Douglas Caddy

Tom Watson: There is little doubt that Murdoch's Rosebud moment is approaching Comment The Independent Saturday, 22 October 2011 Charles Foster Kane in that Orson Welles epic says: “I don't think there's one word that can describe a man’s life.” When he appeared before the Media Select Committee earlier in the summer, Rupert Murdoch wanted you to believe that his defining word was “humble”. Mr Murdoch Snr failed to display the absent-minded humility of a kindly octagenarian when he addressed the shareholders of News Corp Annual General Meeting, in the Zanuck Theatre of the Fox Studios campus, just off the Avenue of the Stars in Los Angeles, yesterday morning. Instead, he was ebullient; even a little chippy. There was chatter about “coming out fighting," which at times he did. But whatever you think of his performance at the 90-minute meeting, there can be little doubt that Rupert Murdoch’s Rosebud moment approaches. Instead of being known as one of the twentieth century’s great media innovators, Murdoch’s personal reputation and the media brands he’s lovingly nurtured over a lifetime of being professionally-curious are now in tatters. If you don’t believe me, just look at the reaction on Twitter to the front page of yesterday’s Sun newspaper. The disruptive power of the Internet is chipping away at the credibility of the sensationalist and over-editorialised news reporting style that characterises his brand. And when, a few years ago, he saw the damage the Internet was causing his company, he did what he knows best – he tried to buy it (with disastrous consequences). Investors know that to their cost: News Corp recently had to offload MySpace for a firesale price. He apologised to investors for that yesterday, admitting “we made a huge mistake.” I’m sure the army of communications experts now advising Mr Murdoch would like these same investors to believe that the hacking scandal is about a little local difficulty relating to mobile phone messages at the News of the World. They would no doubt like us to forget about the scale of the investigation into criminality at the company. It now encompasses nearly 200 police, and (as I revealed when speaking at yesterday's AGM) the handiwork of at least three other private investigators, in addition to Glen Mulcaire. The scale of alleged potential wrongdoing at News Corp includes perjury, computer hacking, commercial espionage and bribing the police. That’s why the corporate governance of News Corp needs urgent attention. The board has let investors down. The company is returning healthy profits. But they mask a Murdoch "deficit" that will hurt their bottom line for years to come. News Corp is a complex trams-global media company which is being run like a dysfunctional family firm. Yet because of the two-tier division of shareholding that leaves Murdoch control of 40% of the votes, he is confident of being able to resist the modernising resolutions of independent and activist shareholders. In flying out to Los Angeles to attend the AGM, I hoped to do something to change that. I hoped to make him explain to investors why he allowed a culture to exist that lead to poor Milly Dowler’s phone being hacked. If those investors heard what I had to say and were are still happy to vote for the status quo, then so be it. We will at least know they are complicit in defending anachronistic corporate governance arrangements. But I wouldn’t want to be the fund manager with that on my CV.

At Annual Meeting, Murdoch Spars With Investors The New York Times By AMY CHOZICK and BROOKS BARNES October 21, 2011 In his first public address to shareholders since a phone-hacking scandal in Britain, News Corporation’s chairman and chief executive, Rupert Murdoch, apologized Friday for the unethical practices at the company’s British newspaper unit, defended the company’s financial performance and sparred with opponents of the company’s leadership. “We cannot just be a profitable company. We must be a principled company,” said Mr. Murdoch, looking both rested and combative in a black suit and blue necktie. “We must admit to and confront our mistakes and establish rigorous and vigorous procedures to put things right.” The annual shareholders meeting, held at the company’s 20th Century Fox Studios lot in Los Angeles, gave investors a chance to publicly confront Mr. Murdoch about the phone hacking imbroglio and ask questions about the future leadership of a company with a market capitalization of $44 billion. Investors also voted to retain News Corporation’s board. Although the Murdoch family controls 40 percent of the voting shares, stockholders had a chance to send a message by voting for or against re-electing Mr. Murdoch, his sons James and Lachlan, both in attendance, and other board members. Julie Tanner, a representative of Christian Brothers Investment Services, a shareholder, presented a proposal to force the company, in light of the hacking scandal, to establish an independent board to oversee corporate governance. “This pervasive and value-destroying scandal requires stronger independent leadership on the board,” she said. The proposal set off a series of heated questions, the most contentious of which came from Tom Watson, a British Labour Party legislator who has led the investigation into phone hacking at News International, the company’s British newspaper unit. Mr. Watson asked Mr. Murdoch if he had heard reports that journalists at the now shuttered News of the World tabloid had hacked into computers, in addition to phones. Without presenting fresh evidence, Mr. Watson said a paid investigator had hacked into a former army intelligence officer’s computer, among others. “You haven’t told any of your investors what has to come,” Mr. Watson said. Mr. Murdoch said he was not aware of reports of computer hacking. “If you have further evidence, please let us know,” he said. “I promise you absolutely that we’ll stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this and put it right.” Viet D. Dinh, a member of the company’s board and a lawyer, who is in charge of the internal investigation into phone hacking, told Mr. Watson he would “welcome any information you have” to assist the investigation. Later, Mr. Murdoch mentioned that Mr. Watson had given an interview to News Corporation’s cable television channel, Fox News. “That’s fair and balanced,” Mr. Murdoch said, echoing the network’s catchphrase and drawing laughs from the crowd. In a 476-seat theater on the Fox lot just past where Shirley Temple once rehearsed, Mr. Murdoch sat next to Chase Carey, the company’s chief operating officer. Investors filed through metal detectors and past stacks of two publications owned by News Corporation, The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal. A scattering of protestors, including one wearing an oversize Rupert Murdoch mask, picketed outside the studio’s Pico Boulevard gate. One sign carried the simple message: “Lying is wrong.” Activists and longtime Murdoch gadflies dominated the meeting, since large institutional investors do not typically air their grievances in such a public forum. In addition to questions about hacking, investors asked about executive compensation and the company’s abandoned $12 billion bid for the portion of British Sky Broadcasting Group that it does not own. They also used their limited time at the microphone to ask Mr. Murdoch about animal rights and helping teachers acquire digital tools in classrooms. Mr. Murdoch, 80, grew impatient at times and asked the speakers to limit their questions to one minute. When Edward Mason of the Church of England stood up to criticize the company’s corporate governance, Mr. Murdoch interrupted: “Your investments haven’t been all that great, but all right.”

Murdoch warned of 'Mulcaire 2' at News Corp shareholder meeting Some large investors vote against CEO's re-election to board, but full details won't be available until Monday By Dominic Rushe in Los Angeles, Dan Sabbagh and Jason Deans guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 October 2011 19.03 EDT Rupert Murdoch has been dealt a blow by shareholders who called on the News Corp chairman and his sons to resign from the scandal-torn media empire. At the company's annual meeting in Los Angeles on Friday Murdoch made a defiant and uncompromising address, insisting News Corp's history was the "stuff of legend." However, he was berated by shareholders and some of the world's largest investors voted against his re-election, and that of his sons, to the News Corp board. They also did not approve of the $33m (£21m) he was paid as chairman and chief executive this year. Murdoch owns 12% of the company but controls about 40% of the votes because of News Corp's two classes of shares. But the fact that major investors voted against his re-election and that of his sons and other directors is a major blow for the 80-year-old chairman and chief executive. News Corp plans to release the full details of the vote on Monday. Before the meeting, shareholders told the Guardian that James Murdoch was likely to receive the biggest vote of no confidence. If the votes go against him, it will cast further doubts on his future at News Corp. The youngest Murdoch son is already facing questions about evidence he gave to a parliamentary inquiry into the News of the World hacking scandal and shareholders at Murdoch-controlled BSkyB have called for his resignation. At the meeting Rupert Murdoch said he was "personally determined" to clean up the phone hacking scandal that had led to the closure of the NoW, but said the issue needed to be set in context at a company that had faced "understandable scrutiny and unfair attack". He argued that the business had a famous history – from the time he took over a single newspaper in Adelaide in 1953 – which had to be set against the revelations that several reporters at the NoW had been engaged in hacking into voicemails left for crime victims, their families, public figures and celebrities. Speaking at the start of the company's annual shareholder meeting, Murdoch offered no fresh concessions. With most of the votes in his control, there was no prospect of him or his heir apparent James, being voted off the board. However, the scale of the rebellion was expected to exceed 20% of non-family shareholders. Those attending included Edward Mason, secretary of the ethical investment advisory group of the Church of England, which owns about $6m worth of News Corp shares. "There needs to be decisive action in terms of holding people to account," he said before the event, noting that it was the first time his group had attended a company annual meeting. At the meeting, Murdoch criticised the church's investment track record, describing it as "not that great". Julie Tanner, assistant director of Christian Brothers Investment Services (CBIS), which represents more than 1,000 Catholic institutions worldwide, was the first at the meeting to question Murdoch's track record, saying that the "extraordinary scandals" in the UK required corporate overhaul. Tanner proposed a motion that News Corp appoint an independent chairman, "to empower the board in relation to the Murdoch family", and asked that the company launch a "truly independent investigation" into the phone-hacking allegations, instead of the work by its London-based internal management and standards committee. The Labour MP Tom Watson, a persistent thorn in Murdoch's side, travelled to Los Angeles to attend the AGM. He commented on the "deepest irony" of the opening presentation, which included images of Prince William – whom he alleged had been targeted by former NoW private investigator Glenn Mulcaire – and Kate Middleton, whom he claimed had been targeted by another private investigator employed by the now closed Sunday tabloid, Jonathan Rees. Watson warned News Corp investors that they were facing "Mulcaire 2" in the UK as victims of alleged computer hacking took action against its subsidiary News International. "You haven't told any of your investors what is to come," he told Murdoch, although the News Corp boss insisted that his company was co-operating fully with police inquiries. Watson told Murdoch that he had evidence that the Metropolitan police was investigating computer hacking by private investigators who had worked for the NoW as well as other papers. Murdoch said he had no knowledge of the situation. "What happened a few years ago was absolutely wrong and I have said so, and I have said that we're all ashamed of it," Murdoch said, adding that "recent rumours" Watson mentioned were under investigation by the police. After the meeting, Watson said: "If my concerns are founded then this company is going to experience even more litigation in the future than it faces now." Investors, critics and the press were bussed into the high security event from a parking lot in Century City to the Zanuck Theatre at Fox Studios, where a collection of Oscars were on display outside. Outside about 200 protesters had rallied with signs that read "Stop the Lies" and "News Corp Board Has to Go." Stephen Mayne, an Australian shareholder and long-time critic of Murdoch, said it was an "extraordinarily paranoid" meeting. "I think he's losing it," he commented. "He comes across as a paranoid control freak." A few hours before the meeting began, News Corp confirmed it had reached an agreement to pay the family of murdered teenager Milly Dowler £2m in compensation, with Rupert Murdoch personally donating an additional £1m to six charities. The settlement relates to the hacking of the missing schoolgirl's phone messages by the tabloid after she went missing in March 2002. "Nothing that has been agreed will ever bring back Milly," the Dowler family said. "The only way that a fitting tribute could be agreed was to ensure that a very substantial donation to charity was made in Milly's memory."

