Rupert Murdoch and the Corruption of the British Media

[Douglas Caddy]

Phone hacking: Police chief Andy Hayman paid for champagne dinners with News of the World journalists

The senior Scotland Yard officer accused of failing to fully investigate the phone hacking scandal enjoyed champagne dinners with News of the World journalists paid for using his Metropolitan Police corporate credit card.

The Daily Telegraph

By Robert Mendick, Chief reporter

7:30AM BST 24 Jul 2011

Andy Hayman, the former Met assistant commissioner, quit the police in 2007, a month after an investigation was launched into his expenses.

Mr Hayman spent £19,000 in two years on his corporate credit card and a further £2,000 on another credit card given to him by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo).

Two months after his resignation, he landed a job with News International, writing for The Times on security and terrorism.

The Sunday Telegraph understands his contract has been terminated in the wake of the phone hacking scandal.

Mr Hayman's spending sparked a secret investigation by Gwent police, whose findings have never been made public.

It is understood they include details of long lunches and dinners with News of the World journalists at a time when the newspaper was under investigation for phone hacking.

On one occasion he bought a £50 bottle of champagne which he drank with a News of the World reporter.

The arrangement is unusual because normally a journalist would pay to entertain a police contact - and not the other way around.

Details of Mr Hayman's extravagant entertaining are to be published in a book written by Peter Tickner, the Met Police's former Director of Internal Audit.

His inquiries into Mr Hayman's credit card bills - which added up to more than the rest of the Met's senior management board added together - sparked the inquiry that led to the officer's resignation in December 2007.

Mr Tickner told The Sunday Telegraph: "I was alarmed by the size of spending on Andy Hayman's corporate credit card and that is why I asked for a full explanation of his spending. I found out that a large amount was spent on alcohol on his card."

Mr Tickner told The Sunday Telegraph the corporate cards were issued to officers and were intended for use on assignments outside London, including overseas trips.

But Mr Tickner found much of Mr Hayman's spending was on entertaining colleagues and journalists in and around Scotland Yard.

He said officers were not supposed to drink on duty and that he was surprised by the amount of alcohol being claimed back on expenses by Mr Hayman.

Mr Hayman was also investigated over foreign trips taken with his then staff officer Heidi Tubby, who had spent a further £8,000 on her Acpo credit card.

Inspector Tubby, who was not under investigation, was Mr Hayman's staff officer in Norfolk when he was chief constable before taking up his job as assistant commissioner in charge of anti-terrorism.

Mr Tickner, in his forthcoming book - the Successful Frauditor's Casebook - writes: "It was patently clear to me that the senior officer had treated the Met's credit card as an accessory for whatever purpose he deemed fit, including buying food and alcohol for journalists and entertaining his management team at a restaurant at public expense where the cost of alcohol equalled the cost of food.

"In one twenty-four hour period, he had used the card on three separate occasions to buy alcohol.

"First, an evening meal for himself and his female staff officer away from London on official business, then the following lunchtime to buy alcohol and food at what I suspected was a farewell lunch for a member of his senior team.

"Finally, much later that same evening he had used the card to buy a bottle of champagne, although according to his official diary he was meeting a female journalist for a one-to-one briefing.

"It wasn't fraud but it certainly wasn't a proper use of public funds."

A committee of MPs last week castigated Mr Hayman for his handling of the initial phone hacking inquiry in 2005 to 2006 and for the evidence he gave to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

Mr Hayman oversaw the initial investigation into hacking of the mobile phones of Princes William and Harry, which led to the jailing of the News of the World's Royal reporter Clive Goodman and the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, who worked exclusively for the newspaper.

Mr Mulcaire's notebooks, containing 11,000 pages with the names of as many as 4,000 victims - including the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler - were seized by police in 2006 but never fully investigated at the time.

Last week, the Home Affairs Select Committee, in its report into hacking, concluded Mr Hayman's conduct during the investigation was "both unprofessional and inappropriate".

The committee, chaired by Keith Vaz, criticised "Andy Hayman's cavalier attitude towards his contacts with those in News International who were under investigation which, even if entirely above board, risked seriously undermining confidence in the impartiality of the police, and accuses him of deliberate prevarication in order to mislead the committee".

The Sunday Telegraph revealed last week how Mr Hayman had dined with the then editor and deputy editor of the News of the World at the height of the inquiry.

Both men Andy Coulson and Neil Wallis have since been arrested on suspicion of phone hacking.

But the full extent of his close relationship with news International journalists has never been made fully clear. Only some of the hospitality he enjoyed with journalists is declared in his official hospitality register.

Mr Hayman failed to return calls to the Sunday telegraph last week. But when he quit in 2007, he said he had been the victim of a series of "leaks and unfounded accusations" which he strongly refuted.

He has insisted that his relationship with News International played no role in the decision not to investigate other journalists at the newspaper.

News International has been accused of "deliberately thwarting" the original police inquiry, making it difficult for detectives to secure further convictions without its cooperation.

The phone hacking investigation was reopened in January, only after News International handed further emails to police, providing apparent proof that news hacking was not the preserve of a single 'rogue reporter'.

[Douglas Caddy]

Mystery ‘Murdoch Leaks’ site appears online

www.rawstory.com

By Kase Wickman

Monday, July 25th, 2011 -- 10:39 am

A site geared toward collecting anonymously sourced information about the phone hacking scandal surrounding Australian magnate Rupert Murdoch's media empire, News Corp., has appeared online. Thus far, Murdoch Leaks, as the site is titled, only has submission information displayed.

"With the recent phone hacking scandal surrounding Rupert Murdoch's News of the World and other aspects of his empire, it's become evident that the fourth estate has failed so it's time to invoke the fifth estate. And what is that? - It is You!" is written on the site, along with a Twitter link.

TechCrunch was the first site to notice the mysterious website's appearance, and theorized that it was another product of the LulzSec/Anonymous hacking collective. After all, a hacker associated with the group claims to have 4GB of incriminating emails from within Murdoch's news properties.

However, MurdochLeaks tweeted that "we have no boat," disassociating itself with LulzSec, which often portrays itself like sailors on a boat, traversing the internet, and sometimes refers to itself as "lulzboat."

In the group's Twitter bio, they claim to be "Making Rupert Murdoch, News Corp and News International accountable."

The site's domain name is registered via Cinipac, a German anonymous hosting service that shields the identity of whoever registered the site. The domain was registered July 13, and lists an address in Malaysia — one used often by Cinipac. A phone number with a Washington, D.C. area code is also listed on the domain registration. When called, the number goes directly to a recorded Cinipac message.

[Douglas Caddy]

Blog home Law Society worried phone hacking included lawyers' mobiles

Leading lawyers feel client information may have been intercepted after their names were found in Glenn Mulcaire's file

Guardian.

