Lord of the papers
17/7/11 21:51![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
airiefairie.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsJust until a month ago, Rupert Murdoch would hardly suppose that he would become target of such a campaign. Arguably the most influential person in the world of British media and one of the biggest figures on the global media market was called to testify before Parliament. The last time this happened in 1992 when the sons of the scandalous billionaire Robert Maxwell had to explain how their father had sucked out pension funds. Rebekah Brooks was surprised to be under arrest today, after she had been assured by British politicians a few months ago that she was not in the list of journalists under investigation. Now James Murdoch and daddy Murdoch himself have to give explanations for the wiretapping scandal. The Maxwell story could repeat again, now Murdoch in the role of the crucified victim, quartered and dragged through the mud after all the systematic abuse of journalistic ethics has been revealed throughout his media empire. But is there a deeper story hiding behind these spicy revelations and the coming public punishment?
The British politicians who until very recently behaved like servile lackeys with the media giant are now suddenly turned into a brave raging crowd craving for revenge. The leaders of the three main parties, the conservatives, the labour and the liberal-democrats are unusually united in their assault on the Murdoch empire. The prime-minister Cameron said that there would be an independent investigation of the allegations, and the committee would have the power to summon media owners, journalists, politicians and policemen for public hearings. The parliament pressured Murdoch to withdraw his bid to overtake BSkyB, which he did. When Murdoch initially refused to attend the hearings, some MPs even called for his arrest. And it is not only the British politicians who are suddenly rushing to talk against Murdoch and score points from that. In the US several democrat senators called for NewsCorp to be investigated for bribery committed overseas, but which falls under the jurisdiction of the US law. And in Murdoch's home country Australia, the prime minister Gillard insisted for new rules about the media ownership and media control.
There are some who are seeing an opportunity for political vendetta now being exploited by everybody who has had anything remotely to do with Murdoch and all of whom in some way used to be afraid to speak against him. Suddenly everybody has found the courage to untie their tongues, now that Murdoch is down. But let me ask...where were all those people two weeks ago, or a year ago? Suddenly the prime-minister calls for Rebekah Brooks to be fired, but he forgets that a few months ago he was dining with her! It all looks like shameless opportunism and hypocrisy. For example, shortly before the British government called off the BSkyB bid, the respective minister Jeremy Hunt had almost agreed to sanction it, despite the warnings from many analysts that it would monopolise the British satellite TV market. The former chief editor of News of the World, Andy Coulson used to be Cameron's media advisor... but that was before he was arrested by the police earlier this week. Doesn't all of this ring a bell?
Suddenly Murdoch is expendable, and every politician who has had relations with him (and they are many, and from all parties) is doing their best to distance themselves from any connections to the "toxic" magnate.
Probably the one politician whose image has suffered the most damage is Cameron, who did his best to build himself an aura of a fair and decent politician of great integrity during the election campaign. But this week, while he was giving explanations about why he had hired Coulson (who was chief editor just at the time a reporter and a private detective were arrested for wiretapping members of the Royal family), the prime-minister looked unusually defensive, touchy, strained and blushing. He mumbled some explanation that he had received assurances from Coulson that the media expert had not known anything of these vicious practices. But did he? Now Cameron looks really stupid. Because he was warned many times about Coulson, and by several newspapers. But he didn't care, because this was Murdoch's protege and it was good business.
But that is just the tip of the iceberg. In fact most top British politicians are in close relations with News International. There was a time Murdoch was even called "the 24th member of the cabinet" (during Tony Blair's time). His affiliations know no partisan colour and creed, after all it is just about the business.
I don't know where this will end, but I am hoping this scandal will not be swept under the rug and it will serve as a wake up call for everybody and a nudge to re-draw the borderlines of healthy and acceptable distance between press and politics, and not just in Britain. The power brokers around the government will probably be extremely careful from now on, making sure not to be seen in a too close friendship with the media... But that does not mean that they would stop those relations. They will just be more subtle about it.
