Police Charge News of the World Editor Over Voicemail Hacking

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Police Charge News of the World Editor Over Voicemail Hacking

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @09:07AM from the figuring-out-where-the-line-is-drawn dept.

New submitter HarryatRock writes with news that former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks and five others have been charged by police for their involvement in intercepting voicemail messages left for a murdered girl. From the article: "She is charged with conspiring with her 49-year-old husband, personal assistant Cheryl Carter, chauffeur Paul Edwards, security man Daryl Jorsling, and News International head of security Mr Hanna to "conceal material" from police between 6 and 19 July. In a second charge Mrs Brooks and Ms Carter are accused of conspiring to remove seven boxes of material from the News International archive between 6 and 9 July. In a third charge, Mr and Mrs Brooks, Mr Hanna, Mr Edwards and Mr Jorsling are accused of conspiring to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from police officers between 15 and 19 July."

103 of 131 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Just another reason... by ToiletBomber · 2012-05-15 09:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

...to avoid anything related to Fox News like the plague
1. Re:Just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-15 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Ofcom are still working on the answer to that very question. It's becoming increasingly difficult for anyone to describe Mr. Murdoch as "fit and proper".
2. Re:Just another reason... by dgatwood · 2012-05-15 09:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Of course you're trolling, but what does Rupert Murdoch's gutter-level right-wing editorial service called Fox News have to do with a legitimate news operation?
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
3. Re:Just another reason... by zill · 2012-05-15 09:39 · Score: 2
  
  Same media empire, different speakerphones.
4. Re:Just another reason... by colfer · 2012-05-15 09:40 · Score: 2
  
  The WSJ is covering this pretty well, but Fox TV news is not, from what I've read and read about.
5. Re:Just another reason... by colfer · 2012-05-15 09:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  In the U.S., providing news is no longer required to maintain an FCC TV license, and neither is providing unbiased news. There is still a minimal educational requirement, but it's nothing compared to the 1970s, when outside business groups would try to capture station's FCC licenses by citing strict FCC public service requirements. Those were also the days of the Fairness Doctrine.
  Some low-rent broadcast stations claim to fulfill the current minimal Educational/Instructional standards by showing Edgemont, a teen drama imported from Canada! You can read about it here, the requirement is called E/I: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgemont_(TV_series) In fact, Fox Family used to use Edgemont for this!
  The station here that shows Edgemont (at noon, when its intended audience is not even home), fills much of the rest of its daytime schedule with infomercials, which would have been impossible under 1970s rules. An FCC license has gone from a license to print money to a license to shill trinkets.
6. Re:Just another reason... by MightyMartian · 2012-05-15 09:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Because there's growing concern that the phone hacking was not limited just to that newspaper, and was used by several N.I. operations, including some in the States, which puts Fox right in the headlights.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
7. Re:Just another reason... by BenJCarter · 2012-05-15 10:15 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I suppose Fox News does look pretty right wing when compared to NBC's (and the rest of the press') handling of George Zimmerman. Or the WaPo splashing an unverifiable Mitt Romney high school story on their front page, while refusing to press for President Obama's college records. Or CBS' fake George Bush National Guard memos. And so on and so on.
  
  Would it be better for the Country if only one political point of view was held accountable by the corporate media?
  
  There is a reason Fox News regularly kills the other news networks viewership numbers combined.
  
  --
  For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
8. Re:Just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-15 10:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because lots of morons watch FOX News?
9. Re:Just another reason... by RenderSeven · 2012-05-15 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Since when was TV News anything other than gutter-level TV?
  FTFY
10. Re:Just another reason... by sideslash · 2012-05-15 10:46 · Score: 2
  
  OK, I can certainly agree to be concerned about that, and hope that any criminal leads are followed up on. Haven't seen any actual evidence though, so OP's Fox-bashing remains unjustified (correct me if I'm wrong).
11. Re:Just another reason... by sideslash · 2012-05-15 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Of course you're trolling, but what does Rupert Murdoch's gutter-level right-wing editorial service called Fox News have to do with a legitimate news operation?
  Fox News is a large and diverse organization which pretty easily defies your shallow stereotyping. There are some editorial commentators who are pretty far out there (exactly like you find on other large cable networks), and some who are more grounded and evenhanded (exactly like you find on other large networks). The actual news side of the organization (non-editorial) is a lot more professional and objective than many people give them credit for. In fact, I think much of the flak they get is simply because many of them are willing to touch subjects that left-leaning journalists would prefer to (in effect) censor and avoid discussing. I think that the diversity Fox News brings to news in the USA is a net positive effect, despite the misdeeds they are occasionally guilty of (again, just like other major networks; nobody is perfect).
12. Re:Just another reason... by nomadic · 2012-05-15 11:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  "I suppose Fox News does look pretty right wing when compared to NBC's (and the rest of the press') handling of George Zimmerman. Or the WaPo splashing an unverifiable Mitt Romney high school story on their front page, while refusing to press for President Obama's college records. Or CBS' fake George Bush National Guard memos. And so on and so on."
  
  Fox is demonstrably more biased than any of those other other stations. Only a liar would say otherwise.
13. Re:Just another reason... by sideslash · 2012-05-15 11:13 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Is there any evidence that Fox News has participated in the phone hacking? If none, then isn't the OP simply a dishonest smear ("just another reason to avoid anything related to Fox News like the plague")? It is unfortunate to see Slashdot moderators basing their mod points on their political views alone. Apparently I missed the announcement that it was time for "2 minutes hate"?
14. Re:Just another reason... by Finallyjoined!!! · 2012-05-15 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm, it's an Australian gutter press organisation reporting "news" to the lardarses of America; LAOA as they shall henceforth be named, and generally of the made up or Daily Wail variety of phobic nature, and you're defending them.
  