Murdoch Makes Payment to Family of Murdered Schoolgirl The New York Times By AMY CHOZICK October 21, 2011 Hours before Rupert Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, faces shareholders at the company’s annual meeting, the company announced Friday that it will pay $3.2 million to the family of Milly Dowler, the murdered British teenager whose phone was hacked by the News Corporation’s News of the World tabloid. News International, the company’s British newspaper unit, said in a statement that in addition to the payment to the family, Mr. Murdoch will personally donate $1.6 million to charities of the Dowler family’s choosing. In July, Mr. Murdoch apologized to the family after it was revealed that reporters had hacked into the kidnapped and murdered 13-year-old’s cell phone and erased voice mails. Those actions led her family to believe she was still alive and confused police. “The behavior that the News of the World exhibited towards the Dowlers was abhorrent and I hope this donation underscores my regret for the company’s role in this awful event,” Mr. Murdoch said in a statement. “I also hope that through the personal donation something positive can be done in the memory of their daughter.” On Friday afternoon shareholders will gather at News Corporation’s Fox Studios in Los Angeles to vote on the company’s board members and to question Mr. Murdoch. Although the hacking scandal and the shuttering of the “News of the World” tabloid has not had a significant impact on the company’s share price, investors are expected to press Mr. Murdoch about the company’s corporate governance. The personal donation to “charities chosen by the Dowler family that represent causes close to Milly and those that provide support to other victims of crime” could help cushion the blow and assure investors that News Corporation and its leader are remorseful. In a statement released Friday, the Dowler family said “Nothing that has been agreed will ever bring back Milly or undo the traumas of her disappearance and the horrendous murder trial earlier this year. The only way that a fitting tribute could be agreed was to ensure that a very substantial donation to charity was made in Milly’s memory.”

News Corp to be challenged by Tom Watson over 'surveillance' Murdochs face ranks of investor critics at LA event as Labour MP claims type of snooping distinct from hacking By Ed Pilkington in New York Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 October 2011 16.30 EDT Tom Watson, the Labour MP who has been a leading figure in parliament's investigation into the News of the World phone-hacking scandal, plans to make dramatic allegations about News Corporation's use of surveillance at the company's annual shareholder meeting. Watson, who sits on the Commons culture, media and sport committee which has investigated the scandal, said he would be giving News Corp's shareholders details of previously undisclosed surveillance methods used by the firm that were technologically quite distinct from the phone hacking carried out by NoW staff. He refused to go into details about the allegations he would be making or to offer any evidence to corroborate them. He said: "I want to leave investors in no doubt that News Corporation is not through the worst of this yet and there are more questions for the Murdochs to answer." Watson has flown to Los Angeles to attend the shareholders meeting, which he will gain access to having been given a proxy vote by the US trade union umbrella group, the AFL-CIO. News Corporation is bracing itself for independent shareholders to vote in considerable numbers at the meeting against the reappointment of Rupert Murdoch and his sons, James and Lachlan, in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal. The scale of the protest outside the Murdoch family is expected to be substantially over 20% of independent shareholders, with several expected to raise questions at the meeting at Fox studios. But their protest will not be enough to topple the family, because Rupert Murdoch controls 40% of the voting shares. Nevertheless, before the meeting there were clear signs of tension at the upper levels of News Corp, with particular emphasis on security at the event and worries about what sort of tone the 80-year-old media mogul will strike in front of those who, alongside him, have a stake in the empire he built. Murdoch's opening address is expected to show less of the contrition than in London in July, when he told MPs: "This the most humble day of my life." Instead he is expected to strike a more combative tone, although there are worries that this will alienate some investors and outsiders. The language is understood to reflect the sentiments expressed 10 days ago in a stock exchange filing in which News Corp, in response to the growing army of concerned shareholders, accused its critics of having a "disproportionate focus on the News of the World matter" which was in turn "misguided". That approach has unsettled some in the company who believe there is a risk that Murdoch's rhetorical defiance will play badly. Murdoch is frustrated that for all the considerable political and legal problems News Corp faces, the company continues to perform well, with operating profits up by 12% by almost $5bn (£3.2bn), after legal costs, helped by the box office success of the film Rio and the continued growth of US TV channels such as Fox News. Set against that is the £20m settlement fund promised to phone-hacking victims. There was an unwelcome reminder of the difficulties in the print sector with a separate announcement that News Corp would cut 150 editorial posts at the loss-making Times and Sunday Times, through compulsory and voluntary redundancies and cuts to casual staff. A critical indicator in LA will be whether more than half of the non-family shareholders will vote against the reappointment of the Murdochs. The family is likely to receive support from the Saudi investor Prince Alwaleed – whose Kingdom Holdings has a further 7% of the voting shares and who is close to James Murdoch. News Corp expects something of a circus at the event, with shareholders and press being bused into the venue - which the company says is aimed to "ease the security issues of getting onto a studio lot". Watson joins some of the most critical investors, such as Calpers, which manages money for California's public employees. News Corp chose to hold the meeting in LA, rather than New York where the business has its headquarters, in the hope that it would reduce the attendance of critical fund managers. Calpers is particularly unhappy with the two-tier voting structure, – which it calls a "corruption of the governance system" which means that about a third of News Corp shares have voting rights. The Murdochs control 40% of the votes by owning about 12% of all shares.. In the runup to the meeting, News Corp has had to endure growing speculation about rifts at the top of the company. with the New York Times reporting several disputes between Rupert and his heir apparent James, and even talk that James, the deputy chief operating officer, had briefly considered stepping down. But despite Rupert's advancing years, and the pressure mounting on James as the phone-hacking crisis continues, neither is prepared, nor will they be forced, to step aside as a result of tomorrow's meeting.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/ref=pe_166730_21370230_pe_btn/?ASIN=1451627289

Centuries of open justice threatened by secret courts Government rewrites judicial principles after lobbying by CIA The Independent By Andy McSmith and Kim Sengupta Thursday, 20 October 2011 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/centuries-of-open-justice-threatened-by-secret-courts-2373201.html Secret justice looks set to be a regular feature of British courts and tribunals when the intelligence services want to protect their sources of information. Civil courts, immigration panels and even coroner's inquests would go into secret session if the Government rules that hearing evidence in public could be a threat to national security. The proposals, which run counter to a centuries-old British tradition of open justice, were introduced to a sparsely attended House of Commons yesterday by the Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke – and met almost no opposition. The planned changes to the British justice system follow lobbying of the Government by the CIA. Civil rights groups warned a serious potential threat to individual liberty lurked behind the all-party consensus. Mr Clarke is seeking to protect the Government from a repeat of a fiasco which has cost tens of millions of pounds and led to a breakdown in co-operation between British intelligence and an enraged CIA. The best-known case involved Binyam Mohamed, a British resident who was held in Guantanamo Bay for five years, and started a claim for damages from the UK Government, which he accused of complicity in torture. The Court of Appeal released a summary of CIA intelligence which supported Mr Mohamed's claim that British intelligence officers knew about the torture of suspected terrorists. The CIA was furious and halted the flow of information from its headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and other US agencies apart from in the most serious cases. MI6 and the Foreign Office also received complaints from a number of other allied states anxious that information provided on a confidential basis would leak into the public domain. Faced with irate colleagues at Langley, the British Government paid out to 16 terrorist suspects, to prevent further damage to US-UK relations. Yesterday, Mr Clarke let slip that the cases had already cost around £20m. Another 30 are in prospect because, he told MPs, "it is becoming fashionable" to challenge the Government in court. Officials have privately complained that they cannot defend these cases without compromising sensitive intelligence, which means suspected terrorists have been able to use the civil courts as a "cashpoint". If Mr Clarke's proposals are agreed, the power of the courts to order the intelligence services to disclose sensitive material will be curtailed. The Government is also planning to pass a law giving itself much more latitude to use what are called "closed material proceedings" in civil court cases and immigration tribunals, meaning the people at the centre of such cases would not be allowed to hear any evidence that MI5 or MI6 did not want them to hear. The material would, however, be examined by special advocates with security clearance. There is also the prospect of grieving relatives being security vetted before they are allowed into inquests in cases which might involve sensitive material, such as the death of a terrorist suspect. If they refuse to be vetted, they would be barred. Mr Clarke went out of his way to avoid a clash with Labour by reminding them that he was dealing with a problem they had to face in government, and emphasising that his Green Paper was "very green". Mr Clarke told MPs: "The Government is clear that under the current system, justice is not being served and our national security is being put at risk. For justice to be done and the rule of law to be upheld, courts should be able to consider all the facts of the case. At the moment, we are not always getting at the truth because some evidence is too sensitive to disclose in open court." Last night, a US diplomatic source said: "It is a long-established practice that intelligence supplied by an agency should not be released into the public domain without the say-so of that agency. We were assured when we resumed normal relations that what happened [in the Binyam Mohamed case] would be rectified. I do not know the ins and outs of the British legislature, but I am assuming that is what is happening." But Clare Algar, executive director of the human rights charity Reprieve, said: "The Government is seeking to close off the very methods by which we first found out about UK complicity in torture and rendition. Were the measures proposed today in place at the time of the Binyam Mohamed case, the British public would never have known about the appalling abuses our own officials had been involved in." Isabella Sankey, director of policy for Liberty, said: "The security services seem to think that having to compensate former Guantanamo detainees for failing in their duty to them justifies closing down open civil courts. These payouts should encourage the avoidance of complicity in torture not attempts to halt centuries of British justice." Cases that could have been affected Omagh bombing The bomb planted by the Real IRA, which killed 29 people including the mother of unborn twins, in Omagh in August 1998 was the worst atrocity of the Northern Irish conflict. No one was brought to criminal trial although it was never denied that the government spy centre, GCHQ, was monitoring the phone calls of Real IRA members. The intelligence services did not want a trial in which phone-tapping evidence would have to be made public. July 7 bombing More than five years passed before the inquest finally opened last year into the deaths of 52 people murdered in London's worst terrorist outrage, partly over arguments about whether MI5's evidence should be heard in public. It was. The families of the four suicide bombers did not ask for full inquests, and the coroner decided not to hold them. George Blake When Blake was arrested in 1961, after being exposed as a spy for the Russians, the government was so embarrassed that the Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, wanted to let him off and keep his treachery secret but the intelligence services insisted on a trial, at which the main evidence was presented in secret. Blake was sentenced to 42 years, but escaped after five. John Amery The wartime traitor, the son of a Tory MP, saved the authorities a great deal of embarrassment by pleading guilty. His trial lasted eight minutes. He was sentenced to death for treason and hanged on 19 December 1945.

