American Airlines stock a full 90 minutes BEFORE anyone knew that a single plane had been taken, much less that it was American Airlines. That is a pretty red hot smoking gun that someone there KNEW what was gonna happen and instead of trying to prevent the attack decided to profit from it. That would be not only treason but capital murder of over 3000 Americans yet to this day nobody will investigate. Why? Because no doubt it was someone high up, someone with real power.

In the case of TFA Murdoch getting BSkyB would have given him incredible power there and somebody didn't like that. Murdoch had stepped on a LOT of toes, and been a real prick about it. Well someone got fed up with it and made sure that the rival paper had all they needed to hang old Murdoch. Who did it? We'll probably never know, as the list of powerful people that hated Murdoch is such that even single spaced would probably be long enough to wallpaper the cells of his boy and the rest of those at the top of NoTW.

Will Murdoch himself spend a day in jail, even if they manage to trace it back to him? doubtful as guys with THAT much money simply don't have to follow the laws everyone else does. but his days of wielding power with impunity in the UK are over, hell he might as well pack his bags and move on. Sadly I'm sure he'd be welcome here in the USA as we've never met an ultra rich booty that our movers and shakers wouldn't bend over backwards to accommodate.

Re:Unlikely

[Registered Coward v2]

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.

Hey, this is /. Don't try to confuse the issue by bring up facts and logic.

Re:Unlikely

[Nimey]

Seems an awful lot like the "long-form birth certificate" conspiracy theory, doesn't it?

Re:Unlikely

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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 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.

Re:Unlikely

[turkeyfish]

Knowing Murdoch, he may have been shorting his own stock, knowing in advance that he would have the company buyback shares after the crash had settled and after he repurchased his shares.

Re:Unlikely

[Reverand Dave]

Not because they are better, but because their staff is smarter and more risk averse. They already have the best ratings, why risk it.

That is a good point, why should they risk it? If you're winning by a long shot, why cheat especially if no one cares whether or not you are reporting actual facts or just "entertainment" not meant to be taken as facts or news.

Re:Unlikely

[fscking_coward_2001]

It is pretty common knowledge that there was someone at the Pentagon who shorted the hell out of American Airlines stock a full 90 minutes BEFORE anyone knew that a single plane had been taken, much less that it was American Airlines.

I've read about the short-selling in the days running up to 9/11, but never read a thing about short trading from the Pentagon shortly before hijacking became known. Sources?

Re:Unlikely

[guyminuslife]

I usually get my news from the New York Times. They're the "paper of record," so they typically try to keep a fairly neutral tone. So I can't tell whether it's just me, or whether there really is a hint of glee in their coverage of the scandal.

Re:Unlikely

[Ryanrule]

If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

Re:Unlikely

[nEoN nOoDlE]

Is it really the power "we" have or is it the power someone else has to rally the troops into a common outrage? If you didn't care about the scandal before hearing about it day after day after day, while the media just didn't want to let it go, made people more outraged as time went on. Of course, it could have swung the opposite way if MSM ignored it, swept it under the rug like they do lots of stories, and everybody would go about their day and everything for Murdoch would be business as usual.

So, I don't believe it was just general public outrage. I think someone at the top wanted this scandal to explode and made it so.

Re:Unlikely

[asdf7890]

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).

Re:Unlikely

[Mister Transistor]

He's obviously from the STNG planet where people only speak in metaphor!

Darmok and Jilad on the ocean!

Darmok at rest.

Re:Unlikely

[dkleinsc]

Yes, like we totally forgot about OJ Simpson.

Re:Unlikely

[Anonymous Coward]

crack in the dam
cover all bases
sharks would have chewed him up and spat him out
ripped to shreds
chinks in his armour
skewer he was wielding
meanest, biggest predator is wounded
tearing him down

I'm all for literary devices, but my god man, every sentence you wrote has as a completely different metaphor. Sometimes two!

It's understandable, in a way. Here in the US, the Left has been foaming at the mouth about Fox News and Murdoch ever since Fox News hit the airwaves. The Left pretty much had all the media outlets in lockstep behind them for decades until Murdoch & Fox News came along.

They've been desperate to find *something* to hang Murdoch with and/or destroy Fox News. Those on the Left preach diversity, tolerance, and open-mindedness, but ONLY if it doesn't conflict with the Lefts' ideology or agenda. Sort of like the Slashdot tendency of down-modding any Conservative-leaning posts.

With the recent rise of regular folks in "fly-over country" that "cling to their God and guns" doing some grass-roots organizing in the form of the TEA Party, combined with the failures of their economic & regulatory policies threatening the "spread the wealth", "redistributionist", Socialist-In-Chiefs' upcoming re-election bid, it's no surprise the timing of this soap opera. They've become desperate to silence any opposition or criticism in any manner they can.

Re:Unlikely

[Relyx]

Um, why has this been modded "Funny"? Some people have a really strange sense of humour around here...

Re:Unlikely

[jahudabudy]

According to Snopes, the 9/11 commission DID investigate the unusual bump in puts-to-calls ratio for American and United in the days prior to 9/11/01. And found nothing suspicious. Of course, this will do nothing to change a conspiracy theorist's mind, but it is a useful tidbit for those poor sad souls that try to throw a little sanity onto the Internet.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

Re:Unlikely

[MightyMartian]

Or as the very ancient expression goes; live by the sword, die by the sword.

Re:Unlikely

[MightyMartian]

I think American shareholders will do more to topple the Murdoch regime than any formal investigation. Murdoch's notions of creating a dynasty are little more than burning rubble now. It's highly unlikely that News Corp shareholders are going to let the old man hang on, let alone choose a successor.

Re:Unlikely

[d3ac0n]

Fairly certain that the 9/11 conspiracies came along first.

Although yes, they do seem to emanate from similar places. Namely, loonies on both ends of the political spectrum.

Re:Unlikely

[Sunshinerat]

Fueled by the Gardian.
Do not forget that.
For grass roots to succeed, it needs fertilizer.

Re:Unlikely

[Tooke]

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2006-10-02/

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2006-10-04/

Re:Unlikely

[Anguirel]

I suspect it was just a hopeful mod. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between satire and fundamentalist views.

Re:Unlikely

[elashish14]

the advance was a multiple of how much the previous book made.

Aha! But was it an integer multiple?