  I think that the diversity Fox News brings to news in the USA is a net positive effect, despite the misdeeds they are occasionally guilty of (again, just like other major networks; nobody is perfect).
  
  Seriously?
  
  --
  If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
15. Re:Just another reason... by clarkkent09 · 2012-05-15 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think so. MSNBC is just as biased as Fox and CNN is pretty close, at least when it comes to web sites. I don't watch any of those actual channels so it might be different there.
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
16. Re:Just another reason... by sideslash · 2012-05-15 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Since some people may have thought I was trolling*, let me explain what I meant:
  1. The OP said "Just another reason to avoid anything related to Fox News like the plague". However, I haven't read any actual evidence that Fox News personnel were involved in the phone hacking. So the OP's statement was at minimum a non sequitur, and appears to furthermore be merely a specimen of irrelevant Fox News bashing. It's fair to say that he/she was trolling.
  2. When I said "the legitimate news operation at Fox News", I excluded the editorial segments of the organization such as Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, (formerly) Glenn Beck, etc. Most of the complaints I've heard about Fox News simply don't apply to the formal news operation. And all the legitimate criticisms I've heard about the formal news operation are also true of other large networks like CNN, CBS, ABC, etc. Nobody's perfect.
  3. I was legitimately calling out an unsubstantiated and irrelevant attack on Fox News by the OP, and I've noticed that nobody has provided any substantiation yet. It is just assumed by the (teenaged?) moderators of this thread that Fox News is just evil by definition, and whatever bad thing you say about them is automatically true. Anybody who even questions that (like myself) is presumed to be trolling. This is a pretty silly attitude to take.
  * But more likely, some people simply moderated my post based on perceiving me to hold a different political view from them. Classy!
17. Re:Just another reason... by sideslash · 2012-05-15 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Instead of just saying "seriously", why don't you provide a counterexample? In this context, that would be an example of a Fox News misdeed of which other networks are never guilty. Note that we're excluding the Fox commentary and editorial people, and just talking about the formal news reporting.
  Go for it. (Or am I calling your bluff?)
18. Re:Just another reason... by clarkkent09 · 2012-05-15 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously?
  
  I think so. The rest of the media, CNN, NBC, ABC, Washington Post, NYT, are so far up the ass of the Democratic party that they might as well be called it's propaganda wing. It is a positive thing that there is a different view aired on at least one news TV channel (in addition to WSJ and radio of course).
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
19. Re:Just another reason... by Finallyjoined!!! · 2012-05-15 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  You take this Fox crap hook, line & sinker then? This is the sort of news you trust & rely on?
  
  Seriously?
  
  --
  If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
20. Re:Just another reason... by sideslash · 2012-05-15 12:03 · Score: 2
  
  Your assumptions serve you poorly. I actually don't regularly listen to or watch Fox News, or any of the other large news networks.
  But you didn't answer the question. Why don't you give an example? Are you unable to?
21. Re:Just another reason... by nomadic · 2012-05-15 12:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The head of Fox's news division (who for decades was a political operative for the Republican Party) assigned the first cousin of the Republican candidate to call the winner for each state during the 2000 election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Prescott_Ellis
  
  A Fox News producer was caught on tape trying to whip up the crowd for Glenn Beck's "9/12" demonstration. Fox then ran full-page advertisements in the newspaper asking why the other cable news networks weren't covering such an important event (using, for some bizarre reason, a video still from CNN, which was covering the event). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzWC0GX38Mk
  
  In 1996 Fox anchor Tony Snow endorsed Bob Dole for President. In 2000 Snow then went to purportedly cover the 2000 Republican convention as a journalist, then gave a speech to a Republican youth group when asked. Snow later went to the White House to become Bush's press secretary. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067
  
  You do not see comparable levels of bias with MSNBC. You just don't.
22. Re:Just another reason... by Tarsir · 2012-05-15 13:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There is a reason Fox News regularly kills the other news networks viewership numbers combined.
  This is because Fox News regularly throws journalistic integrity to the wind in pursuit of ratings.
23. Re:Just another reason... by slowLearner · 2012-05-15 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  This is the reason why FOX news should not be trusted, http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/
  specifically
  
  During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.
  (my emphasis) So really should you trust ANY news from this media empire?
  other info on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wilson_(reporter)
24. Re:Just another reason... by BenJCarter · 2012-05-15 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  Fox is demonstrably more biased than any of those other other stations. Only a liar would say otherwise.
  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I love the Interwebs! But you said demonstrably more biased, then accused anyone not sharing your opinion of lying. By all means, please demonstrate how Fox is more biased than say, MSNBC. You might even convince me. I would be more receptive to your arguments, however, if you hadn't described voicing an alternate opinion as lying. Opinions can be wrong, but they can't be lies.
  
