News of the World

[christine]

News of the World is closing this weekend!
Don't know if you guys in the US have been keeping up with the phone tapping scandal that's been unfolding here in the UK, with ever more horrible revelations. I thought it eventually might end up in curtains for TNoTW but not the chop straight away by the Murdochs.
It would've been interesting to have seen how much the sales would've been affected by the boycott promised by so many of its readers, but now we're not going to get that satisfaction!


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-live-coverage

[Golgot]

The Sun's going to a 7-day footing though. Wade's going nowhere. Looks like they're just shipping out some chaff and rebranding. Tricky buggers.

[christine]

mm and they were planning job losses too so they can do that now with more of an excuse. They bit the bullet early tho didn't they? From a purely business point of view it's prob the wisest thing to do - to wait would only bring more and more public scorn and the loss of more advertising
I'm sure they'll have in mind their bid for the rest of BSkyB and hope that doing this will give news corp brownie points

[Nausicaä]

Definitely disappointed, would have liked to have seen the public scorn and loss of advertising/money and so on.

Good riddance anyway.

[Sedai]

Read about it this morning! Pretty crazy...

I was just glad t get a break from this stupid trial over here...

[honeykid]

It only takes a minute to see through this, for all the reasons mentioned above, but mainly the BSkyB deal.

I'm not pleased by the shutting down of a newspaper and I fear this is an end rather than a beginning, but I was delighted by the revelation of the Milly Dowling story last week. Not, obviously, because it happened, but because it was the sort of thing needed (along with the Solham girls and, lastly, soldier families this week) to get people in this country so pissed off that they'd 'tut' enough to worry advertisers and TPTB of NI. Let's be clear here, that's all they've done. Everyone's running for cover and no one wants to be associated with the NOTW. What was the last count of the companies who said they'd pull their advertising? 17 was the last number I heard. At £60,000 for a full page ad, were they all to place a full page ad every week, I make that just over £1m revenue a week lost.

With The Sun On Sunday, possibly/rumoured, to be announced before not too long, this is probably merely a rebranding. Akin to a governmental/industry, "it must never happen again." quote.

Let's be honest, Rupert's playing a blinder so far. He's prevented the public from getting their pound of flesh, he's in full damage limitation mode. Rebecca's ok atm, but if he thinks she's too much to carry, she'll be gone. Whether that'll be this weekend or not, may depend on any deal he manages to do with the government in relation to the BSkyB deal and their decision on the Sky News 'plurality' ruling. My biggest single reason for not liking Cameron (apart from being Blair 2, I wanted David Davies to win the leadership, but the papers showed early who the winner was) was just how in bed with Murdoch he was and what that meant for the BBC. For me, this couldn't have happened at a better time as, hopefully, they'll be too scared to give the BSkyB deal the ok.

The other thing that's pleased me about all this, is I often wonder why I know things that everyone one else, apparently, is completely surprised about. Now I know, it's because it's already been in the news, but no one took any notice.

I've wondered how it was that I knew that journalists hacked phones, emails, paid coppers, etc to get stories. It appears that, not only had I heard the rumours, but I'd also heard the news. Which makes it all the more galling to see one of the metric brothers trying to make politcal gain out of this, when he was in a government that facilliated this for 13 years. Not only that, but a government that started this culture of not 'falling on your sword' when you're discovered.

Lastly, let's not forget that everything coming out now is from the NOTW, but every paper was doing this. That's the real problem here. Not a 'rogue' journalist or a 'bad' paper or corporation, but the entire national newspaper industry.

[linespalsy]

Wow, that's the first I've heard of it, and it's pretty surreal. I wonder how many of the wronged people (families of soldiers and so forth) were readers of The News of the World.

The piece in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2298691/) is the meanest I've read to Murdoch so far.

-----------------

Lastly, let's not forget that everything coming out now is from the NOTW, but every paper was doing this. That's the real problem here. Not a 'rogue' journalist or a 'bad' paper or corporation, but the entire national newspaper industry.

Hey, hk, could you expand on this a little bit? Are you speaking specifically about tabloid journalism or the press in general? Just curious, I know little about the British press and political culture.

[Golgot]

I've created a pithy modern pamphlet on just this subject...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzgF7imbWW8

(May traumatise those with fond memories of Willo the Wisp. Or any subtle sensibilities at all ;))

---

Yeah I second lines' question HK. I was under the impression that it takes big bucks to go down the routes NotW were going, leaving some of the strugglers out of it. Plus naturally the Guardian would be too upstanding/frightened to do it ;)

Certainly scads of NotW hacking has been known about at least since 2009, in pretty massive quantities, but no one else seems to have got their fingers burned yet (that I've noticed).