October 19, 2011, 12:46 PM ET Millionaires Control 39% of Global Wealth The Wall Street Journal Here’s another stat that the Occupy Wall Streeters can hoist on their placards: The world’s millionaires and billionaires now control 38.5% of the world’s wealth. According to the latest Global Wealth Report from Credit Suisse, the 29.7 million people in the world with household net worths of $1 million (representing less than 1% of the world’s population) control about $89 trillion of the world’s wealth. That’s up from a share of 35.6% in 2010, and their wealth increased by about $20 trillion, according Credit Suisse. The wealth of the millionaires grew 29% — about twice as fast as the wealth in the world as a whole, which now has $231 trillion in wealth. The U.S. has been the largest wealth generator over the past 18 months, according to the report, adding $4.6 trillion to global wealth. China ranked second with $4 trillion, followed by Japan ($3.8 trillion), Brazil ($1.87 trillion) and Australia ($1.85 trillion). There are now 84,700 people in the world worth $50 million or more — with 35,400 of them living in the U.S.. There are 29,000 people world-wide worth $100 million or more and 2,700 worth $500 million or more. The fastest growth in the coming years will be in China, India and Brazil. China now has a million millionaires. Wealth in China and Africa is expected to grow 90%, to $39 trillion and $5.8 trillion respectively, by 2016. Wealth in India and Brazil is expected to more than double to $8.9 trillion and $9.2 trillion respectively. Credit Suisse

[Poster's note: The article below at its end states, "Mr Lewis said he is now representing clients about possible hacking cases carried out by News International employees on "American soil". "The two cases potentially involve four people, he added." The Poster believes that the U.S. Dept. of Justice and FBI are well aware of these illegal wiretapping cases that have taken place on American soil. Indictments in the U.S. may follow in coming months.] -------------------------------------- Phone hacking: lawyer knew MPs misled A partner in the law firm that represents the Queen admitted today that he knew Parliament had been misled about the phone-hacking scandal but did not take any action. Daily Telegraph PA5:27PM BST 19 Oct 2011 Julian Pike, a partner with Farrer and Co, told a Commons probe he became aware that the "one rogue reporter" defence being used by the News of the World in the wake of the initial scandal was wrong. Quizzed by MPs on the Culture, Media and Sport select committee about at what stage he realised previous evidence given them was not true, Mr Pike said it "would have been at the point it was given to you". Pressed by Labour MP Paul Farrelly on what action he had taken since, Mr Pike admitted: "To be honest, I haven't done very much." Mr Farrelly said: "I'm just imagining a headline – Queen's solicitors knew the News of the World was lying to Parliament but did nothing about it. Do you think that reflects well or badly?" Mr Pike said: "We have obligations to the client we are acting for. "That is a headline that is obviously not ideal." But Mr Pike said it would be "very unfair of me to tell you that someone deliberately misled" the committee. The lawyer insisted there had not been a "cover-up" of the phone-hacking scandal because the police had all the relevant documents they needed to launch a wider investigation. Mr Pike advised News Group to pay £425,000 – despite the highest compensation for breach of privacy he had previously been involved in being no more than £30,000-£40,000 – to Gordon Taylor because the Professional Footballers Association boss had evidence that his phone had been hacked. He said Mr Taylor was given "the ability to negotiate a strong settlement" because he had obtained a copy of the so-called "For Neville" email, which included a transcript of his phone messages. The committee, which is carrying out an investigation into the phone-hacking scandal at the now-defunct News of the World, heard that Mr Pike obtained authority from News International's European chief executive James Murdoch to reach a settlement with Mr Taylor. Acknowledging the settlement in 2008 was "an unusual case", he insisted "there was no precedent for this sort of case". "The risk of it being more than we had seen prior to that was greater." Mr Taylor had been demanding £250,000 even before he had the key email, said Mr Pike, adding: "having then received evidence which did support his case, it was obvious that he was not going to settle for less than when he had no evidence." Mr Pike said part of the advice he submitted – in writing to former News of the World legal adviser Tom Crone – included a warning there was a "powerful case" that there was a wider use of the "illegal accessing" of information by reporters working at the newspaper. Solicitor Mark Lewis, who represented Mr Taylor, told MPs he knew there was "something wrong" when Mr Crone visited him in Manchester to discuss the case. He said that in the 17 years he had been in practice at the point, the newspaper's legal adviser had "never left Wapping". Mr Lewis, who represents many of the News of the World's alleged victims, including the family of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, dismissed claims that the newspaper eventually made such a large settlement because the original demand – before the "For Neville" email emerged – was for £250,000 for his client. "The idea that any negotiation would start by what I had asked for in the first place is inconceivable." He told the committee that there was "no way" the case was worth that much, adding that it was strange that the company also paid his costs in full. "They didn't knock a penny off my costs. That's unheard of in litigation." Mr Lewis said he is now representing clients about possible hacking cases carried out by News International employees on "American soil". The two cases potentially involve four people, he added.

Phone hacking: NI lawyer says he knew its 'rogue reporter' defence was wrong Farrer & Co partner tells MPs he was aware company had misled parliament but did not act because of client confidentiality By James Robinson guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 19 October 2011 09.51 EDT A lawyer who acted for News International (NI) over phone-hacking claims has told MPs he knew the company had misled parliament about the affair but he had not spoken up because of client confidentiality. Julian Pike, a partner at Farrer & Co, the law firm whose clients include the Queen, told MPs on the Commons culture, media and sport select committee on Wednesday that he was aware the company's often-repeated "rogue reporter" defence was untrue. Pike said he had seen evidence in 2008 that suggested there was "a powerful case" that an additional three News of the World journalists were "illegally accessing information in order to obtain stories" and had informed NI of this. When asked by Labour MP Paul Farrelly how he would feel about newspaper headlines that might read "Queen's solicitors knew News of the World was lying and did nothing about it", Pike replied: "That sort of headline is obviously not ideal." But he insisted that Farrer & Co was not part of a cover-up and denied he was embarrassed professionally by his decision to stay silent. In evidence to MPs on the committee two years ago and in 2007 NI executives said phone hacking was the work of a single journalist, former royal editor Clive Goodman. It has emerged since then that the practice was more widespread. Pike also told MPs that former News of the World editor Colin Myler had met with James Murdoch, who is now deputy chief operation officer of News Corp, in May 2008 to discuss a phone-hacking claim brought by Gordon Taylor, chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association. It is the first time that a second meeting to discuss a possible payment to Taylor has been referred to. MPs were told in July that Myler and Tom Crone, the News of the World's former head of legal, met with Murdoch on June 10 2008, after which Murdoch authorised a payment to Taylor of £425,000 plus costs to settle the claim. But Pike said Myler also met James Murdoch on 27 May 2008 after fresh evidence had emerged in the Taylor case that suggested hacking at the News of the World went beyond Goodman. Pike represented the News of the World's former owner during its negotiations with Taylor, who was suing for breach of privacy, in 2007 and 2008. He said he had been emailed a copy of a briefing document prepared by Crone for Myler ahead of the 27 May meeting, which made it clear that more News of the World journalists had been implicated and recommended the case should be settled. It is understood that Murdoch has said he has no recollection of that meeting. But he is certain to be quizzed about it when he appears before the same committee for a second time next month. The subject could also come up in Friday's News Corporation annual general meeting, at which a group unhappy shareholders are expected to voice concerns at the way the hacking crisis was handled. Murdoch has been recalled because his evidence in July directly contradicts that given by Myler and Crone. The two former News of the World executives claim they told Murdoch about the existence of an email sent by a journalist at the paper "for Neville". It is believed to have been sent to Neville Thurlbeck, who was the paper's chief reporter, and contained transcripts of messages left on Taylor's mobile phone. Murdoch denies he was told about the email. Pike said in his evidence on Wednesday that the briefing document sent before the earlier meeting in May did not make a direct reference to the "for Neville" email. He condeded that "he hadn't done very much" after he realised News International had misled Parliament. Asked why the firm did not drop NI as a client or tell the authorities about the extent of the criminal activity at the group, Pike said. "We have obligations to the client we work for." He added: "I don't think it's caused me any professional embarrassment." In July 2009, News of the World editor Colin Myler told the culture select committee that an email trawl had recovered no evidence that hacking went beyond a single reporter. Former NI chairman Les Hinton, who will be questioned once again by the committee next week via satellite link, also told MPs that hacking was the work of a single reporter in evidence in March 2007. Farrer & Co acted for NI subsidiary News Group Newspapers, which published the News of the World, in the numerous legal cases being brought by hacking victims in the high court until last week, when it was replaced by rival firm Olswang. Taylor's lawyer Mark Lewis, also appearing before the culture select committee on Wednesday, said he been told by Pike that the Taylor case was being handled by Murdoch. He claimed that Murdoch knew all the details of Taylor's claim. "Mr Murdoch would like you to believe he is mildly incompetent," Lewis said. In fact, he added, Murdoch had been "wildly dishonest".