  --
  For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
25. Re:Just another reason... by nbauman · 2012-05-15 14:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This is not a debate where there is some merit to both sides. News Corp. is right-wing propaganda. They're not just a right-wing version of NBC, CBS and the Washington Post.
  The only people who defend News Corp. are right-wing wackos who don't know the difference between truth and propaganda.
  They're not like other American news organizations. Murdoch orders his editors to distort the news to advance his political goals.
  Fox News made "Fair and balanced" a cynical joke. It's like cigarette companies advertising that their cigarettes are healthy and doctors recommend them.
  The worst thing Murdoch did is destroy the Wall Street Journal, which used to be the best newspaper in the world, respected by left and right:
  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html
  Under Murdoch, Tilting Rightward at The Journal
  By DAVID CARR
  December 13, 2009
  A little over a year ago, Robert Thomson, The Journal’s top editor, picked Gerard Baker, a columnist for The Times of London, as his deputy managing editor. Mr. Baker is a former Washington bureau chief of The Financial Times with a great deal of expertise in the Beltway. The two men came of age in the more partisan milieu of British journalism.
  According to several former members of the Washington bureau and two current ones, the two men have had a big impact on the paper’s Washington coverage, adopting a more conservative tone, and editing and headlining articles to reflect a chronic skepticism of the current administration. And given that the paper’s circulation continues to grow, albeit helped along by some discounts, there’s nothing to suggest that The Journal’s readers don’t approve.
  Mr. Baker, a neoconservative columnist of acute political views, has been especially active in managing coverage in Washington, creating significant grumbling, if not resistance, from the staff there. Reporters say the coverage of the Obama administration is reflexively critical, the health care debate is generally framed in terms of costs rather than benefits — “health care reform” is a generally forbidden phrase — and global warming skeptics have gotten a steady ride. (Of course, objectivity is in the eyes of the reader.)
  The pro-business, antigovernment shift in the news pages has broken into plain view in the last year. On Aug. 12, a fairly straight down the middle front page article on President Obama’s management style ended up with the provocative headline, “A President as Micromanager: How Much Detail Is Enough?” The original article included a contrast between President Jimmy Carter’s tendency to go deep in the weeds of every issue with President George W. Bush’s predilection for minimal involvement, according to someone who saw the draft. By the time the article ran, it included only the swipe at Mr. Carter.
  On Aug. 27, a fairly straightforward obituary about Ted Kennedy for the Web site was subjected to a little political re-education on the way to the front page. A new paragraph was added quoting Rush Limbaugh deriding what he called all of the “slobbering media coverage,” and he also accused the recently deceased senator of being the kind of politician who “uses the government to take money from people who work and gives it to people who don’t work.”
  On Oct. 31, an article on the front of the B section about estate taxes at the state level used the phrase “death tax” six times, but there were no quotation marks around it. A month later, the newspaper’s Style & Substance blog suggested that the adoption of such a loaded political term was probably not a good idea: “Because opponents of estate taxes have long referred to them as death taxes, the term should be avoided in news stories.”
26. Re:Just another reason... by datavirtue · 2012-05-15 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  Since when it is a crime to conceal information from police?
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
27. Re:Just another reason... by nbauman · 2012-05-15 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  I don't watch Fox News enough to critique it, but (if you want facts) Murdoch clearly turned the Wall Street Journal from a respected, objective news source into a propaganda vehicle:
  http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/edward_m_kennedy/index.html?inline=nyt-per
28. Re:Just another reason... by nbauman · 2012-05-15 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  Barbara Stanwyck: “We’re both rotten!”
  Fred MacMurray: “Yeah — only you’re a little more rotten.”
  — “Double Indemnity” (1944)
  http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult
29. Re:Just another reason... by BenJCarter · 2012-05-15 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't prove Fox News is MORE biased, only that they are. How do you quantify which is more biased? Obviously your opinion carries more weight for you, and mine for me.
  
  I'll see your John Prescott Ellis, Heidi Noonan, and Tony Snow, with Al Sharpton, and Kieth Olberman and Chris Matthews and raise you Dave Weigel of Journolist fame, Susan Roegen, and George Stephanopoulos.
  
  To me the issue isn't whether bias exists. It does. To me the issue is whether the United States is a better place if both political points of view and parties are held accountable by the corporate media. My answer is yes, it is. But I don't drink any particular Party's cool-aid, YMMV.
  
  --
  For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
30. Re:Just another reason... by BenJCarter · 2012-05-15 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure what Ted Kennedy has to do with the Wall Street Journal being accused of propaganda by the New York Times? (pot>kettle=You're all black)
  
  Many /. mods seem to censor dissenting opinions to the "Fox News is Evil meme", in the name of tolerance and open mindedness I'm sure, so I'm going to stop wasting my time here on this topic.
  
  Don't forget to vote!
  
  --
  For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
31. Re:Just another reason... by Grygus · 2012-05-15 17:35 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Arguing about bias is a distraction. The real problem with FOX isn't actually bias; it is lying.
32. Re:Just another reason... by nbauman · 2012-05-15 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  pot>kettle=You're all black
  A common fallacy.
  Barbara Stanwyck: "We're both rotten!"
  Fred MacMurray: "Yeah - only you're a little more rotten."
  http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult
  The important thing about that story is that the WSJ has a documented history of objectivity and impartiality in its news pages. That's why everybody in power used to read them.
  Murdoch and his editors changed several stories to favor the conservative side. That kind of favoritism is unprecedented in the WSJ.
  The Republicans are different. They're tearing the country apart. News Corp. played a big destructive role.
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html
33. Re:Just another reason... by rtb61 · 2012-05-15 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  Gees wake up. Fox not-News is basically a cable news network, it will dominate where it's cable dominates, like duh. How do it's numbers compare when it competes, how well does cable news compete with free to air news and more importantly how well does Fox not-News compete on the Internet (I hear it get's it arse kicked all over the place hugely, it pretty much does the worst on the internet). So Fox not-News has the dying of old age luddites, yep, they'll get far with that audience, oh my.
  First comes this charge, then hopefully the break the surface of the conspiracy and get into the extortion and blackmail, the real reason why Fox not-News was doing all that hacking, a truly Machiavellian scheme to control global politics.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
34. Re:Just another reason... by xelah · 2012-05-15 23:17 · Score: 2
  