By the way, the US national debt as recorded at 2043 GMT divided by their population was found to be 14536111334771/307006550 which equals exactly 47347.8867 dollars per person OMG IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!@1 CAUSE THEIR MULTIPLES OF EACH OTHER

Re:Unlikely

[elashish14]

Maybe he works for a news corporation

Re:Unlikely

[sjames]

It blew up because before it was mostly celebrities and such (who the public more or less thinks of as fair game), but now they got caught targeting the family of a murdered school girl. There is nothing like an entirely sympathetic victim to get this sort of thing going.

The fact that they ended up interfering with an active police investigation of her disappearance and created false hope for her parents didn't help them much either.

Re:Unlikely

[hairyfeet]

Here is the first one I came across and it looks like there is a name to go with it George Tenet the former head of the CIA IIRC.

But Google is your pal, just put in "American Airlines 9-11 shorted stocks" and you'll find plenty of sources, they have just been ignored. But who better to know what was coming and profit from it than the head of the CIA?

Re:Unlikely

[nytmare]

The reason is apparent in between your own lines - people will read patterns into it more than what is actually there, and make assumptions without any additional evidence.

Re:Unlikely

[tick-tock-atona]

My lungs are now half full of coffee. Thanks.

Re:Unlikely

[riverat1]

Funny is right.

Re:Unlikely

[riverat1]

The part that really cinched it was deleting messages out of Millie Dowler's VM so they could listen to new ones. That was outrageous!

Re:Unlikely

[LordVader717]

The closure of NOTW is a stark reminder of the power Murdoch wields more than anything. Newspapers have been involved in many scandals over the years. In the end a few people might have boycotted the paper, but it could still have gone on to sell over a million copies and been a highly relevant newspaper. But once Murdoch's reputation is at stake things are different.
To anyone else shutting such a paper down would be an insane and indefensible move, but to Murdoch it's just a drop in the ocean of his media empire.

Re:Unlikely

[scarboni888]

Yeah 'cuz there's never been a conspiracy put to action by anyone. Anywhere. Anytime. Right.....

Re:And in the meantime...

[wjousts]

Freedom of the press doesn't mean they are free to commit crimes.

Rupert didn't learn from Microsoft.

[erroneus]

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.

Re:Rupert didn't learn from Microsoft.

[HerculesMO]

I love how everything can tie into MS being evil on Slashdot :)

Re:Rupert didn't learn from Microsoft.

[dkf]

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.

Re:Rupert didn't learn from Microsoft.

[vlm]

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 back to normal prices has resumed, endless saber rattling in Iran, some hot chick married a dude in England who has famous parents and it was all over TV for weeks, that congresswoman who got shot in the head in AZ had her husband fly in the space shuttle which is shutting down, the normal weather related disasters somewhere in the immense USA are being hyped more than normal, China is beginning to collapse both financially and infrastructurally, a bridge in CA was demolished on schedule, oh and in addition to the big news, there's this guy listening to voicemails, if you have any attention left to pay.

The only thing we're missing is some shark attacks, or maybe starting yet another war.

It didn't work out, but I can see why a guy would think people might be slightly distracted.

Re:Rupert didn't learn from Microsoft.

[gnasher719]

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 did do nothing wrong, must have done something to upset evil Murdoch".

_That_ is not going to go away. He may be able to continue printing newspapers. But the power is gone.

Re:Rupert didn't learn from Microsoft.

[twidarkling]

Man, if that's true, he's a fucking moron. One of the most basic human responses is to ignore big tragedies and go straight for the scandals because they don't want to be reminded of bad stuff, but of how they're better than everyone else. I'd almost think it's more likely that everyone else sat on this until now and are using it in an attempt to distract from all the other big news.

Re:Rupert didn't learn from Microsoft.

[sorak]

I've been wondering why FoxNews has been going on about Bill Maher calling Palin and Bachman "a couple of boobs" all week. I think they've been trying to create any kind of diversion they can to avoid having to report on this story.

Re:Rupert didn't learn from Microsoft.

[Dare nMc]

>everything can tie into MS being evil on Slashdot
It is a shame, what's next, that someone will point out how inferior they are to Apple? Since Disney's Steve Jobs did a better job at buying off congress critters and sooner, therefore Gates is just copying his achievements once again. (oh darn, now all I need is a Godwins law to kick in.)

Re:Rupert didn't learn from Microsoft.

[vlm]

Man, if that's true, he's a fucking moron. One of the most basic human responses is to ignore big tragedies and go straight for the scandals because they don't want to be reminded of bad stuff, but of how they're better than everyone else. I'd almost think it's more likely that everyone else sat on this until now and are using it in an attempt to distract from all the other big news.

True but, its almost more my fault for not mentioning that kind of stuff. We also had the royal wedding as alluded to above, a white girl went missing so the media convicted her mother on the evidence being that she got a tattoo therefore that proves she must have killed her kid, a loser congressmen (but I repeat myself) sent pix of his namesake to some chicks (at least the story wasn't underage boys... this time), the rich NFL players and rich team owning corporations are having a little love spat about who's going to get richer, etc etc. I don't watch TV or read people magazine but even I know these stories; there are probably more.

Scum or average businessman?

[loimprevisto]

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?

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[jhoegl]

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.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[polle404]

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

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[metalmaster]

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 about how they are bad people.

In my community these people are in good standing, and to know them is to know how much drama a car crash can bring to one's life. Across the country they are known as assholes who couldnt deliver.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[Threni]

So you're saying they're both? Had to tell, because you don't provide any details, making it impossible to Google for. And I've no idea what "One day they get slammed by a drunk driver" means. Is that a metaphor? (I like metaphors as much as the next guy, but typically they need to be easier to understand that what it's a metaphor for, otherwise there's no point!)

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[glodime]

David Carr at the NY Times 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.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[Alarash]

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.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[ShakaUVM]

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.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[Tim C]

And for the real geek, that should be Spider-Man not "Spiderman".

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[loimprevisto]

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.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[thejynxed]

Don't be fucking dense. Getting slammed by a drunk driver is exactly what it implies - they were involved in a serious accident caused by a drunk driver. The rest of the details are irrelevant to the point.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[roman_mir]

Murdoch is part of the system, he is a problem of-course. So is the system, and the system is built by the conglomerate of certain businesses and government, and this is only possible because government is part of business and so business became part of government.

Think about this: governments around the world do this, what the paper did, on daily basis. They do all sorts of illegal activities to advance various agendas of various participants (politicians/businessmen/voters) but they have the power, which prevents them from being actually investigated and found guilty of various crimes they commit.

Is Murdoch an 'average businessman'? No, he is part of government system. An 'average' businessman is not part of the government system.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[night_flyer]

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...

