There have been a number of efforts lately—obnoxious efforts—to say News Corporation’s hacking scandal is some kind of “piling on” by opponents with a “commercial or political agenda.” The implication, not least from Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal editorial page and his “Fox & Friends” show, being that the level of coverage is unfair, somehow, that the story isn’t that big a deal, or that the scandal hasn’t touched Rupert Murdoch as a CEO or News Corp. as a whole—confined as it was to ”the tabloid excesses of one newspaper.”
Perhaps then it would be a good exercise to run through all the wrongdoing—including rampant, institutionalized criminal activity—that is already in the public record as having been committed in the hacking scandal.
For starters, executives, editors, and reporters at News Corp.’s UK unit have: bribed the police; illegally hacked thousands of people’s phones, including a 13-year-old then-missing murder victim’s; tampered with evidence while the victim was still missing. They interfered with a second murder investigation; misled police and Parliament, repeatedly, when questioned about these activities; knowingly employed an ax-murder suspect who had been convicted and imprisoned for planting cocaine on an innocent woman in a divorce case; paid millions of dollars to victims explicitly in exchange for their silence; paid large sums to former employees after they had been convicted of crimes committed at the behest of News Corporation employees; continued to pay for convicted former employees’ high-powered lawyers.
It has further been revealed that a senior News International executive deleted millions of emails in an “apparent attempt to obstruct Scotland Yard’s inquiry”; hid the contents of a top journalist’s desk after he was arrested; stuffed documents into trash bags and took them away as detectives came into the office to investigate; put the scandal’s lead police investigator, whose inquiry was a bad joke, on the News Corp. payroll with a plum columnist job.
Here’s some of what we know of corrupt activities undertaken by government institutions at News Corp.’s behest or which, at a minimum benefited, News Corp.
The police: stuffed thousands of pages of convicted hacker Glenn Mulcaire’s notes in plastic bags, leaving them unexamined (or at least uncataloged) for years; did so while insisting publicly, and before Parliament, that the scandal was limited to two people and, crucially, that a full investigation had been performed; hired Neil Wallis, who was News of the World’s deputy editor while the crimes were committed, to advise the police on how to handle their own PR problems stemming from the hacking scandal; Wallis ferried information back to News Corp.; the police notified just a handful of people that their phones might have been hacked despite having evidence that in fact thousands had been; concealed their payments to Wallis for a year. Meanwhile, top police officials dined repeatedly with News International executives during the investigation.
Political elites: Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron hired the News of the World editor Andy Coulson, who oversaw a newsroom in which criminal activity was commonplace, to be a top aide, despite warnings that Coulson was personally implicated in the scandal; Labour leader Ed Miliband hired a Murdoch journalist to be top flack, and he promptly told the party to tiptoe around the scandal; regulators came very close to approving a massive TV deal for News Corp. that would have furthered its stranglehold on Britain’s private media, all while the scandal was continuing to worsen.
Phew!
Now that we have all that background, enter The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, which this week has gone into full-on Murdoch mode, defending its parent company from the ”commercial and ideological motives of our competitor-critics.” It has unleashed no fewer than seven defensive editorials and columns this week, reports Bloomberg News, and it’s only Wednesday.

A stunning post. You've said it all.
I just hope someone listens. Because if the parliamentary hearing is anything to go, we can expect more exceptionally, well briefed declarations of humility and non-awareness from the Murdochs -- and more 'interference' from the Murdoch owned press as the multiple inquiries progress.
Pressure needs to be maintained and people will need to know their facts. This is a well-oiled, duplicitous, organization under threat, and they are more than capable -- and willing -- to return fire.
#1 Posted by D. Ffrench, CJR on Wed 20 Jul 2011 at 10:38 PM
Kudos, @Ryan, and thanks for this comprehensive bill of particulars. As the outrages roll out day by day, and the spinners madly spin this debacle as the signature rightwing faux victimology, your piece will serve as a handy-dandy summary of the outrages thus far. And a list of the Gang of 500 who, by defending the indefensible, no longer need to be taken seriously.
