The Murdoch Empire's Greatest Test

Rupert Murdoch inspires, for some it's admiration, for others hate, whichever way you look at it, he has created an Empire from small beginnings in Australia.

The 'phone hacking' scandal here in the UK, which seems to deepen every day, alleges collusion of the News of the World with private investigators bribing the police to get access to the mobile phone numbers, home addresses and personal details of:
abducted teenager Milly Dowler,
the parents of abducted girls Holly Wells and Jessica Simpson,
the families of the7/7 bombings in London;
families of servicemen and women who saw action in Iraq and Afghanistan -and, crucially
the police detective investigating the links between the News of the World and a private investigator, Jonathan Rees whose trial for the murder of his former partner Daniel Morgan in 1987 collapsed earlier this year.

Murdoch owns four newspaper titles in the UK and the largest share of cable tv -he wants now to buy up the rest. Is his Empire facing Imperial Overstretch? Has it grown so big that he cannot control its constituent parts, even with his son James in charge of the European Branch -?

The reputation of Murdoch's firm is taking a hammering now, and I note the share price has fallen on the NYSE -however, at the moment this makes them attractive to buy, with the prospect of him getting his hands on the share of the UK cable market he doesn't yet own looking like a good long term investment -BUT, the full revelations of what News International has been doing, and its links to criminal actvities, may yet damage the share price further -there comes a point where an attractive buy becomes a liability.

Has Murdoch, whose UK best-sellers, The Sun and the News of the World, are famous for being trash, met his come uppance, using grubby methods to print lurid trash?

Cynical move by Murdoch in closing News Of The World - making 200 people redundant but sparing those at the heart of the scandal. It's reported Rebekah Brooks offered to resign last night but Murdoch refused. What kind of hold does she have over him?

News Corp journalists should strike in support of those losing their jobs.

Quote:

---

News Corp journalists should strike in support of those losing their jobs.

---

Oh? Against whom? Why would anybody care if people who are out of work are refusing to go to work. How much solidarity do you think they can garner?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Cynical move by Murdoch in closing News Of The World - making 200 people redundant but sparing those at the heart of the scandal. It's reported Rebekah Brooks offered to resign last night but Murdoch refused. What kind of hold does she have over him?

---

Rebeka clearly has the photos of the Dirty Digger and the under-age wallaby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

Oh? Against whom? Why would anybody care if people who are out of work are refusing to go to work. How much solidarity do you think they can garner?

---

The print unions in the UK were a byword for militancy and restrictive practices until Murdoch took them on during the 80s and pretty much kicked off the revolution in print media we've seen ever since.

It will be interesting to see if there is any residual power or will in the NUJ, for example, among the journalist staff on the other Murdoch UK titles - The Times, The Sun and The Sunday Times. That said, industrial law in the UK has shifted to the extent that it is now possible for industrial action against the same employer by similar staff in circumstances like these can be construed as secondary action and therefore, with the appropriate qualifications, illegal.

Anyway, The Sun on Sunday will almost certainly be launched within the next two months, and the sensation-seeking lemmings amongst the newspaper buying public will no doubt be only too eager to forgive and forget so that they can regain access to celebrity scandals.

Cynical, moi??? :whistle:

My view - 1. Rebekah has been left in place as the last line of defence (and possible future scapegoat if needed) to guard direct family involvement.
2. There will be a new lower cost sunday paper. News Int already losing money and there will be cuts at Sunday Times soon (sections to vanish. Already being planned)
3. The key to it all is the biggest prize - ownership of the rest of BskyB... with Murdoch wanted to have seemed to have acted decisevely to root out evildoers from the News Of The World. Tories can now with clear conscience (HAH!) allow this appalling deal to go through.

The BskyB deal, with the eventual mortal damage it can inflict on the BBC, plays into a wider Tory vision - a plan to destroy two of the greatest creations of 20th century Britain, the BBC (already suffering deaths from a 1,000 cuts and perceived as a bastion of Liberal-left ideas) and the NHS - which the Tories want to see privatised. They are already well on the road to destroying the state education system.

Lex Luther v Rupert Murdoch one & the same. Where the fuck is Superman when you need him?



http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...OohWNMM3865uef



http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...5FpUbAeUYsvQzu

a plan to destroy two of the greatest creations of 20th century Britain, the BBC (already suffering deaths from a 1,000 cuts and perceived as a bastion of Liberal-left ideas) and the NHS

On the one hand I am disappointed that the scandal has not generated much discussion on some hugely important topics about modern communications, the moral depravity and simple criminality that can accompany the search for 'truth' and so on. On the other hand, there are deeper issues that can slip people's notice. The problem for me is that the glories of the BBC lie in its past, and often in its position as the 'university' of broadcasting producing outstanding technicians and even journalists. I think the world of communications is changing in so many ways that it is heading into a future much more diffuse than the world in which there was either the BBC or ITV and nothing else.

