John Simkin

The arrest is most likely a ruse to prevent her questioning mentioned by John, above. It is extremely suspicious and unlikely the previously inept Met suddenly found evidence with which to hold Brooks.

There will be no domino effect as the impact is too far reaching.

The arrest of someone by appointment on a Sunday by the police has never taken place before. The police have made it virtuall impossible to get any questions out of Rebekah Brooks on Tuesday's session in Parliament. It seems that the current investigation is also part of the cover-up.

It will also be interesting who replaces Paul Stephenson. It should of course be someone from outside the Met. However, I suspect it will be another compromised insider who will continue the cover-up.

People who are following this case are very excited about the televised grilling from a parliamentary select committee on Tuesday. Rupert Murdoch is a very poor performer in these kind of situations. He is being briefed this weekend by lawyers and a public relations expert who helped salvage the reputation of American chat show host David Letterman when he was blackmailed over a series of affairs with work colleagues. The media mogul has drafted in Steven Rubenstein to offer advice on how best to present himself during the hearing on Tuesday. Murdoch is also being briefed by Dan Tench, one of the UK's leading media lawyers. Next week's parliamentary hearing, taking place in the Boothroyd room, is set to be a moment of high drama watched by millions.

The group of journalists who have been working on the case have suggested the following questions for Rebekah Brooks, James and Rupert Murdoch

Questions for Rebekah Brooks

1) As editor of the Sun and NoW, did you honestly not know about phone hacking, when so many of your reporters and executives say it was openly discussed in the newsroom?

2) If not, who was checking the source or veracity of the material on which Sun and NoW stories were based? Was it the legal department? If not, why not?

3) Did you ever see any transcripts of voicemail messages?

4) In November 2002 you were personally confronted by senior Scotland Yard officers with evidence that a Metropolitan Police detective was being targeted by your newspaper acting on behalf of murder suspects. What action did you take as a result of that meeting?

5) After this meeting, you knew that private investigators with criminal backgrounds were employed by your newspaper. What did you do to or stop, or at least monitor, this?

6) In 2003, you admitted paying police officers but were interrupted in your explanation by your deputy, Andy Coulson. Would you now like to explain how many police officers your newspapers paid, when you paid them, and why?

7) On 10 July, you wrote to John Whittingdale saying that the Guardian had "deliberately misled the British public" in its report saying that News International had paid Gordon Taylor and others £1m in damages and costs over phone hacking. Why did you say that and would you like to withdraw it?

8) Why, as the CEO of a major British company, did you refuse to come and give evidence to a committee of the House of Commons? Did that not show contempt for parliamentary democracy?

9) How often did you meet (formally and socially) David Cameron in the year before he became prime minister?

10) How often have you met him (formally and socially) since?

11) Did you ever at any stage privately brief David Cameron and/or Andy Coulson on material NI reporters were gathering?

12) If so, was any of this information from illegally obtained material?

13) How often have you met (formally or informally) Dick Fedorcio, the head of press at Scotland Yard? Is it correct that you have had dinners with him?

14) How was it possible for the NoW to be employing private investigators without your knowledge? Did you not have control or sight of your own editorial budget?

15) Have you seen any evidence that Sara Payne's voicemail messages were hacked by the NoW or Sun? Did you persuade Sara Payne not to complain about this?

16) Can you give your account of the conversations that preceded your decision to publish the fact that Gordon and Sarah Brown's son, Fraser, was suffering from cystic fibrosis?

Was the source a health worker or the relative of a health worker? Was the source paid for the story?

17) Did the former prime minister, then chancellor of the exchequer, welcome having his son's medical condition revealed in your newspaper?

18) Why was it necessary to close down a profitable newspaper?

19) What did you mean when you told staff that there were worse revelations to come? What are these revelations?

20) Are you remaining on the NI payroll and continuing as an employee of the company?

Questions for James Murdoch

1) Why did you pay £1m in damages and costs to Gordon Taylor and others in 2009 and seal the evidence? Would you agree that this could be described as "hush money"?

2) On whose advice did you make this decision?

3) Why did you agree the payoff to Max Clifford? Is it right that the value of this was £1m? Is it fair to describe this as "hush money"?

4) Why didn't you make a clean breast of what was discovered in the spring of 2009 instead of covering it up?

5) You have said this decision was based on "incomplete information". What further information would have made these payments right?

6) Was evidence of criminality concealed at any time from:

The News Corp board?

The NI board?

Parliament?

Police?

The PCC?

7) Are you aware of section 79 of RIPA which can be used to prosecute any director showing "consent, connivance or neglect" of offences relating to interception of communications?

8) The Guardian story of 9 July 2009 showed that the "one rotten apple" story NI had stuck to for three years was untrue – and known by then within NI to be untrue. Why did you issue a statement denying it?

9) Did you read the full email evidence upon which the May 2007 report from Harbottle & Lewis was based? Those emails, according to the advice of a former DPP, Ken MacDonald, are believed to contain evidence of possible illegal activity by staff.

