world

Murdoch rejects blame for hacker scandal at hearing

41 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

If you can see a replay of the "pie" throwing incident, check it out. Wendy Murdoch leaps across the table and leaves her feet while throwing a big right slap. Very entertaining stuff.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wendy Murdoch leaps across the table and leaves her feet while throwing a big right slap.

Of course she would. She has to protect the gold she's dug.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Seems like she got in there sooner than his so-called professional bodyguards. Good job the guy didn't have a gun (or maybe not 'good job', depending on your point of view).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Get them good westminster,the NOSY CRAP MEDIA and crap news corpn.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think we all need to hold off judgement until all the facts come out. Murdoch was a stand-up man for at least showing up and at least testifying, he didn't have to, as he is not a British citizen. So that counts for a lot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That custard pie deflection by Wendi Deng sounds like something from a James Bond or Tarantino movie (just much less bloody), plus the pie thrower's name Johnny Marbles, the unsuspicious death of the whistlblower, payola to London's police with a year to go before the Olympics, the elderly and barely repentant multinational media mogul with heir apparent son in tow, all brought together by the exploitation of a 13 year old murder victim and Gordon Brown's cystic fibrosis baby plus 3698 other illegally hacked targets. Where do I option this script!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Always innocent until proven guilty, if so, then he should be held accountable, but until then...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Put Wendi on the stand, seeing she is being so defensive. Is that her son? China versus Australia. Woman versus man. My monies on Australia-his words so far are truer than some tiger who has been humbled to a cat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Murdoch had to do 2 opposing things in Parliament: acknowledge responsibility that, with seemingly thousands of phone hacking and execs close around him arrested, there's no way it was just an isolated incident but rather a systematic culture News of the World did business - yet not incriminate himself for the ongoing criminal police investigation.

Murdoch would probably step down, since he's already planned a succession soon anyways. This just stepped up the time table.

This is the danger when one media conglomerate holds as much power as it does in Britain. It can be driven to amoral journalism. Better to maintain a healthy variety of media outlets, so not everyone thinks the same way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is the danger when one media conglomerate holds as much power as it does in Britain. It can be driven to amoral journalism. Better to maintain a healthy variety of media outlets, so not everyone thinks the same way

But that's the problem, how do you create a variety of healthy media outlets. You DO have a variety and all have an agenda, it is a competitive industry always have been, always will be. How that message is obtained, scrutinized and brought to the masses is the key. Integrity to some degree is always an issue. Admitted this is bad for Murdoch, but if and I say, "if" he was in shape involved with this scandal. Then they should have gone after George Soros along time ago. Let's be fair if we are going to hold any or ALL these moguls to high ethical standards.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On the surface their comments sounded entirely reasonable for each incident. They are the heads of the company and they obviously won't know bits and pieces of information, including the day to day activities, of one of their smaller newspapers. But given the scope of the scandal, the number of people involved, and the amounts paid out, there comes a time when it's obvious that they should have known. The one speaker brought up "willful blindness" and that may be what gets the Murdochs in the end. This sounds more systemic than isolated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You would think they would have been more prepared. I lost count of the number of times James Murdoch said "I don't know the exact details...." Only two of the questioners did a decent job, namely Tom Watson & Mensch. Murdoch Snr looked very uncomfortable when Watson was on his case.

And did anyone else think James Murdoch looked a lot like David Wallace, Michael's boss in the American Office? Probably just me then......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Rupert Murdoch said he was humbled and ashamed but accepted no personal responsibility,

In other words, "the buck stops anywhere but here!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Newscorp shares plummeted drastically..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yesterday the head of the IMF, today a media mogul, the elite have always played dirty to have their way, and always manage to get off scot free, because they are the system.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

A key witness has dropped dead just in time! We plead innocent and claim ignorance your honor!

If Sean were still alive, I wonder, what then? And I sure hope they check between his toes for a needle hole.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Newscorp shares plummeted drastically..

Nothing new when a corp. goes through a scandal like this. Part of life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The value of the Murdochs’ News Corp added around $2 billion while they were being grilled, trading 5.3 percent higher at $15.74.