Senator Feinstein noted today that something similar could very well happen -- or has happened -- here in the US. No one has looked, so far, *especially* not the mainstream press. Mainstream journos quake in fear of crossing the Fox people.
I personally would like to know how close the Murdoch Empire is with elements of the FBI, for one. There has been some puzzling, but notable, lack of interest or investigation of some pretty egregious behavior by the GOP, Republicans, and other rightwingers, where others have been vigorously prosecuted and punished for much less serious behavior. Nothing ever seems to happen to them. You've heard of the widespread meme IOKIYAR (it's okay if you are a republican). It no longer seems to be *out there* to wonder if the Murdoch Empire has a lot of unsavory influence over the FBI. Not to me, anyway.
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 20 Jul 2011 at 11:13 PM
There are a great many of us here in the UK who have for many years despaired at the toxic & odious effect that the Murdoch owned newspapers have had on, not just a once proud tradition of fair & balanced journalism, but on our political system as well. Political parties have been nothing short of craven and aquiesent in competing to do Murdoch's bidding. Our present Prime Minister Cameron, when, as the leader of the opposition, in 2008 accepted over £30,000 worth of free flights from Murdoch family when he was summoned to Rupert Murdoch's presence aboard his luxury yatch. As is now being trumpeted from any politican who can grab camera space, or shout loud enough near a microphone, that everything has changed, there are many of us here who are yet to be convinced. We want to see the UK outpost of the Murdoch empire dismantled and consigned to the trah bin of history. The abject performance of both Murdoch's at the Select Committee was a farce that got worse as it went on. No one seemed to know who sanctioned what !! No-one could explain why News Int sat on so much evidence for so long!!, Along with a large percentage of the UK population can only hope that this is the beginning of the end for the obnoxious influence that Murdoch has had on many aspects of our lives.
#3 Posted by mr l king, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 06:07 AM
This is the kind of journalism Pulitzer prizes are for. Congrats and kudos, Mr. Chiltum. Please, please keep the heat on and the focus on this story as it unfolds. A "full court press" is warranted. (yes pun was intentional- you may use it.)
Are you actually suggesting, Mr. Chiltum that we can save the human race after all? OK, now go to change back into your street clothes before somebody recognizes you- the phone booth is vacant.
#4 Posted by DLama, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 10:22 AM
Well said. But for further reference, don't forget The Daily Show, which, of course, is funny but brilliantly researched. It's so much more vivid when you can watch these hypocrites in action.
#5 Posted by HifromDallas, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 12:58 PM
I have no trouble going after anyone who committed any crimes... If Murdoch or any of his underlings had a hand in breaking the law, I say throw the book at them.
But I (and most Americans, if you judge by the daily ratings) don't really give a crap about some British tabloid scandal involving Hugh Grant's voicemail account.
The only reason the American MSM is salivating over this story (and the only reason we see wall-to-wall coverage of British Parliamentary proceedings on the Clinton News Network) is that the "professional journalists" of the liberal outlets smell blood and actually think that they can take down Fox News...
Well. good luck with that crack dream! Every minute of CNN coverage of this off-shore melodrama is another pack of viewers switching to FOX to watch news stories of actual American import.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 02:32 PM
To the moderators, could you remove the the 1st two posts of my comment and just leave the last one? Killing the impact!
#7 Posted by Harrison, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 02:58 PM
All the juvenile ad hominem silliness in the world won't change the fact that very few people on this side of the pond give a rat's ass about this British Tabloid scandal:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings-fox-news-tops-during-murdoch-hearings_b77539
This is just the R E A L I T Y.
I don't give a crap about Rupert Murdoch or any of his underlings. Live in a mansion... Live in a jail cell... Whatever... I don't give a crap, and neither do the majority of Americans. If the guy committed a crime, he should pay the price for it. So should anyone else who broke the law.
But what difference does it make to Joe in Sheboygan? None.
As I said, and as Harrison dutifully ignores in his little liberal hissy fit, every minute that CNN and MSNBC spend on covering this story is another herd of viewers switching over to FOX for stories that actually matter to them.
