Late last week Rupert Murdoch was apologizing all over the place for his company’s phone hacking and police bribery scandals. But based on the astonishingly defensive editorial about the matter in this morning’s Wall Street Journal, it seems that Murdoch considers himself to be a victim. Here are some of the main points that the company’s raising:
Our critics are blowing things out of proportion: This isn’t about an anything-goes culture that cuts across News Corp’s corporate and newsgathering practices, the Journal suggests. It’s just about “phone-hacking years ago at a British corner” of the company. What’s more, if Scotland Yard failed to enforce the anti-hacking laws years ago “then that is more troubling than the hacking itself.”
Our critics are hypocrites: British politicians now criticizing the cozy relationship between the government and the press “are also the same statesmen who have long coveted media support.” And the BBC and the Guardian, which have been all over the scandal, ”skew their coverage” to “influence public affairs…The Schadenfreude is so thick you can’t cut it with a chainsaw.” The Journal is particularly irked by members of the Bancroft family who now say that they regret selling the paper’s parent, Dow Jones, to Murdoch in 2007. The family’s “appetite for dividends meant that little cash remained to invest in journalism. We shudder to think what the Journal would look like today without the sale to News Corp.”
Why’s everybody so shocked?: Whatever you think about News Of The World “British tabloids have been known for decades for buying scoops and digging up dirt on the famous.” Fleet Street has “a well-earned global reputation for the blind-quote, single-sourced story that may or may not be true. The understandable outrage in this case stems from the hacking of a noncelebrity, the murder victim Milly Dowler.”
Stop picking on Les Hinton: Speaking of what may or may not be true, the Journal says it has “no reason to doubt” Hinton’s claim that when he ran News International he had no idea how extensively News Of The World was hacking phones — including when he misled Parliament by confidently testifying that the problem was limited to a few bad apples. Besides, he’s been good for the Journal since “the measure that really matters is the market’s, and on that score Mr. Hinton was at the helm when we again became America’s largest daily.” Hinton resigned on Friday as CEO of Dow Jones.
Don’t go after News Corp for violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: This may prove to be the company’s most important argument now that the FBI is investigating News Corp. The law was designed to go after companies that bribe foreign officials to land business abroad. But the Journal says that the First Amendment should stop U.S. law enforcement agencies from using the law to go after companies like News Corp that pay people for news. That would turn “traditional newsgathering into criminal acts.” Although the Journal says it doesn’t pay sources, “the practice is common elsewhere in the press, including in the U.S….Do our media brethren really want to invite Congress and prosecutors to regulate how journalists gather the news?”


.. and Wall Street Journal just lost any credibility it had left after the News Corp. buyout.
AND, what , exactly, was inaccurate in the editorial?
The editorial is a snow job that tries to hide the fact News Corp engaged in criminal acts. If some hacker broke into News corps servers and stole its data, that would be a crime.
Phone hacking is a euphemism for hacking into a computer system that contains digital audio files. News Corp not only stole audio data from individuals but also from government officials. Don’t you get that? News Corp also impeded an ongoing investigation of a child’s murder. Reports now show that News Corp hacked Jude Law’s American cell phone. That means that News Corp not only violated British laws but also American laws.
Why is it that if some kids broke into corporate servers, as News Corp has done, no one would have a problem with their arrest and trial? News Corp is worse, of course, because they aren’t some goofy teenagers. The News Corp actors were all adults who knew they were breaking laws but didn’t care because they knew the stolen data would profit them financially and professionally.
Moreover, News Corp bribed police officers to look the other way. Why do you think the two heads of Scotland Yard have resigned? They both refused to investigate News Corp.
As for the WSJ, it’s done a piss poor job of covering this story. It’s simply acting as a PR arm for Murdoch. If this were another media company, Disney, Gannet, NBCu/Comcast, the WSJ would have been all over this.
The problem we face is that too much media control resides in the hands of too few organizations. The old media rules limiting media holdings need to be reevaluated and reinstated.
It makes little sense for anyone company to have this much control of news media nationally or globally.
The WSJ editorial has many valid points.
The problem is that this now is all about the Murdochs…and, in the short term, that is the message the world will constantly see…the unbridled power, arrogance and total lack of humanity which appears to permeate Rupert’s culture.
As we often say, especially in Hollywood…”perception is reality”…and, based on this…the public’s perception of Murdochs and News Corp is at the bottom of the barrel.
Rupert may not outlive the repercussions to his empire…in fact, he may very well watch it crumble during his declining years…and, no amount of money will mollify his pain.
