Murdochs In The Dock

125th post.

So yesterday we finally saw the much-lauded, impressively-billed showdown Battle Royale between greedy media oligarchs and parliamentarians.

Except, that’s not really what happened at all.

I watched most of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee session with James and Rupert Murdoch yesterday, and, I have to say, I sided mostly with the Murdochs. Yes, phone hacking was and is deeply risible. But there are a few salient points to take from this.

Firstly, were James and, more importantly, Rupert Murdoch knowledgeable and privy to all of the decisions that happened at the News of the World back when the phone hacking was at it’s peak? Most assuredly no; Rupert Murdoch himself aptly put it that he runs a multinational media organisation employing 53,000 people, and that that the News of the World was but “1%” of that group; and surely he could not be able to answer stupefying-in-depth questions (as some of them were) that essentially asked him if he knew the exact shade of red ink used in the News of the World logo eight or nine years ago. Even a layman with not even the foggiest grasp of corporate governance could surely understand that the chairman of News Corporation could know or be privy to every single little thing that happened to one of his many, many subsidiary outlets. This is why Rupert Murdoch employed people he trusted to run his various subsidiaries, even though this might have been a poor judgment as these “trusted people” didn’t have a clue what they were doing.

"The News of the World is less than 1% of our company. I employ 53,000 people around the world, who are proud and great and ethical and distinguished people, professionals in their life. I am spread watching and appointing people whom I trust to run those divisions... I feel that people I trusted, I'm not saying who, I don't know what level, have let me down. I think they behaved disgracefully and betrayed the company, and me. It's for them to pay. I think that, frankly, I'm the best person to clear this up." " – Rupert Murdoch
(Richard’s emphasis)

Even Lord Sugar, whose politics I might not be inclined to agree with, got the mood perfect:

Bloody stupid questions to Rupert about micro detail when N.O.W represents 1% of his empire. Waste of time trying humiliate the old man.Tue Jul 19 13:54:06 via Twitter for BlackBerry®Lord Sugar
Lord_Sugar

Not that it really mattered; some MPs on the committee seemed absolutely delighted to have the chance to hurl whatever mud at Rupert Murdoch they could seeing as he was sitting right in front of them. Labour MP Tom Watson seemed adamant that he’d be going after Mr Murdoch Snr, despite his witnesses repeated attempts, not the pass the buck, but to deflect, quite understandably, the question to his son James Murdoch, who, as CEO of News International Europe might actually be able to answer.

There were even stupid questions about Rupert Murdoch’s political activities. Labour MP (and annoying Scot) Jim Sheridan tried in vain to score points about Mr Murdoch being invited into Downing Street a few days after the 2010 General Election “through the back door” – as if he were being smuggled in by newly-appointed Prime Minister, David Cameron, for a quick chat about how best to take over the world. Or something. I thought Rupert Murdoch held his ground quite well in saying that he “did what was asked of him” and even went as far as to swipe against Labour, alluding to the fact that he’d had many meetings with the Brown administration in this manner, too.

As an aside, I have to laugh at the immense hypocrisy being banded about by the Labour Party, and, to some extent, the left-wing cabal in this country as a whole. Ed Miliband may think he’s finally found his balls (not Ed Balls, good Christ) and be on the upper hand against a wounded, floundering David Cameron: remember these facts clearly. It was while he was in Government under Labour that the phone hacking actually occurred, and the advice to hold an inquiry in 2009 was not acted upon by the Brown government, and that Murdoch’s newspapers were not and have not been unwaveringly right-wing. The collective amnesia about which colour The Sun flew and supported from 1997-2009 is breath-taking.

These socialists and left-wing dunderheads seem to be blindly attacking News Corp as this evil empire; but is it fair? Yes, the company may run newspapers and news outlets that are hideously and hilariously biased. But as a private company, if they want to do that, fine. You can always read another paper or watch another channel. But it strikes me as a witch-hunt against an 80-year-old man whose business acumen has been proved to be astute and his success is viewed with envious eyes by those scorned on the left.

One even threw a shaving-foam pie at Rupert Murdoch, which, let’s face it, from their point of view, was totally counterproductive. If Murdoch wasn’t being seen as a “victim” in that hearing up until that point, he would then on. At least he had the grace to carry on where any other person might have, in not an not unjustified call, to say “screw you lot, I’m outta here.”

Shame on the Commons Security. It was by sheer luck that it was a custard pie, not a knife. Though I’m sure, as with the dreamed-of death of Margaret Thatcher, it would be applauded by the left-wing media.

The illegal and immoral accessing of private voicemail services is definitely a scandal of epic proportions. Let’s be clear there. But let’s also take into consideration that no one really seemed to care in the general public about Sienna Miller’s laundry list being hacked into; it was only when it transpired that murder victim Milly Dowler’s voicemail was hacked into – and messages deleted, leading to a false sense of hope of her still being alive in 2002 that the proverbial hit the fan.

This I buy into completely. While it was regretful that The News of the World had to close, even though it was a long-living and popular newspaper (though in recent times a bit of a rag, though The Star is worse) and innocent journalists, who most likely had nothing to do with the toxic bunch who performed said illegal acts early in the century had to lose their jobs. But Rupert Murdoch even stated that most, if not all of those people would be found alternate positions in their organisation. And I even totally agree with the closure decision; while the current News of the World staff were perfectly innocent, the News of the World brand became toxic very rapidly, and it was an astute decision by News Corporation to cut it’s losses. Whether there’ll be a Sun on Sunday remains to be seen.

I’m sure the inquest led by a judge will be most interesting. But, context, gentlemen, please.

This post was written before today’s Prime Minister’s Questions; I overslept and haven’t updated it to take into account any revelations there. Anyway, I’m talking about yesterday’s committee hearing alone and speculating upon that.