201 replies to this topic

[Steve Sensible]

Rebekah Brooks (and some other people) arrested.

[Todd Gross]

Rebekah Brooks (and some other people) arrested.

The arrest is potentially embarrassing for David Cameron, who earlier this month was forced to make further admissions about the extent of his relationship with Mr and Mrs Brooks.

After it emerged that Scotland Yard had lent an ex-police horse, Raisa, to Mrs Brooks, the Prime Minister conceded the animal had been among his mounts on rides with Mr Brooks - a friend from their Eton schooldays.

Asked whether the horse riding was emblematic of those overly close ties, Mr Cameron said: "I have known Charlie Brooks, the husband of Rebekah Brooks, for over 30 years.

"He is a good friend and he is a neighbour in the constituency. We live a few miles apart."

Asked about the arrest. a Downing Street spokeswoman said: "The Prime Minister is travelling to Washington. It is an operational matter for the police. You wouldn't expect him to comment on it."

I wonder if Cameron is glad to be here in the states right about now.

[Todd Gross]

And Jimmy takes another hit:
James Murdoch Quits As BSkyB Chairman; Says Scandals Make Him A “Lightning Rod”

This is one of the clearest indications yet that the News Corp Deputy COO — and Rupert Murdoch’s son – has lost his once formidable clout at the media giant. “I am aware that my role as Chairman could become a lightning rod for BSkyB and I believe that my resignation will help to ensure that there is no false conflation with events at a separate organisation,” James said — referring to his involvement in News Corp’s UK phone hacking and bribery scandals. Rupert and COO Chase Carey kept their game face on in a statement about the news: “We are grateful for James Murdoch’s successful leadership of BSkyB. He has played a major role in propelling the company into the market-leading position it enjoys today – and in the process has been instrumental in creating substantial value for News Corporation shareholders.” They added that they look forward to ”BSkyB’s continued growth” under Nicholas Ferguson, who replaces James Murdoch as chairman. James will remain at the company as a non-executive director.


Word of the possibility that James might leave his powerful role at the UK pay TV service had begun to spread yesterday. News Corp owns 39.1% of BSkyB’s voting shares, which means it effectively controls the company. Rupert Murdoch hoped to buy the entire enterprise until last year when he became engulfed in the UK newspaper phone hacking and bribery scandals. The thinking now is that James’ position as his family’s leading representative at BSkyB will become tenuous if Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee censures him for not fully investigating the hacking that went on during his tenure as the head of News Corp’s UK media arm, News International. The committee’s findings are expected shortly after Easter. A critical finding could lead regulator Ofcom to extend its investigation into whether Murdoch is a “fit and proper” person to oversee the pay TV company. Board members at BSkyB are said to be fearful that a negative report would force Murdoch to leave with a tarnished reputation. Murdoch recently resigned as executive chairman of News International and has also stepped down from the boards of GlaxoSmithKline and Sotheby’s. At the time of his News International resignation, Murdoch, who had moved to New York, said, “I look forward to expanding my commitment to News Corporation’s international television businesses and other key initiatives across the Company.” Meanwhile, two key independent directors are set to leave the BSkyB board and a third is shifting into a non-independent role, leaving three vacancies to be filled, The Financial Times reports. New independent members could undermine the board’s current unanimous support for Murdoch, the newspaper says.

I'll bet Rupert thought, or at least hoped, this would have all been forgotten by now.

[garjones]

Did you see the other story Todd? Not mentioned there but the BBC did a documentary on last week with a new scandal.

That someone at BSkyB had been paying hackers to leak the codes from a rival's satellite decoder cards onto the web so people could watch all the pemium channels free. Unsurprisingly that rival went bust. It doesn't look good, especially for James Murdoch who's main defence was he was the TV guy and not the newspaper one.

[Todd Gross]

Did you see the other story Todd? Not mentioned there but the BBC did a documentary on last week with a new scandal.

That someone at BSkyB had been paying hackers to leak the codes from a rival's satellite decoder cards onto the web so people could watch all the pemium channels free. Unsurprisingly that rival went bust. It doesn't look good, especially for James Murdoch who's main defence was he was the TV guy and not the newspaper one.

I hadn't heard that!

The longer this goes on, the more that is coming to light.

