Submitted By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Britain’s largest weekly tabloid, News of the World, closes today, but not from lack of advertisers or readers. Instead, the Rupert Murdoch led tabloid succumbed to its own excesses amid shocking allegations of interceptions of cellphone voice mails of the families of a murdered 13-year-old girl, servicemen and women slain in Afghanistan, and victims of the 2005 London terrorist bombings. Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator who worked for News of the World, is accused of the electronic hacking.
One of the victims, Graham Foulkes, whose son, David, died in the 2005 London attack, said “Janet and I were obviously having very intimate personal phone calls with friends and family. To think that when you’re at the lowest time in life that somebody, for the sake of a cheap story, is maybe listening to you, it’s just beyond words.”
The outrage from the British public has been complete and has political overtones. Perhaps not too surprisingly, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron has been almost alone in not calling for the paper’s editor, Rebekah Brooks, to resign. Murdoch’s News International syndicate was a tireless and enthusiastic supporter of Cameron in last year’s British parliamentary elections. The cozy relationship between Brooks and the PM resulted in Cameron spending the Christmas holiday with Brooks and her family.
Criticism for the PM’s reluctance is growing and Cameron has moved to call for a complete investigation. Cameron is also dealing with the fact that his Director of Communications, Andy Coulson, is a former editor of NOW. Coulson resigned in January citing another scandal as a “distraction,” but the British public is all too aware that Coulson, while editor, was accused of paying police tens of thousands of pounds from NOW funds.
James Murdoch, son of the undisputed guru of sensationalist journalism, said the scandal will result in punishments for the newspaper’s culpable employees. “Wrongdoers turned a good newsroom bad and this was not fully understood or adequately pursued.” He pledged that “those who acted wrongly will have to face the consequences.” NOW has published for 168 years and is wildly profitable. The closing has real effects on the Murdoch Empire and is the most serious challenge to the what some regard as the voice of conservatism on both sides of the Atlantic and beyond. Murdoch’s Fox News is a vocal backer of conservative candidates in the U.S. as well, and has faced its own share of criticism in that enterprise.
As for Murdoch, Sr., he seems to realize the gravamen of the situation deciding to fly to London and axe the paper in an attempt to stem the wave of criticism. The mogul may be the victim of his own doing as well. Many newspaper scandals in the past have been ameliorated by the presence of strong and independent boards of directors who act immediately to discharge the offending editors and restore the paper’s image. Not so with Murdoch’s companies, whose boards show a disturbing lack of resistance to Murdoch’s will. Simon Duke, a financial writer for the UK’s “This is Your Money” website puts it this way, “All too often, Murdoch Sr has been able to bend the board to his will with embarrassing ease. The directors all appear to rub along very smoothly; so much so that the 80-year-old has been able to rail-road through a series of deals that, to the outside world, look a lot like pandering to the whim of the chief executive.”
Is this a “Rosebud” moment for the all-powerful tabloid mogul? Only time will tell, but what is beyond doubt is that the drive for sensationalism has shaken to the foundation the once unassailable House of Murdoch.
Sources: This Is Your Money; Washington Post
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
According to what source, kderosa?
The Guardian is actually far less dependent upon advertising revenues irregardless of sources of said advertising revenue because they are owned by a trust that financially backs their independent operation unlike some newspapers that are solely dependent upon advertising revenues.
From the Guardian News and Media Limited’s Directors Report and Financial Statements for the Period Ended 28 March 2010, p. 4:
“The Company’s intermediate parent, Guardian Media Group plc, is owned 100% by The Scott Trust Limited whose core purpose is to secure the financial and editorial independence of the The Guardian in perpetuity. The directors believe that the company has adequate resources to continue operations for the foreseeable future and confirmation has been received from Guardian Media Group plc that it will provide financing facilities to enable the Company to carry on its business as a going concern.”
http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GNM_AR_0910.pdf
So unless you can cite your source and your source contradicts that the Guardian has an independent financing source guaranteeing its operation independent of governmental ad revenues, you’re just making things up again. Also, your disingenuous attempts to portray this as a free speech issue is tiresome and inaccurate. It’s an issue about corporate criminal behavior and their culpability, not free speech. News Corp. is free to say what they like (absent libel or slander) but if they got their information via criminal means, they are . . . criminals. The investigations being launched against News Corp. by the British and now American governments are criminal investigations, not censorship actions.
@GeneH, according to the source, the Guardian survives on government advertising so they are obviously not a neutral player with that type of pressure to account for and this type of “hacking” was commonplace.
I’m not trying to excuse the behavior at all. All I said was that clearly there are ulterior motives behind the prosecution, one of those motives is to stifle free speech of the only non-government influenced or owned news agency. The situation is analogous to defending neo-nazi groups that are being censored because even they have free speech rights and it is more important to protect free speech than it is to censor speech you don’t agree with.