10) Why, in 2007, didn't you take the action that Will Lewis is said to have taken in 2011 in relation to the evidence upon which the Harbottle & Lewis report was based?

11) Why did it take at least four years for the significance of these emails to become evident – and why did the company sit on the evidence before handing it over to the police?

12) The Metropolitan Police's former head of counter terrorism, Peter Clarke, has said of NI's behaviour: "This is a major global organisation with access to the best legal advice deliberately trying to thwart a criminal investigation. [it offered] prevarication and what we now know to be lies." Is that a fair description of how your company behaved towards the police? Until 2011?

13) If it was right for Andy Coulson, Les Hinton and Rebekah Brooks to resign, even though they denied knowledge of what happened on their watch, why is the same not true for you?

Questions for Rupert Murdoch

1) When did you become aware of the 2009 payments authorised by your son James to buy the silence of people whose voicemails had been hacked by NI employees?

2) It is understood the value of these payments was in the region of £2m. Which News Corp executives or board members knew about them?

3) Were News Corp's audit committee, board or general counsel made aware of these payments? If not, why not? Should they have been?

4) When previously unknown evidence of criminality within your company becomes known to senior executives isn't it their responsibility to inform the police and regulators rather than try to cover it up?

5) What do you now think of your son's decision to try to conceal this evidence of criminality with secret payments rather than inform the appropriate law and regulatory authorities?

6) The Guardian's story of 9 July 2009 exposed these payments and the fact that the "lone rotten apple" theory within your company was wrong. What action did you and/or the News Corp board take as a result of this story?

7) Once it became publicly known in July 2009 that more than one reporter had been involved in illegal practices did it not concern anyone within News Corp that they had been misled?

8) Did the News Corp general counsel not read the email evidence upon which the 2007 Harbottle & Lewis report commissioned by NI was based? If he did, why did he miss the material which led to the emails being handed over to the police four years later?

9) Do you agree with the evidence of the senior police officer who told MPs last week that your company had "deliberately tried to thwart" a criminal investigation… "with prevarication and ... lies"?

10) How could a company which obstructs the police and misleads Parliament and regulators be considered a fit and proper company to run a media organisation?

11) Do you agree that the actions of your company between the beginning of 2009 and the end of 2010 could be termed a cover-up?

12) You apologised in every newspaper at the weekend. But in your own Wall Street Journal last week you said you and your fellow executives had handled the crisis "very well… with just a few minor mistakes". Is that still your view? What were those mistakes?

13) Does News Corp ever use security/corporate intelligence companies in its business dealings?

14) Have you ever personally seen or been aware of material derived from the accessing of intercepted communications?

15) In your negotiations with the Wall Street Journal shareholders did you have any access or intelligence supplied by external security companies?

16) If it was right for Andy Coulson, Les Hinton and Rebekah Brooks to resign, even though they denied knowledge of what happened on their watch, why is the same not true for you?

One of the factors that makes a good JFK researcher is the ability to ask the right questions. People who are following this case are very excited about the televised grilling from a parliamentary select committee on Tuesday. Rupert Murdoch is a very poor performer in these kind of situations. He is being briefed this weekend by lawyers and a public relations expert who helped salvage the reputation of American chat show host David Letterman when he was blackmailed over a series of affairs with work colleagues. The media mogul has drafted in Steven Rubenstein to offer advice on how best to present himself during the hearing on Tuesday. Murdoch is also being briefed by Dan Tench, one of the UK's leading media lawyers. Next week's parliamentary hearing, taking place in the Boothroyd room, is set to be a moment of high drama watched by millions.

The group of journalists who have been working on the case have suggested the following questions for Rebekah Brooks, James and Rupert Murdoch

Questions for Rebekah Brooks

1) As editor of the Sun and NoW, did you honestly not know about phone hacking, when so many of your reporters and executives say it was openly discussed in the newsroom?

2) If not, who was checking the source or veracity of the material on which Sun and NoW stories were based? Was it the legal department? If not, why not?

3) Did you ever see any transcripts of voicemail messages?

4) In November 2002 you were personally confronted by senior Scotland Yard officers with evidence that a Metropolitan Police detective was being targeted by your newspaper acting on behalf of murder suspects. What action did you take as a result of that meeting?

5) After this meeting, you knew that private investigators with criminal backgrounds were employed by your newspaper. What did you do to or stop, or at least monitor, this?

6) In 2003, you admitted paying police officers but were interrupted in your explanation by your deputy, Andy Coulson. Would you now like to explain how many police officers your newspapers paid, when you paid them, and why?

7) On 10 July, you wrote to John Whittingdale saying that the Guardian had "deliberately misled the British public" in its report saying that News International had paid Gordon Taylor and others £1m in damages and costs over phone hacking. Why did you say that and would you like to withdraw it?

