You are here . on the pale blue dot


Blog notes

'Anonymous' comments for publication must include a pseudonym.

They should be on topic and not involve third parties.
If pseudonyms are linked to commercial sites comments will be removed as spam.


Showing posts with label Select Committee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Select Committee. Show all posts

Tuesday, 1 May 2012

A fit person?

Mirror picture: Getty
It must have come as little surprise to most listeners when media mogul Rupert Murdoch admitted in his evidence to the Leveson inquiry that "he got immediate access to Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and David Cameron". He is a smart operator who makes sure that party leaders need his seal of approval.

Listening to the evidence given by James and Rupert Murdoch to the Culture Select Committee and under oath to the Leveson Inquiry their grasp of detail and ability to recollect facts was extraordinary, until their own integrity was in the spotlight. Only then did amnesia set in. The term "wilful blindness" has been used to explain how Rupert Murdoch knew all that was going on, except what went on under his own nose.

In its damning report, the Culture Select Committee split on party lines in its majority judgement that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to run an international company. Coming so soon after the Prime Minister's defence of his Culture Secretary yesterday following his dealings with the Murdoch empire, the explanation given by the Tory members that such a conclusion was beyond their remit may leave many wondering if Rupert Murdoch still has immediate access. 

Wednesday, 20 July 2011

Room at the top?



Apparently not - except at the Met

In one of the closing questions from the Commons Culture and Media Select Committee (July 19), Rupert Murdoch was asked if he would take responsibility as Chairman and Chief Executive of News Corporation and resign in the wake of the phone hacking scandal that has rocked his media empire. His response was an emphatic 'No' on the grounds that he was the best person to clear up the matter. This was a far more robust response from someone who at first appeared to be a sad, tired, old man who needed the support of his son to get him through the ordeal. 

One was left wondering how this faltering old man who, according to Wikipedia, "was listed three times in the Time 100 as among the most influential people in the world. He is ranked 13th most powerful person in the world in the 2010 Forbes' The World's Most Powerful People list.[4] With a net worth of US$6.3 billion, he is ranked 117th wealthiest person in the world.[5]" could possibly run a worldwide organisation employing over 50,000 people and be courted by a succession of political leaders.

By contrast his son James talked a lot but said little. Over deferential, he twice complemented his interrogators on the quality of their questions but generally his answers were routine; it was before his time, he hadn't been told, or he would be happy to co-operate by seeking to provide the information sought by the committee. I doubt that the Home Affairs Committee Chairman Keith Vaz would have allowed Murdoch Jr to talk at such length while saying so little. 

The long pauses employed by Murdoch senior and the groping manner of his son first gave me the impression that they were wired into their legal team but perhaps it was all part of the planned response. After sitting through all the evidence the only real excitement came when a protester hit Murdoch senior in the face with a shaving-foam pie, receiving a right hook from the much younger Mrs Murdoch for his trouble. 

Much later than expected Rebekah Brooks was called to give evidence but I was left none the wiser whether all three senior managers of the most influential media empire were completely ignorant of malpractice within their own organisation or whether their briefings were such that they simply managed to give nothing away. For an organisation that prided itself on exposing wrong-doing they failed to notice it in their own organisation. Earlier in the day, we heard the observation in response to evidence from the Metropolitan police to the Home Affairs Select Committee, that the Met and the News of the World were on a merry-go-round with the Met employing ex-NoW journalists and Met officers working for News Corp.


Next it is the turn of the Prime Minister to explain why, contrary to all the advice given to him, he employed Chancellor George Osborne's choice of ex-NoW editor Andy Coulson as his spin doctor. Will he will be as ignorant as the rest of them? Deceived, sorry and bewildered as characterised by Murdoch senior: “I feel that the people I trusted, I don't know at what level, let me down and I think they behaved disgracefully, betrayed the company and me and it's for them to pay. I think that frankly I'm the best person to clear this up.” Hmmm!


Postscript


A report on the Home Affairs Select Committee conclusions can be read here.

Saturday, 16 July 2011

So what will be under the next stone?






Those at No 10 are now saying that the Met's Chief has questions to answer following revelations concerning their involvement with the Murdoch empire.  Earlier it was those in No 10 who had questions to answer following accusations of lack of judgement by the Prime Minister. As each side blames each other the size of the web is seen to be ever wider.


The performance of senior police officers before the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee was a revelation in itself with all the blame for the problem being heaped on News Corp's unwillingness to be co-operative, an interesting testimony from senior police officers charged with upholding the law. The evidence of former Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman who went on to be employed by News Corp as a journalist was delivered in a manner which I thought ignorant if not contemptuous. From talking with others I gather I was not alone in wondering how he managed to get employed at all let alone rise to Assistant Commissioner given the manner of his delivery in response to the Select Committee's genuine concerns. 


Every stone turned reveals yet another Murdoch link so how was the lid kept firmly on the story for so long? Reading this special report on how things were run in the News of the World shows that screwing information out of anybody in any circumstances at any cost was the name of the game. The willingness of journalists to invade the private lives of politicians and others enabled News Corp to impose their view with impunity advancing their own cause whether or not it was in our best interests. 


Many MPs and journalists now claim to have been unhappy with the situation but without the dogged persistence of the Guardian, a couple of MPs and the private actions of victims, no doubt we would have seen the BSkyB bid waved through enabling Murdoch's empire to tighten its grip even more on our apparently impotent politicians. All credit to them for their persistence.