  She's not accused of concealing information in the sense of refusing to answer questions or not spontaneously telling police everything which is going on....AIUI she's accused of removing files belonging to her employer from her employer's archive when she knew those were likely to be relevant to a police investigation. So it's more like tampering with evidence than refusing to tell the police something.
  TFS is wrong, by the way. She hasn't been charged with being involved in intercepting voicemails, only with disrupting the investigation.
35. Re:Just another reason... by RaceProUK · 2012-05-16 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  You do not see comparable levels of bias with MSNBC. You just don't.
  MS owns MSNBC. How can that not be biased? Hint: how much Linux coverage do you read on MSNBC as compared to the BBC, which recently had a feature on the latest Ubuntu release.
  Wow, that's one hell of a crowbar you have there. Where do I get one?
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
36. Re:Just another reason... by tolkienfan · 2012-05-16 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  Bias is not the issue. Fox News is one big very powerful propaganda machine.
  News is incidental at most.
37. Re:Just another reason... by tbannist · 2012-05-16 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  Bear with me for a second here. What if the rest of the media appears to be on the Democratic party's side because the Republican party is actually insane? What if Fox News is a major factor in the the Republican descent into madness? Think for a moment about who the biggest names in the Republican party are, don't they sound like Beck, Hannity, O'Reiley and Palin? What do these people have in common? They all work for Rupert Murdoch and they're seem to be the ones pushing the Republican agenda. They're become the public face of the party, more so than even the politicians. Romney's their bitch and he'll do what they tell people he should do on their TV and radio shows. Frankly I have a hard time naming any influential Republicans who aren't closely tied to Fox News, Rupert Murdoch or News International.
  A final thought: If Rupert Murdoch and News International controls the Republican party through their on air personalities, how could any other news organisation be anything but against them in comparison?
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
38. Re:Just another reason... by tbannist · 2012-05-16 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Do you ever feel like your fighting a loosing cause like you're saying "other than all the hookers, hitmen, and bookies who testified against him, do you have any real evidence that my client isn't really a legitimate businessman". The majority of the content of "Fox News" isn't news, it's commentary. And even the news is subject to political manipulation, for example the infamous "no positive mentions of Global Warming allowed" memo. Then there's instances of Fox's "News" people using the commentators as unnamed sources for stories add a blatant and often obvious biasing of news coverage and stories with the laughable slogan "Fair and Balanced" and you look like you're defending a complete scum bag on technicalities. You could be technically correct, but I doubt anyone cares since you're essentially wrong.
  Fox News is only a small part of the Murdoch hydra. By itself it wouldn't be terrible, but when you have the other heads all pretending to be independent but spouting the same lies, you have a right-wing propaganda machine that is helping to ruin America, the U.K, Australia and Canada. Rupert Murdoch should be a shining example to communists, dictators and terrorists all over the world, because he is so much more effective at destroying Liberal Democracies than they are.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
39. Re:Just another reason... by sideslash · 2012-05-16 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Do you ever feel like your fighting a loosing [sic] cause
  No, not really. And despite the number of highly emotional words you posted, there was only one rational idea you gave me to respond to, so...
  
  for example the infamous "no positive mentions of Global Warming allowed" memo
  How exactly is that different from other large networks stringently blacking out any official posture of credence toward climate disaster skepticism?
40. Re:Just another reason... by JustSomeProgrammer · 2012-05-16 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  WSJ has favored the republicans for a long time. I was forced to use only articles from the wall street journal for a paper I had to do to compare contrast the candidates in the 1996 election of Bob Dole vs Clinton. Dole got TONS of coverage in the journal and Clinton next to nothing. Even though Dole's basic stance on any question was something along the lines of "I'm not Clinton." I remember one particular article late in the election when the WSJ had pretty much given up where Bob Dole was asked by a student about his stance on some issue and his reply was something like: That's a great question. Let's talk about why Clinton would do a bad job working on it. Basically dodging the entire question. But Clinton didn't have any articles in that paper at all that week.
  
  Unless you're trying to say this subversion which you're making sound recent is more than 2 decades old some 11 years before Murdoch took it over. On financial things and world news they usually tried to stay impartial. On political news... forget it they were always biased to republicans.
41. Re:Just another reason... by tbannist · 2012-05-16 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, not really. And despite the number of highly emotional words you posted, there was only one rational idea you gave me to respond to, so...
  I'm just pointing out that you can argue that technically the news section of Fox News isn't really that biased, but that's not what most people see when they watch "Fox News". There's only about 8 hours of news programming on what it allegedly a 24 hour news channel, and if I remember correctly none of them are among the most watched hours of the channel.
  
  How exactly is that different from other large networks stringently blacking out any official posture of credence toward climate disaster skepticism?
  Well, firstly because that actually happened and secondly "climate disaster scepticism" isn't a real thing. Would you care to try to invent something more plausible to pretend that both sides are equally bad?
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
42. Re:Just another reason... by nomadic · 2012-05-16 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'll see your John Prescott Ellis, Heidi Noonan, and Tony Snow, with Al Sharpton [wikipedia.org], and Kieth Olberman and Chris Matthews [thedailybeast.com] and raise you Dave Weigel [huffingtonpost.com] of Journolist [politico.com] fame, Susan Roegen [youtube.com], and George Stephanopoulos [wikipedia.org].
  
