Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Rupert Murdoch: I was the victim of phone-hacking cover up

Rupert Murdoch used his testimony before a U.K. inquiry on Thursday to portray himself as the victim, not perpetrator, of a cover-up over phone hacking — a twist that could certainly anger those suing his company for invading their privacy to sell newspapers.

The 81-year-old media magnate apologized. He said he had failed. He noted that the corporate cleanup of the British phone hacking scandal had cost his New York-based News Corp. hundreds of millions of dollars and transformed its culture.

“I failed, and I'm sorry about it,” Mr. Murdoch said, adding later: “We are now a new company altogether.”

Mr. Murdoch's two days of testimony, which began Wednesday, marked his attempt to corral the scandal that has rocked Britain, tainted senior politicians, prompted top police commanders and media executives to resign and affected large swathes of his media empire.

It boiled over in July after it became clear that journalists at Mr. Murdoch's now-shuttered News of the World tabloid routinely broke the law in pursuit of scoops, with Murdoch-friendly police and politicians turning a blind eye to a litany of abuses including illegal espionage and bribery.

The scandal prompted Prime Minister David Cameron to order a wide-ranging judicial inquiry into the country's media, which has heard from a range of journalists and public figures. Mr. Murdoch's testimony was the most hotly anticipated thus far.

Mr. Murdoch's words, delivered under oath, offered an unusual public glimpse into the media mogul's personality, alternately combative and contrite. Mr. Murdoch showed the occasional sign of annoyance, but pointed questions about his alleged vast political influence and business interests were largely parried with firm denials and touches of dry wit.

A few new revelations tumbled out, among them his admission Thursday that his dramatic decision to shut down the 168-year-old News of the World — the Sunday paper at the center of the scandal — was an impulse move. He said he snapped his fingers and “it was done like that.”

“I panicked. But I'm glad I did,” Mr. Murdoch said, explaining that he'd long wanted to replace the paper with a Sunday edition of The Sun, his top-selling tabloid.

Mr. Murdoch also revealed that he had been taken aback at the size of the 2008 payout made to phone hacking victim and former England soccer manager Gordon Taylor — testimony at odds with what his son James Murdoch told the inquiry earlier in the week.

The elder Murdoch's admission was important, because critics have alleged that the $1-million settlement to Taylor — 10 to 20 times larger than a typical payout for breach of privacy — was intended to bury the hacking scandal.

If James Murdoch knew that the settlement was outrageously large when he signed off on it, it would strengthen the argument that the 39-year-old media executive knew that the payout was aimed at hiding wrongdoing.

The younger Murdoch said Tuesday that, at the time, he had no way of knowing whether the sum was particularly large. But the elder Murdoch expressed no such doubts Thursday.

“The size seemed incredible,” Mr. Murdoch said. “It still does seem incredible.”

Overall, Mr. Murdoch stuck to the line that he and his son were deliberately kept in the dark by subordinates about the illegal behavior at the News of the World.

“The senior executives were all misinformed, and shielded from anything that was going on there,” he told the inquiry. “I do blame one or two people for that.”

He didn't name them, but he identified one as “a clever lawyer” who shared drinks with many of the journalists involved — a transparent reference to News International legal manager Tom Crone.

Mr. Crone, in a statement, called Mr. Murdoch's testimony “a shameful lie.”

Mr. Murdoch seemed to catch Lord Justice Brian Leveson, the head of the media inquiry, off guard with his statement that “a journalist doing a favour for someone and getting a favour back is pretty much everyday practice.”

“It's a common thing in life, well beyond journalism, for people to say: ‘I'll scratch your back if you scratch my back,“’ Mr. Murdoch said.

The comment came as a surprise because Mr. Murdoch and his son James had spent much of their testimony denying that they ever traded favours with top politicians.

Observers say Mr. Murdoch largely dodged the potential pitfalls during his testimony.

“Rupert got the best of them,” said Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff.

Mr. Murdoch may have performed well, but storm clouds still linger over News Corp.

U.K. police, parliamentary and regulatory investigations into the company are ongoing on both sides of the Atlantic. Just as Mr. Murdoch finished testifying, British broadcasting regulator Ofcom announced it was expanding its investigation into his U.K. satellite broadcaster British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC.

At the same time, British lawmakers announced that they would publish their long-delayed report into the phone-hacking scandal on May 1.

Mr. Murdoch's testimony Thursday appeared to have little effect on News Corp.’s New York-listed shares, which were up slightly, 0.6 percent, at $19.38. At the height of the phone-hacking scandal last summer, the company's stock price had sunk to $13.38.

Original Article
Source: Globe
Author: Raphael Satter 

No comments:

Post a Comment