July 25, 2011

(Robbie Williams: Scotland Yard told his solicitor that a number of his clients were referred to in Glenn Mulcaire's documents. Photograph: Luke Macgregor/Reuters)

Now it's the turn of lawyers and the legal process to be sucked into the phone-hacking vortex. The Law Society has even suggested justice itself is under threat, implying messages could have been intercepted with the intention of influencing court cases.

Several prominent solicitors fear their mobile phones have been hacked. Some have been formally informed of the risk by police after detectives discovered their numbers among a private investigator's notes.

Graham Shear, of Berwin Leighton Paisner who has represented celebrities such as Robbie Williams and Jude Law, is one of those who has lodged a claim against the News of the World for damages over breach of privacy.

"In January this year I was contacted by senior officers in Operation Weeting [the Metropolitan police inquiry into phone hacking]," Shear said. "They told me that, contrary to what had been said previously, a number of my clients were referred to in documents from [Glenn] Mulcaire's file. My name was among them."

If messages had been intercepted, he said, it would have been a breach of confidential relationship with clients.

The media lawyer Mark Stephens expressed similar anxieties. "I asked [scotland Yard] if I'd been hacked - they came back to me in 90 minutes and said yes," he told Channel 4 News. "It confirmed my worst suspicions, that I was in Mulcaire's notebook. There is nothing I can do about it, but the important thing is to ascertain which client [was the target] so I can advise them. My concern is for them, not myself."

Mark Lewis, the solicitor who represented Gordon Taylor in the first settlement with the News of the World for phone hacking, may also have had his voicemails illegally accessed.

One barrister involved in media cases admitted he had been worried enough to check with the detectives to see if his mobile number was on the list. He had been relieved to be assured it was not.

In a statement, Des Hudson, the Law Society chief executive, said:

"Hacking into solicitors' phones would be very serious indeed, and we urge the police to carry out a full investigation. If hacking was carried out with the intention of undermining court action, it might well constitute an attempt to pervert the course of justice, which is a serious criminal offence.

"It is a shocking breach of the privacy of both solicitors and their clients. I will also be writing to Lord Justice Leveson [the judge leading the phone-hacking inquiry] asking him to investigate these allegations."

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has also launched an investigation into the role of other, unspecified lawyers "in events surrounding the News of the World phone-hacking scandal".

Antony Townsend, the authority's chief executive, said:

"The first step in this investigation is to obtain the evidence necessary to ensure a thorough investigation, using the powers we have under the Solicitors Act 1974. We will pursue our investigation vigorously and thoroughly, but emphasise that our inquiries are at an early stage, and that no conclusions have been reached about whether there may have been any impropriety by any solicitor."

The law firm Harbottle & Lewis, which reviewed emails from the accounts of Andy Coulson and others, is also expected to face questions from the culture, media and sports select committee.

The MPs have said they will be seeking an explanation for the firm's statement that it had not found "reasonable evidence" that senior editors were aware of phone hacking.

Harbottle and Lewis has, meanwhile, written to Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee, about phone hacking, saying that the firm is "free to explain the position in general terms, without commenting at all on the circumstances in question".

With such widespread suspicions, the habit of leaving messages on a mobile phone may soon become as obsolete as ink pots and quill pens

[Douglas Caddy]

Murdoch interview could have been tougher, admits WSJ special committee

Body that oversees paper's editorial integrity says it was slow to cover story, but is now making up with 'aggressive coverage'

By Jane Martinson

guardian.co.uk,

Monday 25 July 2011 18.42 BST

The Wall Street Journal "could have done a better job" when it published an interview with proprietor Rupert Murdoch in which he said News Corporation had made only "minor mistakes" in managing the phone-hacking scandal, according to the paper's special editorial committee.

In a report published in the Journal on Monday designed to answer critics of its phone-hacking coverage, the committee – set up when Murdoch bought the paper in 2007 – admitted that its journalists failed to cover the scandal as promptly as its rivals. It also offered criticism of a one-sided interview earlier this month, just 24 hours before News Corp lost two of its most senior newspaper executives, including Les Hinton, who was responsible for the Dow Jones newswires.

"[The Journal] could have done a better job with a recent story allowing Mr Murdoch to get his side of the story on the record without tougher questioning," the report said, adding "We have discussed this with the involved editors."

However, in response to a political request for evidence that the US journalists were not involved in wrongdoing last week, the committee found "nothing to even hint that the sort of misdeeds alleged in London have somehow crept into [WSJ publisher] Dow Jones".

In one critical paragraph of the Journal's coverage of a scandal that has rocked the company, the UK political establishment and police authorities, the committee wrote: "The Journal was slower than it should have been at the outset to pursue the phone-hacking scandal story, in our opinion, though it is doing much better now with aggressive coverage, fitting placement in the paper, and unflinching headlines."

Last Friday, two days after Rupert Murdoch and his heir apparent James appeared before parliament, the Journal broke the news that the justice department is preparing wide-ranging subpoenas to gather evidence in the phone hacking case.

The committee had nothing to say about the WSJ editorial published last week that accused journalists at the Guardian and other news outlets for pushing coverage of the phone-hacking story for "commercial and ideological motives".

Much of the committee's evidence seems to have been gathered by asking relevant editors and reporters: "Is anybody putting political, ideological or commercial pressure on you to influence your news judgment?" The answer, perhaps unsurprisingly, is "no".

The report comes after the Journal, edited by Robert Thomson, a former editor of the Times in London, has come under heavy criticism from rival media organisations in recent weeks.

New York Times columnist Joe Nocera, who has previously written in support of Murdoch ownership, said: "The Journal was turned into a propaganda vehicle for its owner's conservative views. That's half the definition of Fox-ification. The other half is that Murdoch's media outlets must shill for his business interests. With the News of the World scandal, the Journal has now shown itself willing to do that, too."

The members of the special committee to oversee the editorial integrity of the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires include Thomas Bray, former Detroit News opinion editor, Louis Boccardi, former head of AP, Jack Fuller, former president of Tribune Publishing Co, Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the MIT Media Lab, and Susan Phillips, former dean of the George Washington University business school. They are each paid $100,000 a year to keep an eye on the standards and ethics of the WSJ and Dow Jones Newswires, according to PaidContent. This is understood to be the first report they have

[Douglas Caddy]

DPP was warned hacking was rife at Murdoch paper

The Independent

By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor

Tuesday, 26 July 2011

The former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Lord Macdonald was warned by his own employees as far back as 2006 that there were a "vast array" of News of the World phone-hacking victims. Lord Macdonald, who has since been hired by the newspaper's owner, Rupert Murdoch, was sent a memo nearly six months before the reporter Clive Goodman and the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were convicted, revealing that the charges they were facing related to just a fraction of the potential victims.

However, the hacking investigation was never widened despite pressure on the police and Lord Macdonald, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service at the time, to do so.

In a letter released yesterday, the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith revealed: "The Director [of Public Prosecutions] and I were aware that the particular cases referred to were not isolated examples." Lord Goldsmith said protocol prevented him from speaking to the police, but this did not apply to the Crown Prosecution Service, which Lord Macdonald led at the time, and whose lawyers briefed him on other victims of hacking.

