10 Nov 11 | Uncategorized
James Murdoch was accused of being a “mafia boss” as he gave further evidence today to the Commons culture, media and sport select committee about the phone hacking scandal.
During the two-and-a-half hours of questioning, Murdoch trod a fine line between appearing blissfully unaware of the extent of phone-hacking at the News of the World, and attempting to convince the committee that he supervised his company appropriately.
He also explicitly blamed the paper’s legal adviser Tom Crone and former editor Colin Myler for misleading the select committee, noting that their previous testimony was “economical”, “inconsistent” and full of “supposition”.
Murdoch repeated his previous claim that he had not received “evidence of widespread criminality” at the News of the World in meetings in May and June 2008 with Crone and Myler.
However, this contradicts evidence given by the pair, who told the committee in September that they had discussed with Murdoch the infamous “for Neville” email during said meetings. The email contained transcripts of hacked voicemails on the phone of Gordon Taylor, who was then suing the paper for breach of privacy. It is seen as a key indicator that hacking extended beyond Clive Goodman, the paper’s Royal correspondent who had been jailed in 2007 for hacking the phones of members of the Royal family.
He also maintained the pair had never discussed with him the significance of Michael Silverleaf QC’s legal opinion from 3 June 2008, which warned of “a culture of illegal information access” at News International that involved “at least three” of its reporters.
The News Corp boss was scrutinised in light of Silverleaf’s opinion, which also advised the newspaper to settle its case against Taylor. Murdoch insisted that he had no knowledge of the memo prior to his authorising a £750,000 payout made to Taylor in August of the same year. Again, he blamed Crone and Myler, arguing they “should have told me the whole story”.
Yet why Murdoch did not scrutinise the details of the Taylor payout, as well as his apparent ignorance of the scale of criminal activity at News International, raised issues of his competence as an executive. The committee asked, “which is worse? Willful blindness or incompetence by not knowing what was going on?”
Murdoch responded that News International was a “small piece of the News Corporation cake” and that it was “impossible” to manage every detail.
“I can’t believe your organisation has been so successful by being so cavalier with money,” Philip Davies MP added later.
Paul Farrelly said,
The one thing that shows us and any 10-year-old that the News of the World did not stack up is that Gordon Taylor was not a royal or a member of the royal household.”
Did [Murdoch] not ask “how come this man [Mulcaire] had hacked this phone when he [Taylor] is not royal?”
Did you not ask “Who the hell else had Mulcaire been hacking?”
Murdoch promised that lessons had been learnt, claiming his intention was for News Corp to be “as transparent as possible” in the future.
The riveting moment came when Labour MP Tom Watson revealed he had met former News of the World chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck immediately prior to the committee hearing. Watson said Thurlbeck told him that Crone had intended to show Murdoch the “for Neville” email in May 2008.
Watson quoted Thurlbeck as saying:
This is not some vague memory, I was absolutely on a knife edge. Tom [Crone] took it to him. The following week I said “did you show him the email?” He said “yes I did”. Now he can’t remember whether he showed it to Mr Murdoch or not. He said “it’s alright, it’s fine, it’s settled.”
Murdoch again denied all knowledge of the email, after which Watson accused the News Corp executive of being “the first mafia boss in history who didn’t know he was running a criminal enterprise.”
Murdoch told Watson his comment was “inappropriate”.
Reasserting his executive position, Murdoch also refused to rule out closing The Sun if evidence of phone hacking at the paper were to emerge. He said the recent arrest of Sun reporter Jamie Pyatt in connection with payments made to police officers was a “matter of great concern”, while Steve Rotheram MP told the committee that the words “the Sun” appeared in notes seized from the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire.
Murdoch also condemned the revelations this week of surveillance of hacking victims’ lawyers, calling it “appalling” and “unacceptable.”
Wrapping up the hearing, John Whittingdale MP said it was “unlikely” there would be future sessions.
The challenge now is for the committee to weigh up the contradictions between Murdoch’s account and those of Crone, Myler and Thurlbeck.
08 Nov 11 | Leveson Inquiry
Lord Justice Leveson has rejected a call from the Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police in which they asked to review evidence submitted to the inquiry and decide what information can be made public or shared with participants.
The joint submission made last month by the Met and the CPS expressed concerns that an individual who is later charged may claim the Inquiry breached their right to a fair trial, as evidence will be heard before criminal trials have occurred. As a result, the submission requested suggests that any document that the Inquiry wishes to disclose to other core participants or make public should first be shown to a nominated police officer, who would then be able to veto any information that might prejudice criminal proceedings.
Neil Garnham QC, representing the Met and CPS, told the Inquiry at a public hearing on 31 October that he was concerned not only that the Inquiry may risk prejudicing the criminal investigation, but also that, in reporting the Inquiry, the media might “go beyond fair reporting” and damage proceedings.
Leveson said he did not accept these concerns, stating in today’s ruling that adhering to the Met and CPS’s requests would “substantially increase the work that has to be put into adducing evidence before me” and may potentially “damage both the public perception of the Inquiry and its timeliness.” Leveson suggested he himself will decide what information might pose a risk to the criminal investigation.