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111018/me-and-lee-book-canada-am-111018/ http://www.torontosun.com/videos?videoId=1225028455001 http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-worthington/lee-harvey-oswald_b_1017806.html

Rupert Murdoch's Tax Play: News Corp. Lobbied For Trade Pact With Favored Tax Haven First Posted: 10/19/11 11:23 AM ET Updated: 10/19/11 11:57 AM ET www.huffingtonpost.com WASHINGTON -- Rupert Murdoch's media conglomerate News Corp. lobbied in favor of the new Panama free trade pact, according to federal lobbying disclosure forms -- a pact that will make it more difficult for the U.S. government to crack down on Panama-related tax abuses. Panama is a notorious tax haven, and News Corp. also operates a subsidiary there. The company's flagship American news outlets -- The Wall Street Journal and Fox News -- reported extensively on the three free trade deals passed by Congress last week without disclosing the parent firm's lobbying activity. In fact, News Corp. operates a total of 136 subsidiaries in nations identified as international tax havens by the Government Accountability Office -- jurisdictions where wealthy Americans and corporations can stash money to avoid paying U.S. taxes. One of those subsidiaries, Twentieth Century Fox Films, S.A., is located in Panama. News Corp. is not alone, of course. Panama has a total annual economic output of just $26.7 billion, according to the World Bank -- less than two-tenths of one percent of the size of the U.S. economy (and about 45 percent less than the $44.75 billion stock market value of News Corp.). Nevertheless, Panama has attracted more than 400,000 offshore corporations thanks to its zero-percent tax rate and some of the strictest bank secrecy laws in the world. The Securities and Exchange Commission requires U.S. corporations to disclose the names and locations of all their subsidiaries. But companies do not have to disclose other information that is critical to determining whether an offshore subsidiary exists for any purpose other than tax avoidance, such as the total assets and liabilities of the subsidiary. So while News Corp. operates just one subsidiary in Panama, compared to 16 in the Cayman Islands and 26 in the British Virgin Islands, SEC filings do not indicate how significant the company's Panamanian activities are. "A long list of tax haven subsidiaries might indicate a lot of nefarious activity, but you really only need one," said Rebecca Wilkins, senior counsel at the nonprofit Citizens for Tax Justice. "News Corp. might use a single Panama subsidiary to avoid taxes on $3 or on $3 billion. We need sales, profits, tax payments and employees reported on a country-by-country basis to get a good picture of what the multinational is really doing." According to the company's latest annual SEC filing, News Corp. has $8.6 billion in "undistributed foreign earnings" that it plans to keep stashed abroad "indefinitely." Meanwhile, the company routinely has a U.S. federal income tax bill much lower than the oft-cited 35 percent corporate rate. Since 2003, the first year of tax data available in News Corp.'s SEC filings, Murdoch's company has paid an average federal tax rate of 15 percent, with rates below 5 percent in every year from 2003 to 2006 being offset by a big loss in 2009 and a 25 percent tax rate in 2011 (see note on calculations below). Several other major news outlets operate subsidiaries in tax havens. CBS, for instance, has 72 subsidiaries in tax haven nations, while AOL, the owner of The Huffington Post, has two (AOL also has $15.7 million in undistributed foreign earnings permanently reinvested abroad). Neither lobbied directly on the trade deals. The Panama trade deal was initially negotiated by President George W. Bush in 2007, but sparked a host of criticism for granting Panamanian exporters access to U.S. markets without combating the nation's tax avoidance schemes. Indeed, the trade agreement effectively bars the U.S. from cracking down on this activity. Under the agreement, the U.S. is not allowed to treat Panamanian financial services transactions differently from transactions in nations that are not known tax havens, and it cannot pursue some standard anti-money laundering techniques in Panama. President Barack Obama attempted to assuage these concerns by reaching a Tax Information Exchange Agreement with Panama, but as HuffPost has reported, the deal relies on an outdated model that is unlikely to provide the Internal Revenue Service with enough information to crack down on abusive tax schemes, in part because it does not require that U.S. tax authorities be automatically notified when Americans deposit money in Panama. In addition to its Panamanian subsidiary, News Corp. operates two subsidiaries in Colombia and three in South Korea, the two other countries with which Congress passed trade deals on Oct. 12. News Corp. lobbied on the Korea and Colombia agreements as well, according to lobbying disclosure forms. Both Fox News and the Journal have reported extensively on the Panama and Korea deals without disclosing that their parent company was lobbying in favor of them. The Journal has also published multiple op-eds and editorials advocating for the agreements without disclosing its parent company's lobbying. The Journal declined to comment, and a spokesperson for Fox Broadcasting referred HuffPost to News Corp.'s corporate spokespeople, who did not respond to requests for comment. Note: HuffPost calculated News Corp.'s tax rates by dividing the "current federal income tax" number reported in SEC filings by the company's total U.S. profits minus state and local taxes. In 2007, for instance, total state and local taxes of $69 million were subtracted from News Corp.'s total U.S. profits of $4.586 billion, resulting in a profit net of state and local taxes of $4.517 billion. Current federal income tax paid was $281 million. Divide $281 million by $4.517 billion to arrive at a 2007 federal income tax rate for News Corp. of 6.2 percent.

In Rift Between Murdochs, Heir Becomes Less Apparent The New York Times By JEREMY W. PETERS October 19, 2011 LONDON — It was a striking display of unity: Rupert and James Murdoch, father and son, walking side by side through central London as they faced a crisis that had laid siege to their company. Pushing through a crush of paparazzi on a street not far from Buckingham Palace, James reached out to place a reassuring hand on his father’s back. But behind that facade, the disclosure of widespread phone hacking at News Corporation’s British newspaper division was only the latest and most serious episode to test a father-son relationship that has frayed over the last few years, leaving both men at times not even on speaking terms. And that rift, which has been known only to those closest to the company, has opened up a question central to Rupert Murdoch’s legacy — can one of his children ever take the helm of his $62 billion media giant? Their disagreements, which were described in detail by more than half a dozen former and current company officials and others close to the Murdochs, stemmed in large part from the clashing visions of a young technocratic student of modern management and a traditionalist who rules by instinct and conviction. The tension grew worse as the gap between the New York headquarters and James’s London operations, where he oversees the company’s European and Asian holdings, proved difficult to bridge. The elder Mr. Murdoch reached his boiling point last winter, said one of the former officials, and delivered a blunt ultimatum to his son. “You’re coming back to New York, or you’re out.” The son consented. But now, as investors place more pressure on the Murdochs to disentangle themselves from the company they have tightly controlled for three generations, his role in the company is under threat. Shareholders will meet on Friday in Los Angeles to decide whether to re-elect the News Corporation board, which includes Rupert, James and Lachlan Murdoch, the eldest son. Though the family holds a 40 percent stake, giving the Murdochs effective control, and most analysts expect them to be re-elected, several large shareholders and a prominent investor advisory firm have recommended voting against them. James Murdoch, 38, who approved a settlement in 2008 of more than $1 million to help resolve allegations of voice mail hacking at News of the World, the tabloid that News Corporation shut down in July, faces additional pressure back home in London. He is scheduled to testify before Parliament for a second time next month to address questions about the payment, with several ministers suggesting that it was part of an intentional cover-up of the phone hacking. Within the company, James’s position became tenuous enough at one point this summer that he and other senior executives considered whether he should step aside, said one person with knowledge of the conversations. Both Murdochs, through representatives, declined interview requests. Rupert Murdoch, now 80, has long said he hopes one of his children will eventually run the company he built from an Australian newspaper franchise into one of the world’s most powerful and profitable media empires. With his daughter Elisabeth focused on her television production company in London, and Lachlan determined to continue running his media business in Sydney despite the elder Murdoch’s desire to bring him back into the company, James has been the heir apparent. But the hacking scandal and the simmering animosity with his father have destabilized his once inexorable ascent within the company. “Rupert always thought of News Corp. as a family company because it had been given to him,” said Barry Diller, who helped the elder Mr. Murdoch build Fox into a formidable rival to the traditional networks. “It had been given to him through a tiny newspaper in Adelaide, but nevertheless it was his father’s company. I think that meant to him that tradition should continue. If, as he’s always said, his children were worthwhile.” Succession Twist James was not always viewed as the Murdoch who would end up running News Corporation. That mantle, it seemed to everyone inside the company, belonged to Lachlan. James, the youngest of Rupert’s four adult children, was a willful child. When he was served last at dinner, as was the family custom for the last born, James strenuously objected and, according to the Murdoch biographer Neil Chenoweth, repeatedly tried to rearrange the seats around the table. He attended Harvard, but in 1994 dropped out to start a hip-hop record label, Rawkus, which News Corporation bought two years later. But once inside the corporate fold, James made a rapid ascent. At 24, he was put in charge of the digital publishing business in the United States. At 27, he was named executive chairman for Star TV, News Corporation’s Asian satellite television service, and three years later, he was installed as chief executive of BSkyB. Even by independent assessments, his stints leading both satellite providers were successful. He expanded Star’s businesses into India and subscribers to BSkyB soared. Those successes helped him earn acclaim as an executive in his own right. Today he is widely recognized as having transformed News Corporation’s pay television business into one of its strongest assets, a feat that has given him credibility on Wall Street. “He’s one of the more seasoned executives among media conglomerates when it comes to international markets,” said Aryeh Bourkoff, head of investment banking at UBS. “And he grew up where technology and innovation were integral to media consumption and trends.” When Lachlan Murdoch, who is one year James’s senior, left News Corporation in 2005, Rupert began looking for places where his only remaining child in the business could gain more experience. Lachlan’s exit was particularly fraught. He became ensnared in a feud with Roger Ailes, the Fox News chairman, and Peter Chernin, News Corporation’s president and chief operating officer at the time. Lachlan, who ran the company’s American television stations and publishing divisions, felt boxed out and undercut by the two. Rupert was eager to avoid getting his youngest son into the same mess. He began to look across his vast company for the best proving ground for James. The film and television businesses in Hollywood were not an option. Mr. Chernin had too much interest there. The Australian businesses did not seem to be a good fit. So the solution was to put James in charge of News Corporation Europe and Asia, a promotion he received in 2007. The responsibility was immense: James was able to hire his own legal counsel, chief financial officer and chief operating officer, creating a new layer of senior management that he said was necessary for a company that generates about half its revenue outside North America. And his new portfolio included the British newspapers, an area of the business with which James had little experience and almost none of the sentimentality his father held for it. Nonetheless, Rupert was insistent that he learn the trade. Even before James took on his new role, he began making some bold moves. He had one of his executives in London moved to New York to head a new global human resources division. The appointment, which represented just the kind of management restructuring James was eager to make at News Corporation, made some at headquarters who were already wary of James suspect he was trying to install a shadow regime there, those with direct knowledge of the company dynamics at the time said. ‘One Company, Not Two’ Those suspicions were only reinforced later, after James tried to move one of his closest advisers, Matthew Anderson, to New York as well, a move Rupert rebuffed. Mr. Anderson has said he never sought to move to New York. The tensions between the power centers also claimed one of the elder Murdoch’s closest advisers, Gary Ginsberg, the company’s communications strategist, who seldom saw eye to eye with James. Early this year, this perception of the company as having two head offices became a more pressing issue, and his father gave James the ultimatum to return to New York or leave the company altogether. “This is one company, not two,” Rupert told James, according to one person told of the exchange. “And it is run out of New York.” James acquiesced and said he would move. In a skillful spin job that masked the melodrama behind the scenes, News Corporation emphasized that the move was a promotion, and James received a new title of deputy chief operating officer. It was the newspaper business that would ultimately prove the point of deepest fissure between father and son. After taking control of News International, the company’s British newspaper subsidiary that publishes The Times of London, The Sun and News of the World until it was shuttered this summer, James made some abrupt course corrections. In September 2009, as a major Labour Party gathering was under way, The Sun, News Corporation’s mass market, populist tabloid, stunned the British political establishment by switching its allegiances to the Conservative Party after more than a decade of Labour support. The audacity of the move was reinforced by the fanfare with which it was announced. The Sun featured a blaring front-page headline “Labour’s lost it,” floodlit its printing plant in Conservative blue and pumped blue smoke from a smokestack at its complex in Wapping, on London’s east side. Rupert, who was still quite close to Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife, Sarah, had cautioned his son against supporting David Cameron ahead of an election more than six months away. The endorsement severed the longstanding friendship between the Browns and Rupert and his wife, Wendi, a development that one person with knowledge of the family dynamics said upset Rupert deeply. The reversal also made News International a willing political combatant, a status that seemed only to embolden its critics when the hacking crisis broke. Indeed, a major force in the revolt against News International has been Tom Watson, a member of Parliament and a loyal Brown ally. It was in his role as head of the newspaper division that James approved a 2008 settlement with Gordon Taylor, head of an organization representing Britain’s professional soccer players, over allegations of voice mail hacking. That settlement is now at the center of a significant public dispute between James and two former News Corporation executives in London, who offer a conflicting account of events leading to the payment. The executives claim that they had informed James that the voice mail hacking went beyond the work of a lone “rogue” reporter and a private investigator that the company had acknowledged at the time. If that was the case, then law enforcement could argue that the settlement was intended as an attempt to buy the silence of victims, which legal experts say could provide the basis for British prosecutors to pursue criminal charges. James has forcefully denied their assertion, saying the men did not tell him about a broader pattern of phone hacking. Some who know him have suggested that the most he is guilty of is listening to advisers who told him the settlement would be less costly than a court fight. “James is one of those guys who, unlike his father, trusts his advisers,” said Alan Sugar, a British entrepreneur who sold his electronics manufacturing business to BSkyB. Moving to New York James, whose family is firmly established in London, has yet to comply with his father’s order to relocate to New York. He visits the headquarters on Sixth Avenue in Manhattan typically once a month. And when he is there he works from a visitor’s office on the side of the eighth floor occupied by Dow Jones managers, not the side where his father and other News Corporation executives have their offices. His new office, which he plans to occupy more regularly by the end of the year, will be a couple of doors down from his father and outfitted with the same kind of standing desk he has in Wapping. Sitting while working, he believes, is inefficient. In March he bought a townhouse on the Upper East Side for $23 million. His longtime friend Jesse Angelo, who now edits News Corporation’s tablet-only newspaper The Daily, signed the property transfer for him through a limited liability corporation, helping to mask the sale. He declined a $6 million bonus this year, and has been keeping a low profile around London. Most Murdoch watchers say they believe the top job is still his to lose among his siblings. Lachlan is said by friends to be perfectly happy in Australia, the first time in his career he has been truly out of his father’s shadow. Elisabeth, the older sister, returned to the company this year after News Corporation acquired her television production company Shine in April. She runs her part of the business not from Wapping but from Shine’s offices across town. Because she was not part of the company when the phone hacking took place, and changed her mind about becoming a member of the board this summer, she remains more removed from News Corporation’s trouble than her brothers. “She very elegantly or ruthlessly created a definitive separation for herself,” said a person who has known her for years, speaking on the condition of anonymity to protect their relationship. The person said that Elisabeth was “very competitive with her brothers,” but was skeptical whether she would push for the top job, speculating that she instead might prefer a top creative position supervising the entertainment units. Rupert’s eldest child, his daughter Prudence, is not involved in the company. Short-term plans call for Chase Carey, the chief operating officer, to take over for Mr. Murdoch whenever he departs. But for a company where the belief in the immortality of the chief executive is almost sacrosanct, James might be waiting a while if his career survives intact. “Can you detoxify the company without de-Murdochizing, or is something more fundamental needed?” said Mathew Horsman, who has covered News Corporation and the Murdochs for two decades, first as a journalist and now as director of Mediatique, a consulting firm in London. “Even though Rupert is often criticized for running his company like a fiefdom, there is a custodial role he must play,” he added. “And he realizes that. So I don’t know if succession can involve a clean anointment of a Murdoch.” Bill Carter contributed reporting.