The facts aren't going anywhere, fellas.
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 03:20 PM
The facts have been spelled out above you in the article.
There is little else to say. So please take your links and perhaps simply go back there and spew your brand of propaganda.
Mr Chittum, this analysis -- and the events now engulfing a corrupt old empire -- are clearly way beyond your ken.
#9 Posted by Harrisson, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 03:31 PM
SKY Blogs: Exclusive: Mirror Warns MPs Over Hacking Claims. Mark Kleinman
July 21, 2011 3:23 PM
[During Tuesday’s hearing, Louise Mensch, a Conservative member of the committee, suggested that remarks made in the diaries of Piers Morgan, the former Mirror (and News of the World) editor, confirmed that the Mirror had been guilty of illegally intercepting voicemails. [...]
Worryingly for Trinity Mirror, David Cameron, the prime minister, already appears to have done so. During yesterday’s statement on the hacking furore, he named the Mirror as a potentially guilty party. [...]
Regardless of the existence of parliamentary privilege, it also seems odd (and a major misjudgement) that Mr Cameron would have made his remark yesterday unless he has sure [information] that other newspaper groups including the Mirror would be implicated in the hacking affair.
He has repeatedly said during recent weeks that voicemail interception was an industry-wide activity and not confined to News International.]
Telegraph UK: News of the World phone hacking scandal: live
By Andrew Hough and Tom Chivers 4:52PM BST 20 Jul 2011
[13.22 Asked again about Coulson, Cameron says "I can set my answer to music if you like". He points out, again, that Ed Miliband is still employing tabloid editors - including a former Daily Mirror employee: and Cameron says "I wouldn't be surprised if the Mirror has questions to answer very soon".]
I would not be surprised to see a criminal investigation into whether the PM has colluded with Rupert Murdoch to interfere in the investigation of News Corp.
As to whether son Murdoch perjured himself at the committee hearing, it does not look good, according to Guardian and Telegraph copy.
#10 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 04:22 PM
SKY Blogs: Exclusive: Mirror Warns MPs Over Hacking Claims. Mark Kleinman
July 21, 2011 3:23 PM
[During Tuesday’s hearing, Louise Mensch, a Conservative member of the committee, suggested that remarks made in the diaries of Piers Morgan, the former Mirror (and News of the World) editor, confirmed that the Mirror had been guilty of illegally intercepting voicemails. [...]
Worryingly for Trinity Mirror, David Cameron, the prime minister, already appears to have done so. During yesterday’s statement on the hacking furore, he named the Mirror as a potentially guilty party. [...]
Regardless of the existence of parliamentary privilege, it also seems odd (and a major misjudgement) that Mr Cameron would have made his remark yesterday unless he has sure [information] that other newspaper groups including the Mirror would be implicated in the hacking affair.
He has repeatedly said during recent weeks that voicemail interception was an industry-wide activity and not confined to News International.]
Telegraph UK: News of the World phone hacking scandal: live
By Andrew Hough and Tom Chivers 4:52PM BST 20 Jul 2011
[13.22 Asked again about Coulson, Cameron says "I can set my answer to music if you like". He points out, again, that Ed Miliband is still employing tabloid editors - including a former Daily Mirror employee: and Cameron says "I wouldn't be surprised if the Mirror has questions to answer very soon".]
I would not be surprised to see a criminal investigation into whether the PM has colluded with Rupert Murdoch to interfere in the investigation of News Corp.
As to whether son Murdoch perjured himself at the committee hearing, it does not look good, according to Guardian and Telegraph copy.
#11 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 04:28 PM
New Statesman:
How Brooks tried to "destroy the Daily Mail"
Posted by Samira Shackle - 19 July 2011 08:30
Murdoch to Dacre: "We are not going to be the only bad dog on the street."
At a private meeting, Rupert Murdoch warned Paul Dacre, the editor of the rival Daily Mail newspaper and one of the most powerful men on Fleet Street, that "we are not going to be the only bad dog on the street," according to an account that Mr. Dacre gave to his management team. Mr. Murdoch's spokesman did not respond to questions about his private conversations.