I buy a newspaper once a week, on Saturday, whereas I used at one time to buy a newspaper every day -I rely on the web for my access to papers; online information has made hard print almost redundant and I think Murdoch understands this. I also now resent the licence fee, as I no longer regard the BBC as a centre of excellence in broadcasting, even if I agree it might just be going through a bad period. Even Radio 3 is not what it used to be, too much of it is barely different from classic fm, if I wanted to listen to that I would; I don't.

Its about the raison d'etre of this organisation in a world where tv is just one part of the communications cosmos and no longer the most important part. If it goes, it will probably be replaced by a BBC that is privately owned and probably still feeds the public dancing competitions, cooking competitions, news programmes and wildlife shows. The question is, does it matter? And, if it had to survive from subscriptions and advertising revenue, what of the BBC as it is now would indeed survive?

I think that your jaundiced view of the BBC stems from the vulgarisation that has been inherent in its jiggling for ratings in the modern media firmament. I agree it is no longer the centre for excellence it once was. The Reithian vision has long since become unacceptable to post-modernists who can't see any value difference between a toasted t-cake and a Mondrian. So that the notion of "high culture" with all its dubious elitism is wholly repugnant. However a properly funded BBC slimmed won to a core of quality documentary making, news and high end music and drama would still be better than allowing mere market forces to dominate. The slippage from grace of C4 for instance - after Jeremy isaacs' founding vision - has been profound. On ITV now, unless you want police drama, quiz games or soaps, there is virtually nothing to see. You resent the licence fee - but if the BBC vanishes you'll pay a lot more for Sky. It is also worth remembering the range of good radio provided by the BBC - Radio 4, Radio 3 - and the world service. let the BBC die and we lose much that is irreplaceable.

It is also worth remembering the range of good radio provided by the BBC - Radio 4, Radio 3 - and the world service. let the BBC die and we lose much that is irreplaceable.

Your defence of the BBC is absolutely right, and I agree with it. I can't get a signal for most channels where I live and would not subscribe to Sky even if I did, and had the money for it. We did not have a tv in our house until I was I think 9 years old; and I went for years without a tv in the 1970s and again in the 1990s and it made no difference to my life, but I admit in those years I listened to the BBC radio constantly, even The Archers for a while, though that didn't survive and in retrospect I can't believe I even did it.

The question remains, can a broadcaster like the BBC survive in a world where communications is changing so radically, particularly if it had to rely on subscriptions? I think if the BBC for example, broadcast major sporting events like the World Cup Football, Wimbledon and so on it would, if it lost those it would struggle.
But is the generation of people coming after me going to rely on the BBC for news and entertainment?

Will people reply on BBC for news and entertainment? Not for entertainment for sure and - probably not for news. The web does it so swiftly. But for good drama, good documentary films... I hope so. Who does it better. In the US the last bastion of documentaries is HBO and PBS - and you pay for one and the other spends days every few months appealing for cash to keep going. It just like they said TV would kill radio and it didn't and i don't think e-books will kills real books. There is a widening horizon and some thing will fall away. But TV will be needed also for things like sport - though if Sky are allowed to expand their huge spending power will overwhelm the BBC. When your favourite sportgoes to sky you bite the bullet. (I have no favourite sport I'd pay for so i'm not bothered) But a mate just said he would now have to pay for sky because it has acquired Formula One. And so it goes.

For anyone who is interested, Peter Oborne -a well-informed conservative- in todays Telegraph makes some interesting claims:
Tony Blair called Gordon Brown when the latter was Prime Minister, asking him to stop a Labour MP (Tom watson) from pursuing Murdoch in the House of Commons over phone hacking;
That the Conservatives are split into two camps: George Osborne, Chancellor is heavily pro-Murdoch and was instrumental in getting a cool David Cameron to warm to Murdoch and hire Andy Coulson;
Cameron's gut has always turned away from the Murdoch machine, his need for their endorsement in The Sun forced him to seeks its radiation; he is contaminated and can't get out of the situation;
fundamentally, Murdoch's 'values' run counter to the boring old values of old England -respect for the monarchy and the law, a belief that people with famly problems (as in footballers, actors, 'celebrities') should be allowed to sort them out in private...