News Corp Knew of WSJ Circulation Issue-Report By REUTERS October 18, 2011 (Reuters) - News Corp was made aware of plans to boost the circulation numbers of Wall Street Journal Europe almost a year before its publisher resigned at the height of the company's phone-hacking scandal, a Bloomberg report said, citing a former employee and internal documents. Les Hinton, the former CEO of News Corp's unit that publishes Wall Street Journal in Europe and Todd Larsen, president of the Dow Jones & Co unit, were alerted to the plans, the report said, citing former circulation manager Gert Van Mol and emails he provided to Bloomberg News. News Corp and Dow Jones were not available immediately for comment. (Reporting by Vidya L Nathan in Bangalore)

[Poster's note: It may be rewarding to read the comments appended at the end of the article. To do so, click on the link below.] Oswald spied on group to save JFK, alleged lover says By sonia verma From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Published Monday, Oct. 17, 2011 9:54PM EDT Last updated Monday, Oct. 17, 2011 11:29PM EDT http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/oswald-spied-on-group-to-save-jfk-alleged-lover-says/article2204391/ 40 comments In the spring of 1963, Judyth Vary Baker worked with Lee Harvey Oswald at Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans, starting their jobs on the exact same day. Ms. Baker says it was also the start of something much larger: a steamy summer-long love affair with Mr. Oswald that ended when the accused assassin of president John F. Kennedy was ultimately shot dead. Her story, described in a 600-page book entitled Me & Lee: How I came to know, love and lose Lee Harvey Oswald, offers a detailed account of her romance with Mr. Oswald and what she says was a plan to save the president’s life gone awry. Ms. Baker, now almost 70, is visiting Toronto on what would have been Mr. Oswald’s 72nd birthday Tuesday in an attempt to clear his name. Why have you chosen this moment to publicize your story? I am sick of the lies that have been told about Lee. I saw the film JFK. I saw Lee was still being blamed. I realized I had to speak out. I lay out the evidence on the bed. I knelt down, I prayed to God. How in the world could I tell people this and stay alive? I shook from head to foot I was so scared. Also, early on I was told I would get a lot of money if I would say that Lee Oswald did kill Kennedy. I had refused. Later, I decided to write the book. I was going to give it to my son and. hopefully. after I died he would publish it. But then I realized he didn’t know a darn thing about what was real and what was not. I had to do this myself. And why do it in Toronto? I can’t go to the United States for my family’s safety and for mine. I’m hopeful that people will hear my story and understand that Lee was actually someone that tried to save the president. What does your family think of you and your story? One of my sons isn’t talking to me. He thinks I might have helped Lee kill the president. Who do you believe assassinated JFK? A coup occurred in the United States by people who wanted to get rid of Kennedy because they thought he was no good. Oswald was similarly demonized. They tried to say he was a lone nut. I am telling you he was someone who liked people, who loved children and cared about his country. Take us back to the beginning. How did you first meet Lee Harvey Oswald? I was 19. He was 23. He had a pretty wife, a young child and had penetrated the Soviet Union as a spy. I met him in New Orleans. There was chemistry between us. We both had miserable marriages. We became lovers. I could play chess and knew some Russian and resembled his wife. I cared about my country desperately, like he did. Nobody cared about America’s safety and the president more than he did. Lee Harvey Oswald was a spy, but you claim you also became involved in a CIA plot to kill Fidel Castro. What was your role? I was working on a project that was sponsored by the CIA. I didn’t know it at the time. The idea was to inject Castro with a cancer-causing material and we actually isolated this material. The lab that I was working in – in an apartment – was actually part of a CIA ring of laboratories. After the plot to kill Castro failed, the focus shifted to JFK? The same teams that hated Castro hated Kennedy. Oswald knew if they couldn’t kill Castro in time that they would turn and kill Kennedy. Oswald decided to penetrate this group as a spy. He was invited to be among the group that was to literally shoot Kennedy. He was not a good shot. He suspected he was being set up. You maintained your silence for many years. Why? I saw Lee shot to death on television. Mary Sherman was involved with me in the cancer-research project. She was violently murdered the very day the Warren Commission came to New Orleans asking who wants to talk about the Kennedy assassination. Of course nobody who legitimately knew what was going on dared say a thing after you saw Mary’s body – set on fire, stabbed and her right arm missing. Why should people believe you? What’s not to say you are somebody who is intelligent, but duplicitous, and concocted a very detailed story? Why would I have given up my career and family and life when all I had to say was “Lee Oswald did it” and I’d be a rich woman? I loved him. I am going public with this story because of love. This interview has been edited and condensed.