8) Why, as the CEO of a major British company, did you refuse to come and give evidence to a committee of the House of Commons? Did that not show contempt for parliamentary democracy?

9) How often did you meet (formally and socially) David Cameron in the year before he became prime minister?

10) How often have you met him (formally and socially) since?

11) Did you ever at any stage privately brief David Cameron and/or Andy Coulson on material NI reporters were gathering?

12) If so, was any of this information from illegally obtained material?

13) How often have you met (formally or informally) Dick Fedorcio, the head of press at Scotland Yard? Is it correct that you have had dinners with him?

14) How was it possible for the NoW to be employing private investigators without your knowledge? Did you not have control or sight of your own editorial budget?

15) Have you seen any evidence that Sara Payne's voicemail messages were hacked by the NoW or Sun? Did you persuade Sara Payne not to complain about this?

16) Can you give your account of the conversations that preceded your decision to publish the fact that Gordon and Sarah Brown's son, Fraser, was suffering from cystic fibrosis?

Was the source a health worker or the relative of a health worker? Was the source paid for the story?

17) Did the former prime minister, then chancellor of the exchequer, welcome having his son's medical condition revealed in your newspaper?

18) Why was it necessary to close down a profitable newspaper?

19) What did you mean when you told staff that there were worse revelations to come? What are these revelations?

20) Are you remaining on the NI payroll and continuing as an employee of the company?

Questions for James Murdoch

1) Why did you pay £1m in damages and costs to Gordon Taylor and others in 2009 and seal the evidence? Would you agree that this could be described as "hush money"?

2) On whose advice did you make this decision?

3) Why did you agree the payoff to Max Clifford? Is it right that the value of this was £1m? Is it fair to describe this as "hush money"?

4) Why didn't you make a clean breast of what was discovered in the spring of 2009 instead of covering it up?

5) You have said this decision was based on "incomplete information". What further information would have made these payments right?

6) Was evidence of criminality concealed at any time from:

The News Corp board?

The NI board?

Parliament?

Police?

The PCC?

7) Are you aware of section 79 of RIPA which can be used to prosecute any director showing "consent, connivance or neglect" of offences relating to interception of communications?

8) The Guardian story of 9 July 2009 showed that the "one rotten apple" story NI had stuck to for three years was untrue – and known by then within NI to be untrue. Why did you issue a statement denying it?

9) Did you read the full email evidence upon which the May 2007 report from Harbottle & Lewis was based? Those emails, according to the advice of a former DPP, Ken MacDonald, are believed to contain evidence of possible illegal activity by staff.

10) Why, in 2007, didn't you take the action that Will Lewis is said to have taken in 2011 in relation to the evidence upon which the Harbottle & Lewis report was based?

11) Why did it take at least four years for the significance of these emails to become evident – and why did the company sit on the evidence before handing it over to the police?

12) The Metropolitan Police's former head of counter terrorism, Peter Clarke, has said of NI's behaviour: "This is a major global organisation with access to the best legal advice deliberately trying to thwart a criminal investigation. [it offered] prevarication and what we now know to be lies." Is that a fair description of how your company behaved towards the police? Until 2011?

13) If it was right for Andy Coulson, Les Hinton and Rebekah Brooks to resign, even though they denied knowledge of what happened on their watch, why is the same not true for you?

Questions for Rupert Murdoch

1) When did you become aware of the 2009 payments authorised by your son James to buy the silence of people whose voicemails had been hacked by NI employees?

2) It is understood the value of these payments was in the region of £2m. Which News Corp executives or board members knew about them?

3) Were News Corp's audit committee, board or general counsel made aware of these payments? If not, why not? Should they have been?

4) When previously unknown evidence of criminality within your company becomes known to senior executives isn't it their responsibility to inform the police and regulators rather than try to cover it up?

5) What do you now think of your son's decision to try to conceal this evidence of criminality with secret payments rather than inform the appropriate law and regulatory authorities?

6) The Guardian's story of 9 July 2009 exposed these payments and the fact that the "lone rotten apple" theory within your company was wrong. What action did you and/or the News Corp board take as a result of this story?

7) Once it became publicly known in July 2009 that more than one reporter had been involved in illegal practices did it not concern anyone within News Corp that they had been misled?

8) Did the News Corp general counsel not read the email evidence upon which the 2007 Harbottle & Lewis report commissioned by NI was based? If he did, why did he miss the material which led to the emails being handed over to the police four years later?

9) Do you agree with the evidence of the senior police officer who told MPs last week that your company had "deliberately tried to thwart" a criminal investigation… "with prevarication and ... lies"?

10) How could a company which obstructs the police and misleads Parliament and regulators be considered a fit and proper company to run a media organisation?

11) Do you agree that the actions of your company between the beginning of 2009 and the end of 2010 could be termed a cover-up?