Do you see James getting criminal charges placed against him at some point? Will he fall on his sword to protect Daddy? (I think he is doing that now.)

I know Rupert has refused to step down but I wonder as these things keep piling up, I wonder if in the financial interest of the company, he will be forced out?

[garjones]

I hadn't heard that!

The longer this goes on, the more that is coming to light.

Do you see James getting criminal charges placed against him at some point? Will he fall on his sword to protect Daddy? (I think he is doing that now.)

I know Rupert has refused to step down but I wonder as these things keep piling up, I wonder if in the financial interest of the company, he will be forced out?

The story details are here: http://www.guardian....a?newsfeed=true

The witnesses allege a software company NDS, owned by News Corp, cracked the smart card codes of rival company ONdigital. ONdigital, owned by the ITV companies Granada and Carlton, eventually went under amid a welter of counterfeiting by pirates, leaving the immensely lucrative pay-TV field clear for Sky.
The allegations, if proved, cast further doubt on whether News Corp meets the "fit and proper" test required to run a broadcaster in Britain. It emerged earlier this month that broadcasting regulator Ofcom has set up a unit called Project Apple to establish whether BSkyB, 39.1% owned by News Corp, meets the test.

Do I think James Murdoch will face criminal charges? No, I think he's too far up the chain. I think the shareholders in the US will want to shunt him out of the way and he and daddy wil hope he can sit it out for 5 years until it has all blown over and then start pushing him back (and yes Rupert is old but his mother is still alive so I expect he'll still be there).

[Todd Gross]

What happens if Sky is proven to not meet the "fit and proper" test?

[garjones]

What happens if Sky is proven to not meet the "fit and proper" test?

Well it's News Corp that needs to prove the 'fit and proper' part rather than Sky. They own 39.1% of Sky so I guess they'll be told they'll have to sell the shares if they fail. Sky would continue as it makes a lot of money but someone else would own it.

It's happened in football where they have a similar rule and Thaksin Shinawatra, the ex Prime Minister of Thailand, was convicted of corruption there and had to sell Manchester City FC or have it siezed off him. Sky would survive and News Corp would too but News Corp would lose a very profitable arm of their business. One that only a year ago it seemed a certainty they were going to be given permission to own outright.

[Todd Gross]

Coming to America...
Phone-Hacking Scandal Comes to the U.S.

In an exclusive interview, a London lawyer reveals his plans to take on Murdoch on behalf of clients who believe their phones were hacked in America.


Fleet Street lawyer Mark Lewis is coming to America this week—and he’s bringing the phone-hacking scandal with him.

Lewis has been Rupert Murdoch’s prime antagonist in the crisis rocking the mogul’s media empire in Britain. His 2007 lawsuit on behalf of a hacked soccer official kicked the scandal into gear, and he broke it open this summer with his suit on behalf of the parents of Milly Dowler, the murdered schoolgirl whose phone was hacked by Murdoch journalists when she disappeared. The uproar surrounding the Dowler revelations caused Murdoch to shutter his legendary News of the World tabloid, and he agreed to a landmark, multimillion-dollar payout to settle the family’s legal claim.

When Lewis went toe-to-toe in those negotiations with Murdoch, there came a moment, he says, when Murdoch finally blinked—and it was when Lewis threatened that, in his words, “we would take it to America.”

Now Lewis says he is mounting a U.S. challenge to Murdoch all the same. In an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast, Lewis confirmed for the first time that he plans to file three separate lawsuits on behalf of clients who believe their phones were hacked while they were on U.S. soil. At least one of the cases, Lewis adds, involves allegations that the phone of a U.S. citizen was hacked.

“This is getting wider,” Lewis says. A spokesperson for News Corporation declined to comment.

Lawyers and Murdoch opponents have been searching hard for U.S.-based cases since the scandal reached a head this summer. For one, they could bring the public-relations nightmare closer to home for News Corp., the parent company for Murdoch’s media conglomerate, which is headquartered in New York.

Analysts say the company has worked hard to limit the damage to its U.K. arm, News International, whose newspaper business accounts for just a fraction of the News Corp. bottom line. “News Corp. has so far tried to keep matters in the U.K. and has moved toward a policy of settling all cases as speedily as possible,” says Claire Enders, a London-based media analyst who follows News Corp. closely. “Mark Lewis launching these lawsuits in the U.S. brings the issue of phone hacking into News Corp.’s backyard, where they have the potential for significant embarrassment. And the people who are going to get the most embarrassed by this are the Murdochs in New York.”

