Skip to content

Murdoch corruption scandal back in the news

October 24, 2013

By Ryan Chittum

The Murdoch hacking scandal is back in the news after a bit of a respite.

Next week, Rebekah Brooks, Rupert Murdoch’s right-hand woman and a central figure in News Corp.’s hacking and bribing culture and in the ham-handed coverup, will go on trial for bribing public officials, phone hacking, and obstruction of justice. Alongside her will be former top Murdoch editor and David Cameron spokesman Andy Coulson, who epitomized the corrupt relationship between News Corp. and the British government, and Glenn Mulcaire, who hacked phones for the News of the World and whose silence was bought by the company when the hacking scandal began coming to light.

Rebekah Brooks

Rebekah Brooks

Brooks could presumably bring the House of Murdoch down if she felt it best served her own interests. It’s worth noting, though, that she too was paid off by Murdoch when defenestrated—with $18 million. But pass the popcorn.

In the meantime, NPR’s David Folkenflik is out with a well-timed book on Murdoch. I haven’t had time to read it yet, but it’s made news on a couple of fronts.

First, “Murdoch’s World” reports that Murdoch’s top men at The Wall Street Journalstymied the paper’s coverage of the unfolding hacking scandal story in the summer of 2011.

Folkenflik reports of “stories that were blocked, stripped of damning detail or context, or just held up in bureaucratic purgatory” and notes that the London bureau of the WSJ, still stocked with pre-Murdoch veterans waged a fierce battle against Managing Editor and Murdoch yacht buddy Robert Thomson, who was intent on squashing original reporting that could raise problems for News Corp.

 Andy Coulson

Andy Coulson

That’s not a surprise if you were reading your Audit back in July and August of that year, much less in 2009. But it’s as close as we’ve gotten to concrete evidence that it was a conscious editorial decision.

The Journal’s coverage of the hacking story was embarrassingly stunted in the first several weeks of the world-shaking scandal. On the day after the Milly Dowler bombshell broke, the paper stuffed a wire brief on A11 with the headline “U.K. Tabloid Accused of Hacking Girl’s Phone.” It followed the next day with a workmanlike story on B1, but dropped it below the fold.

The WSJ’s first major contribution to the hacking story was a piece a month later—that fingered, based on flimsy evidence and without talking to the alleged briber, News UK rival the Sunday Mirror for a minor instance of alleged police bribery more than a decade. I hit my old paper at the time and got perhaps the most livid complaint call I’ve ever gotten, from a WSJer whom it was clear was under tremendous pressure at the time. Now we know the backstory.

Folkenflik also reports that Murdoch’s flacks at Fox News descended into industrial-scale sockpuppetry in comment sections of posts critical of Fox:

Fox PR staffers were expected to counter not just negative and even neutral blog postings but the anti-Fox comments beneath them. One former staffer recalled using twenty different aliases to post pro-Fox rants. Another had one hundred. Several employees had to acquire a cell phone thumb drive to provide a wireless broadband connection that could not be traced back to a Fox News or News Corp. account… “Even blogs with minor followings were reviewed to ensure no claim went unchecked.”

Another long-held suspicion confirmed.

Now, British investigative site ExaroNews, has more bad news for News. This summer, Exaro got hold of a tape of Murdoch’s meeting with beleaguered Sun journalists last year that showed him admitting he had known about his papers’ bribes culture for decades. The tapes showed the old man has learned almost nothing from the last two years of scandal. In addition to his “everybody knew it” admission, he trashed Scotland Yard, and promised jailed Sun journalists “support.”

“I’m not allowed to promise you – I will promise you continued health support – but your jobs. I’ve got to be careful what comes out – but frankly, I won’t say it, but just trust me.”

 Read more at the Columbia Journalism Review.


From → Analysis, Commentary

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s