  No wait you are missing the point completely. I am NOT criticizing Fox News for hiring almost exclusively far-right pundits. Biased POLITICAL COMMENTARY is not the problem. I very carefully selected problems with Fox's NEWS GATHERING arm.
43. Re:Just another reason... by nbauman · 2012-05-16 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's interesting. You could be right. Next time I'm in the library, I'll do a search for the 1996 election and see how they covered it. I assume you're referring to the news coverage, not the editorial page.
  The reason I read the WSJ for so long is that on the issues I followed, they seemed to do a good job, compared to the other papers. In the 1970s, I used to work for an engineering organization that published auto safety studies. There was a big debate about whether to pass laws that would require auto manufacturers to install seat belts. It was a good test of science policy: there were 50,000 automobile deaths a year, and the evidence was clear from engineering studies that seat belts would have prevented about half those deaths. The automobile industry was also one of the largest newspaper advertisers, and that influenced the coverage in a lot of newspapers, including the New York Times. The WSJ had very good coverage, even though that meant they were often trashing their own advertisers. I had a file of articles from different newspapers, including the WSJ, and the pattern was clear to me. I also did a database search, and the same thing came up.
  I've seen that pattern in a lot of other stories. They covered welfare reform right down the middle, and had stories that showed a lot of the conservative policies, like mandatory work requirements, weren't working. They had a lot of stories about people who got life-threatening illnesses and didn't have health insurance, and reported how the hospitals basically left them to die. In their coverage of Israel and the middle east, they reported quite critically on Israeli abuses while still getting praise for their fairness by Arabs and Jews. They had at least one story exposing an airline that the CIA used as a cover. It was textbook journalism, getting both sides.
  The reason people read the WSJ was that they could find things in there that other newspapers wouldn't print, for fear of offending advertisers, or because of politics. You just didn't see things like this http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html before Murdoch. I may be missing something, but that's what I saw in my daily reading of the WSJ. It clearly ended with Murdoch. They still have good stories, but I can no longer trust them to tell me everything they know.
  If I were teaching a journalism course, I'd assign my students to look up the WSJ coverage on a particular topic in the archives, and see whether they covered it fairly and objectively. My reading was that the news stories were pretty good. If somebody came to a different conclusion, and documented it, I'd like to see it. I'll go with the facts.
44. Re:Just another reason... by BenJCarter · 2012-05-16 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  You complained about Fox News campaign coverage by John Prescott Ellis. I cited Kieth Olberman and Chris Matthew's Election coverage. So?
  
  The Corporate media has numerous outlets sympathetic to the left, and really only sympathetic to the right.
  
  Here's the question I keep asking, only to receive down mods and straw men about who is more biased offered in return: Is the country healthier of only one side of the argument is heard in the corporate media?
  
  --
  For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
45. Re:Just another reason... by JustSomeProgrammer · 2012-05-16 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  I completely agree that they did a very good job of impartially covering a lot of stories. And have always considered them a very respected paper. I'm sad to hear that post Murdoch the bias has entered parts that previously were unbiased. Unbiased journalism is very hard to obtain.
46. Re:Just another reason... by nbauman · 2012-05-16 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Look up the following 2-part article if you get a chance:
  Boring From Within the Bourgeois Press, Part 1, A. Kent MacDougall
  Monthly Review Volume 40, Number 7 (December 1988)
  Boring From Within the Bourgeois Press, Part 2, A. Kent MacDougall
  Monthly Review Volume 40, Number 6 (November 1988)
  MacDougal said that he was a socialist, he had no trouble writing for the WSJ if he followed the rules of writing an objective story with every statement backed up by facts, and he never heard of advertiser or political pressure to influence a story.
Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. by sethstorm · 2012-05-15 09:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

"She is charged with conspiring with her 49-year-old husband, personal assistant Cheryl Carter, chauffeur Paul Edwards, security man Daryl Jorsling, and News International head of security Mr Hanna to "conceal material" from police between 6 and 19 July. In a second charge Mrs Brooks and Ms Carter are accused of conspiring to remove seven boxes of material from the News International archive between 6 and 9 July. In a third charge, Mr and Mrs Brooks, Mr Hanna, Mr Edwards and Mr Jorsling are accused of conspiring to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from police officers between 15 and 19 July."
For all the people that are being charged, the Murdochs seem quite absent, but anyone without their surname seems to be fair game.
Hopefully someone turns on the Murdochs instead of taking the sword for the family.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
1. Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. by sl4shd0rk · 2012-05-15 09:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Hopefully someone turns on the Murdochs instead of taking the sword for the family.
  Never happen. When you're the 1%, the 99% take the sword.
  
  --
  Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
2. Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-15 09:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  When you're the 1%, the 99% take the sword.
  And in this case, when you're in the .01%, 99% of the 1% are fair game too.
3. Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. by Spad · 2012-05-15 09:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Remember that the Murdochs are several degrees removed from all of these charges. Now they may be evil masterminds and they may eventually be charged with one or more crimes, but for the moment the police are having to work their way up through the ranks.
  I suspect that for anything substantial to stick it's going to take more than one or two NOTW employees pointing at the Murdochs and saying "they made me do it".
4. Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. by Baloroth · 2012-05-15 09:36 · Score: 2
  
  I very much doubt the Murdoch's actually committed any of these crimes themselves. They may or may not have ordered people to do it, although I find that unlikely. Much more likely, they simply ordered people to find the information "any way they can" (or other euphemism). You don't generally get to be as rich and powerful as the Murdoch's by being able to be easily associated with criminal activity, after all.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
5. Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. by Vanders · 2012-05-15 09:40 · Score: 2
  
  There's still the emails that James Murdoch hilariously claims to have never seen, despite him having been an executive director and a group lawyer having CC'd him. Obviously reading an email from your lawyer is something an executive director would just never do.
  