The Met had to reopen its inquiries into criminality by the NOTW in January this year when it became apparent that police and prosecutors had failed to fully investigate the widespread phone hacking by the newspaper five years ago.

The revelation is embarrassing for Lord Macdonald because when he examined emails held by News Corp as part of his new job assisting the company's internal investigation earlier this year, he took "three to five minutes" to decide that the material constituted evidence of criminality and needed to be passed to police.

He told the Home Affairs Select Committee last week: "The material I saw was so blindingly obvious that trying to argue that it should not be given to the police would have been a hard task. It was evidence of serious criminal offences."

He added that a police probe into alleged illegal payments to officers could have been launched as far back as 2007.

The memo came to light yesterday in a letter written to the Home Affairs Select Committee by the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith. In it he said that he had consulted files held by his former department and confirmed that he had been sent a memorandum, prepared by CPS lawyers for both him and the DPP, explaining that there were a "vast array" of other victims of phone hacking in May 2006.

Lord Goldsmith revealed that the memo said the other phone-hacking allegations uncovered could be followed up and that it concluded: "These may be the subject of wider investigation in due course. A number of targets have been informed."

He wrote: "I have no knowledge of why that wider investigation of those other cases may in the result not have proceeded. The committee will need to address such questions to the DPP and the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service].

"My role was not to direct either an investigation or the prosecution."

Meanwhile, the law firm Harbottle & Lewis – which was given access to a large number of NOTW internal emails in 2007 from the accounts of six people, including Goodman and the former editor Andy Coulson – has written to the Commons Culture Committee outlining its role. Its letter could be published as soon as Friday.

The Chancellor, George Osborne, who advised David Cameron to hire Mr Coulson as his spin doctor after he resigned as the NOTW's editor over the scandal, said yesterday that he regretted the appointment.

Yesterday, an editorial committee set up by The Wall Street Journal to answer critics of its coverage of the phone-hacking scandal said the newspaper "could have done a better job" with an interview it published with its proprietor Rupert Murdoch. The committee also said the WSJ had been slower than it should have been in pursuing the story.

So, who should have acted on the evidence?

THE DPP...?

As head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP – in this case Lord Macdonald) is responsible for deciding whether there is enough evidence for bringing cases to court in England and Wales, writes Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor. Police investigating suspected criminal acts submit their conclusions to the CPS, which then judges whether there is a good chance of securing a conviction. High-profile cases, such as allegations of phone hacking, would be referred to the director personally for a decision. Lord Goldsmith's memo confirms that CPS lawyers had considered the allegations in detail. The DPP is constitutionally required to act independently of the Government.

... OR THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL?

The Attorney-General (in this case Lord Goldsmith) is a non-Cabinet minister whose main duty is to act as the Government's chief legal adviser. The role's significance was highlighted in 2003 when Lord Goldsmith finally concluded the planned invasion of Iraq was lawful. The Attorney is also responsible for supervising the Crown Prosecution Service. That means that the Attorney can be "copied in" to the progress in cases considered to be of public concern – but in such instances the Attorney has to act independently of the Government and not share the information with other ministers. All decisions on initiating prosecutions, such as in the phone hacking investigation, are made by the DPP.

[Douglas Caddy]

Majority want Murdoch to be forced out of BSkyB altogether

The Independent

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor

Tuesday, 26 July 2011

Two out of three people believe Rupert Murdoch's News Corp should have to dispose of its entire stake in BSkyB. According to a new survey for The Independent by ComRes, 65 per cent agree that the phone-hacking scandal shows News Corp is not a "fit and proper" organisation to own any part of BSkyB, while 26 per cent disagree. The finding will increase the pressure on media regulator Ofcom, which is reviewing whether Mr Murdoch's global media empire is "fit and proper" to keep its 39 per cent holding in BSkyB.

Mr Murdoch's firm has scrapped plans to buy 100 per cent of the television company. Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians have already called for News Corp to be forced to sell its remaining share.

The poll suggests the hackling scandal has damaged David Cameron's reputation more than those of the two other main party leaders. One in three people (33 per cent) says the scandal has made them less favourable towards him.

Recent polls have shown that the Labour leader Ed Miliband's personal ratings have improved. But ComRes found that people also regard him and Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, less favourably than they did before the controversy – a sign it may have damaged politicians generally.

While 10 per cent now regard Mr Miliband more favourably, 20 per cent view him less favourably; 4 per cent view Mr Clegg more favourably, and 22 per cent less favourably.

According to the polling, Labour has a 6-point lead over the Conservatives, its highest with ComRes since March, which suggests the scandal and economic uncertainty may be damaging Mr Cameron's party. Labour is unchanged on 40 per cent since the last ComRes poll for The Independent on Sunday a week ago; the Tories on 34 per cent (down 2 points); the Liberal Democrats on 13 per cent (up 3 points) and others on 13 per cent (down 1 point). This would give Labour an overall majority of 70 at a general election.

The public is divided over whether Mr Cameron's actions during the controversy make them question if he has the right judgement and skills to be Prime Minister, with 47 per cent agreeing and 44 per cent disagreeing.

ComRes telephoned a random sample of 1,002 UK adults between 22 and 24 July. Data were weighted demographically and by past vote recall.

ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Full tables are at www.comres.co.uk

[Douglas Caddy]

A scandalous story: New Rupert Murdoch book on the way

Los Angeles Times

July 25, 2011 | 2:12 pm

The phone-hacking scandal sending shock waves through Rupert Murdoch's media empire will be the subject of a new book by Guardian reporter Nick Davies, Faber and Faber announced Monday. "Hack Attack: How the Truth Caught up with the World's Most Powerful Man" is planned for publication in 2012 in the U.S.

Galleycat has more about the book, from the publisher's release: "On July 8, 2009, Nick Davies broke the story that Rupert Murdoch’s News International had paid £1 million to settle legal cases that threatened to lift the lid on News of the World journalists' involvement in illegal phone-hacking... The seismic shocks affecting Rupert Murdoch's international media empire and family as well as law enforcement agencies and officials and highly placed political figures are already being called the biggest political scandal in Great Britain in seventy-five years. Davies, author of the bestseller FLAT EARTH NEWS, intends to provide an authoritative account and commentary on the News International Scandal, including new revelations."

But will it include the inside story of how Murdoch's wife, Wendi, leapt to his defense when he was approached by a pie-wielding assailant during a hearing last week? Oh, never mind, it seems Newsweek's already got a breathless blow-by-blow.

[Douglas Caddy]

Daily Mirror publisher to review editorial controls

Trinity Mirror move comes as share price falls amid allegations that phone hacking was not confined to News of the World

By John Plunkett

guardian.co.uk,

Tuesday 26 July 2011 11.02 BST

Trinity Mirror has begun a review of its editorial controls and procedures amid allegations that phone hacking was not confined to the News of the World.

