This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/26/rupert-murdoch-harried-but-off-the-hook
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Rupert Murdoch, harried but off the hook | Rupert Murdoch, harried but off the hook |
| (about 17 hours later) | |
| Rupert Murdoch at Thursday's Leveson inquiry was irritable, waspish, off-point, and on the run. The tenor of the inquiry itself was divided between its pursuit of Murdoch and his company and its rather more lofty (albeit querulous) mission to make Britain a better world. | |
| Jet lag seemed to have caught up with Murdoch. He may not have figured on a second day in the court room – indeed, he was in the same suit. Two days of focus is a lot for him. He doesn't last that long on topic, nor does his affability and good will. | Jet lag seemed to have caught up with Murdoch. He may not have figured on a second day in the court room – indeed, he was in the same suit. Two days of focus is a lot for him. He doesn't last that long on topic, nor does his affability and good will. |
| On Wednesday, he had been in comfortable historical mode, the commanding figure of his own great story. Today, from the opener, he was in defensive mode, with a rat-a-tat-tat of sour barbs for many of his long-time antagonists and competitors, and trying once more to defend himself from the hacking scandal. | On Wednesday, he had been in comfortable historical mode, the commanding figure of his own great story. Today, from the opener, he was in defensive mode, with a rat-a-tat-tat of sour barbs for many of his long-time antagonists and competitors, and trying once more to defend himself from the hacking scandal. |
| The inquiry's counsel, Robert Jay, went after him from the get-go. He zeroed in on what he knew and when he knew it in the initial days of when the hacking cover-up would have begun in 2007. | The inquiry's counsel, Robert Jay, went after him from the get-go. He zeroed in on what he knew and when he knew it in the initial days of when the hacking cover-up would have begun in 2007. |
| So here was the essence of the inquiry – exactly what everyone wants to know. But in this quest, the inquiry's purpose is muddled. Leveson is a David Cameron-sponsored effort to deal with the hacking scandal, but to offer the Murdochs some protection by also including the bad behavior of the entire press in its purview – not least of all, the press's influence over British government (the subject of Wednesday's inquisition of Murdoch). In other words, Leveson as an inquiry into press ethics, instead of an open inquiry specifically into the hacking scandal, is itself part of Murdoch's influence on government. | So here was the essence of the inquiry – exactly what everyone wants to know. But in this quest, the inquiry's purpose is muddled. Leveson is a David Cameron-sponsored effort to deal with the hacking scandal, but to offer the Murdochs some protection by also including the bad behavior of the entire press in its purview – not least of all, the press's influence over British government (the subject of Wednesday's inquisition of Murdoch). In other words, Leveson as an inquiry into press ethics, instead of an open inquiry specifically into the hacking scandal, is itself part of Murdoch's influence on government. |
| Hence, today, the lame effort to get to the root of hacking. | Hence, today, the lame effort to get to the root of hacking. |
| The inquiry did not seem to have emails or anything else directly connecting Murdoch to the discussions going on in London during 2007 and 2008 about the hacking issues. And the only person whom the inquiry seems to have interviewed – or at least, to have quoted today – who participated in these discussions and then spoke directly to Murdoch is Murdoch's son, James. Murdoch Sr indicated that he had spoken to Les Hinton, then chief of News International, the News Corp's British subsidiary, but we don't have Hinton's account. | The inquiry did not seem to have emails or anything else directly connecting Murdoch to the discussions going on in London during 2007 and 2008 about the hacking issues. And the only person whom the inquiry seems to have interviewed – or at least, to have quoted today – who participated in these discussions and then spoke directly to Murdoch is Murdoch's son, James. Murdoch Sr indicated that he had spoken to Les Hinton, then chief of News International, the News Corp's British subsidiary, but we don't have Hinton's account. |
