Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

James Murdoch's Defense Crumbles

Posted by timothy on from the and-in-the-alternative-no-one-saw-me-do-it dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Brian Cathcart writes that whatever happens to News Corp., it will surely happen without James Murdoch, the clever, dashing heir apparent to his buccaneer father, Rupert, who has become a liability with little hope of survival. James Rupert told members of Parliament that when he approved a payment of about $1.1 million in 2008 to settle the first lawsuit brought by a phone-hacking victim, he was not shown an email that suggested phone hacking was more widespread at the News of the World, and not limited to one 'rogue' reporter. 'He is saying one thing—that in briefing him they gave an "incomplete picture" — and, remarkably, in a statement Thursday, they publicly denied that,' writes Cathcart. All the News Corp. executives used to tell the same story but one by one as the pressure has grown these people have been cast off or have drifted away and now as the little group has splintered and scattered, and they all need to save their own skins. 'It's not just James who is done,' writes David Carr in the NY Times. 'Rupert Murdoch, as we have long known him, is done as well.'"

34 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Unlikely by assemblerex · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Unlikely by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

    2. Re:Unlikely by robthebloke · · Score: 3

      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.....

    3. Re:Unlikely by vlm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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".

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:Unlikely by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    5. Re:Unlikely by Relyx · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

    6. Re:Unlikely by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    7. Re:Unlikely by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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).

    8. Re:Unlikely by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Unlikely by vlm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    10. Re:Unlikely by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "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!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:Unlikely by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:Unlikely by kyz · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Does my bum look big in this?
    13. Re:Unlikely by Missing.Matter · · Score: 5, Funny

      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!

    14. Re:Unlikely by julesh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re:Unlikely by jo_ham · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:Unlikely by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Informative

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

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

      While there were certainly a number of factors and influences in this decision (not least the hacking of the royal household phones), the likely precipitating event was the Vince Cable sting operation and resignation 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.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    17. Re:Unlikely by fscking_coward_2001 · · Score: 3

      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?

    18. Re:Unlikely by Ryanrule · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    19. Re:Unlikely by asdf7890 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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).

  2. Re:And in the meantime... by wjousts · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  3. Rupert didn't learn from Microsoft. by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Scum or average businessman? by loimprevisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Much Madness is divinest Sense --
    To a discerning Eye --
    Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
    1. Re:Scum or average businessman? by jhoegl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Scum or average businessman? by polle404 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --

      ~men are from earth. women are from earth. deal with it.~
    3. Re:Scum or average businessman? by Alarash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  5. Re:And in the meantime... by trout007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  6. Re:Poor baby by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. WE Report, You Obey (News Corp) by Pigskin-Referee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Pigskin-Referee
    Linux: Yesterday's technology, tomorrow ...
  8. Do you actually follow the news at all by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  9. Superbowel? by phorm · · Score: 3, Funny

    The reason the superbowel winning football team

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

  10. 1,5 million pounds paid by turkeyfish · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  11. Re:See no evil by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:Poor baby by Captain+Hook · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

    --
    These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.