Interesting that the shares were traded higher whilst the Murdoch's were giving evidence, and started to fall when Rebekah Brooks was on the stand. The Murdoch's weren't really made to sweat by the questioners (Tom Watson aside), although they were politicians not lawyers. Brooks on the other hand didn't look as assured. If it wasn't for the fact that she had been arrested on Saturday, I'm sure she would have been hammered by the panel with some infinitely more difficult questions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With all of this talk or Murdoch and Brooks, what about Pierce Morgan when he worked at the News of the World, and how he mentioned in his own book how he was able to hack into phones. But, I guess it is ok since he works for CNN now.

That's why as much as it may seem bad for Murdoch in the UK and as much noise as they may make here in the USA, I doubt if they give him the full court press, since it would also include one of their own (CNN). All Murdoch would have to say is that it was rampant at News of the World and Morgan's career would be done, and CNN tarnished.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funk: "always innocent until proven guilty"

That may be true in terms of legal punishment (fines, jail time, etc.), but there's also the court of public opinion that decides public figures' credibility. Why do you think two top officials of Scotland Yard have had to resign without even being put on trial yet? Because it is not tenable for the law enforcing, publicly accountable police force to continue to employ even those staff rumored (by multiple credible sources) of corporate bribe-taking. Guilty of the perception of corruption and kicked to the curb.

If innocent, why did the publisher of the Wall Street Journal and the head of News International quit on the same day last week, resulting in $8 billion taken off the News Corp share values? Are they still innocent by your definition?

What about the truly innocent--teen murder victims, newborns with cystic fibrosis, and so on. Why are tabloids like News of the World so eager to exploit them anyway?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The value of the Murdochs’ News Corp added around $2 billion while they were being grilled, trading 5.3 percent higher at $15.74. The stock has taken a battering over the past couple of weeks, shedding around 17 percent of its value, or around $8 billion.

What''s really telling about this whole spectacle is that Murdoch employes around 53,000 people world wide. And becasue some don't like his politics, they want to try and run him out of business. Take a look at the hearings, and ask yourself, how many of those persons asking questions are business owners, or just professional politicians, who have not created any jobs only petty rules and schemes to get money from people who do produce the jobs.

I am not saying that wire tapping and stealing personal data is a way to do business, it is not. But what will any news organization do to get the "scoop." I say, the next time a news story breaks with the saying "unnamed sources" in it, then I would say that full investigations should be made into these sources so that we can be sure that nothing illegal was done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Why are tabloids like News of the World so eager to exploit them anyway?"

because that's what the public wants. no interest in this kind of stories = no sales = no business = no exploitation

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What''s really telling about this whole spectacle is that Murdoch employes around 53,000 people world wide. And becasue some don't like his politics,

Politics? No. It his dishonesty and lack of integrity that bother us.

Anyway, I think Al-Quaida might employ more people. Is that relevant? And Piers Morgan and CNN? Desperate to change the subject? Everyone who hacked phones illegally, and more importantly BRIBED COPS should be facing a criminal court. I don't care who he works for, what he owns, or how many people he employs. Ok?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With all of this talk or Murdoch and Brooks, what about Pierce [sic] Morgan when he worked at the News of the World, and how he mentioned in his own book how he was able to hack into phones. But, I guess it is ok since he works for CNN now.

This is an egregious lie and one quickly dispelled by looking at Piers Morgan's book, The Insider, and finding that nowhere in it does Morgan say he could hack into phones. What it does say is that a friend warned Morgan that his phone could be hacked into and so he changed his pin number.

The person who made the false accusation, Louise Mensch, a Conservative member of parliament, would not repeat it for the record outside of that body. Why? She knows it's a lie and she would sacrifice her immunity to a libel suit for repeating it outside of parliament.

All Murdoch would have to say is that it was rampant at News of the World and Morgan's career would be done, and CNN tarnished.

Oh, what pathetic fools these Faux viewers be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyway, I think Al-Quaida might employ more people. Is that relevant? And Piers Morgan and CNN? Desperate to change the subject? Everyone who hacked phones illegally, and more importantly BRIBED COPS should be facing a criminal court. I don't care who he works for, what he owns, or how many people he employs. Ok?