“You are siding with the (alleged) criminals at News Corp. by trying to minimize their bad actions by claiming ‘Johnny did it too!'” (Gene H. to kderosa)
That was Nixon’s answer to Watergate … maybe kderosa is a Nixonite.
AY:
“The only true lefty I know of is Poncho’s side kick”
***********************
Great call there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxzJAF1BxP4
Gene H:
I see the lie mill has begun turning again. Thanks for pointing that out.
Eric Holder confirms that the DOJ is investigating News Corp.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/eric-holder-fbi-news-corp-investigation_n_899665.html
kderosa,
“In this case we have reprehensible behavior that was apparently practiced by all journalists.”
Do you have proof of this allegation? Or are you merely trying to defuse the blame for News Corp.’s bad actions?
“One news organiztion was called out for it, by the government controlled news organizations.”
That’s simply not true. The Guardian’s reporter Nick Davies broke this story. The Guardian is not owned by the government and the BBC Trust. It is owned by the Scott Trust (founded by the Manchester Guardian’s original owner, John Scott, in 1936) which owns the Guardian Media Group including the newspaper. So contrary to your unfounded allegations of government involvement in exposing the problem, it was a privately held independent newspaper that broke this story. It wasn’t the government who broke the News of the World scandal. It was the independent competition.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nick-davies-phone-hacking-2011-7
You are siding with the (alleged) criminals at News Corp. by trying to minimize their bad actions by claiming “Johnny did it too!” without any evidence against Johnny and mischaracterization of the facts around the discovery and exposure of the scandal to portray a government conspiracy against free speech when it was in fact the exercise of independent free speech that brought the bad actions of News Corp. to light. Pride? To paraphrase Madge, “You’re choking in it.”
The term has to do with the fact that you will ignore “morals, ethics, legalities and responsible journalism” and pricnciples if theer are political points to score against your political opponents.
In this case we have reprehensible behavior that was apparently practiced by all journalists. One news organiztion was called out for it, by the government controlled news organizations. That one news organization also happens to be the only non-government controlled/financed organization. Coincidence? So, there are lots of bad guys in this story and you and your fellow travelers are siding with the bad guys who also engaged in similar behavior and who are also against free speech. You should be proud.
mespo,
was the poster before you really serious….lefties? What does that term have to do with morals, ethics, legalities and responsible journalism…..I suppose…Deep Throat was a lefty as well…..
The only true lefty I know of is Poncho’s side kick….But the Federalies said they could have him any day….
Domino three: CEO of News International, Rebekah Brooks, resigns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14166162
This is purely my opinion, but I believe the story, which has been quietly a well known secret for years with almost all papers, including the Guardian, which broke this, hacking at some time or another, is now such a major storm. The BBC’s virtual monopoly of British broadcasting is being threatened by Murdoch’s expansion of his control of Sky, the satellite broadcaster, so they are pushing this story hard.
Last night (Thurs) the BBC news was almost entirely devoted to the hacking story story; followed by Question Time where all the questions selected by the BBC except for 1 in the last 3 minutes were the same; followed by Andrew Neil on the same. 2 1/2 hours on this story and virtually none on the rest of the world’s news That would be justified if we were seeing a breaking news story like 9/11, but for nothing less.
Broadcasting in Britain is essentially a monopoly of the BBC and people they approve of. This monopoly is legally committed to “balance,” but is in fact the propaganda arm of the British state (along with the Guardian, which survives on government advertising). Murdoch’s attempt to buy all of Sky would weaken that monopoly slightly.
I do not consider it a coincidence that this scandal, which journalists of all newspapers have been guilty of for years, has suddenly broken on Murdoch’s head alone.”
(Source)
I guess this is the wrong kind of free-speech for lefties to get behind.
OS,
In general, the issue is interception of communications made by wire or radio.
47 USC § 605 provides in part:
§ 605. Unauthorized publication or use of communications
(a) Practices prohibited
Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception,
(1) to any person other than the addressee, his agent, or attorney,
(2) to a person employed or authorized to forward such communication to its destination,
(3) to proper accounting or distributing officers of the various communicating centers over which the communication may be passed,
(4) to the master of a ship under whom he is serving,
(5) in response to a subpena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, or
(6) on demand of other lawful authority. No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. This section shall not apply to the receiving, divulging, publishing, or utilizing the contents of any radio communication which is transmitted by any station for the use of the general public, which relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress, or which is transmitted by an amateur radio station operator or by a citizens band radio operator.
(b) Exceptions
The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the interception or receipt by any individual, or the assisting (including the manufacture or sale) of such interception or receipt, of any satellite cable programming for private viewing if—
(1) the programming involved is not encrypted; and
(2)
(A) a marketing system is not established under which—
(i) an agent or agents have been lawfully designated for the purpose of authorizing private viewing by individuals, and
(ii) such authorization is available to the individual involved from the appropriate agent or agents; or
(B) a marketing system described in subparagraph (A) is established and the individuals receiving such programming has obtained authorization for private viewing under that system.
