Is Rupert in trouble? Real trouble?

[kpete]

Is Rupert in trouble? Real trouble?

by digby

Michael Wolfe, the man who literally wrote the book on Rupert Murdoch on the eavesdropping scandal.From what he says it's a much tighter case than I realized:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/is-rupert-in-trouble-real-trouble.html

.................

In sum: It is now well-documented that employees of Murdoch’s News of the World British tabloid eavesdropped on the voice mail messages of practically anybody who was anybody in Britain for the better part of the last 10 years—the most recent revelations put Kate Middleton and Tony Blair on this list—including, undoubtedly, some of the people who went to the News Corp. party. Although this might not have seemed like much of a crime while it was being committed by myriad News Corp. reporters, and sanctioned by their bosses—just hacks being hacks—it has since transmuted into a profound breach of the civil trust. And to date, each next domino in the inquest has fallen.
The informed speculation in U.K. media and political circles is about which present and former members of the top circle of News Corp. management in London will next be frog marched in front of a tribunal. In addition to company chief Rebekah Wade Brooks (who herself appears to have been hacked by reporters) and her predecessor Les Hinton, who now runs The Wall Street Journal, this might naturally include Rupert’s son, James, who approved the early settlements in the case—settlements so large they could only reasonably be hush-money payoffs.

And yet the company’s largely American shareholder base remains somehow unaware or in denial about what’s happening. News Corp. faces its greatest peril since it almost went bankrupt in the early ’90s, and yet the share price holds.

This is partly because of the Rupert effect. Shareholders invest in the company as a bet on Murdoch himself. He has been in many a tight squeeze before, and part of his value is that he gets out of them. And it is partly because the U.S. media is disinclined to pursue Murdoch or to spend much time on foreign business news (in the past, The Wall Street Journal was the one paper that might be counted on to cover such stories).

First, they did it. Boy, did they do it. And then they tried to cover it up. Oh, and it turns out they documented it, too. And then there is the hard-core, bedrock, long-oppressed, anti-Murdoch faction in the U.K., suddenly armed with a mighty weapon: a scandal, into its third year, that drips out week after week. There doesn’t seem like any going back to an invulnerable Rupert.

http://www.adweek.com/michael-wolff/devils-due-132653

[n2doc]

1. no

He could machine gun down an entire schoolyard of 1st graders and get away with it. I have yet to see any tangible evidence that this scandal has had any effect on Newscorp.

[valerief]

5. I'll bet he could do that. nt

[Chimichurri]

2. I can't understand why this isn't a bigger story. I would expect silence from the

corporate media but Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes or Stephanie Miller haven't said anything about this. I've only ever read this story here.

[CJCRANE]

3. Well, he's either in trouble or this will prove once and for all

that Murdoch is more powerful than royalty and governments (if he gets away with it).

[tsuki]

7. Rebekah Wade (Brooks?) will eventually be thrown under the bus. The end. nt

[Scuba]

4. Please, please, please... here's hoping the Brits send in Commando Team Six to get that terrorist.

[rurallib]

16. With Cameron in charge?

I know little about British politics, but I sense the head dude will do what he can to save his buddy.

[tsuki]

6. I don't expect real problems until Rupert Roo kicks and all the

kiddie-Roos start yowling.

[blm]

8. the GREAT digby nails it....again

.

[AnnaLee]

9. I can't make the call for another country

But I wonder if, in the US, many or a majority of people, especially Murdock fans, would bring up the first amendment. Laws that say otherwise in the US would be considered as unconstitutionally restricting the freedom of the press if it (the act) aligned with people's "side".

Here is a question - how does this differ from someone on the internet receiving classified electrons and publishing them?

Since we all are the press now days via our blog options, can we all do what Murdock did?

[drm604]

10. The first amendment doesn't give you the right to hack into other people's voice mails.

[CJCRANE]

11. We call it espionage

when foreign companies and governments do it.

It's a pretty serious business.

[madrchsod]

13. nope..we`d be sent to jail

[JDPriestly]

20. There is a big difference.

Here is a question - how does this differ from someone on the internet receiving classified electrons and publishing them?

Here is my answer based on my opinions.

The person on the internet who receives classified information from some other source and publishes it is not illegally obtaining or stealing the information. A lot of news comes to be published because of leaks often unauthorized leaks. If every unauthorized leak was punished, our news media would just spout propaganda. That is the way it is in some countries in the world. (I used to know someone who worked as a censor of Western news in and Eastern European country before the fall of communism. The control of the news was pretty extreme.)

The publishing of the illegal information, in my opinion, should be protected by the huge umbrella of the First Amendment. We shall see whether the current very radically right-wing (paranoid) current Supreme Court agrees with me.

But Fox News (the British branch of it at least) has not just published information provided to it. It has, itself, stolen information from people's cell phones and other personal communication sources. Fox News's theft itself would not be protected by the First Amendment had they stolen these communications in the US.

Theft is a common crime. In my opinion, this principle also applies to those who steal government secret information without authorization.

Whistleblowers are a special category. Some government whistleblowing is protected by statute. Some is not. And some whistleblowers take it upon themselves to blow the whistle regardless of the risk, even when they know their conduct will not be protected by law. They are following their consciences.

Whether to respect the whistleblower's decision to follow his conscience or not is up to each individual, and for many of us may depend on the circumstances. Of course, decisions you might respect, I might not and vice versa.

Courts generally impose penalties for theft, but a court might mitigate the punishment under certain circumstances.

[madrchsod]

12. most american`s don`t care but i sure am watching it unfold.

poor rupert, his minions have been exposed to the light of day.

is kate and hubby the next in line for the throne?

[pacalo]

14. The Guardian has been invaluable in getting out the truth during the Bush/Cheney years.

So I applaud this passage written by Wolfe about The Guardian:

...the virtuous newspaper, perhaps the last great newspaper, with a last great editor, who, long waiting for and never believing it would get such an opportunity, now has the devil in its sights.

We in America are poorer for missing out on the telling of this tale.

[hwmnbn]

15. K&R

[KittyWampus]

17. I don't get why liberal media personalities don't report on this.

[lonestarnot]

18. Yeah!

[JDPriestly]

19. I'm wondering whether there has been any investigation to find out

whether NewsCorp was eavesdropping on Americans -- especially American politicians. I haven't heard anything about any such investigation. Seems like someone should look into it.

[Garbo 2004]

21. Guardian just rpted another arrest: 39 yr old woman, not yet publicly identified.

Apparently not a journo? The arrest happened early this morning UK time, so more info likely forthcoming.

Phone hacking: police arrest woman in Yorkshire

Detectives investigating phone hacking by the News of the World have arrested a woman in West Yorkshire, Scotland Yard has said.

The 39-year-old woman was arrested at 6.55am at her home on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Full article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/23/phone-hacking-police-arrest-woman-in-yorkshire

[ImNotTed]

22. Psychologically?

For a long time.