The six-week review is being led by Trinity Mirror's group legal director Paul Vickers and will include all of the group's national and regional newspapers, including the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, the People and the Daily Record.

Trinity Mirror's share price fell 9.8% on Monday amid investor concerns that the hacking scandal was not restricted to News International, following allegations about its papers over the weekend. Its shares were down another 1.4% by 10am on Tuesday, to 42.9p.

Former Daily Mirror reporter James Hipwell reiterated his earlier claim that hacking was widespread at other newspapers, including the Mirror. A separate report on BBC2's Newsnight alleged the use of phone hacking and private detectives was widespread at the Sunday Mirror.

Trinity Mirror described both sets of allegations as "unsubstantiated", saying its journalists "work within the criminal law and the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct".

A company spokesman said today: "We can confirm that we're conducting a review of editorial controls and procedures."

Sources at the company indicated it was a "review rather than an investigation" into the company's editorial controls and procedures and was a response to general concern about newspaper practices rather than to specific phone-hacking allegations.

Rival newspaper group, the Daily Mail & General Trust, on Tuesday ruled out an internal review into phone hacking.

The DMGT chief executive, Martin Morgan, reiterated comments by Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre last week that the company was not involved in any hacking.

"I have received assurances that we have not published stories based on hacked messages or sources obtained unlawfully," said Morgan. "We have strong processes and procedures right across the group."

[Douglas Caddy]

Phone hacking: the case for the defence

Celebrities encourage intrusion, and we have a right to know about anything that affects politicians' ability to do their jobs

By Damien McCrystal

guardian.co.uk,

Tuesday 26 July 2011 12.00 BST

The most extraordinary thing about the News International crisis is the way in which it has caused the British national media to lose its greatest weapon: scepticism.

If this was happening in any other sector, there would be have been a brief flurry of witch-hunting followed quickly by more measured analysis of the bigger picture, and calm would have descended.

But journalists appear to be incompetent when reporting on their own activities. A few commentators have sounded warning notes about the scale of the current hysteria but in general the press has rolled over.

Regarding the most shocking revelation of them all, that Milly Dowler's voicemail was allegedly hacked into on behalf of the News of the World, there is a valid, albeit arguable, journalistic justification for it. If it is true, as alleged, that private detectives deleted some messages in order to allow new ones in, then any new message might have carried a clue as to the child's whereabouts and indeed our increasingly beleaguered police might have thought of this for themselves. The NoW showed some initiative here – it is only a pity they did so in such an insensitive and self-interested fashion, failing entirely to acknowledge the distress this could (and did) cause the Dowler family.

Looking into the affairs of celebrities is a tawdry business but, as has been said many times in the past under broadly similar circumstances, it is generally encouraged by those concerned. A huge number of long-lens "intrusions" are carefully stage-managed. I know this from direct experience. Indeed, the show-business end of the public relations industry is handsomely rewarded to increase the media coverage of celebrities and drum up interest in their private lives.

Ever since the Camillagate scandal (when Prince Charles's mobile phone call to his lover, Camilla Parker-Bowles, was recorded and sold to the media) broke 19 years ago, it has been common knowledge that hacking unprotected mobile phones is easy. It has also been possible to block such hacking. Prince Charles hasn't been hacked again. Nor have subsequent political leaders, as far as I can recall. That is because the technology is available to protect mobile phone users from intrusion. Surely, the failure of others to employ such protection was a factor which contributed to, and therefore mitigated, the intrusion?

Gordon Brown's rather unpleasant attempt to clamber onto the anti-Murdoch bandwagon has rightly been denounced, but why has there been no fightback by the media, to justify and defend journalistic investigation of all Brown's affairs, both public and private?

Is it not right that every aspect of a prime minister's life should be examined in minute detail? Is it not right that the public should know if there are factors in his private life that might hamper his ability to govern? Brown can say all he likes about "criminal elements" digging into his privacy but is it not for the common good that his bank accounts and tax affairs have been scrutinised, to ensure that there is no impropriety?

The matter of his child's illness required more sensitivity than the NoW was ever able to muster, but there is nonetheless a strong argument that it should have been in the public domain, as it affected Brown's ability to govern. Who is to find out these sometimes awkward details and present them to the public, if not journalists?

The hacking affair is remarkable in that the celebrities and politicians who wish to benefit from media coverage, but also control it, are being allowed to do so. And it is doubly extraordinary that this is happening with scarcely a whimper from the media. It does not help, of course, that the "but everyone was doing it" argument will not work only a year after the media denounced all politicians who tried the same line in defence of their outlandish expenses claims. It also did not help that, until last weekend, there was typically little else to write about at this time of year. And it does not help that the police force senses its own mortality and is desperate to do something to win back credibility.

But this is more than just a silly season story. The rest of the media have the scent of blood in their snouts and show no signs of mercy. We have lost one of the oldest newspapers in the country, a part of British life for more than a century and a half. The most powerful media magnate in the world has been panicked into a bizarre and unedifying retreat, so irrational that he has committed the cardinal business sin of sacrificing the brand in favour of the people – and then been forced to ditch the people anyway. And now the hunt is expanding beyond the boundaries of News International.

Instead of defending their wayward sibling, Britain's journalists handed it to the wolves. It looked to an outsider like an act of cowardice and treachery. I know for certain that other newspapers in other media groups have, directly or indirectly, used the same investigative tactics. If or when that emerges, giving ammunition to the growing censorship lobby, journalists will bitterly regret their disloyalty.

[Douglas Caddy]

George Osborne met NI chiefs 16 times

The Independent

Tuesday, 26 July 2011

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has met executives of News Corporation companies on 16 occasions since the coalition Government took power, it was revealed today.

Details of the meetings were released as the Government published records of all ministerial contacts with senior media executives, in the wake of the controversy over phone-hacking at the News Corp-owned News of the World and Mr Murdoch's ditched bid to take over BSkyB.

It also emerged that News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch was the first senior media figure to meet Jeremy Hunt after he was appointed Culture Secretary in May last year - though this was before Mr Hunt was given responsibility for deciding on the BSkyB bid.

Mr Osborne met Rupert Murdoch twice, once for what was described as a "general discussion" shortly after taking office in May and the second time in December. He met former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks and Mr Murdoch's son James - News Corp's chief executive in Europe - on five different occasions each.

The Chancellor has also had one-to-ones with editors of News International papers James Harding of The Times, John Witherow of the Sunday Times and Colin Myler of the News of the World.

The first senior media figure that Jeremy Hunt met on becoming Culture Secretary in May last year was Rupert Murdoch at an evening reception and dinner.

The following month he met James Murdoch for a general discussion.

Following his assumption of responsibility for the BSkyB takeover bid in December, he had two further meetings with James Murdoch in January this year to set out the process around the proposed merger.

Business Secretary Vince Cable, who was stripped of responsibility for ruling on whether the BSkyB bid should go ahead after boasting in December that he had "declared war on Rupert Murdoch", did not have as much contact as some of his colleagues with News Corp figures.