  Rupert Murdoch on the other hand is apparently slipping into senility and is therefore exhibiting periods of forgetfulness and general confusion, the poor man.
  
  --
  Syllable : It's an Operating System
6. Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. by MightyMartian · 2012-05-15 09:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  James Murdoch is most certainly not far removed, and I think it's pretty likely he will be charged soon enough.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
7. Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. by MightyMartian · 2012-05-15 10:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  James Murdoch was most definitely informed of what was happening, and though suddenly he's started suffering selective amnesia, clearly authorized payouts to keep the hacking scandal suppressed. In Britain, as in most civilized places, when confronted with evidence of a crime, you are not allowed to just buy off victims and not pick up the phone and let the authorities know.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
8. Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. by Finallyjoined!!! · 2012-05-15 11:30 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  James Murdoch is a clueless fuckwit, did you not watch him @ Levenson, he is a prime example of MBA crass, pathetic "appearance over substance" uselessness. He struggled to put a coherent sentence together, claimed anything contentious wasn't "front of mind" (WTF? walking or breathing isn't front of mind but you still manage do it) better stop there.
  
  Unfortunately most large corporations are led by twats like this, does MS, HP or Nokia not spring to mind?
  
  --
  If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
9. Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. by nbauman · 2012-05-15 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  He is a manager, and he involves himself deeply in his properties (like the Wall Street Journal). He's responsible for knowing what's going on. I expect him (and his editors) to be saying, "We're really getting these great scoops. I wonder how we're doing it?"
  How can a newspaper editor not know that her reporters are illegally hacking phones?
  Editors (and their lawyers) have to know where the information is coming from, for many reasons. They can get sued for libel. Their reporters could be making it up.
10. Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. by TheMathemagician · 2012-05-15 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  As much you seem to hate Murdoch do you really think he was dumping laptops in bins, or smuggling out boxes of documents at night to be destroyed, or hacking into the voicemail of a murdered teen? Murdoch is just a businessman who likes owning newspapers. He's not personally responsible for crimes his lackeys commit thousands of miles away.
11. Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. by blackest_k · 2012-05-15 21:47 · Score: 2
  
  Rebekah Brooks is an interesting case, Only recently she was testifying to the leveson inquiry and some of what she had to say was personally damaging to the prime minister David Cameron and i'm not referring to Camerons use of lol (lots of love he thought it meant) which a lot of reporting seems to be focused on. Rather that the current government seems to have asked certain people at news international how to play the phone hacking scandal.
  Although i'm struggling to find the exact quote now, there should be some recent news stories referring to it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18043885 might be one place to start digging if you really want to know.
  Is the fact she is arrested now purely a police matter or a reflection of the anger of the current British Government after some of its dirty laundry was aired in public? Even the Police seems to have had some less than honourable involvement. One things for certain she has made powerful enemies.
  The biggest problem for the British people and I doubt it is limited to British politics is there is no good guys as Tony Blair was as cozy with News Internatonal as David Cameron is/was. Maybe Gordon Brown wasn't as bad as the other two after all but maybe that is only because he was beat up in the press instead of supported... The Newspapers and TV news can present stories give prominence to some and bury others. They shape public opinion and News International seems to have a solid record on only supporting winners. Do they make the winners, the cynic in me says they do.
  I just can't see a way forward since the very people who have the power to remove the corruption are part of the corruption. Your vote is pretty meaningless in a first past the post system when there is no realistic alternative to vote for.
  
  --
  Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
12. Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. by tbannist · 2012-05-16 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  He's about as responsible as an actual Mafiaa boss. From what I've heard he made sure to never directly order anything illegal, he'd give general directions but if you didn't do exactly what he wanted you to do without complaint, you'd end up out on your ass faster than you could say "You want me to do what?".
  He's quite responsible for building what appears to be a media empire founded on breaking the law whenever it was convenient. I don't expect Rupert will ever face charges, he'll be allowed to escape because of the ambiguity of his orders and in deference to his age and alleged infirmity.
  
  --
  Fanatically anti-fanatical
I'm Shocked by neokushan · 2012-05-15 09:14 · Score: 2

This almost seems like justice is being served. What's the catch?

--
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
1. Re:I'm Shocked by Hatta · 2012-05-15 09:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No indictment for any Murdoch.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
2. Re:I'm Shocked by CanHasDIY · 2012-05-15 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  This almost seems like justice is being served. What's the catch?
  The Murdoch family gets away with it, scott-free.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
3. Re:I'm Shocked by AmiMoJo · 2012-05-15 09:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The Murdochs knew what was going on so made sure they were well protected. It will be hard to meet the burden of proof and get them convicted.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:I'm Shocked by Threni · 2012-05-15 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  She's rich and white and stuff - good laywers, and she's pregnant. Also, she probably has stuff on everyone. She's not going to prison.
5. Re:I'm Shocked by Spad · 2012-05-15 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  There isn't really one.
  Now matter how much certain people in and around the government might want to try and protect the Murdochs and their business interests, it's basically impossible for them to do so at the moment without committing political suicide; even the slightest suspicion of support is probably enough to stop you getting re-elected.
6. Re:I'm Shocked by mrbester · 2012-05-15 11:04 · Score: 2
  
  There was a rumour that she knew she'd eventually face charges so she got pregnant in order to help her case, as rich pregnant women with connections to the Prime Minister don't go to jail. She claimed her body clock was "ticking" and such scurrilous accusations denigrated the fine reputation of the UK press.
  Lest it be forgot, she was editor of the News of the World, a paper that even fish balked at being wrapped in.
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
7. Re:I'm Shocked by Blue+Stone · 2012-05-15 11:21 · Score: 2
  
  See my signature.
  