In addition, Lewis notes, if hacking took place on U.S. soil, he can more easily take aim at News Corp. itself.—he expects all three of his new lawsuits to be filed against the company in America. The purpose of his trip, which will take him to California on Thursday and New York on Monday, is to consult with U.S. lawyers on the stateside legal fight. “It gives him a bigger envelope for seeking damages,” Enders says.

But the greatest damage from the lawsuits has not come from the settlements—and there have been more than 60 so far—but the revelations that have been unearthed as part of the legal process. Lewis’s 2008 suit, for example, produced proof that the phone-hacking problem was widespread at News of the World and not confined to a single “rogue reporter,” as News International had long claimed.

The scandal has since reached the feet of Murdoch’s son and onetime heir-apparent, James, who recently stepped down from the helm of News International amid accusations that he had helped to cover up the scandal when settling the 2008 case. Earlier this year the High Court justice overseeing the phone-hacking cases said he’d seen evidence over the course of the proceedings that raised “compelling questions about whether [News International] concealed, told lies, actively tried to get off scot free.”

The police investigation into phone hacking has since expanded into far more serious allegations of corrupt payments to police and other public officials, which has led to a series of headline-grabbing arrests of senior journalists at Murdoch’s flagship daily tabloid, The Sun.

“It was those [early] cases that really opened up the files that allowed the exposure of lots of other things,” says Martin Moore, cofounder of the Hacked Off campaign against press abuses. “It’s as though News Corp. have been trying to chop off the rotten limbs, and each time they get further up the body. They started out by trying to chop off an individual rogue reporter. Then, for a short while, they said it was a handful of rogue reporters, and then a rogue newspaper. Then it started to expand beyond the newspaper to senior executives, and they cordoned off News International.”

Lewis seems anxious to start a legal discovery process against News Corp. itself. “We’ve only seen the documents that exist in respect to News International in England, and there’s been no process of discovery in respect of News Corp.,” Lewis says. “That could be the next thing that we have to find out.”

Even without any actions from Lewis, the U.K. police investigations, along with a reported FBI investigation into whether News International violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with the alleged Sun payments to public officials, has prompted News Corp. to launch an exhaustive internal investigation of News International. The company has been poring through millions of emails in its U.K. headquarters and handing potentially damning information to police—a process that sparked the arrests of Sun journalists.

In addition to the phone-hacking cases, Lewis says, he also plans to take aim at News Corp.’s commercial side. He plans to bring still another suit that looks into “perhaps the dirty tricks that might have been used in order to further the commercial aims for News Corporation.”

Lewis declined to give specifics on the three U.S.-based cases, but all three center on high-profile subjects. In one case, the alleged victim was connected to the royal household and to Princess Diana, Lewis says. In another case, the alleged victim was connected to England’s national football team. Lewis describes the third as a Hollywood case in which the alleged victim was in contact with a top celebrity, and therefore a target for hacking.

In each of the new phone-hacking cases, Lewis notes, people in contact with the primary hacking subject may have been targeted as well.

“It’s not just the people who were A-list or celebrities, but people who were in their circles—people who might call them or work with them, what I would call the ordinary people who just got caught in the crossfire,” he says.

Just as in the U.K. scandal, Lewis says the allegedly hacked numbers were found in the notebooks of Glenn Mulcaire, the News of the World–employed private detective whose seized notebooks have been the basis of the police investigation into phone hacking. At least one of the numbers involved in his new cases was an American one. The presence of phone numbers in Mulcaire’s notebooks does not prove that the targets were hacked.

Lewis has yet to file the new cases but says he plans to do so “imminently.” He also says there could be more U.S.-based cases in the works—which will be a key part of his discussions over the coming week with his counterparts in the States.

This just keeps growing and expanding...

[Adam Wednesdays]

Coming to America...
Phone-Hacking Scandal Comes to the U.S.




This just keeps growing and expanding...

I think news like this deserves some celebration music:

Edited by Adam Wednesdays, 18 April 2012 - 01:05 AM.