#12 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 04:39 PM
I find The Wall Street Journal's Opinion pages today to be disgusting and incompetent. Robert Thomson should consider whether he wants to continue in his lame and paralyzed way to discredit the paper.
The failure of analysis is practically criminal. The WSJ should forcefully have mapped out the future for News Corp., one that would not include the present CEO.
The Marketplace's "The Missteps in Managing New Corp.'s Hacking Crisis," by John Bussey, is a mild step in the right direction. But if the paper takes this examination seriously, can't it reflect the urgency on the Opinion pages?
Robert Thomson, clear out by midnight, or expose yourself as an even bigger fool than you appear.
#13 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 05:01 PM
Twitter rages: Murdoch's Times of London famine cartoon 'most offensive' thing yet?
An editorial cartoon published Thursday morning in the paper with the title "Priorities" shows starving people in Somalia saying "We've had a bellyful of phone-hacking ... " It's causing quite a firestorm on Twitter. [...]
The Guardian's Deputy Editor Katharine Viner (@KathViner) tweeted a link to a photo of the cartoon this morning and asked what people thought of it. [...]
The responses generally fall in one of two directions: utter disgust or the notion that while the cartoon makes a point, having it come from a Murdoch-owned newspaper makes it just straight ridiculous. [...]
The cartoon does come a day after the questioning of British Prime Minister David Cameron... during which several UK lawmakers argued that perhaps it was time to move on to more pressing issues.
Emma Gilbey Keller, who is married to New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller and is a contributor to Vanity Fair Daily, had one of the most retweeted responses to the cartoon.
She tweeted the following: @EMMAGKELLER: "Anyone else wondering if this cartoon from today's London Times is part of the Edelman strategy?
#14 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 05:57 PM
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/21/twitter-rages-murdochs-times-of-london-famine-cartoon-most-offensive-thing-yet/
#15 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 06:09 PM
A photo can be worth 1000 words (see above this Guardian story online):
James Murdoch misled MPs, say former News of the World editor and lawyer
Ex-NoW editor Colin Myler and legal executive Tom Crone issue statement saying News Corp deputy was informed of 'for Neville' email in Gordon Taylor settlement
#16 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 06:18 PM
UK Telegraph: NEWS MOST VIEWED TODAY:
Rupert Murdoch's Fox News ran 'black ops' department, former executive claims.
The lead editorial in The Wall Street Journal today should have recommended that Fox News be closed for 40 days and investigated by the FBI, to return under new management.
Fox News is the most toxic remaining property of News Corp.
#17 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 06:32 PM
UK Telegraph: NEWS MOST VIEWED TODAY:
Rupert Murdoch's Fox News ran 'black ops' department, former executive claims.
The lead editorial in The Wall Street Journal today should have recommended that Fox News be closed for 40 days and investigated by the FBI, to return under new management.
Fox News is the most toxic remaining property of News Corp.
#18 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 06:35 PM
UK Telegraph: NEWS MOST VIEWED TODAY:
Rupert Murdoch's Fox News ran 'black ops' department, former executive claims.
The lead editorial in The Wall Street Journal today should have recommended that Fox News be closed for 40 days and investigated by the FBI, to return under new management.
Fox News is the most toxic remaining property of News Corp.
#19 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 06:38 PM
UK Telegraph: NEWS MOST VIEWED TODAY:
Rupert Murdoch's Fox News ran 'black ops' department, former executive claims.
The lead editorial in The Wall Street Journal today should have recommended that Fox News be closed for 40 days and investigated by the FBI, to return under new management.
Fox News is the most toxic remaining property of News Corp.
#20 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 06:41 PM
UK Telegraph: NEWS MOST VIEWED TODAY:
Rupert Murdoch's Fox News ran 'black ops' department, former executive claims.
The lead editorial in The Wall Street Journal today should have recommended that Fox News be closed for 40 days and investigated by the FBI, to return under new management.
Fox News is the most toxic remaining property of News Corp.
