With The Guardian owning the “expensive, risky, time-consuming, stressful—and indispensable” investigative reporting related to the phone hacking scandal, as Dean highlighted yesterday over at The Audit, what has that left for other British media outlets? Well, the London Evening Standard (isn’t that the free one?) yesterday had this:
No one is claiming that Rebekah Brooks’s hair cast a spell over Rupert Murdoch for all those years.
Nor are they suggesting that the mysterious power wielded by a frothy mass of in-your-face russet curls tells the untold story behind one of the greatest scandals of our times. Because that would be silly.
But what if it’s true?
And then, further along:
Big hair is always impressive. If you have it you either are important or you want to be. Big hair cannot be ignored. It is big for a reason.
In testimony before British lawmakers this morning, Rupert Murdoch has been heard blaming “people I trusted” and “people they trusted.” No fingers pointed, yet, at the big hair of people trusted.
With that curly mane, they might create a role for Rebekah to play in the Lion King without a costume .
But a flame-colored Roseanne Roseannadanna she's not.
I watched every minute of the live feed of her examination on the Guardian's website. For someone without a university degree, she's apparently shimmied to the top of the greasy London tabloid pole strickly on merit. Of course, the hair might have helped.
The very competent way she handled the sharp questions of the parliamentary committee invites one to consider that she had more important things to do in her executive positions than playing footsie with phone hackers.
There seemed no softball questions gently tossed for her to spin. The committee's circling sharks tried very hard to make their bones by exposing any ill-considered answer as a lie.
Her only problem: Wasting her talent working for the gutter tabloid press.
The sharks never laid a glove on her and nobody threw a pie.
#1 Posted by Stephen, CJR on Wed 20 Jul 2011 at 12:14 AM