[mastercharles]

man I loved this. Sad day

[gandalf26]

What kind of scum?

A) Goes hacking around in a murdered child's phone looking for some kind of story.

B) Authorises/pays for the above.

[will.15]

It was just starting to be reported in the US several days before the paper got yanked.

[Golgot]

Oh, I've been naive, so terribly naive...

My bad HK. Turns out everyone was at it. (Altho somehow not the Guardian again. But the Observor was up to their eyes in it. What is it about Sunday publications? ;))

Unsurprisingly the Mail is up beyond their eyes in the 'illegal trade in personal information'.

Source (http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/corporate/research_and_reports/what_price_privacy_now.pdf)

This according to the ICOs 'Operation Motorman', 2003...

Publication - Number of transactions positively identified using services
- Number of journalists/clients

Daily Mail 952 58
Sunday People 802 50
Daily Mirror 681 45
Mail on Sunday 266 33
News of the World 182 19
Sunday Mirror 143 25
Best Magazine 134 20
Evening Standard 130 1
The Observer 103 4
Daily Sport 62 4
Sunday Times 52 7
The People 37 19
Daily Express 36 7
Weekend Magazine (Daily Mail) 30 4
Sunday Express 29 8
The Sun 24 4
Closer Magazine 22 5
Sunday Sport 15 1
Night and Day (Mail on Sunday) 9 2
Sunday Business News 8 1
Daily Record 7 2
Saturday (Express) 7 1
Sunday Mirror Magazine 6 1
Real Magazine 4 1
Woman’s Own 4 2
Daily Mirror Magazine 3 2
Mail in Ireland 3 1
Daily Star 2 4
Marie Claire 2 1
Personal Magazine 1 1
Sunday World 1 1

[honeykid]

Hey, hk, could you expand on this a little bit? Are you speaking specifically about tabloid journalism or the press in general? Just curious, I know little about the British press and political culture.

Yeah I second lines' question HK. I was under the impression that it takes big bucks to go down the routes NotW were going, leaving some of the strugglers out of it. Plus naturally the Guardian would be too upstanding/frightened to do it ;)

Certainly scads of NotW hacking has been known about at least since 2009, in pretty massive quantities, but no one else seems to have got their fingers burned yet (that I've noticed).
There's evidence of other papers that's being looked at. I'll rescind the "every paper" comment for the moment, as I may've overstepped the mark. However, it wouldn't surprise me if I haven't. I fully expect most of this to be covered up/not investigated thoroughly. I don't mean to sound conspiratorial or anything, it's just that if this is as widespread as I expect, and with the police corruption going as high as it could (one investigation has already been curtailed) I honestly don't expect everything to come out. I'm guessing all/most of the entertainment stuff will come out, as the public have shown they don't really care if it happens to them.

If you listen to Max Clifford (first time I've ever said that) or Hugh Grant, both of whom have spent a lot of time with the police being interviewed about this over the last 6-12 months, it sounds as if it had become an industry standard. It's certainly not expensive to tap or hack a phone. Go to one of those spy/gadget shops and you can buy the kit for about £200 and that was the all the bells and whistle deluxe versions. With the progress of technology, it's probably a lot cheaper than that now. And even I think I know the basics of how to tap a phone. I don't know about the police bribes and how much they got, but I wouldn't have thought it was very much. £500 perhaps, maybe a couple of grand, depending on the info and story that resulted. Papers don't pay like they used to as they don't make the money they used to. That's why NI wants the BSkyB deal to go through and why sacrificing the NOTW is nothing compared to what it can gain, even if it didn't return in another guise. TV makes a lot more money than papers do and, if you think that NI only owns 39% of it, that means there's 61% of a hell of a lot of money and influence, with the potential for a hell of a lot more, compared to an 100% of a dying industry, even if it is the leader of that industry.

Here's a grounding in it.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/talking-politics/everything-know-phone-hacking-five-minutes-124308357.html

Some extra small articles.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/murdoch-heads-uk-third-man-arrested-044655303.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2011/01/22/newspaper-hacking-scandal-widens-115875-22867881/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/22/news-world-phone-hacking-newspapers
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-07-09-britain-tabloid-phone-hacking_n.htm?csp=34news
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23968493-bskyb-shares-fall-as-odds-on-takeover-are-slashed-to-5050.do
http://www.brmb.co.uk/news/headlines/phone-hacking-row-involves-other-papers/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muo6KCTKDxk
What it's alledged Rebecca Brooks told a cross-party media committee after they'd made repeated requests to her to appear before them last year.