12) You apologised in every newspaper at the weekend. But in your own Wall Street Journal last week you said you and your fellow executives had handled the crisis "very well… with just a few minor mistakes". Is that still your view? What were those mistakes?

13) Does News Corp ever use security/corporate intelligence companies in its business dealings?

14) Have you ever personally seen or been aware of material derived from the accessing of intercepted communications?

15) In your negotiations with the Wall Street Journal shareholders did you have any access or intelligence supplied by external security companies?

16) If it was right for Andy Coulson, Les Hinton and Rebekah Brooks to resign, even though they denied knowledge of what happened on their watch, why is the same not true for you?

Rupert Murdoch donated $1m to a pro-business lobby in the US months before the group launched a high-profile campaign to alter the anti-bribery law – the same law that could potentially be brought to bear against News Corporation over the phone-hacking scandal.

News Corporation contributed $1m to the US Chamber of Commerce last summer. In October the chamber put forward a six-point programme for amending the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, a law that punishes US-based companies for engaging in the bribery of foreign officials.

------

Very interesting John. What is your source, as I would like to post about it. Also do we have any comparison with previous contributions between Murdoch and Chamber , if any?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/14/hacking-murdoch-paid-us-lobbyists

isn't Murdoch's stake in Sky News at least 35% already?

39%. Still a controlling interest, but he wanted the full 100%. Seems he's pulled out of that now, with all the mounting criticisms on him, his companies, and the people employed therein.

The rumour is that Richard Branston will try to buy BSkyB.

isn't Murdoch's stake in Sky News at least 35% already?

39%. Still a controlling interest, but he wanted the full 100%. Seems he's pulled out of that now, with all the mounting criticisms on him, his companies, and the people employed therein.

The rumour is that Richard Branston will try to buy BSkyB.

Rupert Murdoch donated $1m to a pro-business lobby in the US months before the group launched a high-profile campaign to alter the anti-bribery law – the same law that could potentially be brought to bear against News Corporation over the phone-hacking scandal.

News Corporation contributed $1m to the US Chamber of Commerce last summer. In October the chamber put forward a six-point programme for amending the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, a law that punishes US-based companies for engaging in the bribery of foreign officials.

An interesting new development in the case. Yesterday the police arrested ex-News of the World executive Neil Wallis in the phone-hacking case. It emerged last night that Wallis was paid £1,000 a day by the Metropolitan police and advised Sir Paul Stephenson, the Met commissioner, and assistant commissioner John Yates during a period when the Yard rejected calls for the reopening of a criminal investigation into the interception of voicemails.

Neil Wallis, deputy editor of the paper under Andy Coulson when it was alleged to have been engaged in mass acts of phone hacking, was employed him as a part-time adviser on "strategic communications".

Before the news came out, Stephenson had defended himself in front of the Metropolitan police authority over his dining with News International executives, including Wallis. Stephenson omitted to mention Wallis's employment with the Met, angering MPA members.

The Met said Wallis was employed from October 2009 to September 2010 on a part-time basis. During this time the Yard was saying there was no need to reopen the phone-hacking investigation, a decision made by Yates in July 2009 despite allegations in the Guardian that the first police investigation had been inadequate.

One senior Met insider told the Guardian: "The commissioner thought if the prime minister is happy employing Andy Coulson, and Neil Wallis has bid the lowest price, what reason would we have not to employ him?"

Steve Richards: Now we know who runs the country

We need to know a lot more about the activities of bankers, business leaders, civil servants, police, and the media

The Independent

Thursday, 14 July 2011

Similarly, only now is more intense scrutiny being applied to the activities of the Metropolitan Police and the quality of some of its senior staff. The accountability of the police is highly sensitive and complex, but some senior figures in the Metropolitan Police have sheltered under convoluted lines of scrutiny. Both the Mayor of London and the Home Office have theoretical powers, while police retain operational independence. In fairness, the head of the Metropolitan Police is a public figure and extensively scrutinised, but it was alarming to watch the Home Affairs Committee interview a former assistant commissioner, Andy Hayman, and a current holder of that rank, John Yates. How did such cocky mediocrities rise to senior posts, ones that gave them responsibilities for handling the threat of terrorism? No elected minister would get so far up the Cabinet in the way that unimpressive duo rose up the hierarchy of the police. The media and parliamentary scrutiny would have exposed their different flaws long ago. Yates wields more power than most ministers, and Hayman used to.

See this video of Nick Davies on the police who has led the investigation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/video/2011/jul/12/phone-hacking-nick-davies-select-committee

Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation has just announced that it is dropping its planned bid to take full ownership of BSkyB.

When I was a teacher I often had to deal with bullying. I always told the child who was being bullied, that the bully is always a coward. My advice was to look them in the eye, stand upright, and tell them what you think of the situation you find yourself in. It is advice that I have used myself, especially against senior members of the organisation I was in. If they are a bully, they will always backdown and unlikely to cause you any trouble.