  --
  Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
8. Re:I'm Shocked by Finallyjoined!!! · 2012-05-15 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  Wanna bet?
  Over here in jolly old Britland; company directors are jointly & severally responsible under law.
  
  --
  If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Re:Insert by JoshuaZ · 2012-05-15 09:15 · Score: 1

That a statement or type of statement is predictable or obvious doesn't make it less valid.
Re:Insert by SomePgmr · 2012-05-15 09:17 · Score: 2

But he made up for it in thoroughness.
Silly working class girl by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-15 09:19 · Score: 1

if she were an upper class twit like Piers Paul Hugh Montefiore O'Brien Morgan she could be working with the excellent CNN.
Mainstream media by barv · 2012-05-15 09:37 · Score: 1

Print media is shrinking fast as newspaper readers instead search the www and advertising moves to Google.
Are we witnessing a suicidal counterattack by non Murdoch media in an attempt to divert attention away from their own transgressions.
I get the feeling that Rebecca's real crime was to promote the David Cameron brand.
1. Re:Mainstream media by colfer · 2012-05-15 10:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The Guardian took the lead, quite alone, and has nothing like the "transgressions" of the tabloid press to answer. Obviously this is not where you're going with your comment, but what is more interesting to me is the difference in press freedom between the US and the UK. The Leveson hearings I could not imagine happening in the US Congress. A whole line of questions to Brooks were about the political influence of newspapers. The transgressions of the print media in the UK are worse than in the US, but so is the threat of regulation. I'm sure the Guardian and it supporters are indeed worried about suicidal danger. The Independent does not sound to happy about all this, from what little I have read. But the Murdoch press in the UK is a lot more powerful and vindictive than Fox/WSJ in the US. They really did meet and threaten top party leaders.
"Charge ... Over Voicemail Hacking" by DeathToBill · 2012-05-15 09:46 · Score: 4, Informative

"Involvement in intercepting voicemail messages."
Accuracy has never been very important to /., has it?
They were charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by withholding evidence from police. There is no charge that they were involved in voicemail hacking (though of course there are plenty of allegations that they were).

--
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
Re:Insert by Sparticus789 · 2012-05-15 09:56 · Score: 1

As a matter of fact, it does. The same people who bash Fox News and Rupert Murdoch are the ones swooning over [insert random liberal nutbag here], with little pictures of them surrounded by a heart. There's no difference between the two, except for their political beliefs. It's not about phone hacking, or "distorting" the truth, its about which political party you like more. That's why raging Liberals watch MSNBC, because Jeffrey Immelt is a raging liberal. Conservatives watch Fox News, because Murdoch is a conservative. CNN, I have no idea what they believe, but Ted Turner is just weird.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
UK media cannot report it all by colfer · 2012-05-15 10:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Non-UK sources provide additional details not allowed in the UK media, due to pre-trial laws. The Guardian broke this story, but now scrupulously points out it is limited in what it can report. Comparing to the NYT, the omitted facts seem to be the strange episode of the discarded briefcase in the parking garage. Brooks's husband was caught red-handed when he tried to reclaim it after someone found it in a dumpster.
Anyone know what else the UK press must omit?
It's the coverup by residents_parking · 2012-05-15 10:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is the attempted coverup they are being charged for, not the crime of phone hacking. That's what "perverting the course of justice" means here in the UK. It's a common law offence that usually carries a prison sentence, which can be up to life.
1. Re:It's the coverup by kiite · 2012-05-15 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  It is the attempted coverup they are being charged for, not the crime of phone hacking.
  Right, because all they did, AFAIK, is spoof caller-ID information to gain access to the voicemail without a password, and IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL at the time. So the police are charging whomever they can with whatever they can to make the public happy.
  All Murdoch had to do was say, "Yeah, we did what we could, within the confines of the law, to get the story," and the whole thing would have blown over in a couple of days. Instead, companies crumble and lives are ruined for something that was in poor taste, but was, largely, a big misconception.
2. Re:It's the coverup by gmhowell · 2012-05-15 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  As Nixon pointed out, "it's not the crime, it's the coverup". Ironic that he gave Roger Ailes one of his first jobs in DC. Roger Ailes of NewsCorp...
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
3. Re:It's the coverup by iainr · 2012-05-15 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  Right, because all they did, AFAIK, is spoof caller-ID information to gain access to the voicemail without a password, and IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL at the time. .
  The "This wasn't illegal at the time" comment has been made a number of times but surely gaining access to voicemail, whether by caller-ID spoofing or guessing passwords is going to be illegal under the computer misuse act which predates RIPA by a decade.
4. Re:It's the coverup by Inda · 2012-05-15 21:27 · Score: 1
  
  From what I read at the time, it went far beyond spoofing caller-IDs and guessing default PINs. I remember thinking that it was up there with cracking servers and needed more knowledge than my own general understanding of phone hacking.
  