October 18, 2011 Meet the “Lower Manhattan Security Initiative” Wall Street Firms Spy on Protestors In Tax-Funded Center by PAM MARTENS A CounterPunch Exclusive www.counterpunch.org Wall Street’s audacity to corrupt knows no bounds and the cooptation of government by the 1 per cent knows no limits. How else to explain $150 million of taxpayer money going to equip a government facility in lower Manhattan where Wall Street firms, serially charged with corruption, get to sit alongside the New York Police Department and spy on law abiding citizens. According to newly unearthed documents, the planning for this high tech facility on lower Broadway dates back six years. In correspondence from 2005 that rests quietly in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s archives, NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly promised Edward Forst, a Goldman Sachs’ Executive Vice President at the time, that the NYPD “is committed to the development and implementation of a comprehensive security plan for Lower Manhattan…One component of the plan will be a centralized coordination center that will provide space for full-time, on site representation from Goldman Sachs and other stakeholders.” At the time, Goldman Sachs was in the process of extracting concessions from New York City just short of the Mayor’s first born in exchange for constructing its new headquarters building at 200 West Street, adjacent to the World Financial Center and in the general area of where the new World Trade Center complex would be built. According to the 2005 documents, Goldman’s deal included $1.65 billion in Liberty Bonds, up to $160 million in sales tax abatements for construction materials and tenant furnishings, and the deal-breaker requirement that a security plan that gave it a seat at the NYPD’s Coordination Center would be in place by no later than December 31, 2009. The surveillance plan became known as the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative and the facility was eventually dubbed the Lower Manhattan Security Coordination Center. It operates round-the-clock. Under the imprimatur of the largest police department in the United States, 2,000 private spy cameras owned by Wall Street firms, together with approximately 1,000 more owned by the NYPD, are relaying live video feeds of people on the streets in lower Manhattan to the center. Once at the center, they can be integrated for analysis. At least 700 cameras scour the midtown area and also relay their live feeds into the downtown center where low-wage NYPD, MTA and Port Authority crime stoppers sit alongside high-wage personnel from Wall Street firms that are currently under at least 51 Federal and state corruption probes for mortgage securitization fraud and other matters. In addition to video analytics which can, for example, track a person based on the color of their hat or jacket, insiders say the NYPD either has or is working on face recognition software which could track individuals based on facial features. The center is also equipped with live feeds from license plate readers. According to one person who has toured the center, there are three rows of computer workstations, with approximately two-thirds operated by non-NYPD personnel. The Chief-Leader, the weekly civil service newspaper, identified some of the outside entities that share the space: Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, the Federal Reserve, the New York Stock Exchange. Others say most of the major Wall Street firms have an on-site representative. Two calls and an email to Paul Browne, NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Public Information, seeking the names of the other Wall Street firms at the center were not returned. An email seeking the same information to City Council Member, Peter Vallone, who chairs the Public Safety Committee, was not returned. In a press release dated October 4, 2009 announcing the expansion of the surveillance territory, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly had this to say: “The Midtown Manhattan Security Initiative will add additional cameras and license plate readers installed at key locations between 30th and 60th Streets from river to river. It will also identify additional private organizations who will work alongside NYPD personnel in the Lower Manhattan Security Coordination Center, where corporate and other security representatives from Lower Manhattan have been co-located with police since June 2009. The Lower Manhattan Security Coordination Center is the central hub for both initiatives, where all the collected data are analyzed.” [italic emphasis added.] The project has been funded by New York City taxpayers as well as all U.S. taxpayers through grants from the Federal Department of Homeland Security. On March 26, 2009, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) wrote a letter to Commissioner Kelly, noting that even though the system involves “massive expenditures of public money, there have been no public hearings about any aspect of the system…we reject the Department’s assertion of ‘plenary power’ over all matters touching on public safety…the Department is of course subject to the laws and Constitution of the United States and of the State of New York as well as to regulation by the New York City Council.” The NYCLU also noted in its letter that it rejected the privacy guidelines for the surveillance operation that the NYPD had posted on its web site for public comment, since there had been no public hearings to formulate these guidelines. It noted further that “the guidelines do not limit police surveillance and databases to suspicious activity…there is no independent oversight or monitoring of compliance with the guidelines.” According to Commissioner Kelly in public remarks, the privacy guidelines were written by Jessica Tisch, the Director of Counterterrorism Policy and Planning for the NYPD who has played a significant role in developing the Lower Manhattan Security Coordination Center. In 2006, Tisch was 25 years old and still working on her law degree and MBA at Harvard, according to a wedding announcement in the New York Times. Tisch is a friend to the Mayor’s daughter, Emma; her mother, Meryl, is a family friend to the Mayor. Tisch is the granddaughter and one of the heirs to the now-deceased billionaire Laurence Tisch who built the Loews Corporation. Her father, James Tisch, is now the CEO of the Loews Corporation and was elected by Wall Street banks to sit on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York until 2013 representing the public’s interest. (Clearly, the 1 per cent think they know what’s best for the 99 per cent.) The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the entity which doled out the bulk of the $16 trillion in bailout loans to the U.S. and foreign financial community. Members of Tisch’s family work for Wall Street firms or hedge funds which have prime broker relationships with them. A division of Loews Corporation has a banking relationship with Citigroup. The Tisch family stands to directly benefit from the surveillance program. In June of this year, Continental Casualty Company, the primary unit of the giant CNA Financial which is owned by Loew’s Corp., signed a 19-year lease for 81,296 square feet at 125 Broad Street – an area under surveillance by the downtown surveillance center. Loews Corporation also owns the Loew’s Regency Hotel on Park Avenue in midtown, an area which is also now under round-the-clock surveillance on the taxpayer’s dime. Wall Street is infamous for perverting everything it touches: from the Nasdaq stock market, to stock research issued to the public, to auction rate securities, mortgages sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, credit default swaps with AIG, and mortgage securitizations. Had a public hearing been held on this massive surveillance sweep of Manhattan by potential felons, hopefully someone might have pondered what was to prevent Wall Street from tracking its employee whistleblowers heading off to the FBI offices or meeting with a reporter. One puzzle has at least been solved. Wall Street’s criminals have not been indicted or sent to jail because they have effectively become the police. Pam Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years. She spent the last decade of her career advocating against Wall Street’s private justice system, which keeps its crimes shielded from public courtrooms. She has been writing on public interest issues for CounterPunch since retiring in 2006. She has no security position, long or short, in any company mentioned in this article. She can be reached at pamk741@aol.com See Related Article: Financial Giants Put New York City Cops On Their Payroll http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/10/financial-giants-put-new-york-city-cops-on-their-payroll/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOxVCjULiIQ Richard Hoagland states his case for Elenin on coasttocoastam on October 16, 2011, despite the guest moderator acting as a near total dunderhead during the interview. We won't know until late November whether Hoagland's Elenin thesis has any validity. He has tied Elenin's appearance to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations that are taking place around the globe.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/17/national/main20121387.shtml

Crispin Odey fears over Sky chairman’s US move James Murdoch faces fresh questions over his position as chairman of BSkyB after one of his key backers admitted that his imminent move to America could make him too “hands-off”. Hedge fund manager Crispin Odey has a 2.7pc share of BSkyB. Daily Telegraph 8:30PM BST 15 Oct 2011 Mr Murdoch has come under heavy fire over his position, amid fears that his involvement in the News of the World phone-hacking row will take its toll on the broadcaster, and that the Murdoch family, which owns 39pc of BSkyB, exerts too much control. Crispin Odey, the hedge fund manager who has a 2.7pc share of BSkyB and is one of Mr Murdoch’s strongest champions, has now expressed fears that the furore will make Mr Murdoch too distant from BSkyB. “There has to be a risk with all this [shareholder anger]. If he’s a bit too non-executive, we’ll see about that, I hope he’s up to it,” he told The Sunday Telegraph ahead of the broadcaster’s first quarter results next Wednesday. Asked if he thought Mr Murdoch was looking forward to moving to the US in his role as deputy chief operating officer of News Corporation, Mr Odey added: “That’s what I worry about actually, that he might be over there too much.” Analysts expect a strong set of results despite the lack of Premiership football driving demand during the first quarter. Consensus figures project a slight increase in revenues from £1.53bn to £1.63bn, and adjusted earnings before interest and tax of £287m. Laurie Davison and Mark Braley at Deutsche Bank predicted a “dull” increase of around 2.6pc in BSkyB’s pay-TV customers while telephony line rental and broadband were likely to push its average revenue per user up by around 5pc. 1 comment cohonescaramba Today 10:19 AM Talk about angry shareholders... The next crash-candidate is Sky Deutchland. The company is quickly running out of money and has enormous debt to service. The burn rate is frightening and they may even loose the right to broadcast the important Bundesliga if they don't have a strong enough balance sheet to be credible and pay up for the renewal rights. This might be Murdochs next headache as he has kept SkyD alive so far with capital increases and shareholder loans. It will be an interesting thriller to watch already in the next month or so perhaps. SkyD will have no more cash in the beginning of next year and still have an enormous debt burden and a scary burn rate... But maybe James Murdoch will guarantee a new capital increase like he did last year