The real question is if this is a long lasting trend and if the scandal will give a chance to the political class in Britain to finally do something which it has dreamt for decades...to ultimately break up with Murdoch's increasing influence. But honestly I doubt even this will happen... Sure, in the short term things probably will not be as they used to be. But I think there won't be too much time before the media gets close with the politicians once again. I am sure that if Murdoch somehow manages to do the necessary damage control and to come somewhat clean from this stain and to preserve his newspapers, everybody will be again very polite and cordial with him very soon.
Cameron's calls (also echoed by Gillard) for new media regulations and even a state license system for the media show that the purpose behind this sudden mass attack of the political class against the media magnate in fact is not just for the protection of their personal interests. As Bruce Page wrote in a Murdoch biography on the OpenDemocracy website, "People assume that politicians are terrified of the media mogul. They fear only that his enterprises might retaliate by practicing genuine journalism.".
Whether this "genuine" journalism is authentic or is astroturf, yellow, scandalous, Gotcha-type of journalism is subject to opinions. But it is certain that this is a crisis moment for journalism. Maybe the perfect crisis that could be used to do what is right this time. Like it has been said before, no crisis should go to waste.
The British politicians who until very recently behaved like servile lackeys with the media giant are now suddenly turned into a brave raging crowd craving for revenge. The leaders of the three main parties, the conservatives, the labour and the liberal-democrats are unusually united in their assault on the Murdoch empire. The prime-minister Cameron said that there would be an independent investigation of the allegations, and the committee would have the power to summon media owners, journalists, politicians and policemen for public hearings. The parliament pressured Murdoch to withdraw his bid to overtake BSkyB, which he did. When Murdoch initially refused to attend the hearings, some MPs even called for his arrest. And it is not only the British politicians who are suddenly rushing to talk against Murdoch and score points from that. In the US several democrat senators called for NewsCorp to be investigated for bribery committed overseas, but which falls under the jurisdiction of the US law. And in Murdoch's home country Australia, the prime minister Gillard insisted for new rules about the media ownership and media control.
There are some who are seeing an opportunity for political vendetta now being exploited by everybody who has had anything remotely to do with Murdoch and all of whom in some way used to be afraid to speak against him. Suddenly everybody has found the courage to untie their tongues, now that Murdoch is down. But let me ask...where were all those people two weeks ago, or a year ago? Suddenly the prime-minister calls for Rebekah Brooks to be fired, but he forgets that a few months ago he was dining with her! It all looks like shameless opportunism and hypocrisy. For example, shortly before the British government called off the BSkyB bid, the respective minister Jeremy Hunt had almost agreed to sanction it, despite the warnings from many analysts that it would monopolise the British satellite TV market. The former chief editor of News of the World, Andy Coulson used to be Cameron's media advisor... but that was before he was arrested by the police earlier this week. Doesn't all of this ring a bell?
Suddenly Murdoch is expendable, and every politician who has had relations with him (and they are many, and from all parties) is doing their best to distance themselves from any connections to the "toxic" magnate.
Probably the one politician whose image has suffered the most damage is Cameron, who did his best to build himself an aura of a fair and decent politician of great integrity during the election campaign. But this week, while he was giving explanations about why he had hired Coulson (who was chief editor just at the time a reporter and a private detective were arrested for wiretapping members of the Royal family), the prime-minister looked unusually defensive, touchy, strained and blushing. He mumbled some explanation that he had received assurances from Coulson that the media expert had not known anything of these vicious practices. But did he? Now Cameron looks really stupid. Because he was warned many times about Coulson, and by several newspapers. But he didn't care, because this was Murdoch's protege and it was good business.
But that is just the tip of the iceberg. In fact most top British politicians are in close relations with News International. There was a time Murdoch was even called "the 24th member of the cabinet" (during Tony Blair's time). His affiliations know no partisan colour and creed, after all it is just about the business.
I don't know where this will end, but I am hoping this scandal will not be swept under the rug and it will serve as a wake up call for everybody and a nudge to re-draw the borderlines of healthy and acceptable distance between press and politics, and not just in Britain. The power brokers around the government will probably be extremely careful from now on, making sure not to be seen in a too close friendship with the media... But that does not mean that they would stop those relations. They will just be more subtle about it.