  --
  This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
5. Re:It's the coverup by nosferatu1001 · 2012-05-16 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it WAS illegal at the time - CMA 1991, a decade older than these crimes. They gained access to a computer system they were not authorised to use, and did so KNOWING they were not authorised to use it.
  Its just that that usually only carries a 6 month sentence, whereas Perverting the Course of Justice can be a MUCH bigger stick.
Re:Insert by Hentes · 2012-05-15 10:25 · Score: 1

There's no difference between the two, except for their political beliefs.
So care to tell me which liberal canceled Firefly?
Re:Insert by BasilBrush · 2012-05-15 10:29 · Score: 5, Informative

There's no difference between the two, except for their political beliefs.
You seem to have overlooked that this is a criminal case. Rebekah Brookes hasn't been tried yet so we can't say she personally is guilty yet. But the fact that a murdered girl and thousands of others had their phones hacked by the right-wing News International organisation isn't in question, it's established fact.
The best defence by Lord_of_the_nerf · 2012-05-15 10:38 · Score: 1

"I wasn't aware of anyone doing anything wrong."
Then, when given proof that you should have been: "I didn't read it."
Worked for James Murdoch.
1. Re:The best defence by mrbester · 2012-05-15 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  Works even better when you reply *in detail* to something you haven't read.
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Call me when she's convicted by tomhath · 2012-05-15 10:51 · Score: 1

She had to be charged to avoid an outcry. Kind of like the Zimmerman/Martin case on this side of the pond, everyone knows they'll be acquitted but we have to go through the formalities to assuage the blogosphere
Re:As a hacker.... by wavedeform · 2012-05-15 11:08 · Score: 1

I really wish the media would stop referring to this as "hacking". It's just listening to the voicemail of people who are too stupid to change the default password, isn't it?
I wish people would stop referring to it as "stealing". It's just taking the stuff of people who are too stupid to lock their doors, isn't it?
Re:As a hacker.... by mrbester · 2012-05-15 11:09 · Score: 2

It's a more correct use than usual as hacking means "unauthorised access"

--
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Oh the irony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-15 11:16 · Score: 1

Shes whinning she cant get a fair trial due to all the media attention.
Payback by lucm · 2012-05-15 11:32 · Score: 1

Not getting caught for a long time does not mean you got away. Ask Kadhafi.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Insert by Sparticus789 · 2012-05-15 12:01 · Score: 1

And Alcatraz and Terra Nova.....
Touche'

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Note to self: by Finallyjoined!!! · 2012-05-15 12:05 · Score: 2

Do not reply to people on th'internet who think Fox news is "news".

--
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Re:Insert by Sparticus789 · 2012-05-15 12:10 · Score: 1

Is that the best you can do? NBC edited the Zimmerman tape to incite racial tensions. ABC claimed the surveillance tape of Zimmerman showed no injuries, but a forensics guy was able to show the blood running down the back of his head. How many Treyvon Martin-inspired beatings have there been in the U.S. since their fake journalism?
EVERY news organization lies to make money. Yet the only one getting attention on /. is the conservative one. The ABC story never even made it to /. , just like any story proving global warming as a farce never makes it to the front page. Hello 1984.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:Insert by BasilBrush · 2012-05-15 12:42 · Score: 1

Who said anything about lying? It's well beyond lying. News International are a criminal organisation. The best I can do? What, news organisations being criminal isn't enough for you?
Truth is you'll give anything right-wing a free pass.
Re:Insert by Falconhell · 2012-05-15 12:43 · Score: 1

Well they were no great loss any way.
Re:Insert by Sparticus789 · 2012-05-15 14:05 · Score: 1

Who said anything about lying? It's well beyond lying. News International are a criminal organisation. The best I can do? What, news organisations being criminal isn't enough for you?
I'd say the numerous assaults and beatings in which the perpetrators said something about "doing it for Treyvon" is enough. The media hyped the issue, turned it into a racial issue (white hispanic?! Seriously?) You want to blame Rupert Murdoch for what one of his subsidiary companies do, when there is no proof that Murdoch knew anything about? So do we blame Obama for everything stupid that the Federal government does? Do you blame Obama for the Soldier that killed 16 Afghanistan civilians? After all, Obama is his boss. No, because of the inherent media bias, your bias on the issue.

Truth is you'll give anything right-wing a free pass.
Wrong. I just apply the same standard to media, I don't care what their views are. Truth is you'll give anything left-wign a free pass.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
I see the reduced centensing between the lines by sgt+scrub · 2012-05-15 14:42 · Score: 1

A personal assistant and a chauffeur? How much does anyone want to be the personal assistant and chauffeur spend more time in jail?

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Special Note To Women: CYA by IonOtter · 2012-05-15 15:30 · Score: 1

If you are going to do anything even remotely illegal, or you even suspect it might be illegal someplace on this planet, then make SURE you have an iron-clad butt-cover.
Because at the end of the day, male criminals will ALWAYS toss you an anchor, will ALWAYS shove you out of the lifeboat, and will ALWAYS stab you in the side to make sure you limp along and bleed for the sharks.

--
[End Of Line]
Re:Insert by Eskarel · 2012-05-15 17:24 · Score: 1

And the reporter who presented that story got fired.
Attractive woman by blue_teeth · 2012-05-15 18:13 · Score: 1

Whatever may be the story, Rebekah Brooks is attractive woman.
Re:Insert by Tomsk70 · 2012-05-15 23:25 · Score: 1

Is Obama on the phone to that Solider every single day? Brooks was with Murdoch, despite Murdoch stating that he kept out of things.At this point, we're into Murdoch proving this - which, of course, he can't.
Does Obama have a son that he's placed in charge, who stated that he didn't remember paying off a football manager to the tune of £750,000?
You really need to start reading Private Eye before defending Rupert Murdoch. Next you'll be saying that Piers Morgan is an upstanding member of the community.