It is a lose/lose situation…and, that could not make me, and probably most of the world… happier!
Excellent post, Tom.
Of course all us sophisticos learn in finishing school that “perception is reality” but outside of romantic poets and the strict confines of the dream factory it’s a tired, pass the buck cliche at best and psychotic at worst. If perception is by definition “reality” (or more important than reality) then actual, verified “reality” is subordinated to whatever perception we have, or agree on, regardless how fatuous, and likely inflict on others who may have a more objective perception of what reality actually is. For instance, we went to war based on official “perceptions” of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, trumpeted by Murdoch’s virulent lies and foolishness. But in the end, reality bites, with tens of thousands dead, millions displaced, a country destroyed, trillions squandered, the American economy in the gutter, the next “target” (Iran) greatly empowered in order to eliminate non-existent WMDs. The perception of Murdoch/News Corp. was that they were unstoppable, largely because they successfully packaged, distributed and sold false perceptions on a massive scale for millions of rubes worldwide. That’s all fascinating (like the shock and awe destruction of Baghdad), but not nearly as important as the reality as to what illegal lengths they would go to do so. Here too we eventually have to deal with this reality, rather than quibbling about perceptions.
Dear Anonymous,
Well written…but, whatever happens in the legal arena will most probably not bring clarity to how this all began…and, “Who knew what and when did they knew it”.
The greatest damage to News Corp and the Murdochs has already been done, and can only get worse.
Whatever legal resolution this comes from this won’t matter…the damage is done, and no high powered pr firm or judicial finding will EVER remove this stain from the Murdoch legacy.
Without a doubt…the world now views these people as scum…period…and this stain will never come off the Murdochs…NEVER.
Hacking the Prince of Wales’ phone and bribing police officials, if proven, presents a serious national security threat to the nation of Great Britain.
ok…..!
Thats a hoot, it’s always typical of the right to play the victim and as is usual, the party of personal responsibility only believes in that for everyone else, not themselves.
@Randylaw: Right on the mark. The shameless rationalizations in that editorial are galling. If this had been any other, non-News Corp. media outlet, WSJ, Fox News, et al., would have been screeching about the undisciplined, sloppy, and treacherous Liberal Media.
The left too. The behavior is not a function of politics.
shut up ‘observer’
spoken like a bunch of really guilty bastards. OJ didn’t whine as much as these guys. “Leave us alone! We didn’t mean to delete the voicemails of a missing girl so that the police and her parents thought she was still alive. What’s wrong with bribing the cop investigating us by giving him a cushy job as an alleged columnist? England doesn’t count in America?”
There’s a special circle of hell for Murdoch and his News Corp Australian Rules Journalists.
This is coming from a news organization that had spent the last month trying to prove that Jon Stewart is racist and Comedy Central is a News Network.
This WSJ editorial will be like a Molotov Cocktail in the UK. News Corp keeps making humongous blunders. Next on the chopping block, a Murdoch barbeque in Parliament tomorrow when Rupe and James testify.
I don’t get it. He seemed like such a nice guy!
I just imagine him as a humorless Montgomery Burns.
Very, VERY, interesting…
Here are data-points, before these waters are roiled with idiocy:
1. News Corp. is incorporated in Delaware…which is in the United States.
2. Rupert Murdoch is a naturalized citizen of the U.S. (it’s hard to get FCC licenses as a foreign national).
3. The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act imposes criminal liability on U.S. COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS for engaging in corrupt business practices — like bribing government officials — in other countries. (Keep your eye on the ball, children: the issue here isn’t whether phones were tapped by private individuals, but WHETHER SOMEONE BRIBED COPS TO HELP OUT OR LOOK THE OTHER WAY.)
4. FCC broadcast licenses must be renewed, typically every 5 years.
5. In 1980, the FCC stripped RKO of its broadcast TV licenses when RKO’s parent company, General Tire, was busted for bribing foreign officials for tire contracts. The FCC held that RKO, as a subsidiary of General Tire, “lacked the requisite character” to hold broadcast licenses and the FCC also chided RKO for its “persistent lack of candor.”
6. The Chairman of the FCC is Julius Genachowski, a close friend and former classmate of President Obama.
7. News Corp. subsidiaries like Fox News have been very critical of our president…and of Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the U.S., whose Department of Justice is charged with prosecuting violations of U.S. federal law.
Just sayin’…
All valid points, but times are much different now. Very few, if any, prosecutions for wrongdoing by the rich and powerful. Even the Elder Bush’s DOJ prosecuted hundreds in the S&L scandal. How many did Obama go after? One chump from Goldman Sachs. I doubt very much that this will lead to any criminal charges here. Our political system has been shattered to bits and will never be repaired.