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still convinced that Iraq would not have happened without his hideous propaganda machine. And honestly, that's all I need to consider him beyond none other than Mr. Montgomery Burns. ...and come to think of it, his son could bear a resemblance to Smithers.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[glodime]

A fair point, if not an entirely accurate characterization of the article. However, in context with the consistent overt bias shown by Murdoch's media subsidiaries and the pattern of large settlements for similar lawsuits and the Catholic style movement of bad actors within Murdoch's media subsidiaries and quotes from eyewitness regarding the culture in the companies in question, one can entirely discount the lawyers' claims and come to my same conclusion. Murdoch established a poor culture within his media subsidiaries; now he's reaping what he's sown.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[hey!]

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 between the duty to deliver profit to shareholders and morality. I think you can just about always say of a truly effective business leader that the picture is complicated. Steve Jobs runs his business with a disturbing egotism, but at the same time he gives his designers unprecedented creative opportunities. Sergei Brin may not have created a company that never does evil, but he did create a company which is more ethically nuanced in its approach to issues like privacy or doing business in China than most.

So what can you say for Rupert Murdoch? He's made a ton of money for himself and his shareholders.

I don't consider such a man a business *leader*; I consider him a man who has made himself a cog in the very machine he built. He may be a very component of his company, even a particularly creative one, but he's less than a man because he is nothing without the company.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[glodime]

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

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[glodime]

Although I agree ideologically with the article. I worry that it is a completely void of references that would have been easily gathered but a news organization or journalist while coming from an openly bias organization. I could see the authors taking liberties with their interpretation of facts that most would not agree with. At the same time the questions seem well researched and thought out. I'm not sure how to interpret this information.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[twidarkling]

Actually, at first, I'd thought it was meant that their business was hit by a drunk driver, which would certainly fuck up a business for quite a while. Then I considered that it was a vehicle-to-vehicle accident. And you know what? I'm still not sure, and both are likely. I'd say knowing which is pretty fucking relevant. If your business is taken out, well, that's shitty, and excusable. If you're the one injured, I actually find it less excusable, since you should be getting employees who can take over at least short-term, to give you enough time to recover. Otherwise what do you do when you need time off? Shut down the business?

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[dkleinsc]

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.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[sorak]

So, Murdoch gets in trouble for committing crimes in two different countries and engaging in ethics violations that seem despicable by most people's standards. NBC reports a story you don't want to hear, so therefore they are exactly the same and should be treated as such.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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...

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[spire3661]

BOth points are true. When im doing business or ordering parts, I really dont care about the life story of the shop. If they couldnt deliver then they are assholes, regardless of what happened, thats business. Just because a tragedy happened in their lives doesnt make the nationwide complaints any less valid.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[spire3661]

Fight Club is not an extraordinary work. Its a good story that picks at the right strings, but it is not the deeper level most simpletons would make it out to be. Any elite sees Fight Club for what it is, a pandering story to the lost and disenfranchised. Lauding him for publishing it is pretty naive.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[theCoder]

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. [emphasis added]

Apparently you don't know what yellow journalism is, because you practically defined it in the second part of your sentence (they also did what they did to sell more papers). And yellow journalism was a phrase coined more than a hundred years ago (or at least the papers and times it refers to were at the beginning part of the 20th century, the phrase may have come later).

I don't see why you think journalism is worse today than it was before. It has always been this bad. If anything, it's better now, because it's easier for the average person to find out how bad it is.

Not that I really trust the MSM any more than your average politician, but at least I know not to trust them now :)

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

but it is not the deeper level most simpletons would make it out to be.

Lol. That's a criticism the self-important have levelled at pretty much every work of art, high or law, in recorded history.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[jhoegl]

Yeah, someone posted a wiki link and I read it and chuckled at myself.
However, I know that journalism used to be better. Why? Because news outlets did not go to the internet for your opinion, did not rely on one source, and did not make up "opinions" within their own ranks, then perpetuate them as if someone NOT them said it.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[ShakaUVM]

>>So, Murdoch gets in trouble for committing crimes in two different countries

*Murdoch* didn't commit the crime. His son may have known, IIRC.

The point is, the New York times, which is criticizing Murdoch for this, is famous for using illegal means to acquire news stories. Except they're celebrated for it - we call them the Pentagon Papers, the Wikileaks scandal, and so forth.

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[ShakaUVM]

>>Can you provide a link to support your claim about "all the other network heads for their bias in reporting the news"?

Ann Coulter is a right-wing pitbull, but she makes a pretty good point attacking the NYT for hypocrisy on the issue (they've used hacked cell phones before, and defended their use):
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-07-20.html

Re:Scum or average businessman?

[metalmaster]

I was their web lackey. I designed and coded their website. I helped put the ecommerce software in place because they wouldnt learn, and i kept the product listing updated. The sales side of this business was just the two of them. They handled everything; shipping goods from our store, direct from manufacturer, from other third-party suppliers. I talked with the two of them frequently about the process, but it was never simple. You wouldnt ask the BOFH to explain the inner workings of his system to the intern would you? It can't be done

Im not excusing them, but your solution is utterly laughable. If they were unable to work they did, in fact, close the store

Re:And in the meantime...

[trout007]

You have to be stupid to believe either of the following:
NewsCorp did nothing wrong.
NewsCorp is the only company that does this.

FNC had more coverage than others from what I saw

[Aqualung812]

I've actually been switching between CNN, MSNBC, and FNC to see how each are covering it.
While I expected CNN & MSNBC to have non-stop coverage out of schadenfreude & FNC to ignore it, my totally unscientific survey has shown the opposite. Several times, FNC had a live feed in the courtroom while the other two were talking about the debt or celeb news.

I watch TV for about 30 minutes a day on average, so I could be totally off.

Re:And in the meantime...

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Freedom of the press doesn't mean they are free to commit crimes.
I know just like when GE was charged w/ bribery and Jeff Immelt was called before Congress. Oh wait... That didn't happen instead Jeff is now working for this administration. Perhaps there is a political element to all this fuss.

Re:And in the meantime...

[robthebloke]

Nope. It's the just the British public doing the kicking this time. If it hadn't of been for public pressure (getting the advertisers to pull out of the notw), notw wouldn't have closed. If it hadn't of been for public anger (wrt, Milly Dowler), the MP's wouldn't have the balls to stand up to murdoch. Murdoch has angered *us*, the British public, and now *we* are getting our own back. If there is one thing us Brits love - it's kicking someone when they are down - especially when that someone answers to the name of Murdoch...