Alan Johnson made an interesting point about James Murdoch and the RIPA act, which was the act that was used to put the two journalists away. Apparently, with James saying he made payments he now sees were erroneous and without the knowledge of the board, he's liable and could be jailed as a result. I'm not 100% sure, but I think he was refering to chapter 79. This admission (and the entire phone hacking scandal) should also put paid to this passing the "fit and proper person" test for the takeover of BSkyB. That said, as a football fan, I've seen a number of people who've passed the Premier League's "fit and proper person test" only for the club to be in more trouble than it was when taken over and the 'fit and proper person' walking away richer than he was when he took over.

79 Criminal liability of directors etc.E+W+S+N.I.
This section has no associated Explanatory Notes

(1)Where an offence under any provision of this Act other than a provision of Part III is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

(a)a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

(b)any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

he (as well as the body corporate) shall be guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(2)Where an offence under any provision of this Act other than a provision of Part III—

(a)is committed by a Scottish firm, and

(b)is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a partner of the firm,

he (as well as the firm) shall be guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(3)In this section “director”, in relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, means a member of the body corporate.

A couple of clips from Thursday's Question Time. Sadly, I couldn't find the bit with HG talking about his interviews with the police over the last 9 months. It was only a minute or so, but very interesting. From memory, he says that he trusts this investigation, that the officers were disgusted with the previous investigation and the officers involved and that, from what he'd been shown, it appeared that pretty much ever paper had done this at one time or another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkTs1Ayq8qo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpie2Jm9e9c
I only really post this bit for Dame Shirley and I apologise for inflicting Jon Gaunt on people. If you want to avoid hearing him, stop the second clip around 3:25.

Steve Coogan talking about the closure of NOTW.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14090499

Hugh Grant talks about how he broke the story.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14052690

I don't know if the Panorama programme is available, but as another example of how long this story has been around and how widely known it is, here's an article from The Guardian about the Panorama programme.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/13/phone-hacking-panorama-names-journalist

And I've not even got into rumour and gossip of what some say has gone on. :D I will say that, so far, I've not heard anything that I hadn't already heard in the form of rumour and gossip or what was already public knowledge.

I've got the feeling that I've forgotten to say something quite important, but I can't rememeber what it is. Ah, well. If it comes to me, I'll add it. :)

It took me so long to research that, it appears that Golgot's post vindicates what I said. I no longer have to rescind anything. :D

[Golgot]

Smugness deserved ;)

I had to wander away from NN, as Coogan was annoying me with his rush to Nazi comparisons (Godwin's law seems to apply to all media formats). Thought the anchor made a reasonable counterpoint about how we never minded when the Sheik caught some nob with his hand in the cookie jar etc. Asked whether we'd miss that brand of risky rakishness.

I guess I always start getting contrary once a witch hunt really gets going. Or I watch this fellow say dryly amusing Toryisms about them... ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Vr1R1HWao

(He also made me chortle about tuition fees with his musical commentary set to Dear Prudence. Apparently he's a Lib Dem cruelly born with the face of a Tory ;))

[christine]

very interesting post Hon.
Can I just add a link to the Richard Thomas report for the Information Commissioners back in 2006 which reports. Interesting stuff.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/corporate/research_and_reports/what_price_privacy_low_resolution.pdf

Trouble is that the general public don't get really upset by this stuff until it starts hitting vulnerable 'real' people. In other words it's ok to say hack Lily Allen's phone when she had a late miscarriage cos she's fair game, she's a celebrity, but hack a 'real' persons phone when they've lost a child and all hell breaks loose. People don't realise we're all fair game to people with no scruples.
We've got electronic methods of finding info now, but paying the police for inside info has gone on since the police were invented, so don't know why people are getting so shocked about that - there's always bad people inside every organisation, we just have to get better methods to remove them.

[Golgot]

If anything the phone hacks aren't that distinct from the old school snooping of getting an extended family member pissed or what have you. (Which is probably what they'll go back to, given that's still legal).

