UK PM Cameron blasts Murdoch as News Corp. drops BSkyB bid

[BostonPirate]

This is a lengthy article and given the implications, I guess it ought to be and it ought to be read in full if you have the time. Here are some highlights....

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/13/uk.phone.hacking.scandal/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Rupert Murdoch's media empire suffered a double blow Wednesday as Prime Minister David Cameron launched a wide-ranging investigation into the British press and Murdoch's News Corp. withdrew a bid to take over British satellite broadcaster BSkyB.

........

Cameron, announcing the public inquiry into press practices and ethics, said anyone "found guilty of wrongdoing -- or of allowing it -- must not only be brought to justice, they must also have no future role in the running of a media company in our country."
The judge leading the inquiry will be able to summon witnesses including newspaper owners and make them testify in public, under oath, Cameron announced.
The aim is to "bring this ugly chapter to a close and ensure that nothing like it ever happens again," the prime minister said.
Murdoch's company needs "root and branch change," Cameron said

..........

"If I was lied to, if the police were lied to, if the select committee were lied to, it would be a matter of deep regret and a matter for a criminal prosecution," Cameron said.
The prime minister's remarks came in a raucous appearance before parliament.
Condemnation of Murdoch came from many British politicians a day after a senior American senator warned that any Murdoch journalists who illegally eavesdropped on 9/11 victims would face "severe" consequences.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, said reported hacking by journalists at Murdoch's News Corp. was "offensive and a serious breach of journalistic ethics," as well as a potential violation of U.S. law.
The Senate Commerce Committee chairman urged authorities to "investigate to ensure that Americans have not had their privacy violated."
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, called on American authorities Wednesday to investigate whether any News Corp. employees had broken U.S. law by bribing foreign officials.

So this means that even if Murdoch is tried in absentia, and convicted, if the UK gov't wants him, we have to hand him over.

Assuming we wont be entertaining him in one of our own private facilities.

Is this going to reign in Murdoch and FOX? They have effectively been shut out of the UK at this point right?

Does he own any other papers there?

 

[andysayshi]

^ Don't count your chickens before they hatch. There will be fallout for Murdoch, but he is one of the most powerful men on Earth, with many powerful friends.

A few hands will be smacked, a few knuckles rapped, maybe a few scapegoat journos will go to jail.

But Murdoch, like all the super-rich of the world, doesn't answer to the same laws as you or I.

 

[BostonPirate]

^ Don't count your chickens before they hatch. There will be fallout for Murdoch, but he is one of the most powerful men on Earth, with many powerful friends.

A few hands will be smacked, a few knuckles rapped, maybe a few scapegoat journos will go to jail.

But Murdoch, like all the super-rich of the world, doesn't answer to the same laws as you or I.

never truer words spoken there.

He has the House of Reps of the US congress that need him to carry their message this next election.

They wont see him in jail.

Jesus that sucks.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

So this means that even if Murdoch is tried in absentia, and convicted, if the UK gov't wants him, we have to hand him over.

I know I'm not caught up on the news, but what exactly has Murdoch himself done? I know it was a lot of people under his employ that did the hacking, but that doesn't make the boss himself culpable, especially given the number of people between him and, say, Coulson.

Yeah, I know it's a weird thought that someone actually has to do something before getting tried, but I'd still like to know what he himself did in this matter...

RG

 

[BostonPirate]

I know I'm not caught up on the news, but what exactly has Murdoch himself done? I know it was a lot of people under his employ that did the hacking, but that doesn't make the boss himself culpable, especially given the number of people between him and, say, Coulson.

Yeah, I know it's a weird thought that someone actually has to do something before getting tried, but I'd still like to know what he himself did in this matter...

RG

Ever hear of the phrase "the buck stops here"?

There are some places on the planet that actually hold corporations and their owners accountable for the actions they take. Murdoch has a responsibility to insure that his corporations are observing all laws and if they don't he is culpable.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Ever hear of the phrase "the buck stops here"?

There are some places on the planet that actually hold corporations and their owners accountable for the actions they take. Murdoch has a responsibility to insure that his corporations are observing all laws and if they don't he is culpable.

On one hand, sure. If such attention is brought to his attention or if he otherwise finds out about such behavior, definitely. On the other, he can't be held responsible for the actions of each and every employee in every one of his companies; to do so would make him one of the worst micro-managers ever, especially considering he employs how many tens if not hundreds of thousands of people...?

I'm not trying to defend Murdoch here. However, he has taken action, in eliminating the news division that was the problem. As he himself did not do the hacking, but is taking what steps he can to punish those responsible, I think he's doing as right as he can. If it helps, he did lose a major opportunity because of this.