Re:Poor baby

[MickyTheIdiot]

In the U.S. we continue to have this myth that the super-rich got there only by being smart and making "good decisions" and that failures became that way solely because they made "bad decisions." Anyone that is super-rich in the U.S. that isn't trying to sell you something will tell you that getting that far is a combination of being smart and being in the right place in the right time.

Anyone with that much money is at least smart enough, however, to have enough contingencies in place that they will have a soft landing when something goes badly wrong. He won't be going hungry any time soon even though they seem to have obviously made a crap-load of "bad decisions."

Re:See no evil

[jhoegl]

Yeah, it is a scary thing when a corporation owns a news conglomerate and spins the shit out of anything they want.
I would not be surprised if a behind the scenes "You dont want us to talk about this? Okay, give us money" thing was happening.
If anything, News Corp has proven the very thing people had been scared of for decades, corporate owned news is not "freedom of the press" and they can spin things to incite wars, sway politics, and cause chaos if they wanted.
We need to go back to how it was :(

Re:And in the meantime...

[WrongSizeGlass]

Perhaps there is a political element to all this fuss.

Wasn't one of the former News of the World editors the right-hand man of a high ranking politician in the UK? I'm sure that former editor has stories to tell on both sides of this.

Re:Get the hell off this planet

[WrongSizeGlass]

Any species that has gained intelligence should be striving to get off the rock they're on and off into space as fast as possible, all our eggs are in one basket right now.

Lucky for me I'm too stupid to get off of 'this rock'.

Re:And in the meantime...

[MickyTheIdiot]

I don't believe either, but I am not sure why the "everyone does it" defence is relevant. NewsCorp is the one with evidence against it on the table right now. If Time/Warner or NBC or Gannett or whoever has similar evidence it will hopefully come out as well, but that doesn't have anything to do with this situation right now.

Re:Poor baby

[drinkypoo]

Anyone that is super-rich in the U.S. that isn't trying to sell you something will tell you that getting that far is a combination of being smart and being in the right place in the right time.

Yes, like standing in a congressman's office with a big bag of money. Most of us don't have that option. Anyone that is super-rich in the US today is part of a legacy that goes back hundreds of years. Oprah Winfrey is about as close as you get, and she's not super-rich. Elvis gave away Cadillacs; the guy who signed Elvis' check is rich, but Elvis was just another druggie who died on the toilet.

First of all its not the US

[nzac]

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.

Re:And in the meantime...

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's the thing... Don't you have the feeling this is just a manipulation from your politicians, aimed at distracting you (the public) from other, more important problems? Milly Downler who was murdered in 2002, and since then (almost) everybody has learned to protect his/her mailbox with a password. Why are we still talking about the Murdoch family? The real culprits are the public servants who let themselves corrupted too easily, and they are leading the show.

James Rupert

[Arancaytar]

Wait what?

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

Re:James Rupert

[Tim C]

James Murdoch's full name is James Rupert Jacob Murdoch. Don't ask me why they only used one of his middle names though.

Re:James Rupert

[Fear the Clam]

James Murdoch's full name is James Rupert Jacob Murdoch. Don't ask me why they only used one of his middle names though.

They might not know it. Many forms only allow the use of one middle name so if you pull from those sources you'll get incomplete information. I also have two middle names, but my license and my employer can only handle one. My passport lists both.

Re:FNC had more coverage than others from what I s

[accessbob]

Well judging from from this clip, I'd say there's some serious self-censorship going on: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fox-news-watch-avoids-news-corp-scandal-almost_b75808

Unfortunately...

[scumfuker]

There is no shortage of douche-bags to fill his place.

"Unlikely to survive"

[zAPPzAPP]

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...

Re:"Unlikely to survive"

[Tim C]

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.

Re:"Unlikely to survive"

[nedlohs]

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 Commission—

(a)shall not grant a licence to any person unless they are satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to hold it; and

(b)shall do all that they can to secure that, if they cease to be so satisfied in the case of any person holding a licence, that person does not remain the holder of the licence;
""" - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/section/3

Do you really think News would keep Murdoch on if it meant losing their broadcasting licenses? Or would they ditch him an an emergency meeting after the threat was made. Note that "person" includes actual people as well persons corporate and unincorporate.

Re:"Unlikely to survive"

[robthebloke]

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.....

Re:"Unlikely to survive"

[Ryanrule]

The UK public has a bit longer memory about these things than the US public. Plus the the national govt is better connected to the people.

Celebrities versus media tycoons

[xyourfacekillerx]

I don't see what the big deal is with this guy.

and I see absolutely no connection to Microsoft, so I'm not sure why some of you are headed in that direction.

And please don't pull a Farkism. I'm not trolling, and though I'm not trying to add to the discussion, it's just my opinion is this thing is way over-blown.

Re:Celebrities versus media tycoons

[Spad]

Because it's not just Celebrities, we're talking about politicians, business people, murder victims, families of murder victims, families of soldiers killed in action, families of those killed in terrorist attacks - even going so far as to delete messages when mailboxes started to fill up so that there was space for more juicy recordings - and they're just the ones that have been explicitly identified so far.

Now I'm not naive enough to think that News International were the only ones pulling these stunts, but they got caught and their actions are utterly reprehensible. So far, everyone up the chain seems to be claiming that there's no way that they could possibly have known what their subordinates were doing for years that were getting them all these lucrative stories and so far, everyone that Murdoch has tried to throw to the wolves has come back with some evidence or other that people above them were well aware of what was going on. The ultimate question is, how far up the chain did the knowledge & approval - explicit or otherwise - of these acts go?

And no, I have no idea what all the Microsoft stuff is about.

Re:And in the meantime...

[SenseiLeNoir]

It wasnt politically motivated. In fact this time it was the British Public that motivated this one.

Couldn't be too soon

[The Second Horseman]

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

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.

Re:Couldn't be too soon

[baegucb]

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

Re:Couldn't be too soon

[LongearedBat]

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.

Re:Couldn't be too soon

[Canazza]

implying that people can only have one priority and that getting upset at anything less than inhuman suffering is somehow wrong. As narrow minded and vicious as the people it supposedly mocks.

Re:Couldn't be too soon

[myowntrueself]

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

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.

One monotheist is as bad as another.

Re:Get the hell off this planet

[Joce640k]

Do you have a rock for us to go to? How will we travel there? Where will we live? What will we eat? How many people do you think we can afford to send?

We're a log way from being able to get off this rock. The world will probably go titsup before we do, asteroid or no asteroid.

Re:See no evil

[baegucb]

Mr. Hearst's ghost and others might disagree with you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Re:And in the meantime...

[ledow]

You'd also have to be stupid to believe that:
This makes it right.