The real question is if this is a long lasting trend and if the scandal will give a chance to the political class in Britain to finally do something which it has dreamt for decades...to ultimately break up with Murdoch's increasing influence. But honestly I doubt even this will happen... Sure, in the short term things probably will not be as they used to be. But I think there won't be too much time before the media gets close with the politicians once again. I am sure that if Murdoch somehow manages to do the necessary damage control and to come somewhat clean from this stain and to preserve his newspapers, everybody will be again very polite and cordial with him very soon.
Cameron's calls (also echoed by Gillard) for new media regulations and even a state license system for the media show that the purpose behind this sudden mass attack of the political class against the media magnate in fact is not just for the protection of their personal interests. As Bruce Page wrote in a Murdoch biography on the OpenDemocracy website, "People assume that politicians are terrified of the media mogul. They fear only that his enterprises might retaliate by practicing genuine journalism.".
Whether this "genuine" journalism is authentic or is astroturf, yellow, scandalous, Gotcha-type of journalism is subject to opinions. But it is certain that this is a crisis moment for journalism. Maybe the perfect crisis that could be used to do what is right this time. Like it has been said before, no crisis should go to waste.
(no subject)
Date: 17/7/11 18:59 (UTC)It is. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours...until you get caught breaking the law, then you're under the bus."
Here's to hoping Murdoch finally gets some long-overdue comeuppance.
(no subject)
Date: 17/7/11 19:10 (UTC)Gordon Brown got up and did a 'raging bull' speech in Westminster - admittedly, he was a good father to his boys and kept the little lads away from the media cameras , even though they would be ideal for building his image. but brown was not that sort of bloke, much to his credit. Now, though, pictures are coming up showing the two men standing arm in arm at parties and smiling - taken well after the Sun ran the story on Brown's young son.
I get that even Gordon is kicking Murdoch when he is down. however, Murdoch has done a lot to deserve it. the domain name SunonSunday, or some such has already been bought. I bet Murdoch will simply go back in business under a new name , and eventually plot to get back BSkyB - and I hope he fails again . Monopolies are a bad thing, and he wants one.
(no subject)
Date: 17/7/11 19:28 (UTC)A few years ago one of the editors of The New York Times gave an interview at Hard Talk and he clearly said that even if no one buys even one paper copy of the newspaper (and its weekend editions are the size of the Bible), the newspaper would still make profit because it has reliable advertisers. So the thing that would hurt Murdoch's media empire the most is if advertising companies withdraw from it, like they did from Glenn Beck's talk show which I think was ultimately what killed it.
(no subject)
Date: 17/7/11 20:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/7/11 19:19 (UTC)So when our politicians do it, no one asks how they got to the info, everybody is all over the revelations, and the focus is distracted away from the main question. Meanwhile, if some media does the same (and involving politicians), suddenly everyone is appalled, appalled I tell you.
Hypocrisy at its grandest.
(no subject)
Date: 18/7/11 10:47 (UTC)Does it surprise you that these same politicians are licking their chops at an opportunity to control the press? Especially one that seemed so out of contol as the Murdoch empire?
This is the perfect opportunity for them to grab their torches and pitchforks.
(no subject)
Date: 18/7/11 10:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/7/11 19:26 (UTC)The New York Times
Sunday, July 17, 2011 -- 3:02 PM EDT
-----
Head of Scotland Yard, Paul Stephenson, Resigns in Phone Hacking Scandal
That story just broke here.
(no subject)
Date: 17/7/11 20:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/7/11 20:08 (UTC)http://www.channel4.com/news/preliminary-inquiry-into-news-international-by-fraud-office
Actually the MP's expenses scandal was broken by the Daily Telegraph. Not a News Corp newspaper. If the MP's wanted revenge, surely they would have had The Telegraph in their sights, rather than News Corp. But what do I know?
(no subject)
Date: 17/7/11 20:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/7/11 20:34 (UTC)However, this particular power center that everyone has had to kowtow to may be crumbling, allowing people their first chance to speak up without ending up with a billion dollar PR campaign going through their garbage cans with a fine tooth comb making sure they never work at anything higher than dog catcher ever again.
(no subject)
Date: 17/7/11 20:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/7/11 21:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/7/11 23:54 (UTC)Sometimes it seems...
Date: 18/7/11 17:08 (UTC)