The real question....
Jul. 18th, 2011 12:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnny9fingersThe Wall Street Journal has commented on the ongoing News International/News Corp crisis in the UK:
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576451812776293184.html
Now, in a nice attempt at spin, News Corp's premier US newspaper weighed in, essentially accusing the Guardian and the BBC of attempting to influence public affairs.
"The idea that the BBC and the Guardian newspaper aren't attempting to influence public affairs, and don't skew their coverage to do so, can't stand a day's scrutiny."
Er....pot calling the kettle black, by any chance?
Nevertheless, it seems that this is going to be the standard News Corp line from here on in: that this is all a storm in a teacup, blown out of all proportion by left-wing competitors eager to do News Corp down.
Then we have the idea that payments for information are normal practice.
"Applying this standard to British tabloids could turn payments made as part of traditional news-gathering into criminal acts. The Wall Street Journal doesn't pay sources for information, but the practice is common elsewhere in the press, including in the U.S."
The beauty of this piece from the WSJ is that it was slightly behind the events. This came before Sir Paul Stephenson, the most senior police officer in the UK, resigned. That News International/News Corp papers have suborned the Metropolitan police is the real story here. Illegal phone hacking is admittedly a crime, but not one on the scale of buying the Met to do News Corp bidding: which is something even The Times (another News Corp/News International paper) is prepared to admit.
"The public may be disgusted by illegal and immoral practices among tabloid journalists, and dismayed by the thought of politicians unbalanced by the urge to keep the favour of newspaper executives. At the point at which this sorry tale touches the police, however, it becomes frightening. Unless a huge amount of what has been alleged these past two weeks is sheer fiction, Britain's police are riven with corruption on an institutional scale. Journalists who bribe policemen are indicative of a flawed industry. Policemen who can be bribed are indicative of a flawed state."
Actually, this is slightly disingenuous. Journalists who bribe policemen are criminal, as are policemen who allow themselves to be bribed. And given, in this flawed world, that it appears everyone has his or her price, it is not breathtakingly amazing that coppers have sold information, or had freebies for favours returned. What is true is that some organisations are ready and willing to exploit the rampant materialism of the times to get what they want, and then cover up their wrongdoing with misdirection. But it is criminal: a de facto crime in the UK since the beginning of the 20th Century.
However, all of this may be only the start of Roops problems, because:
www.channel4.com/news/preliminary-inquiry-into-news-international-by-fraud-office
'The former minister Tom Watson, wrote to the SFO's Director urging him to investigate alleged breaches of Company Law at News International, relating to payments made after the phone hacking scandal. He said the payments were a "gross misuse of shareholders' money".'
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/17/murdoch-phone-hacking-america-news-corp
This may be the thing that Murdoch cannot evade, even if he can twist and turn his way out of all of the other accusations made against him and his family run (but not entirely family owned) business: misuse of shareholders' money.
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576451812776293184.html
Now, in a nice attempt at spin, News Corp's premier US newspaper weighed in, essentially accusing the Guardian and the BBC of attempting to influence public affairs.
"The idea that the BBC and the Guardian newspaper aren't attempting to influence public affairs, and don't skew their coverage to do so, can't stand a day's scrutiny."
Er....pot calling the kettle black, by any chance?
Nevertheless, it seems that this is going to be the standard News Corp line from here on in: that this is all a storm in a teacup, blown out of all proportion by left-wing competitors eager to do News Corp down.
Then we have the idea that payments for information are normal practice.
"Applying this standard to British tabloids could turn payments made as part of traditional news-gathering into criminal acts. The Wall Street Journal doesn't pay sources for information, but the practice is common elsewhere in the press, including in the U.S."
The beauty of this piece from the WSJ is that it was slightly behind the events. This came before Sir Paul Stephenson, the most senior police officer in the UK, resigned. That News International/News Corp papers have suborned the Metropolitan police is the real story here. Illegal phone hacking is admittedly a crime, but not one on the scale of buying the Met to do News Corp bidding: which is something even The Times (another News Corp/News International paper) is prepared to admit.
"The public may be disgusted by illegal and immoral practices among tabloid journalists, and dismayed by the thought of politicians unbalanced by the urge to keep the favour of newspaper executives. At the point at which this sorry tale touches the police, however, it becomes frightening. Unless a huge amount of what has been alleged these past two weeks is sheer fiction, Britain's police are riven with corruption on an institutional scale. Journalists who bribe policemen are indicative of a flawed industry. Policemen who can be bribed are indicative of a flawed state."
Actually, this is slightly disingenuous. Journalists who bribe policemen are criminal, as are policemen who allow themselves to be bribed. And given, in this flawed world, that it appears everyone has his or her price, it is not breathtakingly amazing that coppers have sold information, or had freebies for favours returned. What is true is that some organisations are ready and willing to exploit the rampant materialism of the times to get what they want, and then cover up their wrongdoing with misdirection. But it is criminal: a de facto crime in the UK since the beginning of the 20th Century.
However, all of this may be only the start of Roops problems, because:
www.channel4.com/news/preliminary-inquiry-into-news-international-by-fraud-office
'The former minister Tom Watson, wrote to the SFO's Director urging him to investigate alleged breaches of Company Law at News International, relating to payments made after the phone hacking scandal. He said the payments were a "gross misuse of shareholders' money".'
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/17/murdoch-phone-hacking-america-news-corp
This may be the thing that Murdoch cannot evade, even if he can twist and turn his way out of all of the other accusations made against him and his family run (but not entirely family owned) business: misuse of shareholders' money.