What intrigues me is, if they're using hacked info to support news stories, do they just 'protect the source', and refuse to reveal it? (Some of the info was doubtless intended for a bit of blackmail too no doubt - whether it be 'give us something juicey and we'll keep this quiet', or what have you)

On average people getting hit by this, I've read interesting stuff recently on just how hard (read impossible) it is to get papers to rescind inaccurate stories about you. (The most dedicated - IE those who drop their jobs to go into full-time legal battles normally end up with a tiny apology on page 52 at best).

And this may be a side issue, but there's a load of info emerging now on just how much of our personal info we give away every day. Your google search is no longer the same as mine due to personalisation. Cookie trackers (http://collusion.toolness.org/) amalagmate info to personalise ads or what have you (type the word 'depression' into an online dictionary and ads for anti-depressants will start winging their way to your web). Add all that info up and these guys will know whether you've lost a child, considered infidelity, on and on.

And that's before we even get to government data being mislayed - and neigh, them snooping on our phones/email with impunity ;)

/ramble

[honeykid]

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/corporate/research_and_reports/what_price_privacy_low_resolution.pdf
Thanks, Christine. I'll take a look at this later. :)

Trouble is that the general public don't get really upset by this stuff until it starts hitting vulnerable 'real' people. In other words it's ok to say hack Lily Allen's phone when she had a late miscarriage cos she's fair game, she's a celebrity, but hack a 'real' persons phone when they've lost a child and all hell breaks loose. People don't realise we're all fair game to people with no scruples.
As I said in my first post, this is why I was so pleased to see these particular cases emerge. There's been evidence of this for years, most of the last decade at least, and no one's really cared. Certainly there'd been no outrage. Partly because it's usually been celebs who are seen as fair game and partly, I believe, because people don't really 'get it' or its implications. Much like the ID Card scheme. There was much more concern about the cost (both personally and in terms of tax money) than the implications of it.

We've got electronic methods of finding info now, but paying the police for inside info has gone on since the police were invented, so don't know why people are getting so shocked about that - there's always bad people inside every organisation, we just have to get better methods to remove them.
Absolutely. Again, I think we'll see that most of this corruption will be celeb stuff and, much more importantly, the previous investigation and non investigating of previous complaints.

If anything the phone hacks aren't that distinct from the old school snooping of getting an extended family member pissed or what have you. (Which is probably what they'll go back to, given that's still legal).
I completely disagree with this. That seems to be the equivalent of saying breaking into someones house looking through their mail and diary is the same as getting someone drunk and questioning them.

What intrigues me is, if they're using hacked info to support news stories, do they just 'protect the source', and refuse to reveal it? (Some of the info was doubtless intended for a bit of blackmail too no doubt - whether it be 'give us something juicey and we'll keep this quiet', or what have you)
The main problem with the story is that phone hacked info is the story. It doesn't support it, they're not following up leads or anything. They're plugged into their lives and, as you say, can bring it up at a later date for blackmail in the way you suggest. I can name a few people/stories who gave interviews, quite in depth and/or embarrassing stories, to the papers in order not to have them reveal what they were going to. Of course, that's according to the gossip/rumours I mentioned earlier.

This week, Matthew Wright said on his programme that there were occassions when his editor (Piers Morgan, at the time) would ask for the source and, on one occassion, he refused as he'd promised not to reveal them. It was a story about fake BBC audiences or something like that. He said that Piers kept an eye on him every step of the way and always asked for sources. Of course, he also said that when it came to entertainment stories, the trivial stuff as he called it, most of the time no one asked or cared.

On average people getting hit by this, I've read interesting stuff recently on just how hard (read impossible) it is to get papers to rescind inaccurate stories about you. (The most dedicated - IE those who drop their jobs to go into full-time legal battles normally end up with a tiny apology on page 52 at best).
Well, if you think how hard it is for celebs to get a proper apology, you can imagine what we'd get. After all, it's a business decision and the payouts celebs get are probably ten times what we'd manage to get. If we got one at all.

And this may be a side issue, but there's a load of info emerging now on just how much of our personal info we give away every day. Your google search is no longer the same as mine due to personalisation. Cookie trackers (http://collusion.toolness.org/) amalagmate info to personalise ads or what have you (type the word 'depression' into an online dictionary and ads for anti-depressants will start winging their way to your web). Add all that info up and these guys will know whether you've lost a child, considered infidelity, on and on.

And that's before we even get to government data being mislayed - and neigh, them snooping on our phones/email with impunity ;)

/ramble

Oh yes, if you want to get onto personal info and how we just give it away (either because we attach no value to it or because we don't think anyone's watching) that's really eye opening stuff. Facebook being the most high profile and current issue.