How Petraeus Fueled the Plot The CIA and the Iran Caper by RAY McGOVERN www.counterpunch.org October 14-16, 2011 Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, in his accustomed role as unofficial surrogate CIA spokesman, has thrown light on how the CIA under its new director, David Petraeus, helped craft the screenplay for this week’s White House spy feature: the Iranian-American-used-car-salesman-Mexican-drug-cartel plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. In Thursday’s column, Ignatius notes that, initially, White House and Justice Department officials found the story “implausible.” It was. But the Petraeus team soon leapt to the rescue, reflecting the four-star-general-turned-intelligence-chief’s deep-seated animus toward Iran. Before Ignatius’s article, I had seen no one allude to the fact that much about this crime-stopper tale had come from the CIA. In public, the FBI had taken the lead role, presumably because the key informant inside a Mexican drug cartel worked for U.S. law enforcement via the Drug Enforcement Administration. However, according to Ignatius, “One big reason [top U.S. officials became convinced the plot was real] is that CIA and other intelligence agencies gathered information corroborating the informant’s juicy allegations and showing that the plot had support from the top leadership of the elite Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the covert action arm of the Iranian government.” Ignatius adds that, “It was this intelligence collected in Iran” that swung the balance, but he offers no example of what that intelligence was. He only mentions a recorded telephone call on Oct. 4 between Iranian-American cars salesman Mansour Arbabsiar and his supposed contact in Iran, Gholam Shakuri, allegedly an official in Iran’s Quds spy agency. The call is recounted in the FBI affidavit submitted in support of the criminal charges against Arbabsiar, who is now in U.S. custody, and Shakuri, who is not. But the snippets of that conversation are unclear, discussing what on the surface appears to be a “Chevrolet” car purchase, but which the FBI asserts is code for killing the Saudi ambassador. Without explaining what other evidence the CIA might have, Ignatius tries to further strengthen the case by knocking down some of the obvious problems with the allegations, such as “why the Iranians would undertake such a risky operation, and with such embarrassingly poor tradecraft.” “But why the use of Mexican drug cartels?” asks Ignatius rhetorically, before adding dutifully: “U.S. officials say that isn’t as implausible as it sounds.” But it IS as implausible as it sounds, says every professional intelligence officer I have talked with since the “plot” was somberly announced on Tuesday. The Old CIA Pros There used to be real pros in the CIA’s operations directorate. One — Ray Close, a longtime CIA Arab specialist and former Chief of Station in Saudi Arabia — told me on Wednesday that we ought to ask ourselves a very simple question: “If you were an Iranian undercover operative who was under instructions to hire a killer to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington, D.C., why in HELL would you consider it necessary to explain to a presumed Mexican [expletive deleted] that this murder was planned and would be paid for by a secret organization in Iran? “Whoever concocted this tale wanted the ‘plot’ exposed … to precipitate a major crisis in relations between Iran and the United States. Which other government in the Middle East would like nothing better than to see those relations take a big step toward military confrontation?” If you hesitate in answering, you have not been paying attention. Many have addressed this issue. My last stab at throwing light on the Israel/Iran/U.S. nexus appeared ten days ago in “Israel’s Window to Bomb Iran.” Another point on the implausibility meter is: What are the odds that Iran’s Quds force would plan an unprecedented attack in the United States, that this crack intelligence agency would trust the operation to a used-car salesman with little or no training in spycraft, that he would turn to his one contact in a Mexican drug cartel who happens to be a DEA informant, and that upon capture the car salesman would immediately confess and implicate senior Iranian officials? Wouldn’t it make more sense to suspect that Arbabsiar might be a double-agent, recruited by some third-party intelligence agency to arrange some shady business deal regarding black-market automobiles, get some ambiguous comments over the phone from an Iranian operative, and then hand the plot to the U.S. government on a silver platter – as a way to heighten tensions between Washington and Teheran? That said, there are times when even professional spy agencies behave like amateurs. And there’s no doubt that the Iranians – like the Israelis, the Saudis and the Americans – can and do carry out assassinations and kidnappings in this brave new world of ours. Remember, for instance, the case of Islamic cleric Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, who was abducted off the streets of Milan, Italy, on Feb. 17, 2003, and then flown from a U.S. air base to Egypt where he was imprisoned and tortured for a year. In 2009, Italian prosecutors convicted 23 Americans, mostly CIA operatives, in absentia for the kidnapping after reconstructing the disappearance through their unencrypted cell phone records and their credit card bills at luxury hotels in Milan. Then, there was the suspected Mossad assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh at a hotel in Dubai on Jan. 19, 2010, with the hit men seen on hotel video cameras strolling around in tennis outfits and creating an international furor over their use of forged Irish, British, German and French passports. So one cannot completely rule out that there may conceivably be some substance to the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador. And beyond the regional animosities between Saudi Arabia and Iran, there could be a motive – although it has been absent from American press accounts – i.e. retaliation for the assassinations of senior Iranian nuclear scientists and generals over the last couple of years within Iran itself. But there has been close to zero real evidence coming from the main source of information — officials of the Justice Department, which like the rest of the U.S. government has long since forfeited much claim to credibility. Petraeus’s ‘Intelligence’ on Iran The public record also shows that former Gen. Petraeus has long been eager to please the neoconservatives in Washington and their friends in Israel by creating “intelligence” to portray Iran and other target countries in the worst light. One strange but instructive example comes to mind, a studied, if disingenuous, effort to blame all the troubles in southern Iraq on the “malignant” influence of Iran. On April 25, 2008, Joint Chiefs Chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, told reporters that Gen. Petraeus in Baghdad would give a briefing “in the next couple of weeks” providing detailed evidence of “just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability.” Petraeus’s staff alerted U.S. media to a major news event in which captured Iranian arms in Karbala would be displayed and then destroyed. Oops. Small problem. When American munitions experts went to Karbala to inspect the alleged cache of Iranian weapons, they found nothing that could be credibly linked to Iran. At that point, adding insult to injury, the Iraqis announced that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had formed his own Cabinet committee to investigate the U.S. claims and attempt to “find tangible information and not information based on speculation.” Ouch! The Teflon-clad Petraeus escaped embarrassment, as the David Ignatiuses of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) conveniently forgot all about the promised-then-canceled briefing. U.S. media suppression of this telling episode is just one example of how difficult it is to get unbiased, accurate information on touchy subjects like Iran into the FCM. As for Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama, some adult adviser should tell them to quit giving hypocrisy a bad name with their righteous indignation over the thought that no civilized nation would conduct cross-border assassinations. The Obama administration, like its predecessor, has been dispatching armed drones to distant corners of the globe to kill Islamic militants, including recently U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki for the alleged crime of encouraging violence against Americans. Holder and Obama have refused to release the Justice Department’s legal justification for the targeted murder of al-Awlaki whose “due process” amounted to the President putting al-Awlaki’s name on a secret “kill-or-capture” list. Holder and Obama have also refused to take meaningful action to hold officials of the Bush administration accountable for war crimes even though President George W. Bush has publicly acknowledged authorizing waterboarding and other brutal techniques long regarded as acts of torture. Who can take at face value the sanctimonious words of an attorney general like Holder who has acquiesced in condoning egregious violations of the Bill of Rights, the U.S. criminal code, and international law — like the International Convention Against Torture? Were shame not in such short supply in Official Washington these days, one would be amazed that Holder could keep a straight face, accusing these alleged Iranian perpetrators of “violating an international convention.” America’s Founders would hold in contempt the Holders and the faux-legal types doing his bidding. The behavior of the past two administrations has been more reminiscent of George III and his sycophants than of James Madison, George Mason, John Jay and George Washington, who gave us the rich legacy of a Constitution, which created a system based on laws not men. That Constitution and its Bill of Rights have become endangered species at the hands of the craven poachers at “Justice.” No less craven are the functionaries leading today’s CIA. What to Watch For If Petraeus finds it useful politically to conjure up more “evidence” of nefarious Iranian behavior in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, Lebanon or Syria, he will. And if he claims to see signs of ominous Iranian intentions regarding nuclear weapons, watch out. Honest CIA analysts, like the ones who concluded that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in late 2003 and had not resumed that work, are in short supply, and most have families to support and mortgages to pay. Petraeus is quite capable of marginalizing them, or even forcing them to quit. I have watched this happen to a number of intelligence officials under a few of Petraeus’s predecessors. More malleable careerists can be found in any organization, and promoted, so long as they are willing to tell more ominous — if disingenuous — stories that may make more sense to the average American than the latest tale of the Iraninan-American-used-car-salesman-Mexican-drug-cartel-plot. This can get very dangerous in a hurry. Israel’s leaders would require but the flimsiest of nihil obstat to encourage them to provoke hostilities with Iran. Netanyahu and his colleagues would expect the Obamas, Holders, and Petraeuses of this world to be willing to “fix the intelligence and facts” (a la Iraq) to “justify” such an attack. The Israeli leaders would risk sucking the United States into the kind of war with Iran that, short of a massive commitment of resources or a few tactical nuclear weapons, the U.S. and Israel could almost surely not win. It would be the kind of war that would make Iraq and Afghanistan look like minor skirmishes. Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 year. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is a contributor to Imperial Crusades: Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair (Verso). He can be reached at: rrmcgovern@gmail.com. A version of this article first appeared on Consortiumnews.com.

News Corp faces revolt by quarter of shareholders Advisory bodies and campaigners urge investors to oppose up to 13 of media firm's 15 directors amid phone-hacking allegations By Jill Treanor guardian.co.uk, Friday 14 October 2011 13.58 EDT Up to 25% of shareholders are expected to protest against Rupert, James and Lachlan Murdoch retaining their positions on the News Corporation board at the embattled media group's annual meeting in Los Angeles next week. A string of advisory bodies and corporate governance campaigners have issued recommendations to vote against up to 13 directors on the 15-strong board, the composition of which has been the subject of shareholder concern for some time. The phone-hacking allegations have further focused investors on the structure of the board – where there are concerns about the limited power and influence of independent directors. Rupert Murdoch is both chairman and chief executive, which is reasonably common in the US but often unpopular with UK-based investors. The Murdochs control around 39% of the votes at the company, which means the directors would not be voted off even though they own just 12% of the company, because of the complex share structure. Hermes Equity Ownership Services, which votes on behalf of the BT pension fund and other investors, became the latest shareholder advisory service to advise its clients not to support all the directors on the NewsCorp board. Explaining its decision to withhold support from five directors – Rupert, James and Lachlan Murdoch, Arthur Siskind and Andrew Knight – Jennifer Walmsley, director of Hermes EOS, said: "News Corp has not reacted with sufficient urgency to investor concerns about its board composition and corporate culture. "The time is right for the company to appoint an independent chairman to rebuild trust, help correct the governance discount, and ensure that the interests of all investors are properly represented," she said. The firm, along with others, is considering sending a representative to the meeting in Los Angeles where a small shareholder, Christian Brothers Investment Services, intends to table a resolution from the floor calling for Murdoch to split his role of chairman and chief executive. Industry sources believe that opposition to the directors could reach 25%, given the array of other investor bodies and advisory agencies that have also made recommendations to oppose directors."It is possible we could see a significant protest vote of 25% or so," one source said. Other comments have been made by the following bodies: • The Local Authority Pension Fund Forum (LAPFF) wants Rupert and James Murdoch to be replaced by former British Airways boss Sir Rod Eddington. • Pirc, the UK advisory service, is advising a vote against 11 directors. • The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) wants Rupert Murdoch to be replaced as chairman by someone "genuinely independent". • Calsters – the California State Teachers' Retirement System, one of the largest public sector pension funds in the US – has already voted against 13 directors on the News Corp board. Well-known US advisory firms are also recommending voting against the Murdochs. Glass Lewis, which advises institutions holding $15tn (£9.6tn) worth of investments, has recommended that investors vote against the re-election of James and Lachlan Murdoch, while Institutional Shareholder Services, a major advisory agency for shareholders, has recommended voting against 13 of directors on the News Corp board. News Corp said it "vehemently disagrees" with advice from the advisory firms about failing to back its directors and pointed to its strong fiscal performance for 2011, with revenues up 2% to $33.4bn and operating profit up 23% to $4.85bn. The company also stressed that it had a "strong board of directors". "Our slate of director nominees consists of sophisticated, world-class directors who serve to enhance our board of directors … We disagree with recommendations that stockholders should vote against our directors. We respectfully request that stockholders vote for all directors as the board has recommended," News Corp said.