I am trying to think of a greater political crisis to engulf this country since I was born -this is far bigger and more comprehensive than Blair's transparent lies over Iraq.

Oborne's article is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...sewer-yet.html

This is excellent stuff. The founder of the Independent writes in today's paper warning that he believes this could led to Rupert Murdoch being extradited from the US to face trial.

I wonder what Murdoch thinks he can do by flying in to the country. It would be naive to think that any seriosly incriminating emails and documents have not by now been shredded or destroyed, my guess his real motivation is not to appear contrite to the 'general public' but to have private conversations with Cameron and Osborne to make sure his attempt to buy the rest of BSkyB is not delayed or denied. The most toxic issue is the collapse of the trial of Jonathan Rees and the ramifications of News International colluding with the police to spy on the detective who tried to move it forward on Crimewatch a few years ago, before the trial was halted. Its big because its not just about News International's contempt for the law, but the Metropolitan Police's contempt for it also, and because Cameron was aware of these issues -and none of this would even be in the public domain had the News of the World not reported on Prince Williams' strained knee...how curious that some of the most toxic scandals begin with a bland, almost pointless story....but I'm still watching the share price, that's where the crisis for Murdoch will deepen, particularly if he doesn't get the BSkyB deal -as the other deep throat said: Follow the Money....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I wonder what Murdoch thinks he can do by flying in to the country. It would be naive to think that any seriosly incriminating emails and documents have not by now been shredded or destroyed, my guess his real motivation is not to appear contrite to the 'general public' but to have private conversations with Cameron and Osborne to make sure his attempt to buy the rest of BSkyB is not delayed or denied. The most toxic issue is the collapse of the trial of Jonathan Rees and the ramifications of News International colluding with the police to spy on the detective who tried to move it forward on Crimewatch a few years ago, before the trial was halted. Its big because its not just about News International's contempt for the law, but the Metropolitan Police's contempt for it also, and because Cameron was aware of these issues -and none of this would even be in the public domain had the News of the World not reported on Prince Williams' strained knee...how curious that some of the most toxic scandals begin with a bland, almost pointless story....but I'm still watching the share price, that's where the crisis for Murdoch will deepen, particularly if he doesn't get the BSkyB deal -as the other deep throat said: Follow the Money....

---

And let's not forget The Guardian's honourable role in sticking with the story when others had been intimidated or bought off. The paper was denigrated by none other than the Press Complaints Commission a few years ago for its dogged pursuit of a case which the PCC had declared to have no foundation - and if News International and the Met have serious cases to answer, so does that disgraced quango.

Yes, the diffusion of media and the immediacy of the net have certainly transformed the production, reception and interpretation of news, but we must not lose the longer-term work that dogged and principled print journalists perform in all of our best interests. Well done Alan Rusbridger and his team for keeping one light shining in an otherwise stygian and filthy gloom.

Am I a Guardian reader? Yes, I get the paper on subscription, and its Sunday sister, the Observer. And I have never bought a single Murdoch product either, whether in print or on TV.

I broke for coffee, as I do every Saturday lunchtime, to listen to The Now Show on Radio 4, and enjoyed an impassioned speech by John Finnemore (who, incidentally writes and stars in one of Radio 4' s finest comedies, Cabin Pressure), in which he made the point that this could be one of the sadly few occasions in which those who rule us actually listen to what we are saying, and taking it seriously. He then urged everyone to keep the noise alive for as long as it takes for fundamental changes to occur in the relationships between the media, politicians and the police. I hope we follow his advice.

It's available on the Now Show podcast, by the way.

As for Murdoch flying in, for once he's on the floor, and it's in the interest of a free press and a continuing broadcasting polity in the UK that we keep kicking him till the old bastard cries "Enough!", because if NI does gain total control of BskyB, make no bones about it, one of the touchstones of Britain's well-earned reputation as an independent voice in the world, the BBC, could be silenced for ever.

I'm now listening to the repeat of Any Questions from Friday night, which is devoted entirely to the NoW/NI scandal.

Oh, and Rebeka Wade is still in place. *SMH*

RLS your praise for The Guardian on this story is more than deserved, it could be as historically important as the Washington Post's determination to get to the core of the Watergate Scandal in the 1970s. I turned against The Guardian some years ago because of the lies Suzanne Goldenberg told about the Palestine/Israel conflict when she reported from there, and also another story which featured a company I worked for which was full of factual errors a simple search on Google could have corrected -a fault mostly, I admit, of commentators presumably freelance journalists: I also turned to The Independent to follow Robert Fisk but generally feel British print journalism leaves a lot to be desired.