Mr Cable met Times editor James Harding in December, though it is unclear whether this was before or after he was stripped of his responsibilities for the BSkyB bid. He also attended a Sunday Times business lunch last April.

The publication of ministers' contacts with media figures was ordered earlier this month by Prime Minister David Cameron, who revealed then that he had himself met News Corp executives on 26 occasions since entering 10 Downing Street.

Today's release also revealed that Education Secretary Michael Gove has met News Corp executives 11 times since the general election in May 2010.

Mr Gove, a former journalist for The Times, met Rupert Murdoch seven times and former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks eight times at events including lunches, dinners and social gatherings.

A spokesman for Mr Gove said: "Michael worked for the BBC and News International and his wife works for News International now.

"He's known Rupert Murdoch for over a decade. He did not discuss the BSkyB deal with the Murdochs and isn't at all embarrassed about his meetings, most of which have been about education which is his job."

[Douglas Caddy]

Murdoch Veterans Portray a Fully Engaged Boss

The New York Times

July 26, 2011

By SARAH LYALL and GRAHAM BOWLEY

LONDON — It was the political scoop of the year, a damning, serialized exposé in The Daily Telegraph about how British politicians were abusing their parliamentary expense accounts to pay for things like moat-cleaning and wisteria-trimming.

The articles, in May 2009, shook up Parliament and shamed lawmakers. They also irritated Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of the News Corporation, for the simple reason that two of his own newspapers, The Times of London and The Sun, had been offered the chance to buy the information that led to the exposé, but had turned it down.

“There was anger wafting across the Atlantic,” said a former reporter for one of Mr. Murdoch’s papers here.

At News International, Mr. Murdoch’s British newspaper arm, executives scrambled to deflect responsibility. The blame fell largely on an in-house lawyer who had cautioned against paying some $450,000 for a stolen disc containing the parliamentary expense records. (A few months later, the lawyer was asked to leave News International, where he had worked for 33 years, apparently after another disagreement over advice.)

While it is not clear whether Mr. Murdoch played a direct role in the matter, there is little question that The Telegraph’s scoop remained a sore point for him and that his feelings seeped down through various layers of his company. Soon afterward, The Wall Street Journal, his flagship American newspaper, did its own investigation of American lawmakers’ expenses.

And the editor of the rival Telegraph who got the scoop, William Lewis, a former business editor at The Sunday Times of London, was then rehired by Mr. Murdoch as News International’s group general manager, in charge of all the company’s print publications in Britain. The expenses story was still on Mr. Murdoch’s mind two years later: it was the one big British story he mentioned by name at last week’s parliamentary hearing on phone hacking.

In that appearance before the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, Mr. Murdoch sought to distance himself from the hacking scandal, explaining that because he employs “53,000 people around the world” he cannot be expected to know everything everyone is doing at The News of the World.

He may have come across at the hearing as vague, detached and unfocused — as an old man who was at times not quite all there. Investors in the News Corporation have been pressing for years for the company to arrange a clear succession plan for Mr. Murdoch, who is 80 years old, and speculation about his future is rife now that the company has suffered a significant blow to its reputation.

But Mr. Murdoch, who every morning reads avidly from what one former editor referred to as “the best clippings service I have ever seen,” has never been a disengaged boss, especially from his newspapers.

“I really didn’t buy that, to be honest,” said Roy Greenslade, a former Murdoch editor who is now a professor of journalism at City University London. “I’m sure he’s not as interfering as he was 20 years ago, but you can see through the way The Sun and The News of the World operate that his word remains law.”

Indeed, in January, as the phone hacking scandal began to gain traction and Andy Coulson, a former News of the World editor, quit his job as the government’s top spokesman (he has since been arrested on suspicion of phone hacking and bribing the police), Mr. Murdoch postponed his trip to the World Economic Forum and swept into London to take charge.

Surrounded by the editors of The Sun and The Times of London; his son James; and Rebekah Brooks, then chief executive of News International (she has also since been arrested on the same suspicions as in Mr. Coulson’s case), Mr. Murdoch ate lunch in the News International staff cafeteria. He then appeared at The Times’s editorial conference, where he weighed in on one of the day’s big stories: the decision by Sky News to fire the host of a sports program who had made lewd remarks to his co-host, a woman, including suggesting that she tuck her microphone in his pants.

To make matters more complicated, Sky is part of the media conglomerate British Sky Broadcasting, or BSkyB, which is controlled by the News Corporation, and the co-host in question, Andy Gray, had recently sued The News of the World, claiming his phone had been hacked. Taking all this in at the news conference, Mr. Murdoch said, according to accounts at the time, “This country has lost its sense of humor.”

Mr. Murdoch began his career when he inherited his father’s small newspaper business in Australia. He remains at his core a hard-nosed businessman with the instincts of a tabloid reporter, said many former and current employees, who all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to make Mr. Murdoch angry.

“He vicariously lives through his papers in many ways,” said a former editor at one of News Corporation’s major papers. “He’s a news junkie. He’s interested in what’s driving the sales, what’s on the front page. He’s always talking to his editors.”

Mr. Murdoch hires editors who often share his philosophy — right of center, anti-big government, anti-European Union, pro-business — and focuses on his favorites. He cements these ties through what a former editor at one of Mr. Murdoch’s London broadsheets described as “weird, familial relationships,” in which Mr. Murdoch and his editors socialize frequently and attend one another’s weddings. “They go on holiday with him, they attend his conferences in Sun Valley,” the former editor said.

But if the News Corporation’s British and American broadsheets — The Times and The Sunday Times of London, and The Wall Street Journal — give him gravitas, his tabloids give him a platform to promote his political and business interests.

And they are where his heart lies. Former editors at The News of the World, new defunct, and The Sun say he called frequently, affecting casualness but conveying just the opposite with pointed questions and long, ominous silences. “We called it telephone terrorism,” Mr. Greenslade said. “You’d try to fill in the gaps, and when you’re gabbling you’re bound to make mistakes.”

Mr. Murdoch expects his tabloids to beat the competition with aggressive, intrusive reporting that results in splashy exclusives that expose sexual misbehavior or debunk the establishment line. It is this expectation, former editors and reporters say, that has pushed his tabloids’ editors into ever more adventurous news gathering practices.

None of the editors said Mr. Murdoch ordered them to use illegal phone hacking or other illegal methods to obtain information. But his enthusiasm for articles that generated mass sales at the newsstand and riled the political elite was legendary on Fleet Street. “What am I supposed to do, sit idly by and watch a paper go down the drain, simply because I’m not supposed to interfere?” he once said, speaking of The News of the World. “Rubbish!”

Mr. Murdoch has never hesitated to dress down editors at The Sun and The News of the World when they make mistakes, either of omission or commission. It has never been a secret that The Sun promotes his business interests by, for instance, denouncing the BBC, or writing favorably about BSkyB television programs or 20th Century Fox films. At The New York Post, former employees remember how Mr. Murdoch meddled in the coverage of his rival Conrad Black, then the owner of The Telegraph, during Mr. Black’s legal troubles.

