[Update] The News Corp scandal

I don't see the problem. He probably wanted the cable cars to be sponsored by Sky.

[devilincarnate]

Knowing Boris he would have thought that News Corp was the Newsagents delivering his papers

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't see the problem. He probably wanted the cable cars to be sponsored by Sky.

Also, taking Boris down now would mean shooing Red Ken into the mayor's job for another term, a prospect that is so terrifying even Labour voters are supporting Boris.

Well they do have other candidates to choose from..

Originally Posted by Chris

Also, taking Boris down now would mean shooing Red Ken into the mayor's job for another term, a prospect that is so terrifying even Labour voters are supporting Boris.

Dan Hodges is a bit of a troll I think. I've seen him before somewhere, I think he was in The Guardian trying to defend a unpopular action in the comments under one of his articles. I attempted to find it again but he was written a few of them. That aside I think Livingstone has shot himself in the foot a number of times in this campaign. It's sad because, whatever he has now become, he did a number of good things for London and seemed to have a real passion for the place.

---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

I also don't think every action undertaken by News International has been bad. Certainly I think The Times escapes much of the wrong doing and is a good newspaper, one that is kept alive despite the fact it's losing money. As I said before I think some actions of illegality is acceptable if it's in the public interest. We don't want the government or authority to be able to hide behind laws they have enforced and thus allow them to cover up corruption and other types of wrong doing.

What News International did was not in the public interest. It was a routine abuse of privacy to conduct 'fishing' expeditions into the private lives of celebraties, politicians, and people in the public eye. Often just to get details of their sex lives.

I hope the inquiry makes a clear case for the public interest.

Originally Posted by Damien

Dan Hodges is a bit of a troll I think. I've seen him before somewhere, I think he was in The Guardian trying to defend a unpopular action in the comments under one of his articles. I attempted to find it again but he was written a few of them. That aside I think Livingstone has shot himself in the foot a number of times in this campaign. It's sad because, whatever he has now become, he did a number of good things for London and seemed to have a real passion for the place.

---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

I also don't think every action undertaken by News International has been bad. Certainly I think The Times escapes much of the wrong doing and is a good newspaper, one that is kept alive despite the fact it's losing money. As I said before I think some actions of illegality is acceptable if it's in the public interest. We don't want the government or authority to be able to hide behind laws they have enforced and thus allow them to cover up corruption and other types of wrong doing.

What News International did was not in the public interest. It was a routine abuse of privacy to conduct 'fishing' expeditions into the private lives of celebraties, politicians, and people in the public eye. Often just to get details of their sex lives.

I hope the inquiry makes a clear case for the public interest.

I think Hodges is one of the most entertaining bloggers on the Telegraph. If he's a troll, then only in the same sense that lot from ConservativeHome are. Anyway, I digress.

I think you're making the same error again in this post, conflating 'News International' with 'those businesses owned by NI that indulged in routine, illegal and/immoral activity'.

Leveson is never going to establish that NI itself is culpable of this because NI is a global business and most of it is beyond the reach of his inquiry. What he can do is establish whether News Corp. is culpable, or if any of its titles, or their individual employees, were.

Originally Posted by Chris

I think you're making the same error again in this post, conflating 'News International' with 'those businesses owned by NI that indulged in routine, illegal and/immoral activity'.

News International is the UK publishing arm. I think it's fair to refer to them as I have been when discussing the hacking scandal. Especially considering the upper parts of the management have been implicated in the scandal and the allegations of a cover up. Their former chief executive had to resign and has been arrested...

True, and the rabbit hole may yet go deeper. However, all I'm trying to do at this point is argue that there was no necessary conflict of interest between the Polis investigating NI and the Mayor of London's office trying to get NI to sponsor a cable car.

Originally Posted by Damien

Dan Hodges is a bit of a troll I think. I've seen him before somewhere, I think he was in The Guardian trying to defend a unpopular action in the comments under one of his articles. I attempted to find it again but he was written a few of them. That aside I think Livingstone has shot himself in the foot a number of times in this campaign. It's sad because, whatever he has now become, he did a number of good things for London and seemed to have a real passion for the place.

---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

I also don't think every action undertaken by News International has been bad. Certainly I think The Times escapes much of the wrong doing and is a good newspaper, one that is kept alive despite the fact it's losing money. As I said before I think some actions of illegality is acceptable if it's in the public interest. We don't want the government or authority to be able to hide behind laws they have enforced and thus allow them to cover up corruption and other types of wrong doing.

What News International did was not in the public interest. It was a routine abuse of privacy to conduct 'fishing' expeditions into the private lives of celebraties, politicians, and people in the public eye. Often just to get details of their sex lives.

I hope the inquiry makes a clear case for the public interest.

You forgot the aspect of influencing government through the implication of blackmail via media.Strongly denied by Murdoch but he didn't make a very believable witness IMHO.

---------- Post added at 20:26 ---------- Previous post was at 20:18 ----------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...-international

James Murdoch will be criticised by MPs investigating phone hacking on Tuesday, but their assessment of his conduct is expected to fall just short of accusing the former chairman of News International of misleading parliament about the extent of his knowledge of the affair.The all party culture media and sport select committee concluded they could not reach a final decision about whether Murdoch misled them because of what the MPs described as conflicting evidence, according to a source close to the process. However, there was enough to lead members to agree that Murdoch had not asked the questions that would help determine the true extent of phone hacking at the News of the World for several years.

Why am I not surprised?

Originally Posted by Chris

True, and the rabbit hole may yet go deeper. However, all I'm trying to do at this point is argue that there was no necessary conflict of interest between the Polis investigating NI and the Mayor of London's office trying to get NI to sponsor a cable car.

Which is fair enough. I was just defending my use of News International in my post.

[TheDaddy]

Perhaps most worrying for the Murdochs, the committee (although there is a split here too and on a number of other issues) will make recommendations about the future and the role of the Murdochs.

That could be, although I haven't been able to confirm this, about whether James Murdoch is 'fit and proper' to hold a broadcasting licence.

http://www.itv.com/news/2012-04-30/e...ed-parliament/

Let's hope it is that...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17908839

The bombshell is on page 70 of the report by the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee into News International and phone-hacking.
It is worth quoting in full:
"If at all relevant times, Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindess to what was going on in his companies and publications.
"This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International.
We conclude therefore that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17898029

It noted that the newspaper mogul had "excellent powers of recall and grasp of detail when it suited him".

Bit risky to say he isn't fit to run the company, doesn't seem like it was their role to judge that.

Originally Posted by Damien

Bit risky to say he isn't fit to run the company, doesn't seem like it was their role to judge that.

How conservative of you.. That's exactly what the Conservatives on the committee said.Apparently they were not in complete agreement over the report 6 to 4.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

How conservative of you.. That's exactly what the Conservatives on the committee said.Apparently they were not in complete agreement over the report 6 to 4.

They have to be careful not to turn this political.