I just don't see any rational reason why to go after him. He's not always going to be able to control his people, and he should not be punished for the crimes of those under him, especially when he didn't encourage them to do so. Now, if he had gone to Coulson and told him to do so, I could understand going after him, but it was Coulson who did this on his own and did the encouraging, and he's now deep in an investigation of his actions.

There's only so much a CEO can do on a daily basis, and keeping tabs on each and every employee is a bit much to ask...

RG

 

[BostonPirate]

It is NOW time for the USA and the UK to start holding the men at the top responsible for the actions of their company.

It is happening.

It is the right thing to hold them responsible. Too many times, when one of them screws up, they get handed a million dollar package and retire to the bahamas.

Its obscene, and it allows these men to let their corporations trample on human beings and the rule of law.

Murdoch is responsible. He WILL be held responsible.

There have already been arrests in the UK and there will be more. Murdoch is not safe at this point.

His corporations are now in crisis.

 

[BostonPirate]

the guy may be an asshole, but is there any indication that he knew what was going on and looked the other way, encouraged the hacking, or was involved with the hacking in any way other than your vague notion of "a CEO should be personally liable for every single action any one of their millions of employees may undertake"?

calling bullshit dude.

The parliament is calling Murdoch for lying to them. He already appeared and stated that this was not goiing on.

but it runs much deeper than that...

day, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) called on the House and Senate to investigate whether journalists working for Rupert Murdoch’s News International (NI), owned by News Corp., have hacked into the voicemail of Americans.

Despite claims by NI executives that the phone hacking scandal enveloping Murdoch and his media empire was confined to the now-defunct News of the World, new evidence shows other Murdoch papers used the same tactics. Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was repeatedly targeted for more than a decade by other Murdoch publications.

Further, a former New York City police officer claims he was offered money by News of the World journalists to retrieve the phone records of 9/11 victims and their families.

“It is becoming increasingly clear this scandal was not perpetrated by a few rogue reporters, but was systematically orchestrated at the highest levels of News Corp.,” said CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan. “If Mr. Murdoch’s employees can be so brazen as to target the British prime minister, then it is not unreasonable to believe they also might hack into the voicemails of American politicians and citizens.”

http://www.citizensforethics.org/le...or-congressional-investigation-into-news-corp

Why would Murdoch allow his son to settle these cases out of court with bags of cash, if he was not aware of what was going on?

The News of the World was shut after 11,000 documents seized from a private investigator revealed the ugly truth behind many of its scoops.

One police source said: “These documents show the hacking was not just one or two attempts at accessing voicemails. More than 4,000 people had their phone hacked. This was hacking on an industrial scale.”

Mr Murdoch’s son James, who is chairman of News International, admitted to approving out of court settlements to hacking victims and misleading Parliament – which he claims was not deliberate.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/2011/07/11/...-news-of-the-world-reporters-115875-23262694/

He knew about the cover up, that is clear. Did he know of the illegal events As they were occurring?

management is responsible for the behavior of those that work for him, when its clear that its not an isolated incident and that thousands of people have been violated.

 

[unloadonme]

Does he own any other papers there?

In the UK News Corporation owns The Times, The Sunday Times and The Sun. It also already holds about 40% of the shares in BSkyB.

 

[BostonPirate]

In the UK News Corporation owns The Times, The Sunday Times and The Sun. It also already holds about 40% of the shares in BSkyB.

I am of the undestanding that he had to give that 40 percent up over this.

News Corp continues to look for ways out of the scrape, including a $5 bn stock buyback, which is $3.2 bn over and above what remains of an existing buyback plan.

http://www.businessinsider.com/news-corp-drops-bskyb-bid-scrambles-for-ir-response-to-scandal-2011-7

ok I may have misunderstood... is he trying to dump the stock he already ahs or is he still trying to aquire BSkyB?

 

[unloadonme]

I am of the undestanding that he had to give that 40 percent up over this ...

As far as I'm aware, that's not the case. I think Murdoch has simply had to abandon his plans to acquire the remaining 60%, or at least abandon them for the time being.

 

[BostonPirate]

As far as I'm aware, that's not the case. I think Murdoch has simply had to abandon his plans to acquire the remaining 60%, or at least abandon them for the time being.

thanks for the info!

 

[winterknight]

Ofcom is conducting what it calls a "Fit and proper person" investigation into News Corp's remaining 40% stake. If the report goes against them, they may be forced to sell it.

The investigation is likely to take several months, however, (at a minimum, it will have to wait until the police investigation has run its course) and as Unloadonme said, all they've done in the meantime is drop their bid to acquire the other 60%.

 

[rareboy]

At least Britain may yet be spared the horrors of seeing SKY turned into another FOX news network.

I suspect that MurdochCo. may never get the opportunity to renew their bid for SKY.