| Nor did the inquiry establish the other network of people who might have been speaking to Murdoch at this time, and who were privy to what he knew. (Curiously, this was just at the time when Murdoch was fully occupied with trying to buy the Wall Street Journal, which is a reason to have wanted to hush things up in London; or which was, as well, evidence of his distraction. In any event, this did not come up as an issue.) The inquiry, in other words, raised the seminal question – what did he know and when did he know it? – and, in passing, asked Murdoch what he might remember, but moved no further towards the answer. Rather, at this pivotal moment, the inquiry shifted its focus. | Nor did the inquiry establish the other network of people who might have been speaking to Murdoch at this time, and who were privy to what he knew. (Curiously, this was just at the time when Murdoch was fully occupied with trying to buy the Wall Street Journal, which is a reason to have wanted to hush things up in London; or which was, as well, evidence of his distraction. In any event, this did not come up as an issue.) The inquiry, in other words, raised the seminal question – what did he know and when did he know it? – and, in passing, asked Murdoch what he might remember, but moved no further towards the answer. Rather, at this pivotal moment, the inquiry shifted its focus. |
| With Murdoch in the hot seat, the inquiry turned to the broad and abstract issue of how to make the press a more ethically minded estate. Here was the thesis: there is a continuum that has on it the ethical, the civil and the criminal; and the criminal should not be where we deal with these issues because, well, any crime has already been committed. In other words, it might not be illegal, but dammit, it shouldn't be allowed. | With Murdoch in the hot seat, the inquiry turned to the broad and abstract issue of how to make the press a more ethically minded estate. Here was the thesis: there is a continuum that has on it the ethical, the civil and the criminal; and the criminal should not be where we deal with these issues because, well, any crime has already been committed. In other words, it might not be illegal, but dammit, it shouldn't be allowed. |
| Robert Jay, with the help of Justice Leveson, propounded a formulation about the relationship of ethics to criminal activity designed to create the kind of bridge that would invite ethical regulation of the press. Did Murdoch, asked Jay, agree with this formulation about ethics and the law? Murdoch, after a slightly worrisome pause, offered the obvious pushback that while everything that is illegal is also unethical, many things that might be unethical (or what Jay characterized as a "swashbuckling and cavalier attitude") are not illegal. (I have often heard Murdoch make the case here for the swashbuckling and the cavalier, but today he held his tongue.) | Robert Jay, with the help of Justice Leveson, propounded a formulation about the relationship of ethics to criminal activity designed to create the kind of bridge that would invite ethical regulation of the press. Did Murdoch, asked Jay, agree with this formulation about ethics and the law? Murdoch, after a slightly worrisome pause, offered the obvious pushback that while everything that is illegal is also unethical, many things that might be unethical (or what Jay characterized as a "swashbuckling and cavalier attitude") are not illegal. (I have often heard Murdoch make the case here for the swashbuckling and the cavalier, but today he held his tongue.) |
| It is on this point, sometimes comically, that the Leveson inquiry is trying to make its stand: hacking would not have occurred if the press had better ethics; ipso facto, press ethics should be regulated. | It is on this point, sometimes comically, that the Leveson inquiry is trying to make its stand: hacking would not have occurred if the press had better ethics; ipso facto, press ethics should be regulated. |
| Indeed, there seemed to be a brief effort on Jay's part, after Murdoch recounted his own problems with the paparazzi, to get him to acknowledge that something should be done. Murdoch was then given his own opportunity to wax on about the way the press might be regulated. He offered a little lecture on the digital deluge (and a bit of a threat: the newspapers that Leveson sought to regulate would soon be gone), and suggested that a good place to start regulating would be with pornography and IP theft – his pet peeves of the moment. | Indeed, there seemed to be a brief effort on Jay's part, after Murdoch recounted his own problems with the paparazzi, to get him to acknowledge that something should be done. Murdoch was then given his own opportunity to wax on about the way the press might be regulated. He offered a little lecture on the digital deluge (and a bit of a threat: the newspapers that Leveson sought to regulate would soon be gone), and suggested that a good place to start regulating would be with pornography and IP theft – his pet peeves of the moment. |
| And with that, the day ended. And the biggest fish there will ever be was let off the hook. | And with that, the day ended. And the biggest fish there will ever be was let off the hook. |
| • This article will not be open to comments for legal reasons | • This article will not be open to comments for legal reasons |