@chewitup: So when a news organization breaks a story first with an exclusive, or they report from their "insider sources" you are fine with this (i.e. non Murdoch owned business), but just because some of the employees from Murdoch's organzation did it, its bad? What a double standard. If they "BRIEFED COPS" as you post, then I fault the cops for not doing their jobs and arresting those persons, and not coming after some coporate head.

As far as your point of AL-Quaida is concerned, London is sometimes referred to as "Londonistan" and I think that the political leaders of the UK should be more concerned about the direction their country is heading and solving some of those major issues than being concerned with a CEO of a company who some lower employees may have broken the law.

If people have broken the law, then where are the court cases and what charges and most importantly, have they been found guilty or innocent yet?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but just because some of the employees from Murdoch's organzation did it, its bad? What a double standard.

I am not quite sure what part of:

Everyone who hacked phones illegally, and more importantly BRIBED COPS should be facing a criminal court.

You failed to understand. Shall I cut and past it again?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If people have broken the law, then where are the court cases and what charges and most importantly, have they been found guilty or innocent yet?

Gee, just a matter of minutes prior, you were falsely accusing Piers Morgan and claiming that CNN was on the verge of being tainted by Murdoch. (Q: What's the best way to risk your organization being put at risk for criminal behavior? A: Hire someone who worked for Murdoch.)

Regarding your question, I'm a person who deals with numbers: What is IQ level at which a person comes to understand that a court trial is not necessary when it regards someone who has confessed of their own free will of wrongdoing? Several Murdoch employees have admitted to it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Murdoch & Son are going to fall, it's just a matter of time. At this point I'm wondering how much the UK government is going to go after their own people. It's easy to cook Rupert but sooner or later they're going to have to turn over quite a few stones and expose their own people. The two top cops in Britain didn't resign because they are clean. It's a bit silly to listen to their statements.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

" At this point I'm wondering how much the UK government is going to go after their own people"

What's more than pathetic is how they've jumped on the band-wagon to turn on News Co, after decades of cosy deals and the current political faces having regularly shared the Champers and caviar at exclusive parties. Cameron might yet sink with this ship too.....

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Regarding your question, I'm a person who deals with numbers: What is IQ level at which a person comes to understand that a court trial is not necessary when it regards someone who has confessed of their own free will of wrongdoing? Several Murdoch employees have admitted to it.

@yabits: If someone does confess to their wrongdoing, they still need to go before a judge or magistrate and get an official sentence. You just can't say "I did it" and get thrown into jail or not pay some fine. Unless that is how you want things to be. There still needs to be a legal process. And so far, no one has been formally sentenced, not even those who say "I did it."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You just can't say "I did it" and get thrown into jail or not pay some fine.

No, but neither is a "court case" required. Several of Murdoch's employees have already admitted their guilt. You've gotten yourself all off on another tangent by taking a mere formality and making it appear significant. Something no intelligent person would do.

Are you going to admit that you were wrong about Piers Morgan and his claim that he personally hacked into phones?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Oh, what pathetic fools these Faux viewers be. @Yabits Was waiting for you to say that, cheap shot, but it has nothing to do with FOX News. News Corp. is the parent company, totally different. How about staying on topic, this is about what information Rupert and his son knew about these allegations or not as to what happened in the UK at the News of the World, why are you attacking and insulting people with an ideology drive-by?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but it has nothing to do with FOX News. News Corp. is the parent company, totally different.

The article says different, and Murdoch knows it.: "Rupert Murdoch is eager to stop the crisis from spreading to the United States, where many of his most lucrative assets—including the Fox TV network..."

why are you attacking and insulting people with an ideology drive-by?

When an unintelligent person and, pardon the redundancy, FauxNews defender, attacks Piers Morgan with a complete fabrication of what his book actually says, I am merely pointing out the obvious. And, I never just "drive-by."

Even a very dense person should be able to see the obvious contradiction and hypocrisy among the NewsCorp/Faux fans here: NewsCorp employees can't be described via public opinon as guilty even though they've admitted wrongdoing because -- wait for it -- there wasn't a "court case." On the other hand, Morgan and CNN would be taken down if that paragon of virtue, Rupert Murdoch, was to come out and admit that criminality was "rampant" at News of the World.