I'd also point out, on a similar theme, that the papers weren't trendsetters with this. They're taking corporate tactics and applying them to the journalist/entertainment world.

[Golgot]

I completely disagree with this. That seems to be the equivalent of saying breaking into someones house looking through their mail and diary is the same as getting someone drunk and questioning them.

True they're distinct, with the former being much more intimate, but I can't help think they sometimes end up with the same scurrilous info - just in the latter case bribing a relative with big lumps of cash etc (and leaving that on the family's door).

I imagine they prefer the 'hacks' coz the details are more concrete/irrefutable, and also going by christine's link, a fair bit cheaper than a 'kiss & tell' deal. (Altho those examples cited seem to be more along the lines of just getting personal details - not phone content etc per se).

*EDIT* incidentally - love how the guy who swindled details out of BT etc is simply termed the 'blagger' in the ICO's reports/flow-charts etc ;)

He said that Piers kept an eye on him every step of the way and always asked for sources.

Ew, Morgan doing the right thing? My skin's crawling! (He can't win ;))

I'd also point out, on a similar theme, that the papers weren't trendsetters with this. They're taking corporate tactics and applying them to the journalist/entertainment world.

True that. Probably why Wade/Brooks sleepwalked into admitting the police bribary et al. Could've been any number of daily misdeeds that she forgot wasn't 'normal' tho.

[Tacitus]

Remember Diana's phone messages getting into the hands of the tabloids? That was 20 years ago...

The indignation from cuckolded celebs and MPs is as amusing as the realisation that the deleting of Milly Dowler's voicemail messages giving the family hope is heartbreaking.

As someone who moved to Liverpool not long after Hillsborough, I realise that once a newspaper oversteps the faded line marked 'decency' sales will drop. Murdoch realised that even the world's biggest Sunday (it is, isn't it?) paper was not going to be immune but the speed of the axe falling shows that the old guy still has a turn of speed when it comes to the old sidestep.

Even the editor of one of the Belfast Sundays has admitted using private investigators (although he prefaced the admission with saying it was only when researching paramilitaries) so there's gonna be a lot more coming out in the wash over the next few weeks.

[honeykid]

Remembered the thing I was going to put in the post before I watched the F1 qually. They really should get to the NOTW offices now if they want any chance of uncovering evidence of the really dirty deeds. Actually, they probably should've done it Thursday, but there's still a chance there could be something there. Once that place shuts, my guess is that the shredders will be hotter than the presses.

Good point about the Diana tapes.

[Tacitus]

I was thinking exactly the same thing when I saw pictures of police removing computer equipment from Coulson's house - How old or new were the hard drives in those PCs? ;)

[planet news]

You crazy Europeans and your newses.

[honeykid]

As PN's chipped in with his usual insight, I was just wondering, how's this playing in N.America and Oz? I specify those two, of course, for the obvious reasons.

[will.15]

We don't really care.

Except for a gossip sleaze like National Enquirer, newspapers here don't do that so we see it as something that doesn't affect us.

It is fun to see Rupert Murdoch in trouble.

That is the kind of insight I like to see from PN. He nailed it in six words. I gave him the positive rep.

[Golgot]

Except for a gossip sleaze like National Enquirer, newspapers here don't do that.

How do you know?

(Murdoch owns several of them after all ;))

[honeykid]

Has anyone seen/heard the video The Sun have released to 'prove' they obtained the story about Brown's newborn son legally? Laughable doesn't cover it. Unless this person has signed an affidavit, (I've heard it's a signed statement, not a signed affidavit) then this is either a desperate attempt to wriggle out of it or a diversion. Even if it does turn out to be an affidavit, I'd like to see them call him as a witness. I wonder who'd turn up, as I doubt it'd be this supposed father of a son with cystic fibrosis who just wanted to raise the profile of the condition.

As for it not happening on papers in the US. We'll see. I hope not, but we'll see. I will say that, tmk, the print media in the US isn't anything like as powerful politically as it is/was here. However, as I said before, we know this isn't limited to the the media. They didn't invent this.

[planet news]

Fox News is reluctant to cover this; a delicious Catch-22, to say the least. :scream:

[honeykid]

I'm not surprised about that. In fact, I'm a little surprised they've mentioned it at all. Unless, of course, it was to say that it was all lies and nothing was going on at all and, even if it was, it was all one big left-wing conspiracy anway. :D

[Golgot]

Had to love the front pages the day after the big NotW announcement. All those who most feared the hacking inquiries snowballing ran giant spreads on the hike in gas prices instead :D (The Mail's was, naturally, enormous. They just about pulled back from saying Gas Hikes Gave Diana Cancer, but only just ;))

[honeykid]

Ex-News of the World reporter dead

A former News of the World reporter who alleged Andy Coulson "encouraged" him to hack phones has been found dead.