Nor is it a secret that Mr. Murdoch’s tabloids enthusiastically promote the politicians he likes and denounce those he does not.

“I’m beginning to understand the true scope of Murdoch’s influence, and the way he does business, and it’s quite scary,” Piers Morgan writes in “The Insider,” his memoir of editing The News of the World and other tabloids. The observation comes after an incident in which Mr. Murdoch began arguing about Europe with the prime minister at the time, John Major, over dinner, rudely dismissing the single currency, which Mr. Major supported, as “a bloody bad joke.” (Soon afterward, Mr. Murdoch, Mr. Morgan and The News of the World switched allegiances to the Labour leader, Tony Blair, who in turn submitted an editorial to the paper titled “Major’s Failed and He Knows It.”)

According to Lance Price, a former special adviser to Mr. Blair when he was prime minister, Mr. Murdoch was behind a News of the World headline criticizing Mr. Blair over his European Union policy in 2004. “Treachery,” the headline said, over an article calling the prime minister “Traitor Tony Blair.”

“I understand it was Rupert Murdoch himself who chose that word,” Mr. Price said on the Channel 4 program “Dispatches” on Monday night.

A spokeswoman for the News Corporation said the company had no comment for this article.

In his testimony last week, Mr. Murdoch said that he telephones John Witherow, the editor of The Sunday Times, most Saturday nights, and talks frequently to Robert Thomson, the Journal editor, a fellow Australian and the editor he is closest to.

Since Mr. Murdoch bought it, The Journal’s articles have become shorter, punchier and more news-focused, in keeping with the owner’s views on how newspapers should look. And for a time, Mr. Murdoch was a constant presence in the newsroom, often sitting in on news meetings, although he usually remained silent and often left halfway through.

“Rupert likes to gossip,” a senior journalist at the paper said. “He is interested in what the news is that day.” But, according to a former editor at one of the London papers, “Rupert has an attention span of — maybe not zero minutes — but nine minutes.”

In an informal conversation with the senior journalist on the newsroom floor, Mr. Murdoch showed that he was especially excited by the future introduction of the weekend Review section, the journalist said. “He said he wanted to make it upmarket. He wanted to make it brainy. He said, ‘I really want people to have something to read’ — stressing the word read — ‘on weekends.’ ”

But for all their personal closeness, Mr. Murdoch makes no effort to influence the news coverage, said Mr. Thomson, The Journal’s top editor.

“We simply do not discuss details of coverage,” Mr. Thomson said via e-mail. “Not once. Never. There is a clear, distinct, very honorably observed demarcation line. Rupert respects the independence of the editor and my autonomy, and to suggest that we skew coverage is an insult to all of The Journal’s journalists, who person for person, pound for pound are certainly the best in the world.”

People at The Times of London, where Mr. Murdoch is referred to in absentia as simply “K.R.M.” — the initials are of his full name, Keith Rupert Murdoch — say that the boss’s shadow looms large, although he comes into the newsroom at most several times a year.

“Normally he’s picking our brains about what’s going on in the world,” one former journalist at the paper said. “We tell him what’s going on in politics and business and Afghanistan; we sing for our supper.”

But in the last few years, some employees say, the company’s focus has shifted, and, with James Murdoch in control in London, it has become more corporate and less concerned about the papers. The legal troubles at The News of the World are very much viewed as having taken place under the aegis not of Rupert but of James Murdoch, who does not share his father’s love for newsprint.

“Suddenly, it was all Los Angeles and New York; it was all film and satellite and the Internet,” one former editor said, describing how suddenly the newspapers felt obliged to clamor for attention from the company, lest they be forgotten or sold off. “Newspapers were seen as the old man’s hobby.”

Tim Arango contributed reporting from Baghdad, and William K. Rashbaum from New York.

[Douglas Caddy]

Murdochs were given secret defence briefings

Ministers held meetings with media mogul's people more than 60 times

The Independent

By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor

Wednesday, 27 July 2011

The extraordinary access that Cabinet ministers granted Rupert Murdoch and his children was revealed for the first time yesterday, with more than two dozen private meetings between the family and senior members of the Government in the 15 months since David Cameron entered Downing Street.

In total, Cabinet ministers have had private meetings with Murdoch executives more than 60 times and, if social events such as receptions at party conferences are included, the figure is at least 107.

On two occasions, James Murdoch and former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks were given confidential defence briefings on Afghanistan and Britain's strategic defence review by the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox. A further briefing was held with Ms Brooks, Rupert Murdoch and the Sunday Times editor John Witherow.

The Chancellor, George Osborne, has had 16 separate meetings since May 2010 with News International editors and executives, including two with the Murdochs within just a month of taking office. He also invited Elisabeth Murdoch as a guest to his 40th birthday party last month.

The Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, dined with Rupert Murdoch within days of the Government coming to power and, after being given quasi-judicial oversight for the Murdochs' £8bn attempted takeover of BSkyB, had two meetings with James Murdoch in which they discussed the takeover. Mr Hunt said last night that these were legitimate as part of the bid process.

But the minister who sees Rupert Murdoch the most frequently is the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, a former News International employee. Mr Gove has seen the mogul for breakfast, lunch or dinner on six occasions since last May. Overall, Mr Gove has had 12 meetings with Murdoch executives since becoming a minister.

The list, released by government departments yesterday evening, reinforces the impression of an unhealthily close relationship between the top echelons of News International and senior members of the Coalition Cabinet, which first became apparent when Mr Cameron released his list of contacts with news organisations a week ago. He revealed then that he had met News International executives on 26 occasions since entering Downing Street.

Senior executives and editors from News International have held private meetings with Cabinet ministers more than 60 times since last May.

Other newspaper groups and media organisations had significantly fewer meetings. Mr Osborne met with representatives of The Daily Telegraph group on six occasions and The Independent/London Evening Standard twice. Mr Hunt met Telegraph and Independent figures twice each and members of the BBC 11 times.

The Business Secretary, Vince Cable, who was stripped of responsibility for ruling on whether the BSkyB bid should go ahead after boasting in December that he had "declared war on Rupert Murdoch", did not have as much contact as some of his colleagues. Mr Cable met the editor of The Times, James Harding, in December, although it is unclear whether this was before or after he was stripped of his responsibilities for the BSkyB bid.

The Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, held a meeting shortly after the election with No 10's then communications director Andy Coulson, the former head of the Metropolitan Police Sir Paul Stephenson and Neil Wallis, the former deputy editor of the News of the World and then an adviser to the Met. Both Mr Coulson and Mr Wallis have since been arrested on suspicion of phone hacking and Sir Paul resigned over his handling of the scandal.