However, in this case, The Guardian has regained my respect, if not my money, for both its determination, and the scope of its coverage. The Times, by contrast, is quite simply a disgrace. These days I read The Daily Telegraph with more interest than The Times -even five years ago I would never even have glanced at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

RLS your praise for The Guardian on this story is more than deserved, it could be as historically important as the Washington Post's determination to get to the core of the Watergate Scandal in the 1970s. I turned against The Guardian some years ago because of the lies Suzanne Goldenberg told about the Palestine/Israel conflict when she reported from there, and also another story which featured a company I worked for which was full of factual errors a simple search on Google could have corrected -a fault mostly, I admit, of commentators presumably freelance journalists: I also turned to The Independent to follow Robert Fisk but generally feel British print journalism leaves a lot to be desired.

However, in this case, The Guardian has regained my respect, if not my money, for both its determination, and the scope of its coverage. The Times, by contrast, is quite simply a disgrace. These days I read The Daily Telegraph with more interest than The Times -even five years ago I would never even have glanced at it.

---

Thanks for that, Stavros. These days I tend to tolerate the Torygraph a little more - it has become less slavish over the years.

The paper in the UK that I despise more than any other, however, is the Daily Mail. Still owned and run by the family that openly supported Hitler and the fascists right up to the break of war, and with an agenda out to demonise every minority in the UK and terrify its readership. What the NoW did behind the scenes was beneath contempt, but for its editorial and general content, the Mail is in a disreputable class of its own.

The paper in the UK that I despise more than any other, however, is the Daily Mail

It remains to be seen how wide the hacking scandal goes and what media outlets in addition to Murdoch's used tainted goods. What would really hit Murdoch would be evidence of hacking into the phones of American politicians or celebrities, in America or the UK...Murdoch may have a soft spot for newspapers, but his empire is built on tv (if not TV's ha-ha) and a threat to the American market would truly rock his world...who and or what was in the frame in America from say 2001-2007?

Twitterati today posting this 07900675949 as the mobile number for News Int chief Rebekah Brooks.

Sunday Times cyncically say the whole furore is a plot by Lab, Lib Dems and the wider media to attack the sainty Rupert and that he has been the greatest and most important force for good in british media in recent years.

And they try to spread the blame - claiming that the misdeeds of the news of The World are surely common among other papers.

That's the blurring being pursued also by the Conservatives.

To say 'they were all at it' is missing the point: the Telegraph exposed the scandal over MP's expenses by printing data that had been, in effect, stolen from the House of Commons by the ex-military researchers/aids who worked there. Wikileaks published in The Guardian and the Telegraph are not documents released under the Freedom of Information Act -my wonder is that we could not have got the MP's expenses details legally under the FOI although it would have been a fight: also, is this why some of these scandals don't take place in the USA where the Freedom of Information Act is more robust?

However, hacking into the phones of murder victims -there comes a point when the difference between Murdoch and the rest is separated by clear blue something, and it isn't water. Apparently a lot of the evidence from Glen Mulcaire's stash was in bin bags in Scotland Yard and nobody seemed to know what was in them...

Murdoch could of course sell off all his newspapers and wouldn't lose much money: he is ruthless enough to do it, but has to receive a guarantee from Osborne and Cameron that he will get BSkyB -if he doesn't then the next week or so will be interesting...I have no respect for The Times or its Sunday sister.

It most definitely is going to be a very interesting upcoming week, both for the UK and also globally, given Murdoch's bid here in Australia with Sky News.

It's also been fascinating to watch all the politicians come out from under their hardened desk table structures, no longer afraid of being the next scandal headline and uniting against Murdoch Empire to get a quick boot in on the temorarily immobilized form before they scurry back under again in due course.

Just fascinating :)

Australia also has a vibrant Freedom of Information Act that makes it harder to peddle scandals the truth of which can be found out with an application under the Act; but certainly you are right about the svengali-like hold this man has had over our feeble politicians. Is Ms Gillard his bird, anyway? As in cheep-cheep...

the shadow of Murdoch hangs very darkly over Australia as well
his influence over politicians here is huge
the only ones unaffected seem to be the greens who are pilloried daily in the Murdoch papers
bringing the News Ltd empire down will be no bad thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Aeryn

It most definitely is going to be a very interesting upcoming week, both for the UK and also globally, given Murdoch's bid here in Australia with Sky News.