Sean Hoare, who made claims in a New York Times article about the Prime Minister's former communications chief, was discovered at his home in Watford, Hertfordshire, after concerns were raised about his whereabouts.

The death is being treated as "unexplained, but not thought to be suspicious", Hertfordshire police said.

A Hertfordshire Police spokesman said: "At 10.40am today police were called to Langley Road, Watford, following the concerns for welfare of a man who lives at an address on the street.

"Upon police and ambulance arrival at a property, the body of a man was found.

"The man was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after.

"The death is currently being treated as unexplained, but not thought to be suspicious.

"Police investigations into this incident are ongoing."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/ex-news-world-reporter-dead-180850869.html

[will.15]

Oh-oh.

[Tacitus]

Big Murdoch and Wee Murdoch are being grilled by a group of MPs as I type this.

Apologies - I said 'grilled' but meant to say 'subjected to some quite staggeringly banal questioning'. I know it's a feather in an MP's cap to get selected for a committee but is this the best Westminster has to offer?

Frightening.

That said, it's compelling viewing...

[Tacitus]

Now the whole thing's been suspended after an apparent shaving foam style attack on Big Murdoch!

Mrs M has a terrific right hook. :D

The bloke's going to be charged with Attempted Murdoch.

Sorry.:blush:

[christine]

oh dear :rotfl:
now obviously Wade,Brooks or whatever her name is is going to claim sub judice if she's asked anything.

Of course the NoTW senior staff co-operated with the police cos the police were co-operating with them! evidence Rebekah? Just let me put it in this closed file cos I'm late for my Spa appointment! luvvyduvvydom

[christine]

Mrs M has a terrific right hook. :D

:

just watched it! wow she has! I wouldn't tangle with her :D

[Sedai]

I was home eating lunch and caught the "attack" on TV as I watched some news. Pretty bizarre!

[Tacitus]

just watched it! wow she has! I wouldn't tangle with her :D

Wendi Murdoch is my kind of woman! ;)

The MPs didn't land a punch (edit - unlike the delightful Wendi :D), clean or not, on either Murdoch, did they? That's not a reflection on the Murdochs' objection handling skills either...

Brooks seems to be getting a tougher grilling but, as you said, there's an awful lot she can't say because of her arrest.

[will.15]

I don't think it will happen, but i would love to see things get so bad for Murdoch he would have to sell News Corp. That would be great. Right now Fox News has no idea who Rupert Murdoch is.

[honeykid]

No one ever gets 'caught out' by a select committee. It's only a slight improvement on a public inquiry (depending on who gets picked, of course. Having a judge will mean that, at least, one person has a passing acquaintance with the law.)

I've not been up long, so I've not seen any news yet, but I'd have been stunned had anything interesting come out of the mouths of the three of them, regardless of who'd been asking the questions.

[Tacitus]

I think that over the next few weeks it's gonna be more interesting following what's happening to Cameron than Murdoch. As someone's said: There aren't too many bodies between him and the story now. ;)

Re: The Committee. Yes, they're generally akin to being savaged by a dead sheep (to borrow from Denis Healey) but the sheer, stultifying crassness of this particular one had to be seen to be believed.

The only one who seemed to have even half a handle on what was going on was Tom Watson while the others were having a 'who can ask the most obtuse and petty question' competition. The gap-year Anarchist aside, it was smooth sailing for father and son and not much more than a light breeze for Rebekah Brooks.

Why wasn't Dennis Skinner on the committee? :D

[Yoda]

I don't think it will happen, but i would love to see things get so bad for Murdoch he would have to sell News Corp. That would be great. Right now Fox News has no idea who Rupert Murdoch is.
I've checked their site a couple of times and it's getting second billing behind the debt ceiling, which seems correct.

[will.15]

They are greatly under reporting it compared to their rivals.

[Yoda]

Second-billing on MSNBC.com, too. Sort of 1-A on CNN.com.

So, based on what? Anecdotal channel-flipping?

[wintertriangles]

Wowzie I just learned about this whole thing from this thread. It was like a movie with no purpose.