(c) Scrambling of Public Broadcasting Service programming
No person shall encrypt or continue to encrypt satellite delivered programs included in the National Program Service of the Public Broadcasting Service and intended for public viewing by retransmission by television broadcast stations; except that as long as at least one unencrypted satellite transmission of any program subject to this subsection is provided, this subsection shall not prohibit additional encrypted satellite transmissions of the same program.
(d) Definitions
For purposes of this section—
(1) the term “satellite cable programming” means video programming which is transmitted via satellite and which is primarily intended for the direct receipt by cable operators for their retransmission to cable subscribers;
(2) the term “agent”, with respect to any person, includes an employee of such person;
(3) the term “encrypt”, when used with respect to satellite cable programming, means to transmit such programming in a form whereby the aural and visual characteristics (or both) are modified or altered for the purpose of preventing the unauthorized receipt of such programming by persons without authorized equipment which is designed to eliminate the effects of such modification or alteration;
(4) the term “private viewing” means the viewing for private use in an individual’s dwelling unit by means of equipment, owned or operated by such individual, capable of receiving satellite cable programming directly from a satellite;
(5) the term “private financial gain” shall not include the gain resulting to any individual for the private use in such individual’s dwelling unit of any programming for which the individual has not obtained authorization for that use; and
(6) the term “any person aggrieved” shall include any person with proprietary rights in the intercepted communication by wire or radio, including wholesale or retail distributors of satellite cable programming, and, in the case of a violation of paragraph (4) of subsection (e) of this section, shall also include any person engaged in the lawful manufacture, distribution, or sale of equipment necessary to authorize or receive satellite cable programming.
(e) Penalties; civil actions; remedies; attorney’s fees and costs; computation of damages; regulation by State and local authorities
(1) Any person who willfully violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both.
(2) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both, for the first such conviction and shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for any subsequent conviction.
(3)
(A) Any person aggrieved by any violation of subsection (a) of this section or paragraph (4) of this subsection may bring a civil action in a United States district court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction.
(B) The court—
(i) may grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain violations of subsection (a) of this section;
(ii) may award damages as described in subparagraph (C); and
(iii) shall direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.
(C)
(i) Damages awarded by any court under this section shall be computed, at the election of the aggrieved party, in accordance with either of the following subclauses;
(I) the party aggrieved may recover the actual damages suffered by him as a result of the violation and any profits of the violator that are attributable to the violation which are not taken into account in computing the actual damages; in determining the violator’s profits, the party aggrieved shall be required to prove only the violator’s gross revenue, and the violator shall be required to prove his deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the violation; or
(II) the party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of subsection (a) of this section involved in the action in a sum of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000, as the court considers just, and for each violation of paragraph (4) of this subsection involved in the action an aggrieved party may recover statutory damages in a sum not less than $10,000, or more than $100,000, as the court considers just.
(ii) In any case in which the court finds that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase the award of damages, whether actual or statutory, by an amount of not more than $100,000 for each violation of subsection (a) of this section.
(iii) In any case where the court finds that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that his acts constituted a violation of this section, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of damages to a sum of not less than $250.
(4) Any person who manufactures, assembles, modifies, imports, exports, sells, or distributes any electronic, mechanical, or other device or equipment, knowing or having reason to know that the device or equipment is primarily of assistance in the unauthorized decryption of satellite cable programming, or direct-to-home satellite services, or is intended for any other activity prohibited by subsection (a) of this section, shall be fined not more than $500,000 for each violation, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years for each violation, or both. For purposes of all penalties and remedies established for violations of this paragraph, the prohibited activity established herein as it applies to each such device shall be deemed a separate violation.
(5) The penalties under this subsection shall be in addition to those prescribed under any other provision of this subchapter.
(6) Nothing in this subsection shall prevent any State, or political subdivision thereof, from enacting or enforcing any laws with respect to the importation, sale, manufacture, or distribution of equipment by any person with the intent of its use to assist in the interception or receipt of radio communications prohibited by subsection (a) of this section.
(f) Rights, obligations, and liabilities under other laws unaffected
Nothing in this section shall affect any right, obligation, or liability under title 17, any rule, regulation, or order thereunder, or any other applicable Federal, State, or local law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/605.html
mespo, I knew you were not being critical. Do you know if there are specific statutes that partial out hacking from wiretapping? Unless the law addresses hacking, per se, I think the wiretap laws are fully adequate. The fact the voice or digital message is delayed should, IMHO, have no bearing. Do you know different from a legal perspective?