#21 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 06:44 PM
Phone hacking: MPs 'were misled' by James Murdoch
Telegraph: Robert Winnett, and Christopher Hope 10:13PM BST 21 Jul 2011
[The former editor of the tabloid and its lawyer said that in 2009 they told Mr Murdoch, the chairman of News International, about evidence suggesting phone hacking was not limited to a single “rogue” reporter.
Appearing before MPs earlier this week, Mr Murdoch said that he had not been aware of the evidence at the time, a statement which has now been called into question by two men who claim they told him personally.
MPs announced that Mr Murdoch would have to explain the alleged discrepancy in his evidence to their committee. Misleading a parliamentary committee is potentially a criminal offence.]
James Murdoch misled MPs, say former NoW editor and lawyer
Guardian: Lisa O'Carroll and Patrick Wintour Thursday 21 July 2011 20.02 BST
[Witnesses in the case have been given very strict instructions before giving evidence to tell the truth, although witnesses do not give evidence under a specific oath.]
#22 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 11:17 PM
Phone hacking: MPs 'were misled' by James Murdoch
Telegraph: Robert Winnett, and Christopher Hope 10:13PM BST 21 Jul 2011
[The former editor of the tabloid and its lawyer said that in 2009 they told Mr Murdoch, the chairman of News International, about evidence suggesting phone hacking was not limited to a single “rogue” reporter.
Appearing before MPs earlier this week, Mr Murdoch said that he had not been aware of the evidence at the time, a statement which has now been called into question by two men who claim they told him personally.
MPs announced that Mr Murdoch would have to explain the alleged discrepancy in his evidence to their committee. Misleading a parliamentary committee is potentially a criminal offence.]
James Murdoch misled MPs, say former NoW editor and lawyer
Guardian: Lisa O'Carroll and Patrick Wintour Thursday 21 July 2011 20.02 BST
[Witnesses in the case have been given very strict instructions before giving evidence to tell the truth, although witnesses do not give evidence under a specific oath.]
#23 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 11:24 PM
UK Perjury Act 1911
5 False statutory declarations and other false statements without oath.
If any person knowingly and wilfully makes (otherwise than on oath) a statement false in a material particular, and the statement is made— [...]
(c) in any oral declaration or oral answer which he is required to make by, under, or in pursuance of any public general Act of Parliament for the time being in force,
he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to imprisonment . . . for any term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.
#24 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 11:38 PM
Little tip for everyone.
It may not seem like your post has gone through but it has.
Please only post your comment once.
#25 Posted by Handy Hint, CJR on Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 06:06 AM
Guardian live news blog:
[12.27pm: James Murdoch could be imprisoned or fined if the House of Commons finds he told lies to the culture select committee this week, writes Owen Bowcott, the Guardian's legal affairs correspondent. [...]
Misleading MPs is deemed to amount to a "contempt of the house" in the same way that refusing to answer a summons to appear before a committee is reported to the Commons. [...]
The problem is that the sanctions... to enforce any punishment are constitutionally somewhat rusty. Vernon Bogdanor, the former professor of government at Oxford University, has suggested they may have fallen into "desuetude" (disuse).
The House of Commons is not believed to have fined anybody since 1666 and has not "committed anyone to custody", apart from temporarily detaining them, since the 19th century.]
#26 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 11:29 AM
Guardian live news blog:
12.48pm: Paul Owen writes: Tom Watson, the culture committee member... has been outspoken this morning about Colin Myler and Tom Crone's contradiction of James Murdoch's evidence. [...]
Watson said of Murdoch:
It shows that he not only failed to report a crime to the police, but because there was a confidentiality clause involved in the settlement, it means that he bought the silence of Gordon Taylor and that could mean that he is facing investigation for perverting the course of justice.]
#27 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 11:38 AM
Guardian live news blog: 11.18am: Paul Owen writes: Here are the full quotes from David Cameron on James Murdoch and today's allegations about his evidence, courtesy of the Press Association news agency.
The prime minister said:
Clearly James Murdoch has got questions to answer in parliament and I am sure that he will do that. [...]