So, basically he owns Fox, which is the only conservative news station around, and that's the only reason he's being tried but not any of the other papers who do the exact same thing because the other papers are left? That's what I'm reading.

[will.15]

It is a news report. I didn't make it up. It doesn't matter if it is second place on all the other news channels. They are spending far less time reporting it.

[Yoda]

I'm not accusing you of making it up, though this is the first time you've mentioned a "news report." What/where is it?

[will.15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uv6pQEtli4

[honeykid]

Wowzie I just learned about this whole thing from this thread. It was like a movie with no purpose.

So, basically he owns Fox, which is the only conservative news station around, and that's the only reason he's being tried but not any of the other papers who do the exact same thing because the other papers are left? That's what I'm reading.

No, not even close. There's no doubt that the competition are making a great deal of it, as they're able to give Murdoch a kicking without retaliation (think of the statue of Saddam being pulled down and slapped by the people with their sandals) but that's not why it's happening or why they're reporting it.

An exceptionally brief, as I see it, breakdown. This is has been known about for years. Rebekah Brooks (then Wade) admitted bribing police officers back in 2003. No one cares.

Murdoch has been 'in bed' with the politicians here since 1970, though everyone since Thatcher has decided that they had to have Murdoch's backing in order to win elections. This is why the politicians are having a competition between themselves as to who had the least to do with him (Liberals win because Murdoch didn't give them any time, therefore they had little to do with him. It would've been interesting to see how principled they'd have been had he offered to back them.) People care, but accept it.

It's proved that celebrities have had their phones hacked and messages listened to. It's also proved that's where a large number of their stories about them come from. Anything upto 4000 people could be victim to it. No one cares. People seem to have decided that's part of the price of fame.

Three weeks ago it's reported that the phone of Milly Dowler (a 13 year old murdered girl who the papers turned into a national figure and untouchable angel) had been hacked. Not only that, but messages on her phone had been deleted, which had given her family hope that she was still alive. Rebekah Brooks was editor of the NOTW at the time. Public go *******.

The phones of Holly Chapman and Jessica Wells family (more murdered young girls, this time 10 years old that the papers, again, elevated to angel status) are found to've been hacked. Public go even more *******.

Same again with families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan. Cue end of the world.

From then on you have everything that's happened since. The closing of the NOTW, two top Met Officers resigning, questions asked of the press and how stories are brought to the page and the link between the Murdochs and NI and the political and policing elite in this country.

I can only imagine the ********* that'll commence if it's shown that 9/11 victims or their families had their phones hacked.

Phone hacking, the hacking of email and bribing police officers is illegal. That's why he's in trouble.

Here a more detailed timeline of events. Well worth reading if you're interested.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8634176/Phone-hacking-timeline-of-a-scandal.html

[Tacitus]

Interesting piece about the NOTW's last hours - It seems that they even had trouble giving away the final paper's profits to charity.

Link (http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/07/26/notw-there-are-family-members-of-dead-servicemen-on-our-board-and-they-will-not-accept-news-of-the-world%E2%80%99s-money/)

[honeykid]

I remember hearing on the Saturday before it closed that they were having trouble giving the space away. Firstly, as there wasn't any advertising, they offered the space to charity, then when no one took it up, they had to offer it for free and they had to beg, as the article stated.

I didn't see the final edition and I couldn't find anyone who'd seen it, let alone bought it as I don't think I know anyone who buys a newspaper, but I was wondering how many pages it had? I wanted to know if they'd just have blank pages (which I couldn't see happening) or just printed the articles, therefore having a 'lighter' paper. I guess they filled all the 'blank' pages with 'historical' front pages/articles/etc.

[Tacitus]

Dunno anyone who bought it either, even my mum, who buys all the main Sundays.

Incidentally, and this might be of interest to our Colonial cousins on the left of the Atlantic, I wonder how this will all work out vis-a-vis Piers Morgan?

Link to the ever-interesting Guido Fawkes (http://order-order.com/2011/07/27/morgan-mocked-maccas-misery-voicemails/)

Roy Greenslade's bit in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jul/29/piersmorgan-phone-hacking?CMP=twt_fd)

[ollanik]

y

[honeykid]

The latest.

News International facing more than 60 phone hacking lawsuits


News International is facing more than 60 lawsuits over alleged phone hacking at the News of the World, including a new claim from the father of Josie Russell, who survived a hammer attack that killed her mother and sister in 1996.