Rupert Murdoch and his editors are all bullies. They are also cowards and have been unwilling to go before the various parliamentary committees that have been investigating this affair.

Murdoch is in the same position that Joseph McCarthy was in when he was taken on by Joseph Nye Welch on live television. You can see this episode on my webpage on McCarthy. Just look at McCarthy's face at the end of the clip. This marked the end of his power (unfortunately, some of the things he developed, including the blacklist, remained in place).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthy.htm

I believe that Murdoch is in the same position as McCarthy was in on 9th June, 1954.

When I was a teacher I often had to deal with bullying. I always told the child who was being bullied, that the bully is always a coward. My advice was to look them in the eye, stand upright, and tell them what you think of the situation you find yourself in. It is advice that I have used myself, especially against senior members of the organisation I was in. If they are a bully, they will always backdown and unlikely to cause you any trouble.

Rupert Murdoch and his editors are all bullies. They are also cowards and have been unwilling to go before the various parliamentary committees that have been investigating this affair.

Murdoch is in the same position that Joseph McCarthy was in when he was taken on by Joseph Nye Welch on live television. You can see this episode on my webpage on McCarthy. Just look at McCarthy's face at the end of the clip. This marked the end of his power (unfortunately, some of the things he developed, including the blacklist, remained in place).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthy.htm

I believe that Murdoch is in the same position as McCarthy was in on 9th June, 1954.

I wasn't following the Murdoch Mob until they decided to do away with a hundred year old media institution because of some phone hacking.

It just didn't make sense.

Why not fire those who did it?

It's also a crime to do that so why weren't they prosecuted.

You need to read this thread for the answer to this question:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14556

Closing the News of the World does make economic sense. Because of the internet campaign, virtually every major corporation announced it would not advertise in the newspaper. It is impossible to make a profit from newspapers without advertising. As the Times and the Sunday Times, also now implicated in dirty tricks against the Labour government, do not make a profit, they will also probably be closed down. It is also questionable whether the Sun can continue in this mood. You really have to be living in Britain to understand the current feelings against Murdoch and his newspapers.

It is a shame that most members of the Forum, with the notable exception of Doug Caddy, who very early noticed its significance, have shown little evidence of being interested in the thread on Rubert Murdoch (although page views show it has been very popular with non-members). The thread was started in July 2009. Here we have an example of where we are getting dramatic political change because of a media investigation. Much of this has been the result of internet campaigns. I believe this is far more important than Watergate, as this was an investigation that was carefully managed by the power elite.

http://educationforu...showtopic=14556

There are also close connections with another thread, "The Corruption of New Labour: Britain's Watergate". Started on 20th March 2006. This story was also suppressed by the media bosses (our own Operation Mockingbird). They have even used the same man to carry out the investigation of Rupert Murdoch/Tony Blair (John Yates). This thread has also largely been ignored by members, but not non-members (83,125 Views).

http://educationforu...?showtopic=6382

I wonder if JFK assassination researchers have taken a look at the way that people have used the internet to get the truth into the public domain. One of the interesting things is that people from a wide variety of different background, anarchists to mumsnet, are bringing down Murdoch. Could JFK researchers do the same?

John,

Online and private discussions have been ongoing about this very thing. We are looking to involve a lot of different groups and organizations in our campaign.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/203775696333877?ap=1

This group was started by someone going through hell in earth-quake ravaged New Zealand. That is REAL commitment.

http://educationforu...?showtopic=6382

I have applied to join the group.

Andy Hayman was the Metropolitan Police Service's Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations. He was put in charge of the initial inquiry into the News of the World phone hacking affair. Ken Macdonald, was head of the Crown Prosecution Service during this period. Together they decided that only members of the royal family, who had their phones hacked, should have their cases taken to court and it was not worth investigating the list of over 5,000 people who had their phones hacked. Within months of retiring, both men were working for News International, the owners of the News of the World.

An extremely important interview with Gordon Brown currently taking place on the BBC at the momment. More later on what he says about the way Murdoch influenced government policy.

You can watch the interview here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14119225

An extremely important interview with Gordon Brown currently taking place on the BBC at the momment. More later on what he says about the way Murdoch influenced government policy.

The home affairs committee resumes its hearings on Tuesday into phone hacking with four past and present Scotland Yard chiefs. First up is assistant commissioner John Yates, who decided in 2009 that the Met did not need to reopen its phone-hacking investigation, which had closed two years earlier after gaining two convictions. This is the same John Yates who was in charge of the investigation into Tony Blair. If he was under the control of Rupert Murdoch, no wonder he could find no evidence to prosecute Tony Blair.