OS:
No criticism of your term intended. I was actually trying to figure out exactly what it would be considered since the interception isn’t in real time but of a delayed message.
mespo, I agree that is probably the technique used, which is a hacker method, but legally it is wiretapping. No different if I hooked a splice wire and remote transmitter to your phone. Since I first saw this referred to as “hacking” my reaction was that it would get a lot more PR traction with the general public if it were called what it really is: “wiretapping.”
Hacking sounds like an esoteric computer term to the general non-tech public, and does not convey the sinister truth in a term they can understand.
OS:
it’s very weird wiretapping. Apparently they prey upon folks who haven’t changed the voice mail password that is preset in your phone system upon manufacture. The hacker retrieves your voice mails using the default password and then uses the information gleaned..
i wish they would stop using the weasel term “phone hacking” and call it what it is: WIRETAPPING.
Anyone miss that? All together now:
WIRETAPPING!
As in a major Federal felony. A felony that will draw a prison sentence.
CNN reported today that the FBI is investigating possible violations of US law by News Corp. If they pulled this dastardry against families of 9-11 victims, I say start the music for that famous fat lady song.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/14/source-fbi-launches-investigation-into-murdochs-news-corp/
“The Murdoch Empire Could Be Undone”: British Phone-Hacking Scandal May Prompt U.S. Criminal Probe
July 13, 2011
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/13/the_murdoch_empire_could_be_undone
Excerpt:
ILYSE HOGUE of Media Matters for America: Well, we’re very pleased that Senator Rockefeller came out last night. We think it’s significant, in that Congress has the authority to hold hearings about just what went wrong. And as Kevin is saying, if Congress gets involved, it’s much more likely that the Department of Justice will take this case quite seriously. As your viewers might want to know, the Australians are also calling for an investigation. So this has turned into a global scandal.
And I think it’s really important for Americans to understand, we cannot wait until the crisis reaches the boiling point that it has in the U.K. It has significant cultural, political and financial costs that we don’t want to bear over here. We have to act preemptively. We have seen this pattern for a very long time. This is the man who owns the network that constantly deceives and distorts news, that has their Washington editor instructing their news anchors to link the president to socialism, when even he admits that that is not true. The suit that Kevin just talked about is in addition to a suit that had already been filed for nepotism at the company. And, you know, the chairman of Fox News, Roger Ailes, was just found two months ago to be using News Corp. investigators to tail a small-town newspaper editor he fired, having nothing to do with News Corp. business at all. Now, you know, folks know that Roger Ailes is known to be paranoid, but the questions is: why did it not raise eyebrows at News Corp. that these resources were being appropriated for Ailes’ personal vanity projects? And I think we have got to ask all these questions.
It’s critically important that your viewers also understand, as Kevin mentioned the Chamber of Commerce, News Corp. lobbies extensively. They lobbied the SEC—or the FEC to raise the cap on media ownership, which is what allowed Murdoch to get so much power over our information in the United States. And they, just six months ago, gave the Chamber of Commerce $1 million, while the Chamber, as recently as two weeks ago, was lobbying Congress, with a lot of support from Republicans, to weaken the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the very law that they could be prosecuted under right now.
We’ve got to connect the dots. We’ve got to ask the questions. And we cannot let this scandal reach the proportions that it has in the U.K. before we act. We have called for congressional hearings. We’ve been joined by three different groups already, calling for congressional hearings—CREW, CREDO, as well as Public Campaign. I know Center for American Progress is also calling on the DOJ to investigate under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. I mean, I think we’re starting to see Americans really engage, ask why this man who has so much power has been given free reign over our media to lie and now potentially actually spy on private American citizens.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you both for being with us, Ilyse Hogue, Media Matters for America, and Kevin Zeese, lawyer and spokesperson for ProtectOurElections.org.
UPDATED: Murdoch and Son Will Appear Before Parliamentary Committee
TPMMuckraker
Jillian Rayfield | July 14, 2011
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/murdochs_refuse_to_testify_before_parliament.php?ref=fpb
Rupert Murdoch rejects summons to testify to parliament
USA Today
Jul 14, 2011
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/07/rupert-murdoch-rejects-summons-to-testify-to-parliament/1
Excerpt:
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has rejected a summons to appear at a parliamentary hearing next week on a growing phone-hacking scandal, but one of his top executives, Rebekah Brooks, will be there.
Murdoch’s son, James, who is head of News International, the British arm of the media empire, says he is unable to appear before the panel until Aug. 10.
Meanwhile, a former executive editor of the British tabloid, the News of the World, which is at the center of the scandal ,has been arrested. The BBC says he is the ninth person taken into custody over the scandal.
As U.S. citizens, the Murdochs cannot be compelled to appear before the parliamentary committee. Brooks is a British subject.
mespo,
Thanks! I always know I’ve relayed good information when it’s greeted with a good Spock montage.