The problem is not that others are doing this (that's a matter for THOSE cases), it's a problem that this one was known to be doing this for years, even up to the top levels of the police force, and nothing was done about it by the judiciary or politicians until everyone started to say "Now, hold on, that's not right".

They believed they could get away with it and, well, now it turns out that they can't. The fact that every other major newspaper is probably shitting themselves and shredding evidence of similar stuff right now (which would also be illegal, by the way) is neither here nor there. They shouldn't have been doing it in the first place, and they were allowed to get away with it, and allowed to pay off certain settlements, and allowed to continue as if it was a mere nuisance having to pay off the settlements rather than a punishment for a big illegal operation. It's like big companies that deliver goods in Central London - they all get park where they like and get parking fines and just pay them as part of operational life (even adding it to the cost of delivery) - the parking doesn't benefit any, and nobody really suffers except some poor sod who lives/works in the wrong place.

The "freedom of the press" is one of the things that's ALWAYS bugged the shit out of me. Yes, you need to be able to report in case we get a corrupt government, but equally you should have no more access to information than I do. If I can't access something, there should be a DAMN GOOD reason behind that, and that reason should apply to the press too. I am *NOT* allowed to flash my camera through the windows of vans that are in motion, get photographs of people I haven't asked permission of, and publish those front-page nationwide with whatever kind of assertions I like without bothering to check facts just by adding "allegedly". I'd be in jail before I got past the first step.

And when it came to the UK super-injunctions (where the press were banned from identifying anything or anyone about a particular series of perfectly true events, or even the existence of such an injunction, because footballer X couldn't keep it in his pants) they did the media a disservice - they held the junctions where necessary and kept pointing to their jobs and saying "we need this to provide proper freedom of press", but didn't bother to breach them for months because they would be shouldering the risk and burden of those actions (and creating so much fuss that EVERYONE knows it was Ryan Giggs now, even if they didn't give a shit and wouldn't have cared if it hadn't been the subject of a super-injunction). When it comes to freedom of the press, they didn't care. But when it comes to freedom to obtain juicy gossip illegally, suddenly all the bets are off.

And when it comes to actual *news*, it does not mean you can tap into people's phones, even "accidentally", camp outside their house and harass them, take photos over the garden fence, obstruct their exit from buildings, chase them on public highways in cars through tunnels, or whatever else you "think" is necessary.

Why is it one rule for the press and another for anyone else? The rules should allow ME to do those same actions, otherwise the press becomes this special little clique that are allowed to break laws because they are in favour with the politicians of the moment. And if there's something that the press can't report, I shouldn't be able to report it either and vice versa - and the reasons for not being able to report that should be open enough that a government CAN'T just censor everything in the hopes of not having frauds and expense claims and everything else found out.

The press are worthless, as they currently stand, and are allowed to break laws that we aren't. As such, they grew complacent, and greedy, and believed themselves to be powerful. Now, however, it's got to the point where the public are recognising this and will (with any luck) fight for equality. If a N

Re:And in the meantime...

[jimicus]

But that's the thing... Don't you have the feeling this is just a manipulation from your politicians, aimed at distracting you (the public) from other, more important problems? Milly Downler who was murdered in 2002, and since then (almost) everybody has learned to protect his/her mailbox with a password. Why are we still talking about the Murdoch family? The real culprits are the public servants who let themselves corrupted too easily, and they are leading the show.

I don't believe her mailbox was hacked because of a default password.

The reason I don't believe this is as far as I'm aware (please correct me if I am wrong), UK mobile phone providers have never let you get your voicemail from anything other than the mobile phone the voicemail relates to unless a non-default password is set - but at the same time, if you ARE accessing it from the mobile phone (well, more accurately the SIM) it relates to, you don't get prompted for a password. I'm pretty sure this has been the case since before 2002.

Which leaves two alternatives:

1. They were bruteforcing the password. But many people never set up a password on their voicemail because you don't need to if you only ever collect your voicemail using the mobile phone it relates to; therefore for a lot of people this would never work. Even if I'm wrong, this is an extremely good way of drawing attention to yourself - something that the journalist(s) managed to avoid doing for many years.
2. They were either bribing or tricking phone company staff into enabling remote access to voicemails.

Re:FNC had more coverage than others from what I s

[baegucb]

Several reports would disagree with what you observed. For example: http://mediamatters.org/research/201107140013
There are others.

If the guy is that hated...

[rainer_d]

...why do people insist on buying the family's newspapers and watching their tv-channels?

Re:If the guy is that hated...

[Spad]

Because most people would struggle to name anything other than the most high-profile of News Corp-owned properties and therefore couldn't boycott it if they wanted to (you know, without doing a modicum of research and hey, people are busy).

Re:If the guy is that hated...

[twidarkling]

Probably because it's that or close to literally nothing. Which is the problem with media empires.

Re:If the guy is that hated...

[Canazza]

most people don't realise who owns the papers they read. They all assume each tabloid is a separate entity owned by different people.
In the UK Murdoch doesn't own the entirety of BSKYB, but does own much of it. As such, Sky News is slightly less biased than Fox. But only just.
We have Sky, BBC and ITN as our main TV news providers. The fact that you need Cable or Sky to view Sky News does tend to keep its viewership down, especially since most people will watch the old terrestrial channels out of habit that means BBC and ITN (ITV, Channel 4) although Channel 5 does get it's news from Sky, Channel 5 has rarely been taken seriously as a channel since it's inception.
Various radio stations get their news from these sources too. Most of the radio stations in the UK are BBC owned, thus get BBC News. Most of the independent commercial stations get their news from Sky. Most Local radio stations get their news from their parent company (Eg Bauer group, who own about 40 local and national stations) and normally report on local events, and scavenge a few national events from other news sources.
Radio news normally lasts about 5 minutes and consists of a bulletin run-down and is normally just an "OMG something happened, go watch TV to find out more!"

Re:If the guy is that hated...

[BasilBrush]

Most people don't buy his newspapers or watch his TV "news" channels.

Unfortunately the morons that do form a large enough minority to swing elections depending on which party they are encouraged to vote for. And that's the reason for Murdoch's one time power. Today that power is crumbling, at least in the UK.

Re:If the guy is that hated...

[SpooForBrains]

because they're too fucking stupid, or too apathetic.

People read the Sun because it's easy to read. Some soundbites, some tits, nothing remotely intellectually challenging. And since they've been reading the Sun for years, they don't really want to stop.

