You know, it’s a serious problem when you can’t trust a word said by one of the very biggest owner of news organizations in the world—indeed, when evidence shows that you have to assume that it’s misleading you, as MP Tom Watson now says.
The latest bombshells in the Murdoch hacking scandal landed today, lobbed by defectors from the company’s own side, and they’re very bad for News Corporation, its executives, and for its crisis-PR managers.
We learned today Clive Goodman, the original scapegoat for the News of the World’s crimes, wrote a letter to News International in 2007 claiming he was wrongfully fired. Here’s what he wrote:
This practice (hacking) was widely discussed in the daily editorial conference, until explicit reference to it was banned by the Editor.
My conviction and imprisonment cannot be the real reason for my dismissal. The legal manager, Tom Crone, attended virtually every meeting of my legal team and was given full access to the Crown Prosecution Service’s evidence files. He, and other senior staff of the paper, had long advance knowledge that I would plead guilty. Despite this, the paper continued to employ me. Throughout my suspension, I was given book serialisations to write and was consulted on several occasions about royal stories they needed to check. The paper continued to employ me for a substantial part of my custodial sentence.
That’s bad enough, but it gets much worse here:
Tom Crone and the Editor promised on many occasions that I could come back to a job at the newspaper if I did not implicate the paper or any of its staff in my mitigation plea. I did not, and I expect the paper to honour its promise to me.
Les Hinton, future and now-former CEO of Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal, was copied in on the 2007 letter, which hadn’t been turned over to the parliamentary committee until now.
News Corp. submitted it, redacting all the key information in the three paragraphs I just quoted. Unfortunately for News Corp., the law firm Harbottle & Lewis, whom it tried to enlist in its cover-up (and half-succeeded), had the same document and submitted it to the committee with all that information unredacted. The redactions suggest that the cover-up is hardly over at the company, which has made a big show lately of coming clean. (ProPublica’s sweet interactive shows how the letters from News and Harbottle differ).
Harbottle also says that both James and Rupert Murdoch misled Parliament when they testified last month. That was clear at the time, but it’s quite another thing to have your own attorneys say it in writing. The Guardian’s Nick Davies:
In a lengthy criticism of the Murdochs’ evidence to the select committee last month, Harbottle & Lewis says it finds it “hard to credit” James Murdoch’s repeated claim that News International “rested on” its letter as part of their grounds for believing that Goodman was a “rogue reporter”. It says News International’s view of the law firm’s role is “self-serving” and that Rupert Murdoch’s claim that it was hired “to find out what the hell was going on” was “inaccurate and misleading”, although it adds that he may have been confused or misinformed about its role…
Harbottle & Lewis writes: “There was absolutely no question of the firm being asked to provide News International with a clean bill of health which it could deploy years later in wholly different contexts for wholly different purposes The firm was not being asked to provide some sort of ‘good conduct certificate’ which News International could show to parliament Nor was it being given a general retainer, as Mr Rupert Murdoch asserted it was, ‘to find out what the hell was going on’.”
But that’s not all of the News Corp. falsehoods exposed today. The company has said that it paid Goodman £60,000. The real number, it turns out, is more than four times as much: £244,000. All of this hush money was paid to a convicted criminal after he pleaded guilty.

Ryan: [News Corp. submitted it, redacting all the key information in the three paragraphs I just quoted.]
Murdoch says he's staying at News Corp. helm
He rejects speculation that Chief Operating Officer Chase Carey might take over. Fourth-quarter earnings are down 22% from a year earlier.
By Dawn C. Chmielewski, Los Angeles Times August 11, 2011
[To underscore that commitment, Murdoch said former Assistant Atty. Gen. Joel Klein, who joined News Corp. in November, would head an internal investigation. Klein will report directly to Viet Dinh and the other independent board members.]
What is most difficult to understand is why Joel Klein has not today severed his ties to News Corp. At some point, you have to see what the facts say and make a decision, or admit that what others saw as your integrity simply does not exist.
The Guardian and New York Times have failed to report the implications of Murdoch's hiring of Klein on the education front. All he is capable of doing is producing more mechanistic trash of the Kaplan type. He has not even been able to identify and promote some of the best education resources in the Murdoch empire, especially COBUILD. He just can't get it.
#1 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Tue 16 Aug 2011 at 06:53 PM
I hope that The Guardian and The New York Times will not tire of continued investigation and reporting of this scandal. We as a society have a golden opportunity to restore journalism to its rightful place as a servant of democracy if only those who care will not grow weary. Best wishes to all who are leading the charge.
#2 Posted by Catherine Coy, CJR on Wed 17 Aug 2011 at 02:13 AM
I. for one, am shocked. I never thought they'd actually LIE.
#3 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Wed 17 Aug 2011 at 10:42 AM
I'm sure I'm not the only person who has been thinking how much this scandal, with Goodman being the only one so far to go to jail, resembles the Bush Administration Al Ghraib scandal. Then, too, only low-level people were punished, and the executives--Bush, Rumsfeld, et al.--went scot-free. If "a number of people accustomed to executive limos and seven-figure salaries" at News Corp. "are beginning to wonder what it might be like in jail," could that parallel ever play out further? Somehow, I doubt it.
#4 Posted by Barbara Selvin, CJR on Wed 17 Aug 2011 at 07:49 PM
Media News International 'did not order redaction of phone-hacking letter'
guardian.co.uk, 18 Aug 2011 James Robinson
Law firm writes to select committee chairman saying sections were removed not to cover up the truth, but on police advice. By James Robinson
… Goodman to News International was also sent by Harbottle & Lewis to the committee on Wednesday, but with the relevant passages still legible.That prompted claims News International was deliberately seeking to hide the true extent of phone…
#5 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 19 Aug 2011 at 01:24 PM
Phone hacking: News International lawyers admit redacting Clive Goodman letter
Lawyers for News International have admitted they redacted a letter submitted to MPs which implicated senior News of the World staff in phone hacking.
By Mark Hughes, Crime Correspondent 3:24PM BST 19 Aug 2011 Telegraph
#6 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 19 Aug 2011 at 03:45 PM