Rupert Murdoch and the Corruption of the British Media

[Douglas Caddy]

Phone hacking: News International faces nearly 50 new claims

Civil claimants now include Sir John Major's former daughter-in-law, Lord Blencathra and former union leader Andy Gilchrist

By Lisa O'Carroll

guardian.co.uk,Friday 20 April 2012 07.31 EDT

The number of new civil claims for damages over alleged News of the World phone hacking faced by Rupert Murdoch's News International has reached nearly 50, including Sir John Major's former daughter-in-law Emma Noble, the high court has heard.

Others seeking damages for alleged invasion of privacy from News Group Newspapers, the News International subsidiary that published the now-closed Sunday tabloid, include former Conservative cabinet minister and chief whip Lord Blencathra and former Fire Brigades Union general secretary Andy Gilchrist.

At a case management conference at the high court in London on Friday, Hugh Tomlinson, QC, representing victims of alleged phone hacking, told Mr Justice Vos that he had 44 new cases filed while two others had submitted their claims via another legal representative.

It is expected that up to 200 new claims will be filed over the coming months, Tomlinson told the court in a previous hearing.

The cases are part of a second wave of civil actions which Vos is managing following the settlement of more than 50 cases earlier this year including claims by Jude Law, Charlotte Church and Lord Prescott.

Tomlinson did not disclose the names of the claimants, but court papers show that new cases submitted to the high court in the past week include claims by Noble, the model and actor who was married to Major's son James for five years up to 2004.

Tomlinson told the court that News International had received 100 requests for discovery of preliminary disclosure.

He said there were 4,791 potential phone-hacking victims, of which 1,892 had been contacted by the police. The police believed 1,174 were "likely victims".

Court 30 in the Rolls Building of the high court was packed, with more than 50 law firms acting for victims.

Vos said there were 58 firms of solicitors representing only 100 victims, which he told Tomlinson was "unbelievable".

The judge added that he wanted to ensure costs are reduced for claimants. "Many of them have seen the light and have instructed lawyers who have specialist knowledge of this case," said Vos.

He suggested possible tariffs of costs for each element of the legal action. This would mean fresh claimants could access to information relating to the News of the World's phone-hacking activity already produced on discovery in earlier cases, without incurring the costs associated with a full action. "I will have no sympathy for outrageous cost estimates," he said.

Public figures including Cherie Blair, the wife of the former Labour prime minister, Alex Best, the wife of the ex-Manchester United footballer George Best, have already filed lawsuits, and the man wrongly accused of murdering Rachel Nickell, Colin Stagg.

Others who have filed claims include comedian Bobby Davro, actor Tina Hobley, TV personalities Jamie Theakston and Jeff Brazier, former boxer Chris Eubank, and footballers Peter Crouch, Kieron Dyer and Jermaine Jenas.

[Douglas Caddy]

Leveson inquiry: Rupert and James Murdoch to give evidence next week

News Corp chairman will face phone hacking questions on Wednesday, while his son will appear on Tuesday

By Jason Deans

guardian.co.uk,

Thursday 19 April 2012 11.40 EDT

Rupert Murdoch is to give evidence to the Leveson inquiry into phone hacking and media ethics next week, with a day and a half set aside for the News Corporation founder.

Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of News Corp, is due to give evidence on Wednesday, continuing on Thursday morning if necessary.

His son James, the News Corp deputy chief operating officer and former chairman of the company's UK newspaper business News International, has been allocated a full day on Tuesday for his witness appearance.

Murdoch and his son are based in New York, where News Corp has its headquarters, but will be travelling to London to answer questions from Lord Justice Leveson and his legal team in court 73 at the Royal Courts of Justice.

The Leveson inquiry, set up by prime minister David Cameron following the phone-hacking scandal that led to the closure of the News of the World in July 2011, has heard from more than 100 witnesses since evidence hearings began in November.

Witnesses have included victims of alleged press intrusion, journalists, editors, media executives, police officers and chief constables. However, up to now none have been given a full day, or more, to give evidence by Leveson.

The Murdochs appeared together before MPs on the Commons culture, media and sport select committee to answer questions about News of the World phone-hacking at the height of the scandal in July last year.

That grilling lasted about three hours, including an unscheduled break after a UK Uncut activist threw a paper plate of shaving foam at Rupert Murdoch.