And people continue to pay money for Sky because they want America's Next Top Model, and they don't want to have to go to the effort of putting up a good enough aerial to receive freeview (yes, even though the ~£100 it would cost them to pay someone to do it for them will net them free TV for the foreseeable future) and they can't get Virgin Media. Or, even worse than that level of apathy, maybe they CAN get Virgin Media but they've had Sky so bloody long they've now developed a brand-allegience so strong that they won't even consider switching.

The best quote

[Tharsis]

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.”

WE Report, You Obey (News Corp)

[Pigskin-Referee]

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.

Re:WE Report, You Obey (News Corp)

[mykos]

I'm just glad to see Limbaugh and Hannity tying themselves to him as all their friends throw him overboard.

Do you actually follow the news at all

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Re:Do you actually follow the news at all

[DarkOx]

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 is to sell papers, ad time, and TV ad time; and to make piles of money doing it.

Re:Do you actually follow the news at all

[Carewolf]

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 the largest of the two losers.

Re:Do you actually follow the news at all

[dkleinsc]

The consevatives didn't win because they were so beloved but because England has no third party... one that matter anyway.

What about the Liberal Democrats? They've polled around 20% of the vote for a while, have 57 seats in Parliament, and were large enough that the Conservatives had to form a coalition with them in order to get a government. Now, I'm an ignorant American, but that seems like the Lib Dems matter - among other things, they have the option of withdrawing from the coalition and bringing a confidence vote against Cameron if they so choose.

Re:Do you actually follow the news at all

[sac13]

Blair was about as far away you can get from a socialist without wearing a bed sheet.

WTF is that supposed to mean? The opposite of a socialist is a Klan member?

I can see why our political system is so productive at solving our problems. The "left" thinks the right are fascists. The "right" thinks the left are Stalin-esque communists. That explains why it's so easy for everyone to come together and find common ground solutions that fix things once and for all.

Re:Do you actually follow the news at all

[Grumbleduke]

What about the Liberal Democrats? They've polled around 20% of the vote for a while, have 57 seats in Parliament,...

They may have got 23% of the vote (a record), but that only turned in to 57 seats out of 650 - or less than 9%. Also down 5 seats from the previous Parliament. In terms of number of votes in the Commons, the Lib Dems have no real say compared with the Conservatives (47% of seats) or Labour (40%). The only reason they have any power is because the Conservatives needed an extra 20 seats to get an absolute majority for forcing through budgets etc. - which allows them to get some concessions (such as a deputy PM and various cabinet ministers) that are vastly disproportionate to their voting power.

The ends result might be good (in terms of a balanced government) but I'm not convinced it's all that democratic.

Still just "piling on"?

[Fancia]

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.

Re:And in the meantime...

[robthebloke]

I think you are missing the small detail that the politicians were happy to brush the affair under the carpet. It is the politicians who are responding to public pressure, not leading the show as you seem to think.

I am extremely happy to see the back of the news of the world, and I really hope the murdochs get the book thrown at them. The opinions (not facts, but opinions!) splashed across the front pages of the notw (and the sun) have always made me hang my head in shame to be in this country. This isn't just about Milly Dowler, it's been going on much longer than that. The NOTW/Sun supported the invasion of Iraq. They supported the invasion of Afghanistan. They supported 'sending the immigrants back'. They whip up anger regading polish workers. They supported the 'NO' campaign (in the recent referendum on voting reform that would change the ridiculous inequality in the voting system). Supported the Poll tax. Supported increasing univerisity fees (by 200% per year). Claimed hillsborough was the result of hooligans. In short, if there was a political decision to be made, you could be sure that the Murdoch rags would be in favour of choosing the option that would hurt the working classes most..... If there was ever an opinion offered, it would be some homophobic or racist rant. These people do not represent the people of this country.

We can get rid of bad politicians every few years. The opportunity to get rid of murdoch comes along once in a lifetime....

Re:And in the meantime...

[DrXym]

Andy Coulson was David Cameron's communications director. It's perfectly understandable that if you're the PM you want someone who has worked in the industry to represent you to the press in the best light. At the same time when it turns out that that person was instrumental in one of the largest newspaper scandals in decades you can bet people wonder aloud what is going on behind the scenes.

All governments in recent times have courted the favours of the press but it's clear how that can lead to corruption. News International was / is big enough to break a government and has even claimed to have delivered power to governments before now. What sorts of things would a government do for such to keep them happy and onside? They virtually rubber stamped the BSkyB merger so I think it's fortuitous the scandal resurfaced when it did. Perhaps it will mark a watershed in the relationship of press & government and lead to some clear ethical and legal guidelines on how they may interact with each other. It might also herald legislation on how much influence one particular corporation should be entitled to exert in order to ensure a free and fair press since clearly the current arrangement is broken.

So?

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Re:So?

[Spad]

Every side has extremists (though not necessarily the blow shit up kind) and most of the time people try very hard to pretend that "their" extremists are well-intentioned and harmless, whilst the others sides' are all part of an devious conspiracy to bring down their way of life.

Reality, as always, tends to sit somewhere in the middle.

Re:So?

[ScentCone]

What will be more interesting to me will be watching all of the poeple who say that groups like the Taliban are understandable because they're just people who don't want their culture to be impacted by outside influences, blah blah blah. That they're only violent because outside cultures have made them angry, etc. Essentially, this clown in Norway is exactly the same. But I guarantee he'll be held to a different standard, which shows how the lefties who excuse away the crazy Jihaddies are actually the worst sort of condescending snots ("those" people can be forgiven for becoming massively violent towards their own people in the face of their own xenophobia ... because they're ... what? not white?). The hypocrisy will know no bounds.

Re:And in the meantime...

[robthebloke]

News International != News Corp.
One is the parent, one is the wayward child....

Re:And in the meantime...

[wjousts]

Sorry, how is that even remotely relevant? It wasn't NBC, GE's (former) media arm.

Re:Poor baby

[AvitarX]

bill gates is not new wealth?

Misdirected outrage

[DarkOx]

I am not saying Murdoch an his son did nothing wrong or that they are not criminals, or that they should not be punished. I do think the focus on them is wrong.

First the phone hacking. News organizations gather information its what they do. Celebrities and public figures know they are targets and should take additional security precautions, nobody should be surprised by this in 2011. As to the little girls phone, the real story there is bad police work. If the police though the voice mail being checked indicated the missing girl was still alive, that should have RAISED the priority of the case not lowered it. If you think the victim is already dead no more harm can come to them after all. Second that should have given them an avenue to peruse the case, GET THE PHONE records, even though that would have leas to News of the World.

