01 May 12 | Uncategorized
Rupert Murdoch is “not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company”, a committee of MPs has concluded today.
In a damning report on News International and phone hacking, the Commons culture, media and sport select committee accused the media mogul of exhibiting “wilful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications” and not taking steps to become fully informed about the extent of phone hacking at his empire. It said:
This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International.
The report accused three former News International executives — Les Hinton, Colin Myler, and Tom Crone — of misleading the committee during its inquiries, which began in July 2011 in the wake of revelations about the extent of phone hacking at the now defunct News of the World. The report said that NI’s former legal manager Crone and ex-News of the World editor Myler “deliberately avoided disclosing crucial information to the Committee and, when asked to do, answered questions falsely”.
The report said that the company “finally realised that its containment approach had failed” by spring 2011 in the wake of civil cases brought forward, and that its “one rogue reporter” stance was by then no longer credible. It said that News Corp’s strategy was to “lay the blame on certain individuals” (citing Myler and Crone amongst others) while “striving to protect more senior figures, notably James Murdoch.”
“Even if there were a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ culture at News International, the whole affair demonstrates huge failings of corporate governance at the company and its parent, News Corporation”, the report added.
Meanwhile, former NI chairman James Murdoch, who gave evidence to the committee along with his father last year, was accused of “wilful ignorance” and of betraying “astonishing lack of curiosity on the part of a chief executive” for not having inquired more deeply into the extent of the practice in 2008, at the time of negotiations surrounding a £700,000 phone-hacking settlement paid to the Professional Footballers’ Association boss, Gordon Taylor.
“Had James Murdoch been more attentive to the correspondence that he received at the time, he could have taken action on phone hacking in 2008 and this committee could have been told the truth in 2009,” the report said.
Last month the younger Murdoch resigned as chairman of BSkyB, whose parent company News Corporation was founded by his father. He also stood down as chairman of the newspaper publisher, News International, earlier this year.
However the report’s conclusions were not unanimous, with the committee split over several of its findings. The motion to submit the report to Parliament passed by a majority of six to four, with four Conservative members opposing. Four of the five Tory members of the committee also refused to declare the elder Murdoch was a fit person to run an international company.
“This line about Rupert Murdoch not being fit was stuck in on the basis of no evidence to the committee whatsoever,” Tory MP Louise Mensch said. She added that the report was “carried on political lines” and feared its credibility had been damaged as a result of not having full backing of all committee members. Committee chair John Whittingdale stressed, however, that the committee was “wholly agreed” on the main findings relating to their being misled by named individuals.
Meanwhile, Ofcom released a statement noting it had seen today’s report:
Ofcom has a duty under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 to be satisfied that any person holding a broadcasting licence is, and remains, fit and proper to do so. Ofcom is continuing to assess the evidence – including the new and emerging evidence – that may assist it in discharging these duties.
Marta Cooper is an editorial researcher at Index. She tweets at @martaruco
26 Apr 12 | Asia and Pacific
The artist Ai Weiwei’s outspoken views are gaining currency. Simon Kirby reflects on a change of mood in China as people lose faith in the Party
In June 2011, Ai Weiwei was released from detention to a form of home surveillance. He is confined to the city of Beijing and must inform the authorities of his movements. He may not make public statements nor comment on his detention and the terms of his release (a condition he has already breached); further investigations are pending and a prosecution may be pursued within a year. It is still far from clear what the implications are for Ai as a private individual, let alone for his capacity to continue to work as an artist. Just as he was never formally arrested neither has he been fully freed.
This shabby story takes place against a backdrop of heightened political sensitivity in China as the country braces itself for transition to a new, as yet unannounced, group of top leaders. This is scheduled to take place next year in the Great Hall of the People during the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party. The Congress will certainly be a rigid spectacle of national purpose and will make numbing television viewing. Not least because it will be impossible not to speculate on the nature of the Byzantine succession struggle which is currently taking place behind firmly locked doors.
The detention of Ai Weiwei was based on intimidation rather than legal process — a pattern that is well established in China. In effect, he was kidnapped by the state and never informed which organ of the machinery was holding him, nor was he charged with a specific crime. Rather, his indictment was based on “confessions”. Even his release was justified on the spurious grounds of cooperative behaviour, willingness to make amends and poor physical health. As the threat of re-opening the case against him still looms, he is now being blackmailed into falling into line.