It is a shame that most members of the Forum, with the notable exception of Doug Caddy, who very early noticed its significance, have shown little evidence of being interested in the thread on Rubert Murdoch (although page views show it has been very popular with non-members). The thread was started in July 2009. Here we have an example of where we are getting dramatic political change because of a media investigation. Much of this has been the result of internet campaigns. I believe this is far more important than Watergate, as this was an investigation that was carefully managed by the power elite.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14556

There are also close connections with another thread, "The Corruption of New Labour: Britain's Watergate". Started on 20th March 2006. This story was also suppressed by the media bosses (our own Operation Mockingbird). They have even used the same man to carry out the investigation of Rupert Murdoch/Tony Blair (John Yates). This thread has also largely been ignored by members, but not non-members (83,125 Views).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6382

I wonder if JFK assassination researchers have taken a look at the way that people have used the internet to get the truth into the public domain. One of the interesting things is that people from a wide variety of different background, anarchists to mumsnet, are bringing down Murdoch. Could JFK researchers do the same?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6382

Here is a good article by George Monbiot on the importance of what is happening:

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/07/11/a-hippocratic-oath-for-journalists/

Is Murdoch now finished in the UK? As the pursuit of Gordon Brown by the Sunday Times and the Sun blows the hacking scandal into new corners of the old man's empire, this story begins to feel like the crumbling of the Berlin Wall. The naked attempt to destroy Brown by any means, including hacking the medical files of his sick baby son, means that there is no obvious limit to the story's ramifications.

The scandal radically changes public perceptions of how politics works, the danger corporate power presents to democracy, and the extent to which it has compromised and corrupted the Metropolitan police, who have now been dragged in so deep they are beginning to look like Murdoch's private army. It has electrified a dozy parliament and subjected the least accountable and most corrupt profession in Britain – journalism – to belated public scrutiny.

The cracks are appearing in the most unexpected places. Look at the remarkable admission by the rightwing columnist Janet Daley in this week's Sunday Telegraph. "British political journalism is basically a club to which politicians and journalists both belong," she wrote. "It is this familiarity, this intimacy, this set of shared assumptions … which is the real corruptor of political life. The self-limiting spectrum of what can and cannot be said … the self-reinforcing cowardice which takes for granted that certain vested interests are too powerful to be worth confronting. All of these things are constant dangers in the political life of any democracy."

Most national journalists are embedded, immersed in the society, beliefs and culture of the people they are meant to hold to account. They are fascinated by power struggles among the elite but have little interest in the conflict between the elite and those they dominate. They celebrate those with agency and ignore those without.

But this is just part of the problem. Daley stopped short of naming the most persuasive force: the interests of the owner and the corporate class to which he belongs. The proprietor appoints editors in his own image – who impress their views on their staff. Murdoch's editors, like those who work for the other proprietors, insist that they think and act independently.

It's a lie exposed by the concurrence of their views (did all 247 News Corp editors just happen to support the invasion of Iraq?), and blown out of the water by Andrew Neil's explosive testimony in 2008 before the Lords select committee on communications.

The papers cannot announce that their purpose is to ventriloquise the concerns of multimillionaires; they must present themselves as the voice of the people. The Sun, the Mail and the Express claim to represent the interests of the working man and woman. These interests turn out to be identical to those of the men who own the papers.

So the rightwing papers run endless exposures of benefit cheats, yet say scarcely a word about the corporate tax cheats. They savage the trade unions and excoriate the BBC. They lambast the regulations that restrain corporate power. They school us in the extrinsic values – the worship of power, money, image and fame – which advertisers love but which make this a shallower, more selfish country. Most of them deceive their readers about the causes of climate change. These are not the obsessions of working people. They are the obsessions thrust upon them by the multimillionaires who own these papers.

The corporate media is a gigantic astroturfing operation: a fake grassroots crusade serving elite interests. In this respect the media companies resemble the Tea Party movement, which claims to be a spontaneous rising of blue-collar Americans against the elite but was founded with the help of the billionaire Koch brothers and promoted by Murdoch's Fox News.

Journalism's primary purpose is to hold power to account. This purpose has been perfectly inverted. Columnists and bloggers are employed as the enforcers of corporate power, denouncing people who criticise its interests, stamping on new ideas, bullying the powerless. The press barons allowed governments occasionally to promote the interests of the poor, but never to hamper the interests of the rich. They also sought to discipline the rest of the media. The BBC, over the last 30 years, became a shadow of the gutsy broadcaster it was, and now treats big business with cringing deference. Every morning at 6.15, the Today programme's business report grants executives the kind of unchallenged access otherwise reserved for God on Thought for the Day. The rest of the programme seeks out controversy and sets up discussions between opponents, but these people are not confronted by their critics.

So what can be done? Because of the peculiar threat they present to democracy there's a case to be made for breaking up all majority interests in media companies, and for a board of governors, appointed perhaps by Commons committee, to act as a counterweight to the shareholders' business interests.

But even if that's a workable idea, it's a long way off. For now, the best hope might be to mobilise readers to demand that journalists answer to them, not just their proprietors. One means of doing this is to lobby journalists to commit themselves to a kind of Hippocratic oath. Here's a rough stab at a first draft. I hope others can improve it. Ideally, I'd like to see the National Union of Journalists building on it and encouraging its members to sign.