Second the bribery allegations. Look taking a bribe is much more serious then offering one. When you offer a bribe you do so for personal gain, pure and simple. When you take a bribe not only do you do so for your own gain you also are doing something the violates your responsibility to office or party you serve. Its far less ethical to take bribes than to offer them. Again the story should be about corrupt police and politicians more than it is about News Corp.

Re:Misdirected outrage

[ceoyoyo]

Despite what was reported in the media, I suspect the voicemail getting checked suggested to the police that the girl was FREE, not alive. Murderous kidnappers tend not to let you check your voicemail. Runaway kids and estranged dad or crazy uncle (the majority of kidnappers) just might.

Re:Poor baby

[Just Some Guy]

He's the first billionaire in the family. As far as I know, his father was a paltry multi-millionaire.

Re:Poor baby

[stubob]

Anyone that is super-rich in the US today is part of a legacy that goes back hundreds of years.

Um, what?

Forbes's richest people in America:
1. Bill Gates
2. Warren Buffett
3. Larry Ellison
4. Christy Walton
5. Charles Koch
6. David Koch
7. Jim Walton
8. Alice Walton
9. Robert Walton
10. Michael Bloomberg

Shall I go on? No Rothschilds, Carnegies, Morgans, etc. on that list.

Who is James Rupert?

[hedleyroos]

That summary is confusing. Why do we have Firehose?

News Corp Busunderthrowindurung!

[Greyfox]

It was immediately clear that Murdoch (Either one) was going to throw the management of their papers under the bus in the hopes of escaping unscathed. As an unfortunate (for the Murdochs) side effect of this, the management of the papers will surely respond by attempting to throw THEM under the bus, or at least drag them with them. One delightful potential outcome of this would be if either (or both) Murdochs attempt to throw the other under the bus. We'll all be better off if all parties involved end up, you got it, under the bus.

That reminds me, I need to stock up on Jiffy Pop for this week's round of Daily Shows.

Re:News Corp Busunderthrowindurung!

[Ksevio]

This whole ordeal must be very traumatic for the local bus drivers.

Superbowel?

[phorm]

The reason the superbowel winning football team

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

Re:Superbowel?

[elashish14]

One might argue that they're still not #1

Re:FNC had more coverage than others from what I s

[Curunir_wolf]

Several reports would disagree with what you observed. For example: http://mediamatters.org/research/201107140013 There are others.

Media Matters. Yea, that's credible.

Re:Poor baby

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

1. Bill Gates

His parents were rich. Not as rich as he is now, but rich enough that his mother was on the board of directors for the Audobon society where she convinced a fellow board-member, the CEO of IBM, to give her son that first crucial contract that made history.

Re:And in the meantime...

[GameboyRMH]

I know of a VoIP admin in the UK a few years ago who had set up a "cell voicemail gateway" for employees that bypassed any password requirements, so it was possible to get into the voicemail with no password from any device, even if through shady channels.

1,5 million pounds paid

[turkeyfish]

A settlement of 1.5 million pounds and it was paid out without even questioning why? James Murdoch's excuse is hardly a convincing argumen, especially since its being refuted by his own lawyers. This guy is going down, possibly for perjury, possibly direct complicity in the hacking, or at the very least for an attempted cover up of the hacking. His problem isn't with UK parliament, but with the US justice department as what he is implicated in is a felony under US law, punishable by no less than 5 years in a federal prison.

If the FBI confirms that in addition to the violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act now clearly established should the confirmation of the hacking of 911 and climategate emails surface, News Corp will have a tough time trying to retain their broadcast license during an election year. Already, the News Corporation underlings, who have been chosen to take the full responsibility for the scandal, are beginning to crack, especially since many may face extradition to the US to face their own felony trials in 2012.

Re:1,5 million pounds paid

[LearnToSpell]

If the FBI confirms that in addition to the violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act now clearly established should the confirmation of the hacking of 911 and climategate emails surface, News Corp will have a tough time trying to retain their broadcast license during an election year.

LOL

All Major Hurricanes

[turkeyfish]

All major hurricanes start first as small storms the size of a teacup.

Bill Gates Parents

[Hugh Pickens writes]

Bill Gates' mother was on the National Board of Directors of the United Way.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/virginia/microsoft-founder-bill-gates-w.html

Bill Gates' father was a prominent Washington State attorney who retired in 1998 from the firm he co-founded and helped grow, then known as Preston Gates & Ellis. During his 48 years of practice, Gates was an active bar leader, having served as president of the Washington State Bar Association and the National Conference of Bar Presidents.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyers_lawyer_bill_gates_sr._to_receive_abas_highest_honor/

Re:When is Soros's turn?

[Curunir_wolf]

When we can get george soros hung up on something sticky like this then we will have something.

He's keeping his head down for now. Once Murdoch's organizations are handed over to more "responsible" management, he'll be able to do whatever he wants and there will be no MSM outlet to report it.

Re:See no evil

[rahvin112]

The only reason this shocks you is because you are ignorant of history. William Randolph Hearst controlled damn near every single major paper in the US. Later his empire included the early movie theaters and other forms of news disbursement (there was a movie created about him called Citizen Kane that never played in theaters because he owned them all). You didn't get stories published in the US without his say. It's because of Hearst that laws were passed prohibiting a single individual from controlling to much "media". All those rules were tossed out the window these last 20 years because people have simply forgotten the power Hearst held and the damage he did. Murdoch is the single biggest inheritor of the crown Hearst lost when the depression hit and the subsequent laws that were passed.

It astounds me that people don't realize the damage you can do to your country when you allow a single man to decide which stories get published.

Cancer

[turkeyfish]

Cancer alwasy starts by first affecting only one cell. This story is still in an exponential growth phase and the formal investigations have hardly started nor have the trials of the underlings, who are being left out to dry. It will take at least 6 months for the FBI investigation to heat up and their will likely be election year hearings in the US Senate.

In the grander scheme of things one would be best to sell News Corporation stock, if for no other reason than to buy it back somtime after the US 2012 elections, when you can be sure, it will be a lot lower than it is now. Legal bills alone are going to bleed shareholders significantly, especially when you consider the hourly rates of the folks they have already hired. Some of these guys get paid thousands of dollars an hour for their services and things have yet hardly started.

Don't make me laugh

[turkeyfish]

"as we all know, it's the only news network not controlled by communists "

Obviously, you haven't been paying close attention to the politics of Murdoch's efforts to operate in Hong Kong and what he gives away for the opportunity.

Re:Don't make me laugh

[colinrichardday]

Just as long as he doesn't hijack a GPS signal and use a stealth ship to start a war between Great Britain and the People's Republic of China!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120347/

Re:Poor baby

[Captain Hook]

1. Bill Gates

Parents a lawyer and director of a bank, grandfather was a nation bank president.

