Save the Fair Maiden

Courtesy of the BBC today, Rupert inform us of his that his top priority is his red-head at the helm, as opposed to fully cooperating with police and getting to the bottom of what went wrong on her watch. Rupert appears not to be very concerned about the people in this country - other than Rebekah, of course - or their institutions.

Meanwhile, sonny-boy shrugs his shoulders:

On Thursday, News International chairman James Murdoch, son of Rupert, announced the paper would be closing down in the wake of the latest revelations and in its final editorial the paper said: "Quite simply, we lost our way".

News International said James Murdoch had no knowledge of the e-mails that Harbottle & Lewis were asked to review.

Here is a former NoW reporter's description of life in the trenches (also courtesy of the BBC) - an excerpt:

Moral qualms? Rarely. Celebrities, politicians and common-or-garden scumbags were the stock-in-trade and absolutely fair game.

Who would care about the ethics if you exposed a dodgy politician or a paedophile? Certainly not me.

You could put the fear of God into an MP just by phoning and saying: "Hi, I'm a reporter from the News of the World."

Kind of "ignore me at your peril". Definitely a thrill.

And to be honest, we were onto the next thing so quickly that we didn't have time to reflect on the stories and those involved.

All investigative reporters from any paper or TV channel have to cross boundaries to get the story. The end often justified the means.

And the resources? At 10am on a Tuesday (the start of the working week for us), it was: "Dan, go to Heathrow Airport. Pick up five grand in cash from the Amex desk. Get to Sardinia. Now." Boring? No.

But you were only as good as your last story, and I've heard other former journos describe how your bylines were counted up over the year, to see who would get the sack.

Based on demonstrable evidence to date, is it remotely plausible that News International "lost its way"? The only way in which this might be the case is that - for once - they've been caught red-handed and are on the defensive. But fret not: this, too, shall pass. Rupert's here to save his red-headed lass; he's taken the reins and they'll be on their way before you know it. They know exactly where they're going.

I hate the fact I didn't write this

Yes, News International is a "Good" Empire:

. . . I'm over the moon about that the Culture Secretary is about to make News Corporation an even more colossal media empire than it already was (it owns a third of the British newspaper market), despite heavy criticism leveled at News Corp-owned News of the World this week by the liberal media, who resorted to "facts" and "basic decency" in order to ruin this paper's good name.

Read the rest - someone finally puts their finger on the key to the Murdochs hold over governments:

The LAST thing anyone wants is a plurality of opinion and voices in the media. After all, when I said I heard lots of voices in my head, they called me MAD. This government has made the same decision I made -- pick one of those voices and follow it. No matter how INSANE and EVIL publications like News of the World appear to be -- according to "the facts" -- we can rest easy that this noble empire is about to become a lot more powerful, thanks to Jeremy Hunt.

Profound Insights by James Murdoch

James Murdoch today:

"These allegations are shocking and hugely regrettable."

Yes, James, deleting a murdered school-girl's voice-mails during a frantic search for her is pretty damned regrettable. It's good to know that you see this.

Of course, James fully supports the editor in charge at the time:

"Rebekah [Brooks] and I are absolutely committed, this company is committed, to doing the right thing and what that means is about co-operating and working fully with the police investigations into those alleged practices and into those activities. It's also about putting into place the processes, so that we understand what happened and we have a process in place to make sure these things don't happen again. I'm satisfied that Rebekah, her leadership of this business and her standard of ethics and her standard of conduct throughout her career are very good."

Gotta love the Murdochs. Thank God we can look to them to ensure "the plurality and independence of news provision, which is so important for our democracy."

I wonder when the penny drops . . .

. . . and it occurs to people, the media, the politicians and the police, that if you consider the incremental timeline of events leading up to where we are today in the phone hacking scandal, the pattern practically screams denial, deferral, obfuscation, misdirection and repeated, blatant lying by the most senior officials in the Murdoch machine. Consider, for example, how and when the first phone hacking allegations emerged - how long ago? - about the Royal Family. A relatively innocuous News of the World story about Prince William's knee injury was the first indication something fishy was going on at NoW. That story, published in November 2005, prompted fears that the voicemail messages of those closest to him were being intercepted. A police inquiry began. Any reputable organisation would have conducted a full internal investigation and rooted out any rot elsewhere. What was the outcome? In January 2007, two journalists, Goodman and Mulcaire were jailed for hacking. Then-editor Andy Coulson resigned but claimed he did not know about the practice, after which he was brought into the Prime Minister's cabinet (good judgement there by the PM!). What happened next? It was not until two-and-a-half years later, in July 2009, that the claims resurfaced again. The Guardian newspaper reported that NoW journalists had been involved in the hacking of up to 3,000 celebrities, politicians and sports stars' phones. And the police and the Press Complaints Commission had found no new evidence of phone hacking. So with all of that in mind, consider where we are today and consider why we should believe anything anyone in power or in the media has to say on the matter.

Getting kind of ridiculous now

On the whole, it's probably safe to say that the UK's Press Complaints Commission appears not to have performed up to par. But, what do you expect when you are effectively owned by those you are supposed to regulate?

This thing has descended into farce.

Ideally, it should be game, set, match

And I'm not talking about Wimbledon. I'm talking about the spectacularly ill-advised pending complete takeover of British Sky Broadcasting by Fox and friends at News Corp, which I've previously commented on from . . . time . . . to . . . time.

In a rational world, the latest stomach-churning revelations would be fatal to Rupert Murdoch's dreams of media consolidation in Britain.

But, sadly, Britain is not a rational world:

". . . Business Secretary Vince Cable set the terms of the investigation of the takeover as being exclusively about whether the deal would harm plurality or choice in the media.

"Mr Cable could have specified that there should be a review of whether News Corp is a fit and proper owner, but he chose not to do so. That means, according to my source, that Mr Hunt's hands are tied.

"That said, the media regulator Ofcom is not constrained in this way, according to a government official. Ofcom does have the power to determine whether News Corp is a fit-and-proper owner of all of BSkyB, or even its current holding of 39%.

"However, Ofcom can't make the adjudication until the police have completed their investigation of the extent of hacking and other invasions of people's privacy by the News of the World."

How fortunate for the Murdochs. Funny how that worked out.