'Our primary task is to hold power to account. We will prioritise those stories and issues which expose the interests of power. We will be wary of the relationships we form with the rich and powerful, and ensure that we don't become embedded in their society. We will not curry favour with politicians, businesses or other dominant groups by withholding scrutiny of their affairs, or twisting a story to suit their interests.

"We will stand up to the interests of the businesses we work for, and the advertisers which fund them. We will never take money for promulgating a particular opinion, and we will resist attempts to oblige us to adopt one.

"We will recognise and understand the power we wield and how it originates. We will challenge ourselves and our perception of the world as much as we challenge other people. When we turn out to be wrong, we will say so."

I accept that this doesn't directly address the power relations that govern the papers. But it might help journalists to assert a measure of independence, and readers to hold them to it. Just as voters should lobby their MPs to represent them and not just the whips, readers should seek to drag journalists away from the demands of their editors. The oath is one possible tool that could enhance reader power.

If you don't like it, suggest a better idea. Something has to change: never again should a half a dozen oligarchs be allowed to dominate and corrupt the life of this country.

It is a shame that most members of the Forum, with the notable exception of Doug Caddy, who very early noticed its significance, have shown little evidence of being interested in the thread on Rubert Murdoch (although page views show it has been very popular with non-members). Here we have an example of where we are getting dramatic political change because of a media investigation. Much of this has been the result of internet campaigns. I believe this is far more important than Watergate, as this was an investigation that was carefully managed by the power elite.

Here is a good article by George Monbiot on the importance of what is happening:

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/07/11/a-hippocratic-oath-for-journalists/

Is Murdoch now finished in the UK? As the pursuit of Gordon Brown by the Sunday Times and the Sun blows the hacking scandal into new corners of the old man's empire, this story begins to feel like the crumbling of the Berlin Wall. The naked attempt to destroy Brown by any means, including hacking the medical files of his sick baby son, means that there is no obvious limit to the story's ramifications.

The scandal radically changes public perceptions of how politics works, the danger corporate power presents to democracy, and the extent to which it has compromised and corrupted the Metropolitan police, who have now been dragged in so deep they are beginning to look like Murdoch's private army. It has electrified a dozy parliament and subjected the least accountable and most corrupt profession in Britain – journalism – to belated public scrutiny.

The cracks are appearing in the most unexpected places. Look at the remarkable admission by the rightwing columnist Janet Daley in this week's Sunday Telegraph. "British political journalism is basically a club to which politicians and journalists both belong," she wrote. "It is this familiarity, this intimacy, this set of shared assumptions … which is the real corruptor of political life. The self-limiting spectrum of what can and cannot be said … the self-reinforcing cowardice which takes for granted that certain vested interests are too powerful to be worth confronting. All of these things are constant dangers in the political life of any democracy."

Most national journalists are embedded, immersed in the society, beliefs and culture of the people they are meant to hold to account. They are fascinated by power struggles among the elite but have little interest in the conflict between the elite and those they dominate. They celebrate those with agency and ignore those without.

But this is just part of the problem. Daley stopped short of naming the most persuasive force: the interests of the owner and the corporate class to which he belongs. The proprietor appoints editors in his own image – who impress their views on their staff. Murdoch's editors, like those who work for the other proprietors, insist that they think and act independently.

It's a lie exposed by the concurrence of their views (did all 247 News Corp editors just happen to support the invasion of Iraq?), and blown out of the water by Andrew Neil's explosive testimony in 2008 before the Lords select committee on communications.

The papers cannot announce that their purpose is to ventriloquise the concerns of multimillionaires; they must present themselves as the voice of the people. The Sun, the Mail and the Express claim to represent the interests of the working man and woman. These interests turn out to be identical to those of the men who own the papers.

So the rightwing papers run endless exposures of benefit cheats, yet say scarcely a word about the corporate tax cheats. They savage the trade unions and excoriate the BBC. They lambast the regulations that restrain corporate power. They school us in the extrinsic values – the worship of power, money, image and fame – which advertisers love but which make this a shallower, more selfish country. Most of them deceive their readers about the causes of climate change. These are not the obsessions of working people. They are the obsessions thrust upon them by the multimillionaires who own these papers.

The corporate media is a gigantic astroturfing operation: a fake grassroots crusade serving elite interests. In this respect the media companies resemble the Tea Party movement, which claims to be a spontaneous rising of blue-collar Americans against the elite but was founded with the help of the billionaire Koch brothers and promoted by Murdoch's Fox News.