This is truly bizarre logic even for the low standards of the right wing.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Yabits, Ok, you made your point. Conservatives are evil. I got it. So when have you ever mentioned anything about liberals, or George Soros and how he pumped millions into this admin. Not trying to get off topic, but the point is, you are crying foul ball and there is NO evidence to back up your accusations or do you know something that Murdoch doesn't? Again, one has nothing to do with the other. Wait until the facts come out before passing judgement or do you want to throw the stone at the glass house? Give the man a benefit of a doubt. His media empire is so big, there is no way he can oversee every single detail and he really might have been kept in the dark about what was going on.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The whole affair reflects quite badly on Britain.As a nation I would say they need a good long look in the mirror, no pun intended.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Wait until the facts come out before passing judgement

Has Yabits passed judgement? On whom? For what? Please, be clear. Just yelling "Wrong!" simply won't do. All of Yabits posts in this thread are easily viewed. I think you are grasping at straws to gain a foothold that isn't there. Pretty much the same as Alphaape.

His media empire is so big, there is no way he can oversee every single detail

Are you talking of another Yabits? Is there another Yabits? What did he say that made you come up with this?

Seems to me you are the one throwing out baseless accusations, not Yabits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ok, you made your point. Conservatives are evil. I got it.

The point is not that conservatives are evil. That would be simplifying things far too much.

My point is that all too many conservatives are truth-adverse. When it gets to the level that a conservative member of parliament has to brazenly lie to slander a former employee of Murdoch (e.g. Piers Morgan), and other conservatives pick up on the lie and repeat it, it is the duty of decent people who respect the truth to set things straight.

What is simply amazing to me is how easy it is to look at Morgan's book to plainly see how blatantly dishonest the accusation against him was. But these kinds of falsehoods are routinely spouted via Murdoch's media outlets. There seems to be no lie that's too big to broadcast.

I would leave it to the individual to decide if lying is a form of evil. What I am very confident of is that no genuinely intelligent and sincere person who respects the truth would have very much to do with Murdoch's media products, with the possible exception of the Times of London.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Hot off the wire:

James Murdoch's former legal adviser and a former editor contested the testimony he gave to British lawmakers, saying Thursday he was told years ago about an email that suggested the rot at his Sunday tabloid was far more widespread than previously claimed.

Their statement could deal a blow to the credibility of Rupert Murdoch's son as the family struggles to limit the damage from a phone-hacking scandal that has already cost the media empire one of its British tabloids, two top executives and a billion-dollar bid for control of a satellite broadcaster.

Murdoch told lawmakers he was not aware of the email at the time, but in a statement late Thursday, former News International legal manager Tom Crone and former News of the World editor Colin Myler contradicted him. "We would like to point out that James Murdoch's recollection of what he was told when agreeing to settle the Gordon Taylor litigation was mistaken," they said. "In fact, we did inform him of the 'for Neville' email which had been produced to us by Gordon Taylor's lawyers."

The plot thickens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know, for once in my life, I think I might actually see justice done. I really think the murdoch's and their employees may have been too arrogant in their business practices and their actually going to pay a price for it.

Let justice be done. Hooray!

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is simply amazing to me is how easy it is to look at Morgan's book to plainly see how blatantly dishonest the accusation against him was. But these kinds of falsehoods are routinely spouted via Murdoch's media outlets. There seems to be no lie that's too big to broadcast.

@yabits: Just so you know, they have found an interview in which Morgan told interviewers that stories were based on phone tapping. Did he tap the phones, no. But he ran stories that were based on phone taps. From the article:

"But it has emerged that Mr Morgan gave a notably different response when asked during an interview with the BBC about his potential involvement in covert "gutter" journalistic practices during his time as a tabloid editor between 1994 and 2004."

Mr Morgan replied: “To be honest, let’s put that in perspective as well. Not a lot of that went on. A lot of it was done by third parties rather than the staff themselves. That’s not to defend it, because obviously you were running the results of their work.

"I’m quite happy to be parked in the corner of tabloid beast and to have to sit here defending all these things I used to get up to, and I make no pretence about the stuff we used to do,” he told the programme's host, Kirsty Young.

“I simply say the net of people doing it was very wide, and certainly encompassed the high and low end of the supposed newspaper market.”

Interesting, don't you think?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites