Instead, until this week there has been almost nothing, save for a lonely campaign by the Guardian. Because the company portrayed above is not BP, but News International, owner of the Times, the Sunday Times, the News of the World and the Sun, approximately one third of the domestic newspaper market. And last week, Jeremy Hunt ruled that Murdoch, who owns a 39 per cent stake in BSkyB, can now buy it outright (save for Sky’s news channel). This consolidates the Australian-born mogul as by far the most significant media magnate in this country, wielding vast political and commercial power.
Every summer Murdoch, now 80 years old, pays one of his rare visits to London, the social highlight of which is the annual News International party. An invitation carries the same weight, say insiders, as a royal command. In the phrase of one of his executives, to turn it down is a ‘statement of intent’.
And you thought Murdoch had power here. (Don’t get me wrong, he does have vast power here, but it’s on a different level in the UK, not to mention Australia).
I reviewed that angle in May, looking at a piece Archie Bland wrote for CJR and one Sarah Ellison wrote for Vanity Fair. Both are worth reading to get an expanded view on what Rusbridger and Oborner are talking about above.
Our piece had this incredible quote from the executive editor of Murdoch’s “serious” UK paper, the Times of London, on why his paper wasn’t covering the scandal:
“With this whole story I just hear the shrill shriek of axes being ground,” said Roger Alton, executive editor at The Times. As editor of The Independent in 2009—after ten years at The Observer, which he left acrimoniously—he felt the story was old news. “Everyone has an agenda. The New York Times certainly has an agenda, after Murdoch’s very forceful attempt to rival them with The Wall Street Journal.” There was no way to condone what had happened, Alton added, but that doesn’t mean the story merits coverage today. “For me this is stuff that happened a long time ago. People have gone to prison. Coulson’s resigned twice. It’s not as if any perceived wrongdoing hasn’t been sufficiently addressed. For me it’s roughly on a par with parking in a residents’ parking bay in terms of interest.”
That set me off:
This is either insane or craven. I’ll go with the latter. Police coverups. Corporate coverups. Celebrities and royals hacked. Hundreds of millions of dollars. Billionaire Rupert Murdoch. Press hypocrisy. Payoffs to keep quiet. Possible perjury by the prime minister’s top aide. Stonewalling executives who now run The Wall Street Journal. And it’s far from over. This story is a journalist’s dream.
Now even Alton and The Times can’t ignore this one. It’s now front page news in that paper.
Today, The New York Times fronts a smart story on how the Milly Dowler news has finally set cowering British politicians, both Conservative and Labour, against Murdoch.
Britain’s Parliament on Wednesday collectively turned on Rupert Murdoch, the head of the News Corporation, and the tabloid culture he represents, using a debate about a widening phone hacking scandal to denounce reporting tactics by newspapers once seen as too politically influential to challenge.
Here’s a sample of the outrage in Parliament yesterday:
Zac Goldsmith, another Conservative legislator, said that Mr. Murdoch was guilty of “systemic abuse of almost unprecedented power” and had run roughshod over Parliament.
“There is nothing noble in what these newspapers have been doing,” he said. “Rupert Murdoch is clearly a very, very talented businessman — he’s possibly even a genius — but his organization has grown too powerful and has abused that power. It has systematically corrupted the police and in my view has gelded this Parliament, to our shame.”
“To our shame,” indeed.
Rusbridger has the obvious next question:
But what now? How can we make sure that we never again have this kind of dominant force in British public life?
Money quote from the Guardian's Alexander Chancellor:
"...it is worth pointing out that, however ghastly journalists may be, nobody would know anything about anything without us – not even the extent of our own ghastliness."
#1 Posted by murph, CJR on Thu 7 Jul 2011 at 04:31 PM
So hacking is not a form of journalism after all. A shocking revelation in this era of Wikileaks.
#2 Posted by Cecil , CJR on Thu 7 Jul 2011 at 07:37 PM
CJR et al. need to stop inverting reality — stop painting govt as eternal victim — and admit that the State is the eternal enemy of peace, liberty, prosperity, humanity. Murdoch, unethical as his journalism may be, can not legally force govt employees to do anything, whereas governments, by definition, legally force people to do things against their will.
#3 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 7 Jul 2011 at 08:10 PM
I hope it is plain to all that someone who lacks any conscience as does Rupert Murdoch, his sole purpose in closing News of the World is to secure his TV deal. I urge all the powers that be to deny him yet another opportunity to control the news. You should what he's done with Fox News here in the US. PLease do not let this media monster devour anything else.
#4 Posted by Wordwiz, CJR on Thu 7 Jul 2011 at 09:23 PM
So hacking is not a form of journalism after all. A shocking revelation in this era of Wikileaks.
#2 Posted by Cecil on Thu 7 Jul 2011 at 07:37 PM
------------------------------------------------------
Above you can see a line between your text and mine.
If you can not see that line, don't worry, glasses will help and nobody will think the worse of you.
But can you see the line; between hacking into a celebrety's or a politician's or a criminal's phone; and hacking in to the phones, of horribly murdered girls, or the victims of terrorist bombs, or dead war heroes, or their families?
That kind of blindness to the line, will make you be seen as either evil or stupid.
#5 Posted by walker, CJR on Fri 8 Jul 2011 at 08:31 AM
Excellent series of articles.
I am curious about one thing re Cameron's role in this whole thing.
If Coulson is put on trial and accused of authorising or having knowledge of phone hacking (or payments to police even) it really brings into question a lot more than the Prime Ministers 'lack of judegement'.
One would have thought that the most senior political figure in any country would want to carefully vet who his employees are.
One would have thought a simple security check would have thrown up questions. After all the UK has a strong security apparatus.
So if this was not done why not?
This is either gross neglicence at best or at worst - well what?
It is questions like this I hope to hear being asked too.
And lastly - the links to show that Milliband was also 'courting' the Murdoch press is good journalism.
It really shows the state of the UK political scene - And the power that a press baron yields.
Especially one who knows that if he can control the minds of people through the media he can also control their wallets
Frightening in a way and the stuff that conspiracy theories are normally so 'laughingly' based on'
#6 Posted by Andrew Sampson, CJR on Fri 8 Jul 2011 at 07:04 PM
Please keep on top of the "Murdock Story". His influence on and control over American politics needs to be investigated.
He presently provides his handpicked candidates for the Republican nomination for the Presidency with TV time under the guise that they are providing commentary on the news of the day.
His Fox news network is strictly a propaganda dispenser for Rupert and the Republcan Party .
#7 Posted by Bob Fleming, CJR on Tue 12 Jul 2011 at 09:00 AM