Ed:
On balance, I agree, but I’m not suggesting criminal proceedings will be pursued, merely that this could become an issue during FBC’s FCC license renewal proceedings. (That, in itself, would be A HUUUUUGGGGGEEEEE kerfluffle.)
Thoughtful stuff, though.
Just sayin’…
The first argument is ludicrous. They’re implying that breaking the law is less offensive than law-enforcement’s failure to catch or punish the law-breakers. While Scotland Yard’s failures and implications in the bribery accusations are troubling, it does not in any way lessen the severity of News Corps’ grievous disregard for the law. Their actions had nothing to do with the pursuit of journalistic duty, but rather with the pursuit of information to sell more papers and boost News Corps’ bottomline no matter who was victimized.
So now the Murdoch run Journal says:
- no big deal. tempest in a teapot…
- everybody does it. why pick on me?
- doesn’t matter what Les Hinton knew. he sold papers and that’s what counts
- if we’re prosecuted under the USFCPA, all news gathering will be illegal. thus, leaving us alone saves news.
So much for the humble apology route. Perhaps we should erect a statue of Mr. Murdoch to honor him as savior of the world of news. Let’s just make sure and place it where the pigeons will put it to its best use…
And the pushback begins.
Murdoch is toast on the other side of the pond. This is his last-ditch effort to save the American part of his media empire.
Just watch. Roger Ailes’ puppets over at Fox News are going to swing right into action starting today, and it’s going to be hard and heavy. Because now, for the first time in a couple of weeks, those morons now have talking points to parrot. And Ailes knows the fate of his 24-7 right-wing propaganda machine hangs in the balance.
The rot in that company starts at the top. Ailes’ best hope now is a white knight will emerge (The Koch brothers maybe???) to rescue his Pravda as Murdoch is forced to divest.
Actually, Michael, I’d say Ailes is very well positioned at this moment. The FCC doesn’t license cable channels, so there’s no danger of the gov’t stepping in to shut them down. The channel is an ATM for News Corp, so whoever ends up running the company would be loathe to shut it down. Finally, Roger gets rid of the pesky James Murdoch, who he’s butted heads with in the past. I see nothing but sunshine in his world.
OH please! The amounts of money spent and on the books as misc. or other items according to the reporters at News of the World was so large that senior management could not have missed and questioned it. They had to know. If they didn’t know then that raises other questions of competence in basic money management and again they shouldn’t hold those positions. Murdoch’s empire is rotten to the core.
The Wall Street Journal lost all its credibility when Murdoch took it over 3 years ago. They’re just another right-wing conservative shill-machine, just like Fox News. If there’s anyone left at WSJ with any integrity, they should leave now.
Media corporations do not have any more right to bribe foreign officials than any other corporation, unless you think such bribery is NECESSARY to exorcise free speech or gather vital information. Read one interpretation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act here http://library.findlaw.com/1997/Jan/1/126234.html.
We don’t want to give news organizations free reign to pay off public officials. Paying a private citizen for an interview should not be viewed as the same thing. If News Corp is proven to have paid off politicians, they should be prosecuted, otherwise the law has no real meaning.
It is too early in the game to figure out who is guilty and who is not … we do not know the facts of the investigations. It must play out and with that, we will see where and to whom the evidence leads.
Nothing justifies criminal behavior. I hope they get ALL of the journalists and dirty cops who violated the law.
This graph in the opinion column is very disturbing: Fleet Street has “a well-earned global reputation for the blind-quote, single-sourced story that may or may not be true…”
So many victims from that alone, does Rupert not understand that? Surely, he must, having been a journalist himself once upon a time.
We must give credit to Nick Davies of the UK Guardian and the Guardian editors for breaking this story and standing behind it even s other colleagues in journalism looked away out of professional courtesy.
I experienced that first hand during the Pellicano case. The Los Angeles Times (the attorney at the newspaper, her husband who was metro editor and one of the lead reporters on the case, specifically Chuck Philips) all had conflicts of interest with Pellicano and did not and would not recuse themselves from Pellicano matters.
The attorney, Karlene Goller, wanted Pellicano to come aboard to help the day after I was threatened; her husband, metro editor and now opinion page leader Jim Newton, kept a gift on his desk from Pellicano and had the most bylines at the paper where Pellicano was mentioned or quoted, and Chuck Philips was Newton’s partner in those stories.