It's also been fascinating to watch all the politicians come out from under their hardened desk table structures, no longer afraid of being the next scandal headline and uniting against Murdoch Empire to get a quick boot in on the temorarily immobilized form before they scurry back under again in due course.

Just fascinating :)

---

We seem to share the same level of cynicism, Aeryn! :)

What's going to be most interesting here in the UK is just how many knots Cameron and Osborne tie themselves into to ensure that the BskyB deal goes through as as clearly been promised; deals have been done.

And if it does, is it the beginning of the end for Cameron? And if it doesn't, is it also the end for Cameron? Murdoch is in a class of his own when it comes to dirty tricks, and possibly has it within his power to destroy the entire political class in the UK, with the exception, ironically, of the Lib Dems, simply because he has consistently ignored them since the 1960s.

My sister and brother-in-law are flying in from Sydney tomorrow, so it will be interesting to get their perspective on the Australian end of things. I'll keep you posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Aeryn

It most definitely is going to be a very interesting upcoming week, both for the UK and also globally, given Murdoch's bid here in Australia with Sky News.

It's also been fascinating to watch all the politicians come out from under their hardened desk table structures, no longer afraid of being the next scandal headline and uniting against Murdoch Empire to get a quick boot in on the temorarily immobilized form before they scurry back under again in due course.

Just fascinating :)

---

Miss Aeryn.... you refer to Murdoch's bid "here in Australia with Sky News." is there a Sky Australia or does his british service show out there? if there is is he trying to extend his empire there too?

Today Murdoch is in London and when asked by a reporter what he was defending he pointing to Rebekah Wade and simply said "her." Now what DOES she have on the dirty digger

I don't know what it is about Rebekah Brooks that seems to send men into a frenzy, even I have a personal fetish for women with flowing red hair like hers - for reasons I prefer not to be frank about.

Anyway, some snippets from the press:

BSkyB's share price is falling as I speak: that complicates the share purchase -in fact if it falls far enough it will be in crisis, and if the Govt does delay the Murdoch bid and I think it has to now, this could make BSkyB an attractive buy for someone else -the remaining shares ares still there to be bought by a predator, it doesn't have to be NewsCorp -I wonder if the Qatari's are interested in it?

James Cameron, according to today's Indepenent used to have a life size cardbour cut-out of Darth Vader outside his office.

The same article quotes someone from the govt who is furious with Murdoch for persisting with the BSkyB deal:
We always knew we were going to have to eat a shit sandwich over the BSkyB deal," said one. "We didn't know it would turn into a three course dinner."

The volume of lies and cover-ups on this story give it the Watergate dimension: what did Vaclav Havel say when the ancien regime collapsed in 1989?
Lying can never save us from another lie...

A Qatari purchase of Sky would be interesting and out them in direct competion with their own operation Al Jazeera - which is limbering up for a Middle eastern tussle against Sky Arabia, due to launch next spring. That'd be interesting. Al-Jazeera is an excellent news service. The Qatari royals do not meddle - and it has won its spurs by being called biased by both the Palestinians and israel. So its coverage myst be striving to be as objective as any news operation can be. Hugh Miles book on the creation and early years of al-Jazeera is a must-read for those interested in whole global media works.

I think also that the volume of print and broadcast media owned by one company in the UK should also be an issue -it seems odd that Thatcherites (albeit damp ones) have not called for more competition in this market -except of course Osborne is in the Murdoch camp; I guess there are not many corporations with the cash to buy BSkyB anyway...unless it ends up at £1 a share....thanks for the Hugh Miles ref, I will get onto that subito...

Hot off the press... gov just issues this - a Statement from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.


"The consultation on undertakings in lieu offered by News Corporation in relation to their proposed merger with BSkyB closes at midday today. The Secretary of State has always been clear that he will take as long as is needed to reach a decision.

The Secretary of State will consider carefully all the responses submitted and take advice from Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading before reaching his decision. Given the volume of responses, we anticipate that this will take some time. He will consider all relevant factors including whether the announcement regarding the News of the World’s closure has any impact on the question of media plurality."