A few weeks after Ai Weiwei was released I had lunch with him. He talked frankly about the contradictions of his detention and the absurdity of his current position. He clearly intends to continue working and his remarkable personal charisma is undimmed. Yet he is, in my view, a person who is also deeply disturbed by what is happening to him.
Artists and the “Tiananmen contract”
Throughout the 90s, Chinese state-controlled capitalism ushered in a remarkable economic boom from which the fledgling contemporary art scene benefited. Artists, as potentially problematic figures, were heavily co-opted with a variety of sticks and carrots — there were rich rewards to be had and the freedom to continue making, exhibiting and travelling was granted to artists in exchange for creating non-critical work. In many cases, artists were understandably tempted to comply. Ever since the fearful events of the Tiananmen massacre on 4 June 1989, there has been an enforced accommodation between the government and society. I dubbed this the “Tiananmen contract” in an article for Index on Censorship that was published in 2008, ahead of the Chinese Olympics. The deal is that the Communist Party would steer the people towards individual prosperity and the country to greatness, through ensuring stability. In return, the primacy of the Party could never be questioned. Three years ago, the contract was widely supported — the level of basic freedom was greater than it had been in 20 years and living standards were rising. There was also pride at China’s leading role on the world stage. Today, I believe this consensus is much more fragile.
The daily reality for Chinese citizens is that living costs are rising fast and incomes are not keeping up. Working conditions for white collar workers can be demoralising, while those for migrant manual workers, who continue to have even basic rights denied them, are often shockingly exploitative. Commuting in the new, high-rise cities can be exhausting and alienating. People are deeply sceptical about the capacity of the state to protect them from (often deliberately) contaminated food and a toxic living environment, criminal scams, corruption in the medical profession and corporate exploitation of consumers. The Party is widely understood to be at the centre of many of these scandals and is often seen to be protecting wrongdoers. Most flagrantly, the new super-rich live effectively beyond the reach of the law, while ordinary people can in no way count on basic social justice for themselves and their families.
There are attempts to address these problems through draconian anticorruption campaigns which make examples of officials accused of vice and graft. There are also strenuous efforts to reform social and fiscal legislation and to professionalise the legal system. This year’s 90th anniversary celebrations of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party saw an outpouring of congratulatory media stories featuring joyful ethnic minorities, good comrades and citizens and glorious historical deeds. Meanwhile Tiananmen Square, which is the heart of the great people’s revolution, was firmly sealed and off limits.
In March, I had dinner in a noisy Korean barbecue restaurant in Beijing with a favourite Chinese artist. Only 32 years old, he already enjoys a successful international career, is profoundly patriotic and the holder of an important teaching post. During the evening, my friend passionately expounded an opinion in full earshot of fellow diners and waiting staff that would have made me extremely uncomfortable even five years ago. Namely, that the Chinese Communist Party in 2011 is more fundamentally corrupt than even Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang (KMT or Nationalist Party) of the 40s. The official history, tirelessly propagated in films and TV dramas, is that that the nationalist administration had degenerated into a kind of murderous gangsterism before the 1949 revolution. Yet my artist friend argued that pre-revolutionary society in many ways remained, for all its faults, a pluralistic one: an imperfect democracy. There was at least formal acknowledgment of the independence of the judiciary and channels to seek redress from injustice. The Communist Party of the 21st century, on the other hand, retains its monopoly on power through intimidation and force. It is deeply complicit in land grabs, forced evictions, endemic bribery and corruption. It even facilitates the enrichment of favoured businesses through official contracts and privileged access to resources and markets.
A new trend for speaking out
The legal system today, my friend told me, is explicitly in place in order to serve the interests of the Party above anything else. Citizens who attempt to petition the government to redress flagrant social wrongs can expect to be met at best with official obstruction. In many documented cases they will encounter thuggish intimidation and violence. This viewpoint is not unusual. In a way that is entirely characteristic of China, I then went on to hear the same, previously unimaginable, opinion expressed by three other, unrelated people within the course of as many weeks. If during the course of conversation with people in China, one digs just a little, it’s possible to encounter a profound and worrying cynicism in the integrity of the Chinese state.