News Corp. Hits a Bump as Investors Prepare to Meet The New York Times By AMY CHOZICK and TANZINA VEGA October 13, 2011 The European edition of The Wall Street Journal accounts for less than 1 percent of total business at its parent company, the News Corporation. But the controversy this week over an unorthodox circulation deal that resulted in the resignation of the newspaper’s publisher could carry outsize influence among investors already concerned about ethical practices at the company, analysts said Thursday. The revelation of another journalistic lapse at News Corporation — though minor compared with the phone hacking scandal in Britain — further complicates matters for the leadership at News Corporation as it prepares for its annual shareholder meeting next Friday. “No news of impropriety at News Corporation is a blip when they’re under such scrutiny,” said Doug Creutz, a senior research analyst at the Cowen Group. “This adds to the general question of how the company is being run.” He pointed to several independent investor advisory groups that have recently recommended that shareholders vote against some members of the News Corporation board, “especially those whose name ends in Murdoch,” he said. Rupert Murdoch is the chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, and his sons James and Lachlan, have large roles in the company. The scrutiny on the company increased on Thursday when the bureau that audits newspaper sales in Britain said it was reviewing new information about The Wall Street Journal Europe’s circulation arrangement that could lead to further investigation. Under the deal, The Journal used a third party to channel money to a Dutch consulting firm, which bought thousands of copies of The Journal each day for as little as one euro cent (1.37 American cents). The practice helped bolster The Journal’s subscription rate in Europe. The publisher of The Wall Street Journal Europe, Andrew Langhoff, resigned on Tuesday after an internal investigation revealed that the circulation deal also led to an agreement that provided the Dutch company, Executive Learning Partnership, with two positive articles in exchange for its financial support. “We have always been transparent with the A.B.C., and they have certified this program over recent reporting periods,” Dow Jones & Company, which owns The Journal, said in a statement, using an acronym to refer to the circulation auditing agency in Britain. “We plan to meet with them soon and review all the details with them again.” The incident at The Wall Street Journal Europe also puts the spotlight on how newspapers report circulation numbers, which are crucial to determining how much publications can charge for advertisements. At a time when the industry is struggling, many newspapers rely on heavily discounted copies to prop up circulation numbers. Last year, the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the regulatory agency in the United States, added a new category on how publications should report copies that are sold to schools, bought by businesses for their employees, or bought in bulk by third parties, like advertisers, which include promotional inserts or wraps and distribute the copies free. The new category, called “verified,” is separate from paid circulation totals that include home delivery and newsstand sales. Michael J. Lavery, the president and managing director of the Audit Bureau, said the popularity of the third party bulk sales that are considered verified had waned over the last several reporting cycles. He said the bureau no longer included third-party sales as a paid category that could determine advertising rates. “There are other distribution channels that helped media buyers and advertisers get their message to their target audiences,” Mr. Lavery said, citing new programs, like Sunday Select by the Gannett newspaper division, where nonsubscribers could opt to have advertising circulars delivered to them directly. The New York Times does have third-party agreements but does not include those sales in its report to the bureau, the company said Thursday. Around 9 percent of The New York Times’s print and digital circulation of 917,000 comes from verified subscriptions, though that figure does not include Web site subscriptions. Dow Jones said that in the six months that ended in March, 26,687 of The Wall Street Journal’s print and digital United States circulation of 2.1 million — which does include Web subscribers — came from verified papers or copies distributed inexpensively at places like universities. News Corporation has invested in The Journal’s foreign editions in Europe and Asia with the hopes of gaining a stronger international presence. But expanding The Wall Street Journal Europe has proved tough, and the paper’s circulation, even with tens of thousands of papers sold cheaply in bulk, has remained flat at around 75,000 since 2008, according to the British audit bureau. The New York Times Company’s overseas edition, The International Herald Tribune, distributed globally, had a daily circulation last year of 217,700, according to a Times spokeswoman, Eileen Murphy. She did not immediately have information on third-party agreements by the I.H.T. The paper, based in Paris and audited by the French circulation bureau, accounts for 28 percent of its circulation through subscriptions, 16.5 percent on newsstands and sells heavily to hotels and airlines. “The I.H.T. does not engage in unethical practices with regard to our circulation or any other part of our business,” said Stephen Dunbar-Johnson, the paper’s publisher. “We would never enter any commercial contract that puts our journalistic integrity at risk.” Mr. Langhoff took over at The Wall Street Journal Europe in 2009. During his tenure the paper engaged in aggressive marketing tie-ins. In 2008, it established “Future Leadership Institute” seminars for students. The Dutch firm, Executive Learning Partnership, sponsored the events through which thousands of copies of the Journal were given out. “Any suggestion that E.L.P. was involved in a scheme to artificially boost the circulation of W.S.J.E. is not based on facts, not in line with the ethical standards of E.L.P.,” Nick Van Heck, a partner at Executive Learning Partnership., wrote Thursday in an e-mail. Still, comparing circulation practices to phone-hacking is “apples to oranges,” said Barton Crockett, director and senior media analyst at Lazard Capital Markets. “All sorts of magazines and newspapers boost circulation,” Mr. Crockett said. “You can’t expect that the board of directors would be auditing circulation practices at The Wall Street Journal Europe at a company the size of News Corporation.” Eric Pfanner contributed reporting. This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Correction: October 13, 2011 An earlier version of this article misstated the price of the discounted papers. It was one euro cent, or 1.37 American cents, not $1.37.

Pension Investor to Vote Against Murdochs on News Corp. Board The New York Times By JULIA WERDIGIER October 14, 2011 LONDON – Hermes Equity Ownership Services, which represents British Telecom and other large pension funds, said Friday it planned to vote against the re-election of Rupert Murdoch and his sons to News Corporation’s board at next week’s shareholder meeting. Hermes EOS, indirectly owned by the BT pension scheme, Britain’s largest, said News Corporation’s directors failed to react to concerns about the composition of the board. The institutional investors also raised concerns that calls for an independent investigation into corporate governance and the culture at the media conglomerate went ignored, following the phone hacking scandal at one of its publications were also ignored. Jennifer Walmsley, director of Hermes EOS, said she had a number of meetings with the independent directors of the board to discuss the demands but that they have “not reacted with sufficient urgency.” Hermes EOS, which represents about 0.5 percent of News Corp., plans to withhold support for Rupert Murdoch, his sons, James and Lachlan Murdoch, as well as Arthur Siskind and Andrew Knight. “They’ve made some very minor changes to the board so far, which is rather a tinkering around the edges,” Mrs. Walmsley said. “To know why the change isn’t happening, you only have to look at the composition of the board.” “Members are either family members, owe their position to a relationship with the family or are somehow linked to the family,” she said. “We want to see family members and affiliated directors to be replaced.” It’s a sign of the mounting pressure on the board. On Monday, Institutional Shareholder Services, a major investor advisory firm, recommended Monday that investors vote against the vast majority of the company’s board at the shareholder meeting on Oct. 21. Still, such efforts may not have much sway. Mr. Murdoch, who is the company’s chairman and chief executive, controls about 40 percent of the voting shares. Concerns about the management grew after the phone-hacking scandal in Britain that has led to the arrests of several News Corporation executives earlier this year. Institutional Shareholder Services criticized ”a striking lack of stewardship and failure of independence by a board whose inability to set a strong tone-at-the-top about unethical business practices has now resulted in enormous costs — financial, legal, regulatory, reputational and opportunity – for the shareholders the board ostensibly serves.” Additional revelations this week of a controversial circulation deal at the media company’s Wall Street Journal Europe that lead to the resignation of the newspaper’s publisher were just the latest proof that an independent investigation into all of News Corporation was needed, Mrs. Walmsley of Hermes EOS said.

Joan Smith: Press freedom and decent values can go together Phone hacking is a symptom of a bullying aggressive newsroom culture The Independent Friday, 14 October 2011 The British press is the finest in the world. The British press has gone a bit wrong, but all that's needed is a few tweaks to sort the whole thing out. Alternatively, the real fault lies with the Prime Minister, who set up a public inquiry to divert attention from his own bad judgement in hiring Andy Coulson. I'm not endorsing any of these arguments, you understand. I'm summarising what I've heard during two days of seminars organised by Lord Justice Leveson, before his inquiry gets properly under way. To give you a flavour of the proceedings, here's former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie: "God help me that free speech comes down to the thought process of a judge who couldn't win when prosecuting counsel against Ken Dodd for tax evasion... It's that bad." Free speech. Ah yes, we all believe in that, don't we? I certainly do, and I know plenty of journalists who've suffered at the hands of repressive foreign regimes while trying to exercise their right to free expression; for four years I chaired the English PEN Writers in Prison Committee, which allowed me to hear harrowing stories of beatings and torture in Iran, Syria, Vietnam and too many other countries to mention. If you had arrived at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre in Westminster from Mars to take part in the Leveson seminars, what I've just said might surprise you. The outbreak of high-mindedness marks a sensational change in the priorities of the popular press; suddenly everyone is talking about the horrors endured by journalists in Zimbabwe, as though those of us who are the least bit critical of tabloid culture are itching to impose a regulatory regime as oppressive as Robert Mugabe's. Actually, I'm delighted the Daily Mail occasionally writes about Zimbabwe but I don't think I'm about to see a rash of stories in the popular press about forced labour camps in Uzbekistan. Back on planet Earth, matters look a little different. It's not just that MacKenzie's throwaway remark about free speech comes from a man whose paper had to apologise for its shameful coverage of the Hillsborough disaster in 1989. Let's not forget that led to a condemnation by the Press Complaints Commission, a boycott of The Sun on Merseyside, and a belated front-page apology for "the most terrible mistake" in its history. It's that all the impassioned talk about free expression, condemnations of "criminality" at the News of the World and debates aboutmedia regulation have been a diversion from the real story. Phone hacking is bad enough in itself, whether it happened in one "rogue" newsroom – the current red-top defence – or was a great deal more widespread. But it's also a symptom of a wider malaise in certain sections of the press: the existence of a bullying, aggressive newsroom culture that's forgotten that stories are about living, breathing and sometimes vulnerable people. I made this point at the first Leveson seminar and since then two distinguished tabloid journalists have told me my anxieties are shared in the popular press. A former tabloid reporter, Richard Peppiatt, told the Leveson inquiry that tabloid newsrooms "are often bullying and aggressive environments". I suspect they're also very macho, and that women have to subscribe to the prevailing insensitivity if they want to get on in that world. The phone-hacking scandal shows how easy it has become for unscrupulous reporters to assemble stories at arm's length; some victims of phone hacking by the News of the World had no idea they were under surveillance, or that their voicemails had been intercepted, until they were approached by officers from the Metropolitan Police this year. How extensive this spying operation has turned out to be is illustrated by my own experience: I'm hardly a major public figure but in May I met two officers from Operation Weeting and was shown photocopies of pages Mulcaire compiled about me and my then boyfriend as long ago as 2004. I can recall the symptoms of shock as I realised the surveillance had begun shortly after a devastating tragedy in my partner's family. Lord Leveson has designated me a "core participant" in his inquiry, and I've begun proceedings against the News of the World's parent company for breach of privacy. The scandal goes way beyond interception of voicemail messages. I suspect that psychologists would describe what happens in some newsrooms as "depersonalisation", an attitude that strips crime victims, celebrities and people like myself of humanity. Technology has undoubtedly made it easier to collect personal information from social networking sites where the unwary – Amanda Knox, for instance, who has lived to regret mentioning her nickname "Foxy Knoxy" – place trivial but damaging snippets about themselves. But the result is that popular newspapers are full of caricatures, two-dimensional figures whose own mothers would barely recognise them. This isn't an argument for state regulation or licensing of the press; it's about the need for a change in the values that inform the behaviour of too many reporters and editors. Listening to Kelvin MacKenzie this week, I couldn't help thinking he embodies everything that's wrong with tabloid newsrooms. This is a big ask for Leveson, but I just hope his inquiry can restore some of the compassion and ethics that brought many of us into journalism in the first place. www.politicalblonde.com