Journalism's primary purpose is to hold power to account. This purpose has been perfectly inverted. Columnists and bloggers are employed as the enforcers of corporate power, denouncing people who criticise its interests, stamping on new ideas, bullying the powerless. The press barons allowed governments occasionally to promote the interests of the poor, but never to hamper the interests of the rich. They also sought to discipline the rest of the media. The BBC, over the last 30 years, became a shadow of the gutsy broadcaster it was, and now treats big business with cringing deference. Every morning at 6.15, the Today programme's business report grants executives the kind of unchallenged access otherwise reserved for God on Thought for the Day. The rest of the programme seeks out controversy and sets up discussions between opponents, but these people are not confronted by their critics.

So what can be done? Because of the peculiar threat they present to democracy there's a case to be made for breaking up all majority interests in media companies, and for a board of governors, appointed perhaps by Commons committee, to act as a counterweight to the shareholders' business interests.

But even if that's a workable idea, it's a long way off. For now, the best hope might be to mobilise readers to demand that journalists answer to them, not just their proprietors. One means of doing this is to lobby journalists to commit themselves to a kind of Hippocratic oath. Here's a rough stab at a first draft. I hope others can improve it. Ideally, I'd like to see the National Union of Journalists building on it and encouraging its members to sign.

'Our primary task is to hold power to account. We will prioritise those stories and issues which expose the interests of power. We will be wary of the relationships we form with the rich and powerful, and ensure that we don't become embedded in their society. We will not curry favour with politicians, businesses or other dominant groups by withholding scrutiny of their affairs, or twisting a story to suit their interests.

"We will stand up to the interests of the businesses we work for, and the advertisers which fund them. We will never take money for promulgating a particular opinion, and we will resist attempts to oblige us to adopt one.

"We will recognise and understand the power we wield and how it originates. We will challenge ourselves and our perception of the world as much as we challenge other people. When we turn out to be wrong, we will say so."

I accept that this doesn't directly address the power relations that govern the papers. But it might help journalists to assert a measure of independence, and readers to hold them to it. Just as voters should lobby their MPs to represent them and not just the whips, readers should seek to drag journalists away from the demands of their editors. The oath is one possible tool that could enhance reader power.

If you don't like it, suggest a better idea. Something has to change: never again should a half a dozen oligarchs be allowed to dominate and corrupt the life of this country.

Message from ANTHONY SUMMERS & ROBBYN SWAN:

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

The 9/11 book on which we’ve been laboring for the past five years is about to be published – on the milestone tenth anniversary of the attacks.

The U.S. edition, entitled:

THE ELEVENTH DAY: The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, comes from the Ballantine imprint of Random House next week - on July 19.

The U.K. edition, entitled:

THE ELEVENTH DAY: The Ultimate Account of 9/11 will come from Transworld on August 19.

We believe the book will stand as a record of what happened, correct wild – but widely credited – rumor, and reveal truths that officialdom has sought to conceal.

We shall be very grateful if our friends and colleagues would spread the word – or even buy a copy!

You can pre-order from Amazon now – as a hardback or on Kindle.

If you do, we promise not to be caught busking at Piccadilly Circus……

ANTHONY SUMMERS & ROBBYN SWAN

I have paid a heavy price for my attacks on Rupert Murdoch. ....

Is that something you can talk about.

I will contact you privately by email about this.

It has just been revealed that two days ago some individual purchased the domain names:

www.sunonsunday.co.uk

www.sunonsunday.com

I was just about to start a topic along the lines of News International today announced the Sun will now appeat 7 days a week.

It would seem from your post above all cynicism and scepticism is, as always with the Murdoch press, well deserved.

I have paid a heavy price for my attacks on Rupert Murdoch. However, it will not keep me quiet on the matter.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14556

Murdoch has been willing to close down the News of the World, the most profitable of all the newspapers he owns, but is unwilling to sack Rebekah Brooks, the editor of the newspaper when the phones were hacked of murder victims and their parents. Why? It makes no sense at all. Or does it? Is Rebekah Brooks blackmailing Murdoch? Is she threatening to tell the public that Murdoch knew all about the phone-hacking when it took place? If that is the case, Murdoch cannot possibly sack her.

As I have pointed out several times before, I believe David Cameron was blackmailed by Murdoch to employ Andy Coulson. Murdoch thought that this would ensure Cameron protected him and the News International empire from prosecution. I suspect that Cameron was recieving information on Labour politicians as a result of this phone-hacking. Will the full-story ever come out. Probably not but enough of it will to bring down News International.

Why was Ian Edmondson not interviewed by the police during their investigation (his name appeared on documents recovered from the private detective hacking the phones on behalf of Murdoch)? The News of the World case reveals corruption at the very top of the Metropolitan Police. The man who oversaw the original investigation and carried out the phoney review of the case, was John Yates, assistant commissioner. He also was in charge of the bungled Tony Blair, cash-for-honours investigation.

It is now clear that John Yates was in the pay of Rupert Murdoch. That is why he did not bring a case against the News of the World hackers. It is also probably the reason why he bungled Tony Blair's, cash-for-honours investigation. Yates will probably end up in prison. Unfortunately, Blair has probably got away with it.