[Todd Gross]

Rupert Murdoch not 'a fit person' to run major firm, UK lawmakers say

Updated at 7:14 a.m. ET: LONDON -- Rupert Murdoch is not "a fit person" to run a major international corporation, a multi-party committee of British lawmakers said Monday.

In a devastating report into the tabloid phone-hacking scandal, the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee accused the News Corp chief of exhibiting "willful blindness" towards the wrongdoing in his organisation.

The report says News Corp's British subsidiary, News International, misled Parliament about the scale of phone hacking at its News of the World weekly tabloid.

'Huge failings'
It also said the company had deliberately ignored evidence of malpractice, covered up evidence and frustrated efforts to expose wrongdoing.

"News International and its parent News Corporation exhibited willful blindness, for which the companies' directors - including Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch - should ultimately take responsibility," it said.

"Their instinct throughout, until it was too late, was to cover up rather than seek out wrongdoing and discipline the perpetrators," the lawmakers said in an 85 page report.

"Even if there were a 'don't ask, don't tell' culture at News International, the whole affair demonstrates huge failings of corporate governance," they concluded.

The committee agreed unanimously that three key News International executives misled Parliament by offering false accounts of their knowledge of the extent of phone hacking at the News of The World -- a rare and serious censure which usually demands a personal apology to legislators.

However, the report's conclusions about Murdoch's fitness to govern were not unanimous. MPs from the ruling Conservative party issued a dissenting opinion, and described the characterization of Murdoch as unfit to run a company as "over the top".

The report, published on the House of Commons website in PDF format, stated: "On the basis of the facts and evidence before the Committee, we conclude that, 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 blindness 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."

As well as damning News Corp, the report will also embarrass Prime Minister David Cameron, who acknowledged again on Monday that politicians were in thrall to the Murdochs and whose Conservative Party faces local elections across much of Britain on Thursday.

Cameron was summoned to parliament on Monday to explain why he would not investigate emails revealing that a ministerial aide had assured News Corp its bid for BSkyB would be approved.

He insisted there was no need to refer the case to his independent adviser on ministerial conduct, noting the emails had been handed to a judicial inquiry into press ethics, but did concede that politicians had been too keen to please the media.

"I am perfectly prepared to admit that the relationship between politicians and media proprietors got too close," he said during a rowdy debate, blaming politicians of both main parties for the failing.

Committee Chairman John Whittingdale opened its hearing of James and Rupert Murdoch last year saying his committee found it inconceivable that only one reporter at the News of the World, the weekly tabloid owned by News Corp's UK subsidiary, weekly had been involved in the hacking scandal.

"In the last few weeks, not only has evidence emerged that I think has vindicated the Committee's conclusion, but abuses have been revealed that have angered and shocked the entire country," he said. "It is also clear that Parliament has been misled."

Audiences around the world witnessed the 81-year-old Rupert Murdoch - whose newspapers could make or break British politicians - saying it was the most humble day of his life and saw him hit with a foam pie at the height of the scandal last July.

He answered many of the questions in monosyllables, sometimes flummoxing the committee members, while James Murdoch infuriated them at times with lengthy management-speak.

Media regulator Ofcom will take the report's findings into consideration in its continuing assessment of whether BSkyB's owners and directors are "fit and proper" persons to hold a broadcast license.

A previous critical report by the committee came before last July's revelation that people working for the News of the World had hacked into the voicemail of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, which fuelled public anger and led to more revelations.

OH, BOY...

[Sanjay]

It's true - either the Murdochs were ignorant and inept leaders of their company or they were part of the cover up.

[garjones]

It's true - either the Murdochs were ignorant and inept leaders of their company or they were part of the cover up.

The huge one would be if Ofcom fails them on the 'fit and proper' test, then they'd be forced to sell their share in Sky, this report has no power by itself but makes that ruling more likely. I actually didn't think that would happen as they'd be deemed to have suffered enough but I think it could now as the bad news just keeps coming for New Corp.

[Todd Gross]

The huge one would be if Ofcom fails them on the 'fit and proper' test, then they'd be forced to sell their share in Sky, this report has no power by itself but makes that ruling more likely. I actually didn't think that would happen as they'd be deemed to have suffered enough but I think it could now as the bad news just keeps coming for New Corp.

This must be like a neverending nightmare for Rupert. It was what, a little over a year or more ago, that he thought he was invulnerable and the Sky deal was a lock?