The Guardian reports that 13 new legal writs were issued to Rupert Murdoch's newspaper publisher on Monday, including the action from Shaun Russell, while 24 were submitted the previous week.

This includes claims from Sara Payne, whose Sarah's Law campaign was championed by the News of the World, and Paul Dadge, the hero who helped victims in the 7/7 London bombings.

The publisher is now facing a total of 63 writs, and the recent flurry of new cases is thought to be down to a deadline set by Justice Vos for considering claims ahead of phone hacking test trials in January.

Various high profile names are among the 63 cases, including Dannii Minogue, Princess Diana's former butler Paul Burrell, Steve Coogan, John Prescott, George Galloway, Jude Law, Sadie Frost, Callum Best, Ashley Cole and former Downing Street communications chief Alistair Campbell.

Some of the writs involve more than one person, such as a joint action by Charlotte Church, her mother Maria, and stepfather James.

The majority of the lawsuits are against News International subsidiary News Group Newspapers, and Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator who worked on behalf of the News of the World.

However, an action by singer Cornelia Crisan also names the former News of the World chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck as a defendant in her claim.

Thurlbeck was arrested and bailed in April in the police investigation into phone hacking, but he has not been charged with any offence.

Last week, he pulled out of a planned industrial tribunal against News International over alleged unfair dismissal, but said that "the truth will out" in the case.

Mark Lewis, one of the lawyers acting on behalf of the phone hacking victims, said that just 5% of Mulcaire's victims have so far been notified, and the scandal could go much further into the newspaper industry.

"He was just one agent used by one paper," he told Bloomberg News. "When the final tally takes place, we will see thousands of claims and more than one paper."

Lewis also said that Rupert Murdoch's £20 million contingency fund to deal with the hacking claims was not looking sufficient enough, and even added that claims it will take £100m to clear the cases seem "a serious underestimate".

News International has already offered to pay one of Lewis's clients, the family of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, a £3m settlement, breaking down as a £2m payment and £1m charity donation.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/media/news/a344012/news-international-facing-more-than-60-phone-hacking-lawsuits.html

[christine]

blimey £20 mill won't pay off that lot!

[honeykid]

Nope. The £20m fund was almost redundant as soon as it was announced.

[will.15]

Whatever it costs isn't going to malke Murdoch go on Food Stamps.

[honeykid]

Ex-Sun editor tells Leveson Inquiry: No absolute truth in any newspaper
Former 'Sun' editor Kelvin MacKenzie has told the Leveson Inquiry into that there is “no absolute truth” in newspapers, admitting that “not everything can be correct”.

MacKenzie, editor of 'The Sun' from 1981 to 1994, refuted claims that inaccuracy was rife during his tenure but conceded that “we don’t know what the truth is."

“It is so hard in life, law and the press to get things 100% right,” MacKenzie said. “There is no certainty in journalism as there is no certainty in the legal world. There are time constraints which can lead to mistakes”.

Commenting on the accuracy of contemporaries within the press, MacKenzie asserted that the 'Sun' would have “come very very close to being shut down” if it had made similar mistakes to the Guardian in reporting the Milly Dowler voicemail story incorrectly.

Kelvin MacKenzie rose to become a controversial figure during time at 'The Sun' as he oversaw infamous headlines like "Freddie Starr ate my hamster" and "Gotcha"- the latter referring to the sinking of Argentinian warship Belgrano during the Falklands War. MacKenzie was also blasted for running an article on the Hillsborough stadium tragedy in 1989 in which it was alleged that Liverpool FC fans “picked the pockets” of disaster victims.

Questioned on the £1 million payout made to Elton John over a 'Sun' article that made sexual allegations about the singer, MacKenzie said that News International mogul Rupert Murdoch directly chastised the settlement not because of the money but due to the “shadow that had been cast over the newspaper”.

The former 'Sun' editor recalled “40 minutes of abuse” he received from Murdoch over the libel which “saw me [MacKenzie] out of the door”.

Kelvin Mackenzie also revealed the close relationship he had with politicians during his time at the tabloid, saying that he “didn’t doubt” they wanted a share of his influence. “Twice a year we might see cabinet individuals,” he said.

“I was astonished that a PM would want to meet a tabloid journalist with one GCSE. The purpose was for them to express their views and show what geniuses they are”.

In particular MacKenzie had a regular contact with former PM John Major, commenting that he “was no Thatcher”.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/ex-sun-editor-tells-leveson-inquiry--%E2%80%9Cno-absolute-truth-in-any-newspaper%E2%80%9D.html