2. Warren Buffet

Father was a 3 times member of the House of Representatives, father was a founding partner in an Investment company (although whether it was a successful Investment company I have no idea)

3. Larry Ellison

I'll give you that one, seems to be an entirely self made man

4. Christy Walton

Part of the Walton Family dynasty, Sam Walton started Wal-Mart

5. Charles Koch

Inherited a Medium Sized Oil Company

6. David Koch

Part of the same family as #5

7. Jim Walton

Related to #4, youngest son

8. Alice Walton

Related to #4

9. Robert Walton

Couldn't find any specific information but I'm guess related to #4

10. Michael Bloomberg

Seems to be a largely self-made man.

While I understand you are trying to make the point that the current list of very rich people do not trace their wealth going back centuries as the GP suggests, 8 out of the top 10 do all seemed to have had a pretty good start in life who then either continued to live off the original legacy or used that privileged start as the base to build further wealth on.

Note, I'm not saying that building that wealth didn't take skill to put them into the positions they are in now, I do feel the GGP point that alot of the wealth created comes from luck and being in the right place at the right time (either though birth or being getting into the right business at the right time).

Re:And in the meantime...

[Nimey]

Nonetheless, I think if we had every bit of evidence possible, we'd find that News Corp's hands are dirtier than most.

You Leave Out the Possibility

[turkeyfish]

You leave out the possibility that they were getting into people's phones through information provided to them by the police, who were given "bonuses" for their "cooperation". There needs to be a fully independent investigation of the full extent of police involvement before this scandal can be cleared up. If it were only phone numbers, this would be one thing, but evidently a lot of other sensitive information that would be known to law enforcement, but that would otherwise not have been either legally or ethically proper for law enforcement to be divulging to News Corporation. It is this "pay for access" aspect of the scandal that is the most injurious to democracy itself, since it permits certain insiders to game and corrupt the system. Just how far down along this road things have gone needs to be clarified and those responsible put either to pasture or in jail. Judging from the multi-million pound size of various lawsuits News Corporation eagerly settled and companies they bought up to keep the lid on the scandal, it is still anybody's guess on who was being paid for what. No doubt there is still a lot concerning the discussions, we still don't know about given the large, but still uncertain number of backdoor visits by Mr. Murdoch and his team to 10 Dowing Street.

In any event, Mr. Clegg seems to have been handed a tremendously stronger hand going forward. An interesting side story is how effectively he will be able to use it.

Re:Get the hell off this planet

[turkeyfish]

"Any species that has gained intelligence should be striving to get off the rock they're on and off into space as fast as possible, all our eggs are in one basket right now. "

Don't forget to take your coat and a deck of playing cards. Its mighty cold out there in space and it will take more than a few lifetimes for you to get where you want to go, considering the other nearest star is about 2.3 light years away. Bon Voyage.

Dead Kid Stories Sell Newspapers

[billstewart]

Yes, there's lots of politics going on, and there's lots of money with BSkyB, but there's also a Dead Kid, and a sleazy newspaper doing sleazy things to sell papers with a Dead Kid story, and other newspapers selling stories about Murdoch's papers interfering with the murder investigation over a dead kid by hacking her voicemail. It's really beyond the pale, even for Murdoch.

> Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
Absolutely.

"James Rupert"?

[uigrad_2000]

The slashdot article refers to a "James Rupert"?

Did James Murdoch change his last name to be his father's first name, or is this a different James?

Slashdot editors are gettin' sloppy.

Re:Poor baby

[IICV]

Yeah, people seem to forget that if the whole Microsoft thing hadn't worked out, all Bill Gates would have had to fall back on is the million dollar trust fund his parents had set up in his name.

Re:FNC had more coverage than others from what I s

[orgelspieler]

The only thing I saw on Fox News about this story was "Wah! The liberal media are covering this story too much!" over and over and over again. Typical "we're the victim" crap that we always hear from these people. Hypocrites.

Re:FNC had more coverage than others from what I s

[Aqualung812]

That's likely from one of the "commentary" shows on there. I try to steer clear of those on all 3 of those stations, all are biased.

I'm referring to the bland talking head plain old news part, where some idiot reads from a teleprompter.

And again, this is off of a very small sample size.

Re:And in the meantime...

[MightyMartian]

I don't think so. The politicians are in to this arm-pits deep. Murdoch has alliances with every British Government from the later Thatcher years onward. Guys like Tony Blair and David Cameron were only too happy to get a helping hand from Murdoch. Cameron almost came to the point of losing his job, and only the fact that other events like the potential for a Eurozone meltdown and some mad bastard in Norway blowing away a bunch of kids have finally brought about the next news cycle.

The politicians definitely did not want this aired in the open, because it is they that come out of looking the worst. Cameron, in particular, was warned not to hire Andy Coulson, ignored that warning and look at the damage he's accrued now.

Re:See no evil

[jhoegl]

Its not that I dont know... its that I had faith in humanity not to dump on itself.
Surely there would be people who would not do this
Surely there would be people who would speak out
Surely there would be people that would rebel against such things
Surely our government would prevent such things, such as preventing the word "news organization" from being displayed on a non-news entity
Surely our society would prevent it.

I was not ignorant, I was blinded.

Sources?

[HornWumpus]

Do you really want to see hairyfeet in the goat.se position? That's his source.

Re:Get the hell off this planet

[ThatMegathronDude]

The laws of physics, especially thermodynamics, guarantees that at some time in the future, there will be no life. The Universe is winding down, and there is no hope to eternally preserve humanity, or even single-celled life.

What the dead whisleblower, Sean Hoare?

[mykos]

The phone hacking of a dead girl is bad, but isn't a possible murder with highly suspicious timing even worse?

Re:Get the hell off this planet

[riverat1]

True, but that's a mind boggling time in the future. Even the 4 or 5 billion years the Sun has left is pretty unimaginable to most people. We might as well hang around to the end. Who knows, we might find a way to get around the heat death of the universe but even if we don't we'll have fun trying for the next 10^100 years.

Re:Poor baby

[dryeo]

All he had was a million dollar trust fund and multi-millionaire parents when he started out in 1970 or so.

Bullcrap

[Paul1969]

You conveniently fail to mention that Fox News has broadcast a steady diet of distorted and often outright incorrect information.
Oh, and the common term for "incorrect information" as promulgated by Fox News is "lies."
Don't pretend it's just ideological differences, buddy boy. Fox News tells lies, over and over.