Wow.
Murdoch’s withdrawn his bid for the rest of BSkyB.
And there’s going to be an examination of his existing holding.
Lots of talk about “Corporate Governance” going on in the USA.
And a review into Press regulation.
I’m actually feeling a bit safer, and a little bit more liberated…
Just a warning – this is going to be one of the duller, less sensational articles on this topic. But try and stick with me – the tax evasion charges that sent Capone down were technical.
Coming from a background in the banking sector (which is still reviled on a regular basis by “professional” journalists) one thing that has amazed me is that News International executives could claim that they had no knowledge of the activities of their underlings.
The reason why this seems so wrong is that News Corporation is a public company, quoted on the NASDAQ stock exchange. As such, investors would be entitled to expect the organisation’s management to have implemented systems of control.
However, such systems appear to have been totally lacking, and for an industry that is leaning on the importance of press freedom as a way of holding governments to account, that’s unacceptable. As Bob Dylan said “To live outside the law, you must be honest”. The impression we’re building is that the various editors of the News of the World (and possibly other titles in the group) were concerned only with whether there would be a libel action. Which – like any other court case – would be bought off out-of-court. You may recall the statement from James Murdoch:
“The Company paid out-of-court settlements approved by me. I now know that I did not have a complete picture when I did so. “
Me ? I’d be asking about whether he discharged his duty as an officer of the organisation. Corrupt or incompetent ?
I’ll just digress for a minute …
The last issue of the News of the World has been met with much nostalgia (much of it self-generated), glossing over the seedier “achievements” of this rag. I never bought a copy, and I don’t buy this.
And yes, it’s unfortunate that 240 journos have lost their jobs, many of whom may not have been implicated. But mine was one of 40,000 jobs (either gone already, or on the way) to have been lost from the organisation I worked for. Most of whom also worked hard, and weren’t to blame for the mistakes of corporate strategy.
And let’s get it clear. NotW didn’t die because of the Guardian or the BBC. It didn’t die because of MumsNet. It didn’t even die to protect Rebekah. It died because Murdoch wants to secure BSkyB. Those may have been the messengers, but the message was that the title was toxic – ordinary people were repelled by the actions of the organisation. Paul Mason’s article explains that very effectively.
Anyway, this sort of thing happens in the free market. It doesn’t come with a fairness option. Get used to it.
And let’s not kid ourselves that even under the current editor, all of these guys were soft and fluffy – read this story in the Shropshire Star.
Now, back to the main topic …
As I write, Ed Miliband has been running a press conference, in which he talks of the “systemic” and “cultural” failings of the organisation. This analysis resonates with my own feelings.
The influence of the Murdoch titles over the last 40 years has had a corrupting and corrosive impact on public life over the last 40 years. And the problem is that those who’ve grown up with that dynamic as the status quo can’t see a different world – one where a politician doesn’t need to fear that retribution for upsetting Murdoch or his underlings will be visited by humiliation.
And the culture of bullying and abuse of power wasn’t limited to “big boy” politicians, however. It was there in the workplace as well – as the massively Twittered “Harry Potter” incident evidenced.
Through all of this, there was no sign that they had the capacity to look in the mirror. These self-appointed and (to all intents and purposes) unregulated “guardians of freedom” would rail against an unelected judiciary (who were – as a result – less subject to bullying) without a hint of irony.
I’m sure that one thing that’s upset people is that there’s been virtually no sign of remorse or contrition from the organisation or its executives. No sign that they understand how ordinary people see this arrogance as compounding the crimes.
The historic use of threats and bullying (and some are – reportedly – still being made), of spin and misinformation, of admitting to the bare minimum, only after it has already been revealed – all of these suggest that they just don’t get it. They don’t understand why people are upset. They still think it’s just about damage limitation and message management – because that’s all they understand.
The politicians keep backing off from this, but if Her Majesty’s Press wants to claim exemption from government interference as “The Fourth Estate” – with a duty of calling the government to account – then it has to be able to show that it exercises that duty responsibly.
However, it’s shown time and again that it won’t do that, and the PCC is still wheeling out excuses. Miliband’s assessment of them as a “toothless poodle” isn’t going to surprise too many…
There needs to be statutory regulation, with real powers. That framework should be “endowed” by – and answerable to – Parliament, as opposed to being under the control of government. OfCom seems to represent a suitable model, but the journos seem to keep trying to push our attention elsewhere …
Or maybe there’s a role for the Upper House here …
As I noted, NewsCorp is quoted on NASDAQ, and so is subject (together with all of its subsidiaries) to US law. And one of the most interesting ones is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) – which prohibits US organisations from bribing officials of foreign countries (from where they are, the UK is one of those). Interestingly, the UK has just caught up with the Bribery Act 2010 – although that won’t be retrospective.
The Telegraph has picked up that the impact of this could be enormous – potentially imposing a massive cost and effort on the whole of NewsCorp. If stories about 9/11 victims being hacked gains traction in the US, then the administration may reluctantly (heh) have to take a long, hard look at Fox News …
So when the NotW hacks paid off police and – as has just been announced – Royal Protection Officers, they just may have created a world of hurt for the parent company.
Although he dominates the organisation, it’s NewsCorp that’s bidding for BSkyB, not Rupert Murdoch. So even Rupie himself (in theory) doesn’t necessarily come into the equation.
But the way that the corporation behaves, it’s culture and (on the most generous interpretation) the lack of control and management structures that you’d expect from a major corporation, should raise major doubts as to whether anyone can be convinced that their corporate structures and culture give us confidence in any assurances they may have made about (the key test of) plurality.
[Edit – adding conclusion]
Particularly as those assurances come from a company whose officers apparently:
See First .. 