The first hearing of the Inquiry will take place on 14 November, with victims’ evidence to be heard from 21 November. The Inquiry is likely to hear evidence from witnesses until February 2012.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson.
08 Nov 11 | Asia and Pacific, China
One of the most curious newspapers to come out of China in recent years is the English-language edition of the Global Times.
Owned by the People’s Daily group, it is one of only two national papers published in English in mainland China, alongside the long-standing, less sensational China Daily.
When the tabloid was launched by editor-in-chief Hu Xijin in 2009, Westerners hired as editors were told their aim was to steal China Daily’s readership by covering stories its rival and the rest of the domestic media would not dare cover. Hu has certainly kept his promise: over the years the paper has touched on the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, the detention earlier this year of dissident artist Ai Weiwei (including an exclusive interview with Ai on his release), and the house arrest of blind human rights lawyer Chen Chuangcheng. Its tone moves between hyper-nationalism and a more objective reflection on typically “sensitive” topics.
The Global Times is now so notorious among Western journalists that the paper itself has become a news story. Last week, Foreign Policy dubbed it “China’s Fox news“. The Global Times quickly responded with its own editorial saying: “the quality of the article didn’t live up to what we expect from the Western media.” Touché!
In order to find out more about the man, and the tabloid he has created, Index went behind the scenes to talk to Western editors and reporters at the tabloid. Because staff are forbidden to discuss the paper with Western media, we cannot disclose their names.
Their comments cast Hu as enthusiastic character who enjoys controversy and has a thing for Chinese film star Gong Li. Here’s a selection.
REPORTER A
I rather liked him… I think of him as a William Randolph Hearst [Citizen Kane] of Chinese journalism. He’s an excitable boy, a rakish liar. He loves to hear himself hold forth and says his biggest regret is not seeing enough of his teenage daughter because he works so late. He has a vintage poster of Gong Li in his modestly-appointed office. No other real decorations.
He knows really very little about US foreign or political policies but is very quick to jump on the idea that US is itching to drop a bomb or two on China.
He loves controversy and courts it — whether it’s an editorial in the Wall Street Journal or New York Times or Financial Times quoting Global Times for some addled hysterical stance or some trouble with the more conservative People’s Daily types.
He’s also a hypocrite, of course. He had a reporter [called Wen Tao] fired for tweeting from an all-Chinese news meeting where he had assured the staff that Global Times would print anything without fear or favour. That reporter later found a gig as an assistant for Ai Weiwei and was arrested with him, before being released at about the same time Ai was.
EDITOR B
What most people don’t realise about the paper unless they have the hard copy in front of them is that whenever a sensitive news story is covered, they always run an editorial with the official line to balance it out. So, for example when Ai Weiwei was arrested they ran the story of his arrest and then, as if to cover their backs, they ran that famous and oft-quoted opinion piece.
EDITOR C
He has a vision. He knows what he’s doing and he knows his audience. I think he wants to make Chinese journalism relevant and that’s why he is inflammatory on purpose. It really is sabre-rattling.
In China you can’t get away from top-down journalism. Criticism can only be levelled at lower officials, you can’t go any higher.
And these criticisms give the illusion that the Global Times is impartial. Hu wants these to give the paper credibility.
Yes, he’s taking a lot of cues from Fox News. He’s learnt how to prod his readership, to rally them.
Hu is always smiling, but he shouts at a lot at the Chinese staff, and forbids them from talking to the foreign press.
02 Nov 11 | Leveson Inquiry, Uncategorized
Further evidence in the News of the World phone hacking scandal published yesterday by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee has revealed that senior executives at the paper were in 2008 alerted to “a culture of illegal information access” at News International that involved “at least three” of its reporters.
A legal opinion sent on 3 June 2008 by News Group Newspapers’ counsel, Michael Silverleaf QC, to the paper’s chief lawyer, Tom Crone, also advised the newspaper to settle its case against Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association, who was suing the paper for breach of privacy.
In addition, internal correspondence published by the Committee revealed that Crone had privately told former editor Colin Myler in the same year about a “damning email” that showed the tabloid had made use of “extremely private voicemails” left on Taylor’s phone in 2005. This contradicts the accounts given by Myler and Crone to the committee in 2009, in which they said there was was no evidence that other journalists were involved in phone hacking.
The revelations will heap further pressure on James Murdoch, who is due to face the committee on 10 November, to explain his role in handling the scandal. He told MPs in July this year that he was unaware that other News of the World journalists were implicated in the illegal practice before he paid Taylor a £750,000 settlement in 2008.
However both Crone and Myler told the committee in September that they had made Murdoch aware in June 2008 that phone hacking was not restricted to a single reporter. MPs are likely to question Murdoch about what he was told in his meetings with Myler and Crone, as well as whether he had been made aware of Silverleaf’s advice.
Detailed reports on yesterday’s revelations can be found here and here. Click here for the full evidence released by the committee yesterday.