It seems that suddenly these views are being expressed loudly and in public. Ai Weiwei, on the other hand, has been consistently and persistently making his views known. His father, Ai Qing, was one of China’s most eminent poets, but was a political prisoner for 16 years in the western desert region of Xinjiang. This is where Ai Weiwei spent his entire childhood and early adolescence. When Ai Weiwei returned to China in 1993 after ten years in the United States, his rehabilitated father advised him on his responsibility as a Chinese citizen to speak out, reportedly saying, “You are at home here, there’s no need to be polite.”
An intriguingly enigmatic artist, Ai Weiwei’s public personality is also complex and elusive. The true Ai Weiwei may well be a nuanced combination of the many faults of which his detractors accuse him. However, it has also now become clear, even to his harshest critics, that this artist has courageously maintained a highly principled position for which he is now paying a heavy price. It is my observation that many others are beginning to come round to his point of view.
This article appears in the “Art Issue” of Index on Censorship. Click on here for subscription options and more.
Simon Kirby is the director of Chambers Fine Art in Beijing
This issue is nominated for an Amnesty Award
24 Apr 12 | Events
Date: Tues 19 June
Time: 6pm for a 6.30pm start
Venue: Free Word Centre, EC1R 3GA
Tickets: Free, register here
‘In a league of its own: is sports above human rights?
A discussion followed by a screening of England vs Ukraine. To celebrate the launch of the latest issue of Index on Censorship, ‘Sport on Trial’, award-winning sports journalist Mihir Bose, Olympics historian Martin Polley and footballer Clarke Carlisle will discuss sport and ethics with editor Jo Glanville.
Refreshments and pub snacks will be available during the screening courtesy of SAGE Publications.
Mihir Bose is an award-winning sports journalist and author. He writes the weekly ‘Big Interview’ for the London Evening Standard, and also writes and broadcasts on social and historical issues for a range of outlets including the BBC, the Financial Times and Sunday Times. His books include ‘The Spirit of the Game’.
Martin Polley is one of the UK’s leading sports historians. Author of numerous books and articles, including The British Olympics: Britain’s Olympic Heritage 1612-2012, he is also consultant historian on the Free Word Centre’s Politics and Olympics exhibition, and Senior Lecturer in Sport at the University of Southampton.
Clarke Carlisle is a professional footballer, an ambassador for the Kick It Out campaign and is Chairman of the Management Committee of the Professional Footballers’ Association.
19 Apr 12 | Uncategorized
It looks like LMFAO’s party-rockin’ tour has been enlisted in whitewashing Bahrain’s human rights abuses. According to the state-owned Bahrain News Agency (BNA), the duo is set to perform in a free show for fans at the Bahrain Grand Prix Sunday.
Bahrain has borrowed a favourite from the iPod of fellow protest-crusher Syria’s Bashar Al-Assad to help ensure that the race goes forward.
Let’s recap: yesterday, ongoing clashes between protesters and security forces turned violent when stun grenades were fired at a demonstration outside of a cultural exhibition celebrating the upcoming race. Imprisoned hunger striker and activist Abdulhadi Alkhawaja is now entering his 71st day on hunger strike, despite international outrage over his continued detention.
While the BNA has been active in publicising the concert, which they claim was responsible for a recent spike in ticket purchases, LMFAO has kept mum about the concert. They have not publicised the performance, which suggests that they’re being used and they know it.
Both the Bahraini government and CEO of Formula One, Bernie Ecclestone, have claimed that the race would be secured, and dismissed concerns about protesters. Ecclestone claimed that “there’s nothing happening” and that things were “peaceful” in the troubled kingdom. However, former assistant-commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, John Yates, admitted yesterday that they cannot “guarantee security” at the race. He also added that security forces would use live rounds if necessary, but dismissed the possibility as unlikely.
In honour of the group’s Bahrain performance, I’ve made a few memes. Feel free to post your own, and tweet them during their performance on American Idol tonight. Hopefully, their own fans can be made aware of what is happening in Bahrain, and place pressure on the group to avoid being used to take attention away from what has been a failure to make substantial reforms.