Now, he, his people and companies are under fire at a level that must be inconceivable to him.

Karma is a bitch.

[garjones]

This must be like a neverending nightmare for Rupert. It was what, a little over a year or more ago, that he thought he was invulnerable and the Sky deal was a lock?

It is really, he's gone from fully expecting 100% ownership to maybe having nothing.

Sky makes a shitload of money because it supplies both the content and delivery method. Even if you switch to a cable provider like Vigin, Sky still gets paid for the content as they run all the biggest channels so 50% of all households in the UK pay something to Sky every month.

[Todd Gross]

It is really, he's gone from fully expecting 100% ownership to maybe having nothing.

Sky makes a shitload of money because it supplies both the content and delivery method. Even if you switch to a cable provider like Vigin, Sky still gets paid for the content as they run all the biggest channels so 50% of all households in the UK pay something to Sky every month.

If Rupert fails Ofcom's "fit and proper" test, he will have to sell his stake in Sky? Is that correct?

If that is the case, he will still get paid but he loses a revenue stream.

[garjones]

If Rupert fails Ofcom's "fit and proper" test, he will have to sell his stake in Sky? Is that correct?

If that is the case, he will still get paid but he loses a revenue stream.

Yup. Since Sky makes a lot of money selling the shares won't be hard but he will be forced to offload it. I think I mentioned before but it happens in other sectors too and Shinawatra Thaksin, ex-PM of Thailand, was forced to sell his football club Manchester City a couple of years back because he was convicted of fraud in his home country and deemed unfit under their rules.

Ofcom is broadly the equivalent of the FCC in the US. They act as an independent regulator so the MP verdict can't tell them what to do but will influence the decision.

[garjones]

Speaking of the FCC:

A Washington-based ethics watchdog is calling on federal regulators to revoke News Corporation's 27 Fox broadcast licences in the wake of the highly critical report on phone hacking from the UK parliament.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) has written to the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Julius Genachowski, calling on the regulator to pull the plug on Rupert Murdoch's lucrative television licences on grounds of character.
The letter argues that the final report of the UK Commons culture, media and sport committee, which concluded that Murdoch was not fit to run a major international company, had implications for the US regulators that they had now to act upon.
Melanie Sloan, Crew's director, said that the Murdochs had clearly failed the character test that is embedded within US media law as it is within British. "If they are not passing the character standard under British law, it seems to me that they are not going to meet the character standard in America."
In their report, the British parliamentarians found Rupert Murdoch was "not a fit person" to exercise stewardship of a major international company. The Commons culture, media and sport select committee also concluded that James Murdoch showed "wilful ignorance" of the extent of phone hacking during 2009 and 2010.
Under FCC regulations, broadcast frequencies can only be handed to firms run by people of good "character" who serve the "public interest" and speak with "candor". In making that judgment, the FCC is entitled to consider past conduct of media owners, including conduct that does not relate directly to their broadcasting interests, as well as any patterns of alleged misbehaviour.
The FCC has so far shown an unwillingness to be drawn into the billowing phone hacking scandal concerning the News of the World and other News Corporation outlets in the UK. Last July, Genachowski indicated that he did not expect his agency to get involved in the probe.
But Crew insisted that as more information emerges about the failure of News Corp to deal with its hacking crisis, federal authorities would eventually be forced to act. The watchdog has also written to the US Senate and House committees on commerce calling for congressional hearings into whether the Murdochs were fit to hold the Fox TV licences. A similar request from Crew last year went unanswered.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/01/rupert-murdoch-fox-licences-us

[Todd Gross]

Speaking of the FCC:



http://www.guardian....fox-licences-us

Sadly, I really don't see the FCC doing anything unless improprieties can be shown here in the US.

From the article I posted upthread about London attorney Mark Lewis, he is trying to prove phone hacking but that sounds like it is still tied to the British tabloids.

If someone can prove Fox News acted illegally, the FCC may do something. That something most likely would be fines, though. And that could end up being fought in the courts. Hell, broadcasters and the FCC are still fighting over the fines when Janet Jackson flashed her tittie for half a second during the Superbowl and that was 2004.

[garjones]

Sadly, I really don't see the FCC doing anything unless improprieties can be shown here in the US.

I agree, there isn't the evidence at the US side. Interesting that the FCC has the same test though.