#28 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 11:43 AM
Phone hacking: pressure mounts on James Murdoch
Hélène Mulholland and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Friday 22 July 2011 15.57 BST
But [Labour MP Tom] Watson said the police on the Operation Weeting inquiry into phone hacking now needed to investigate what happened as a matter of urgency.
"I think this is the most significant moment of two years of investigation into phone hacking," he told the BBC. He said that if Myler and Crone were correct, Murdoch had "bought the silence" of Taylor.
"It shows that he not only failed to report a crime to the police, but because there was a confidentiality clause involved in the settlement, it means that he bought the silence of Gordon Taylor and that could mean that he is facing investigation for perverting the course of justice," he said.
#29 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 12:01 PM
Lying to a select committee: the law
Owen Bowcott
guardian.co.uk, Friday 22 July 2011 15.00 BST
[An alternative course of action would have been for a select committee to ask witnesses to take an oath before giving evidence. Lying under oath would be perjury. It would, apparently, still be up to the house to administer any punishment – the range of which are similar to those available for anyone deemed to be guilty of contempt.
The culture, media and sport select committee is understood to have considered this option before Wednesday's session. It is extraordinarily rare, however, for witnesses to be asked to swear in advance that what they are about to say was "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
According to a recent edition of Erskine May, the encyclopedic handbook of parliamentary procedure, "witnesses who give false evidence, prevaricate, present forged or falsified documents to a committee with intent to deceive the committee ... or who are guilty of disrespectful conduct to the committee in a state of intoxication may be reported to the house."]
#30 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 12:24 PM
The select committee, the Murdochs and Brooks
by CARL GARDNER on JULY 19, 2011
[Some people must be wondering whether the evidence will be given on oath. That’s very unusual in select committee hearings, but the chairman does have power to administer an oath. I very much doubt he will, though, since it makes little difference. If a witness lies under oath in the committee, he or she will be guilty of perjury – but that perjury would be punishable only by the House of Commons, not in the courts. If he or she lies not under oath, that would surely amount to contempt of Parliament – again, punishable by the House. In either case, the punishments available would be the same.]
#31 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 12:35 PM
How far can legal professional privilege go?
Legal professional privilege meant Harbottle & Lewis had to secure a waiver to discuss Murdoch's claim about phone hacking claims
Neil Rose guardian.co.uk, Friday 22 July 2011 13.11 BST [...]
It emerged late on Wednesday that News International – which had previously refused to waive its privilege – had done a volte face to some extent and will allow the solicitors to answer questions from the police and the select committee.
To have refused would have fuelled speculation that the company had something to hide. The committee has now announced plans to call Harbottles to give evidence in October.
Even if News International had not released the firm, according to legal blogger Carl Gardner, Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary practice, says that questions from a select committee override privilege.
#32 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 01:03 PM
How far can legal professional privilege go? Legal professional privilege meant Harbottle & Lewis had to secure a waiver to discuss Murdoch's claim about phone hacking claims
Neil Rose guardian.co.uk, Friday 22 July 2011 13.11 BST [...]
The precise nature of News International's waiver here means Harbottles will still not be able to go around declaring its innocence; it will have to wait until asked questions by the police or parliament.
However, there is one exception to the privilege rule: if the lawyer is used, knowingly or unknowingly, to commit or cover up a crime or serious fraud, then he can disclose what he knows.
#33 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 01:08 PM
James Murdoch: I was 'unaware' of full extent of phone hacking - video News International chairman tells MPs he was not made aware of an email relating to an out-of-court settlement with Professional Footballers' Association chief Gordon Taylor
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2011/jul/22/james-murdoch-unaware-extent-phone-hacking
#34 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 01:25 PM
Telegraph live news blog (leaning heavily on The Guardian's): 13.20 The Guardian's legal correspondent says that if James Murdoch is found to have lied to the DCMS committee, he could face jail: "Imprisonment or a substantial fine could theoretically be imposed as a punishment by parliament on anyone who told lies in evidence to a select committee", he writes. But the sanctions are somewhat ancient and may have fallen into disuse, he says, since the House has used neither sanction since the 19th century.