According to the BBC's Emily Maitlis there will be a news 'bombshell' at 5pm, I have also seen a rumour that Murdoch is getting rid of News International -all of it! In other words he will dump newspapers for TV...situation at 3.22pm

Announcement on News Int due at 4.30 according to BBC twitters
My own inside knowledge from a few weeks back already revealed that S Times is in deep financial turd and planning to close or merge certain sections, so Murdoch could be about to sell the whole thing off - making him simply a TV magnate in the UK. Harder to complain or stop that part of his plan then, eh

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2...he-world-over/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2...he-world-over/

---

Latest on Radio 5 - The Sun and The Sunday Times hacked into Gordon Brown's phones and other personal media when he was Chancellor, and Brown is in the chamber of the House ready to speak, with full commons privilege, if the need arises. Good - this spreads the shit river away from the lonely scapegoat of the NotW and deeper into the heart of the Murdoch empire.

If at the end of this he comes away owning all of BskyB it will be a craven acceptance that he actually rules the UK, not the democratically-elected government. Heady times.

Chris Bryant MP in the house right now - Brown's sons' medical records have also been hacked. Milly Dowler territory. Bastards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

Latest on Radio 5 - The Sun and The Sunday Times hacked into Gordon Brown's phones and other personal media when he was Chancellor, and Brown is in the chamber of the House ready to speak, with full commons privilege, if the need arises. Good - this spreads the shit river away from the lonely scapegoat of the NotW and deeper into the heart of the Murdoch empire.

If at the end of this he comes away owning all of BskyB it will be a craven acceptance that he actually rules the UK, not the democratically-elected government. Heady times.

---

I like the way you think too lol :)

All that needs to happen is that poo river to hit News Ltd here and :party: time

I could write a very long and hostile message about Gordon Brown's political career in the last 15 years or so, but there are limits and it doesn't matter to me who it is, Sarah Palin or Sarah Brown, sick children, murdered schoolgirls: this is depraved, offensive, and takes the scandal into the areas of the Murdoch empire they didn't want it to reach. It also makes the police enquiries look even worse than they were, and we still haven't heard the last of these revelations. Can News International survive this week? At some point soon the main investors must start to ask serious questions about the financial security of their shareholding, and even the ethical dimension of owning this cess-pit of lies and criminality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Aeryn

I like the way you think too lol :)

All that needs to happen is that poo river to hit News Ltd here and :party: time

I could write a very long and hostile message about Gordon Brown's political career in the last 15 years or so, but there are limits and it doesn't matter to me who it is, Sarah Palin or Sarah Brown, sick children, murdered schoolgirls: this is depraved, offensive, and takes the scandal into the areas of the Murdoch empire they didn't want it to reach. It also makes the police enquiries look even worse than they were, and we still haven't heard the last of these revelations. Can News International survive this week? At some point soon the main investors must start to ask serious questions about the financial security of their shareholding, and even the ethical dimension of owning this cess-pit of lies and criminality.
1 Hour Ago 07:12 PM

---

Crikey Aeryn, you're up early (or very late!). It's moving by the minute over here, and Stavros' latest post suggests the possibility of News Int going down the tubes totally because of shareholder jitters.

Mind you, the govt got themselves off the merger hook by referring, at Murdoch's request (hah!), the proposed sale to the Competition Commission which effectively does away with the "fit and proper persons" test and leaves it down to the lawyers. Add in that the closure of the NotW actually reduces NI's percentage holding of the total UK media market, and the possibility of the deal being nodded through increases, at least in the narrow context of competition law.

Bloody hell!

Well Murdoch is a sly one. By withdrawing offer to spin off Sky News has forced the Government to refer the whole thing to Competition Commission. That'll take a year or so to decide which effectively cools things for him on that front - and if he has to shut the papers, well he will. Big bucks from TV not much from depleted paper empire. Murdoch is such an operator I bet he'll get what he wants eventually. Bastard.

So far the news has focused on Brown and now the involvement of The Sun and The Sunday Times, expanding rather than contracting the scandal. But at some point we have to face the most explosive issue: the police had the evidence that the law had been broken, and insisted they had prosecuted the 'rogue' journalist -Clive Goodman- and the private investigator, Glen Mulcaire. It is now obvious that either this was an expedient way to 'deal with Murdoch' without destroying News International, or our boys in blue are not just useless at police work, but are on the take even when they are 'guarding' the Head of State and her Family! If its the former, maybe someone said at one time -'we can't do this, hundreds of people will lose their jobs and the courts will be showered with lawsuits' but Murdoch sacks them anyway...he is a ruthless businessman which is why if the main shareholders of NewsCorp get the jitters, he has to take action -but his biographer Michael Wolff on Channel 4 tonight thinks its all over for the Quiet American...