Philips attended Pellicano’s wedding (and was not reporting on it) and even admitted that Pellicano was a long-time news source of his. None of these people recused themselves from Pellicano matters at the newspaper.
The day after I was threatened, someone inside the newspaper messed with the files that were sitting on my desk. As the investigation continued, I came back from lunch one day to find that my internal L.A. Times emails had been read.
Of those other journalists covering the Pellicano story, only Nikki Finke and respected newsman Pete Noyes at Fox News had the guts to say anything about the blatant conflict of interest regarding Philips. I also called for an investigation into the L.A. Times’ ties to Pellicano whose convicted co-conspirator — the computer guy who developed the Wiretapping Software — worked for the L.A. Times at one point.
Not one journalistic outlet covered the L.A. Times conflicts of interest with the biggest and most dangerous thug p.i. in L.A. Why? I’ll tell you why: Because other media outlets also had a relationship with him and/or looked away out of professional courtesy.
So, I applaud Nick Davies and the UK Guardian for standing alone in their pursuit of the truth.
Thank you Anita Busch for bringing attention once again to integrity in journalism, or lack thereof. We agree that Nick Davies and the UK Guardian are to be applauded. We also agree that Nikki Finke is fearless when it comes to cutting through the BS of a given situation.
I agree with this Bravo for Anita Busch’s comments.The conflicts of interest described in the UK case, are a recurring widespread problem. It’s part of the ‘deep politics’ of our governing.
I was thinking of the Pellicano case when reading of the hacking. How come all those lawyers that used him weren’t dragged forward? One pleaded as I recall, but what he the only one who used his services? What newspaper editors used him? Was an effort made to know?
35 years ago, Carl Bernstein wrote a story in “Rolling Stone” listing the hundreds of newspapers and television stations in the USA with CIA contract employees on their staffs. The response? A collective yawn. We don’t demand integrity in our media, so we are not surprised by seen and unseen influences.Conflict of interest becomes part of the process. We give lip service to it, but we allow conglomerates to run myriad communication outlets and we are not angered when we find a symbiotic relationship between our government and our press.
If this incident helps the public debate about who should have the responsibility of the airwaves, all the better.
Mr. Harper: I recall reading the prosecutor chose to go after the supply rather than the demand in the Pellicano matter. Wonder if all those who were let off the hook minded their p’s and q’s after the trial? Your post is a reminder that Murdoch didn’t invent wiretapping. I hope you are right, that this episode helps stir debate in an apathetic public. After all, power tends to corrupt .. and absolute power?
Was channel surfing and came across a panel show late Saturday night on Fox News (likely taped earlier in the day) where most of the panel was expressing exactly these same talking points.
They are going on the offensive like a cornered animal, so something even bigger must be around the corner.
Hard to avoid feelings of schadenfreude. If Murdoch’s best defense is an arrogant offense, we’ll soon be seeing others fall from lofty places.
It will be hard to avoid feelings of schadenfreude then too as media moguls (scrambling to keep the curtain in place) wind up in the net or under the bus. After all in Oz, the great and powerful Wizard, was revealed to be merely an ordinary man.
And that’s the end of the WSJ as a credible news organization.
And where is it written that it’s okay to hack into celebrities phones? Exactly when did Mick Jagger, Bono and others sign that agreement? They aren’t going to be sources for information on burning national interests like Vietnam (Pentagon Papers) or complex diplomatic negotiations (Wikileaks).
I’m sure the BBC and guardian are revelling in New Corps latest screw-up but considering that Rupert Murdoch and New Corps have always been against the BBC and the Guardian’s coverage and have openly called for the BBC’s power to be curbed (who are their main BSKYB rivals) this editorial isnt surprising in the least. Whats disturbing is that New Corps still dont see whats wrong. They may discredit the guardians motives and whatnot, but the points they raise against News International are valid.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/17/brooks-rupert-james-murdoch-select-committee
No doubt these tabloid practices are widespread but its the length that News International want to cover and bury the story is what is concerning. There is a striking correlation in the current conservative governments media policies and the News Internatianal business aspirations at the expense of the BBC.
WSJ has activated the GoebbelsBot and set it to spin-n-save.
“”the practice [of paying sources] is common elsewhere in the press, including in the U.S….Do our media brethren really want to invite Congress and prosecutors to regulate how journalists gather the news?”
Is the WSJ threatening regulators? Sure sounds like it.
Why not revoke Murdoch’s citizenship and the start hacking away at all the lying sources he controls
CLASSIC ROVIAN MOVE!
Stay classy Rupert.