10.50 Simon McKay, a criminal lawyer who provided The Guardian's Nick Davies with legal expertise during his investigations into phone-hacking, tweets that Tom Watson is wasting his time referring Murdoch's evidence to the police: "Murdoch wasn't under oath, no crime has been committed. It's ludicrous".
#35 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 01:56 PM
TimGatt Tim Gatt
@
@simonmckay I assume after Myler & Crone contradicted JM's evidence. But is that a matter more for CMS cttee than cops?
8 hours ago
in reply to @TimGatt ↑
@simonmckay
Simon McKay
@TimGatt exactly. Murdoch wasn't under oath, no crime has been committed. Its ludicrous
8 hours ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®
#36 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 02:04 PM
You just verified what Jon Stewart showed in his piece either Monday or Tuesday of this week with O'Reilley, and the various cohorts sitting in a circle complaining about the other TV news' and newspapers' "excessive" coverage of Murdoch's illegal and unethical behavior. Then Stewart showed the numerous clips of Fox's take on the NPR's actions and loss of job by an editor because of it this past spring. Lovely double entrendres for me. Hopefully for most of you also. Murdoch is as guilty as SIN and so is James despite their contradictions to the committee Wednesday. Ignorance is not innocence!! As I told the Independent paper last night when an editorial criticized Cameron for planning laws of control and possible licenses for journalists. it's not that there needs to be any of those items. Britain journalism needs to have standards even for their tabloids or pay the consequences. The hacking the phones of simple citizens, dead children, returning veterans etc are not part of the "information that people have the right to know". Journalists do NOT have that right and it must be kept by all or pay the consequences--as Murdoch and his Empire should. Then he can retire a little poorer than he is and become a grandfather and James can find himself another profession. Journalism is one he supposedly is too ignorant of.
#37 Posted by trish, CJR on Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 05:11 PM
CJR should employ four live news blog interns beginning in September. Over the past few days, Guardian has been increasingly dominant over Telegraph in this area. There are no serious open competitors. Twitter interventions and rows are especially interesting eye-pullers on these live news blogs.
CJR should seek major funding so as to introduce a new website. The idea would be to teach students how to assimilate a large international media reading cycle and present the results in an attractive format. So far, no journalism school has found the formula. In news, The WSJ is coming to life on the Murdoch Corp file. In opinion, The WSJ is becoming even more enchanted inside its crazy bewitched fence.
Can't Paul A. Gigot find serious employment?
The Wall Street Journal: Hacking Testimony Is Disputed JULY 22, 2011
By CASSELL BRYAN-LOW, PAUL SONNE and STEVE STECKLOW
[Lord MacDonald and other legal specialists said British lawyers generally don't have a duty to report crimes to authorities because advice to clients is privileged. But lawyers said it would be typical to alert a client if evidence of serious wrongdoing were found.]
#38 Posted by Clayton Burns, CJR on Fri 22 Jul 2011 at 05:49 PM
Hmm, who's pulling the bait and switch now? Ryan claims that he can show that any claim that "the scandal hasn’t touched Rupert Murdoch as a CEO or News Corp. as a whole—confined as it was to ”the tabloid excesses of one newspaper” is demonstrably wrong. What does he have to show for it? Simply rehashing the UK NotW scandal then mentioning a couple unrelated advertising-related scandals at News America years ago. If that's all you've got, you are clearly demonstrating how political your response is.
Nobody credible says the NotW and UK stuff isn't big news, but the clear overreach by you and others in trying to make that sordid mess stick to News Corp as a whole is clear. So is the reason: pure politics. You don't like Murdoch's conservative slant so you try to smear him through tenuous connections and innuendo, this article is a prime example of it. Frankly, I hope Murdoch divests all his newspaper holdings because they will all go bankrupt that much faster, when shorn of his willingness to subsidize all these money-losing businesses. If all these leftie journalists are itching to be unemployed, I don't know why he doesn't humor them.