Last night a spokesman for Mr Gove insisted that his meetings with the Murdochs were of a personal nature. "Michael worked for the BBC and News International and his wife works for News International now," he said. "He has known Rupert Murdoch for over a decade. He did not discuss the BSkyB deal with the Murdochs and isn't at all embarrassed about his meetings, most of which have been about education, which is his job."

A spokesman for Mr Fox said that the defence briefings given to the Murdochs covered a range of issues and were given because of the "interest in defence matters" shown by News International papers. He did not say who initiated the meetings.

The Chancellor had said he would be happy to talk about the meetings, but the list was released just after interviews he gave on GDP figures so he was not available for comment.

The Conservative Party co-chairman, Sayeeda Warsi, said the release of the information showed that, in contrast to Labour, the Government was being open about its dealings with the Murdochs. "This Government is delivering unprecedented transparency," she said. "Ed Miliband now needs to come clean. Where is his list of Shadow Cabinet media meetings?"

Watson to write book with Independent reporter

Tom Watson, the Labour MP who has done much to uncover the extent of the phone-hacking scandal at the News of the World, is to write the "full behind-the-scenes story" with The Independent correspondent Martin Hickman. The publisher Penguin promised yesterday that the book would "describe in previously unpublished detail the nexus between News Corporation, the police and politicians, and will explain how the connections between them were unravelled".

The tenacious MP for West Bromwich East led the questioning of Rupert and James Murdoch and the former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks last week when they appeared before the House of Commons select committee for Culture, Media & Sport.

Hickman was named 2009 Journalist of the Year by the Foreign Press Association. Penguin said: "With unique information and access, their book will show what went wrong with some very prominent British institutions and will mark the moment when everything began to change." As yet untitled, it will be published later this year. The book is likely to be one of several documenting a scandal that has gone to the heart of British society.

[Douglas Caddy]

British Panel Wants to Hear From Three Men Who Dispute Murdochs’ Testimony

The New York Times

By ROBERT MACKEY

July 26, 2011, 7:32 pm

The chairman of the British parliamentary panel that questioned Rupert and James Murdoch last week about phone hacking wants to hear from three men who claim that the Murdochs gave inaccurate testimony.

John Whittingdale, a Conservative member of Parliament who chairs the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, told The Evening Standard of London on Tuesday: “It is somewhat frustrating to keep hearing media reports about people wishing to correct evidence. If they have doubts about any testimony they should get in touch with us immediately.”

Mr. Whittingdale was referring to statements released in recent days by three men who all held senior positions at News International, the Murdochs’ British newspaper division, until earlier this month.

Colin Myler, who was the editor of The News of the World, the British tabloid at the center of the hacking scandal, and Tom Crone, who was the chief legal adviser to News International, said in a joint statement on Thursday that James Murdoch “was mistaken” when he told the committee that he had not been made aware of an incriminating e-mail in 2008, when he agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by a phone hacking victim. The e-mail, from a News of the World journalist, strongly suggested that phone hacking was more widespread at the paper in 2005 than the company had previously acknowledged.

Then on Friday, Jon Chapman, News International’s director of legal affairs until this month, said in a statement that he wanted to cooperate with the committee to correct “serious inaccuracies in statements made” at last week’s hearing.

Mr. Whittingdale told The Standard, “If Mr. Chapman has information which he believes calls into question the evidence provided by James Murdoch, then we would be very keen to speak to him.”

The Standard notes that Mr. Chapman was a senior executive at Enron before he started working for News International in 2003. During last week’s hearing, James Murdoch was asked if he was familiar with the term “willful blindness,” which was used to describe the behavior of senior executives at Enron who averted their eyes from wrongdoing.

As The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by the Murdochs’ News Corporation, explained on Friday:

Mr. Chapman had served on the front lines since News International started having to deal with the allegations back in 2006, when News of the World royal correspondent Clive Goodman and a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, were arrested. Mr. Chapman ultimately reported to Les Hinton, a top aide to Rupert Murdoch and executive chairman of News International until December 2007. Mr. Hinton then became head of News Corp.’s Dow Jones & Co., which publishes The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Hinton recently resigned from that role, saying he was “ignorant of what apparently happened” at The News of the World.

Mr. Chapman played a key role in settling an unfair-dismissal dispute brought by Mr. Goodman after his conviction — a settlement that was approved by Mr. Hinton and the unit’s head of human resources, according to testimony by Mr. Chapman before the parliamentary committee. He also played a role in an internal inquiry that resulted from that dispute, in which Mr. Chapman and a colleague reviewed a batch of e-mails between Mr. Goodman and five others, and then forwarded some or all of them to an outside law firm for review.

That law firm, Harbottle & Lewis LLP, at the time found no “reasonable evidence” that others knew about or were carrying out similar illegal procedures. Another lawyer recently hired by News International, Ken MacDonald, said following a review of nine or 10 of those emails that there was “blindingly obvious” evidence of corrupt payments.

During testimony on Tuesday to the parliamentary committee, Rupert Murdoch appeared to lay responsibility with Mr. Chapman, who helped oversee the Harbottle review, saying the former legal counsel would have been familiar with the file’s contents “for a number of years.”

Mr. Chapman was a central figure in an internal inquiry conducted by News International into phone hacking in 2007. He has also previously provided evidence on the matter to the parliamentary committee.

In response to a request from the committee in October 2009, News International provided a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Chapman on May 29, 2007, from Lawrence Abramson of Harbottle & Lewis.

Here, from the House of Commons Web site, is the full text of that letter:

Re Clive Goodman

We have on your instructions reviewed the emails to which you have provided access from the accounts of:

Andy Coulson

Stuart Kuttner

Ian Edmondson

Clive Goodman

Neil Wallis

Jules Stenson

I can confirm that we did not find anything in those emails which appeared to us to be reasonable evidence that Clive Goodman’s illegal actions were known about and supported by both or either of Andy Coulson, the Editor, and Neil Wallis, the Deputy Editor, and/or that Ian Edmondson, the News Editor, and others were carrying out similar illegal procedures.

Please let me know if we can be of any further assistance.

In hindsight, what is striking about the letter is that it suggests that Harbottle & Lewis was instructed by News International to conduct a very narrow review of the e-mails; the lawyers looked only for evidence that Mr. Goodman’s superiors knew about his use of the illegal technique or that others at the paper were using it. They were not asked to look for evidence of other kinds of illegal activity, like payments to the police, or to review e-mails sent by other reporters at the paper, like the one that contained a transcript of 35 hacked voice mail messages that Mr. Myler and Mr. Crone said they told James Murdoch about in 2008.

As my colleagues Jo Becker and Ravi Somaiya reported last weekend, while some of the e-mails reviewed for News International’s internal inquiry in 2007 “showed no direct evidence of hacking, according to three company officials they did contain suggestions that Mr. Coulson may have authorized payments to the police for information.”

They also reported that, according to News International officials, the 2007 review of e-mails was not undertaken to find out if hacking had been widely practiced by News of the World journalists. Rather, the review “was aimed at defending the company from a lawsuit filed by Clive Goodman,” who had been fired for hacking. Mr. Goodman claimed that his dismissal was unfair because his colleagues had also used the technique. This might explain why Harbottle & Lewis was asked to review e-mail traffic only between Mr. Goodman and his editors.

