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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Ryanrule]

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

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: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.

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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.

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: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.

"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.....

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: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: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

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.

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: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.

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:News Corp Busunderthrowindurung!

[Ksevio]

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

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.

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).

Sources?

[HornWumpus]

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