#39 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Sun 24 Jul 2011 at 07:51 PM
i would just like to recount briefly an encounter with one of rupert's u.s. henchmen, the very one who wrote the "son of sam" stories for the n.y. post, steve donleavy, a kiwi ex rugby player who it turned out had gouged eyes and bitten off ears during his days as a reporter in asia and hooking up with rupert. i was the publisher of urizen books and had done Wilfred Burchett's [an Aussie] GRASSHOPPERS AND ELEPHANTS which was Wilfred's very much inside tunnels account of being with the Vietcong up and down the Ho Chi Minh trail. I recall going out at 4 pm for my pickme-up Mars bar and seeing Wilfred's photo, pudgy faced, on the front page of the NY Post: "Torturer of G.I's in New York." My heart sank as I chewed my Mars bar and walked the two blocks back to my office: "No, Wilfred, please no," I prayed and then called the White House communications director, Hoving, who said, "Nonsense", he has a visa, he was part of the peace process, he was one of Uncle Ho's gobetween." I had invited a lot of journalists to a by then famous restaurant where i had been going when it was just a hole in the wall on 2nd Avenue, Elaine's, lots of journalists who had been in touch with Wilfred during their mutual Vietnam days. David Halberstam, David Arnett, a table full, the big table and we were having a good time, I was just a kid then, the year is 1978, when Donleavy barges in and ruins the evening. Elaine Kaufman, the recently deceased owner tells me I might want to leave through the kitchen, Donleavy has his Post photographer waiting outside ["Torturer of G.I.'s at Elaine's"]. I make the mistake of taking Mama's advice and leave through the kitchen when Donleavy and photographer barge into the kitchen and he pushes me aside, who has interposed himself between him and Wilfred and his Bulgarian wife. That is called assault and I called the police and took Donleavy to court and the judge said you can read Donleavy's record, Wilfred had provided it, into the court record or you have to bring all the witnesses to court, three times, and I will give you a conviction on the order off leaving the cover off a garbage can [a priceless detail, no?]. I took the judge up on his offer. As Donleavy and his Post lawyer and I left Part One Leonard Street court, where we had been called first among the hundreds that morning, Donleavy said: "Aren't you glad I didn't bite off your ear." A sense of humor then makes me forgive Steve Donleavy and his toupe, but not a publisher who employs his likes. The post never ran the photo "Torturer of G.I.'s Slinking out of Elaine's Kitchen.". Here is a link to the story at a posting about Elaine's on my http://artscritic.blogspot.com/
#40 Posted by MICHAEL ROLOFF, CJR on Mon 25 Jul 2011 at 11:46 PM
This story is bigger than anyone can imagine. I cannot understand why CNN and MSNBC have not covered this story that throughly? This story is unbelieveable ! ! ! Everyone is affected by this;
Politicians
Journalist
Police
Celebrities
The Royal Family
Ordinary People such as the Dowler and the other young murder victim, possible families of Terrorist 7/7 & 911 victims, Afghan and Iraq soldiers families and friends.
THIS IS VERY SCARY How one man is that powerful, I just hope that he and his son is not above the law and they are held accountable for their illegal actions.
#41 Posted by Vendorwrites, CJR on Tue 2 Aug 2011 at 01:12 PM
More information regarding Rupert Murdoch and phone and computer hacking. Check this out http://youtu.be/wTfhu5yiSQo
#42 Posted by Vendorwrites, CJR on Tue 2 Aug 2011 at 05:15 PM
They want their readers to believe based on no evidence that the excesses of a tabloid publication, or otherwise tarnish the thousands of other journalists Corp. News around the world.
Testking 000-M75 || Testking COG-612
#43 Posted by randy ortan, CJR on Wed 21 Sep 2011 at 01:51 AM
He is and is converted into a grandfather and James can come across himself an additional line of cute messages work. newspaper writing is one he evidently is too badly informed of.
#44 Posted by Batista, CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 06:48 AM
THIS IS VERY SCARY How one man is that powerful, I just hope that he and his son is not above the law and they are held accountable for their illegal actions.
#45 Posted by nsserials, CJR on Tue 16 Oct 2012 at 12:59 AM