Three of the five editors named in the Harbottle & Lewis letter — Andy Coulson, Neil Wallis and Ian Edmondson — have been arrested in recent months in connection with new police investigations into phone hacking and illegal payments to police officers.

[Douglas Caddy]

Times editor agrees NI's handling of phone hacking was 'catastrophic'

James Harding says some readers cancelled subscriptions in wake of revelations about News of the World's alleged activities

By Lisa O'Carroll

guardian.co.uk,

Wednesday 27 July 2011 16.24 BST

The editor of the Times, James Harding, has admitted that News International's handling of the phone-hacking crisis was "catastrophic" and that it impacted on the paper's sales.

Harding said readers had cancelled subscriptions to the Times and to digital versions of the paper in the immediate aftermath of the revelations about Millie Dowler's phone allegedly being hacked by News International sister title the News of the World.

Asked whether News International would recover and if he still felt the way the company had reacted had been "catastrophic", as described by one of his paper's leader columns, he said: "Yes, I think that would be a pretty descriptive word for what it happened and the struggle they had in getting to grips with it."

But Harding, who has pursued a fiercely independent line on the scandal since the Dowler story broke in early July, said he believed Rupert Murdoch was now back in charge after accepting the resignation of Rebekah Brooks, dropping the bid for BSkyB and apologising to the Dowler family.

"You have to own your mistakes, otherwise your mistakes own you," Harding told Steve Hewlett, presenter of Radio 4's The Media Show.

The Times lost more than 20,000 sales on some days following the Dowler revelation, according to industry sources.

"In the first couple of weeks after the Milly Dowler story broke we were acutely concerned about it and with good reason. There were some people who were not just disgusted by the News of the World but wanted to express that anger in any way they could," Harding said.

He was then asked if the Times saw evidence of this in losing its own readers. "Yes we absolutely did," Harding replied. "We saw small numbers of people cancelling their digital subscriptions or cancelling their print subscriptions – happily those have largely come back."

He said he knew he was in for a "very testing" time when the Dowler story broke more than three weeks ago and that the scrutiny of press behaviour on all newspapers would be a "watershed" moment for British journalism.

But he added it would be lamentable if the ambitions of journalists to hold the powerful and privileged to account were in any way stymied.

"I think it's an unpopular position at the moment. But we need to make sure we don't get into a circular firing squad in Fleet Street, we don't spend our time in a process of self-flagellation, we believe in a free press," Harding said.

"I was very concerned for the reputation of journalism generally the moment I woke. We are now three and a half weeks, the better part of a month on," he added. "I think if you went round the country today and you said 'Do you still think that's it's important in a free society that the press hold the powerful and the privileged to account?' I think they would say yes. If you said 'Do you think it would be a good idea for David Cameron and Ed Miliband to set the terms of the way in which newspapers work?', most people would say no."

[Douglas Caddy]

Rupert Murdoch and phone hacking: an insiders' story

Jacques Peretti on what he learned from Sean Hoare, Paul McMullan and others when making a film about the mogul

Guardian.

July 27, 2011

I started making a film about Rupert Murdoch when no one seemed that interested in an 80-year-old man who seemed to rule the world Sauron-like, and with little prospect of that changing till the opening of the cracks of doom. "Who cares about phone hacking?" was the usual response from the fabled fnf (phone-hacking jargon for "friends and family").

Then I had a stroke of luck – people at the News of the World screwed up big time and suddenly the flames were licking ever closer to the old man's chair. Overnight, everyone was really interested in Murdoch, and my film was no longer really out of date but on the money.

Thankfully, I'd filmed lots of interviews when it was really out of date, so I had people who wouldn't talk now – Sir Tim Bell, the spin chief to more than 40 governments (and best friend of both Murdoch and Mrs Thatcher), who laughed at my crude attempts to analyse Murdoch ("he's like a human satellite dish, beaming across the planet, isn't he?" Er, no).

There's Andy Hayman, the much-criticised former Met anti-terrorism chief, dubbed "Inspector Clouseau" by MP Keith Vaz, and blamed for not pursuing the phone-hacking inquiry, and then there's former NoW staffer and punchbag to Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan, Paul McMullan.

Paul bought a crappy pub in Dover ("last stop before the ferry") on the proceeds of papp'd pics he took of Brad Pitt. When I arrived, the cellar was flooding as the sea came in underneath. He told me he couldn't phone any of his friends from the NoW any more as the police seized their mobiles, so if you texted them, you were texting plod.

I also travelled out to Watford to interview Sean Hoare, the original NoW whistleblower, who ran the showbiz pages and partied with Sean Ryder and the Gallaghers. Shockingly, Sean died suddenly just one day before Murdoch appeared before the parliamentary select committee, never getting to see the fruit of his labours in trying to expose all this. Hoare knew Nick Davies of the Guardian well and had unstintingly put his head above the parapet when no one else would. Plus he was a lifelong Hammer, and I've never met a Hammer I didn't like.

Sean told me mad, mad stuff about what they got up to at the NoW. Aside from the predictable evils we all know about and are (rightfully I suppose) morally indignant about, there was also a crazy camaraderie and humour at the NoW: in the characters who worked there and what they did to get a story, like sitting in an unmarked transit van in their underpants (as Paul did) throughout summer, just to secretly film some poor sod shagging his secretary.

Sean worked with the fabled Neville Thurlbeck – a man who would go to ridiculous lengths to get a story, even stripping off to ingratiate himself with a bunch of nudists, so earning him the office nickname of "Onan the Barbarian".

It's easy to make a doomy film about Murdoch and phone hacking, missing the story of the people who did it. Even Murdoch himself is not Sauron, but a fascinating and complex man. He is fascinated with process, with the mechanics of producing information, and with the mechanics of manipulating people who crave power. He is not evil: he is more of a mirror reflecting back the vanity and insecurities of four decades of politicians.

Murdoch's butler Philip Townsend paints a picture of a witty irascible figure low on confidence and with little time for toadying employees, fakes and the usual crowd who would try to curry influence. When Tony Blair flew to Australia to seek his patronage, his team were told that Murdoch was a big bad bastard who likes big bad bastards. Cameron, Townsend said, isn't Murdoch's kind of person. Gordon Brown, on the other hand, he liked. But just couldn't back, because he was clearly going to lose. Murdoch only backs winners, regardless of their ideology.

Watching Murdoch at the select committee, I couldn't help thinking that his long silences betrayed the fact he was in fact the smartest man in the room. He always plays the long game, and this set-back, in a tiny outcrop of his empire, is not the end of the story. Sure he's a big bad bastard, but that doesn't stop him being fascinating, and probably fantastic company if you were to invite him to dinner. Let's face it, the devil has all the best tunes, and Murdoch has learned some tunes in his time.