Also giving evidence at the Leveson inquiry next week, on Monday, will be Aidan Barclay, chairman of Daily Telegraph publisher Telegraph Media Group, and Evgeny Lebedev, the son of Russian businessman Alexander Lebedev, who runs his London-based papers the Independent and London Evening Standard

[Douglas Caddy]

Ofcom to investigate Sky News over 'canoe man' email hacking

By Mark Sweney

guardian.co.uk,

Monday 23 April 2012 06.37 EDT

Media regulator Ofcom to investigate whether Sky News broke broadcasting rules in using hacked emails for John Darwin story

Sky News has already admitted that a senior executive authorised a journalist to hack 'canoe man' John Darwin’s email ‘in the public interest’. Photograph: Handout/Getty Images

Ofcom is to launch an investigation into a Sky News journalist's hacking of emails belonging to John Darwin, the "canoe man" accused of faking his own death.

The media regulator said that it is investigating whether Sky News has broken broadcasting rules relating to fairness and privacy after using the hacked emails as the basis of story published on the web and aired on the news channel.

Earlier this month Sky News admitted that one of its senior executives had authorised a journalist to conduct email hacking on two separate occasions that it said were in the public interest – even though intercepting emails is a prima facie breach of the Computer Misuse Act, to which there is no such defence written in law.

Ofcom's investigation centres on rule 8.1 of the broadcasting code, which states that broadcasters must follow a series of standards and principles to avoid the unwarranted infringement of privacy in connection with how material to be used in broadcasts is obtained.

"Ofcom is investigating the fairness and privacy issues raised by Sky News' statement that it had accessed without prior authorisation private email accounts during the course of its news investigations," said a spokesman for the regulator. "We will make the outcome known in due course."

A spokeswoman for the broadcaster said: "As the head of Sky News John Ryley said earlier this month, we stand by these actions as editorially justified … The Crown Prosecution Service acknowledges that there are rare occasions where it is justified for a journalist to commit an offence in the public interest. The director of public prosecutions Kier Starmer told the Leveson inquiry that 'considerable public interest weight' is given to journalistic conduct which discloses that a criminal offence has been committed and/or concealed."

Sky News also pointed out that section 8.1 of the broadcasting code contains an explanation about how a broadcaster can justify a privacy infringement if it believes there is a public interest defence. Section 8.1 of the code states: "Where broadcasters wish to justify an infringement of privacy as warranted, they should be able to demonstrate why in the particular circumstances of the case, it is warranted … If the reason is that it is in the public interest, then the broadcaster should be able to demonstrate that the public interest outweighs the right to privacy. Examples of public interest would include revealing or detecting crime … "

Sky News believes this defence applies in the case of John Darwin.

Gerard Tubb, the broadcaster's northern England correspondent, accessed emails belonging to Darwin when his wife Anne was due to stand trial for deception in July 2008. The reporter built up a database of emails that he believed would help defeat Anne Darwin's defence. Her husband had pleaded guilty to seven charges of deception before her trial.

Tubb later produced a story for the Sky News channel and website in which he quoted from emails that had been written by Darwin to his wife and to a lawyer.

The broadcaster also published a voicemail message on its website, dated 19 May 2007, in which Anne Darwin is clearly heard leaving a message for her husband.

Sky News has defended its actions arguing that police were made aware of the source of the material and that running the stories was justified in the public interest.

[Douglas Caddy]

NY Daily News editor Colin Myler under scrutiny over NoW allegations

Allegations made that Myler, when News of the World editor, told reporters to dig for dirt on MPs investigating phone hacking

By Ed Pilkington and Dominic Rushe in New York

guardian.co.uk,

Monday 23 April 2012 09.40 EDT

Colin Myler was editor of the News of the World from 2007 until it closed in July last year. Photograph: Tom Stoddart Archive/Getty Images

Colin Myler's editorship of the New York Daily News, one of the most prominent newspapers in America, has come under renewed scrutiny following allegations that he attempted to intimidate members of the UK parliament investigating phone hacking at the News of the World at the time he led the now-defunct tabloid.

Media monitoring groups and experts in journalistic ethics in America have described the allegations raised against Myler as "horrifying" and "abhorrent". New York magazine has also published a 5,000-word profile of Myler in its current issue, putting a spotlight onto Myler within the US media that he has assiduously tried to avoid – until now with relative success.

Myler was the final editor of the News of the World from 2007 until it closed last July. In January he was appointed editor-in-chief of the New York Daily News, a job that puts him on the high table of American journalists.

Media monitors in the US have reacted to claims that Myler attempted to bully British MPs investigating the News of the World as anathema to journalistic standards in the US. Eric Boehlert, senior fellow of the progressive watchdog Media Matters, said that the allegation "would put any American newspaper editor in a very uncomfortable position. Anything like it would be seen as completely horrifying and beyond the realm of responsible journalism".

Edward Wasserman, Knight Foundation professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University, said that if the allegations were correct, it was "such a transparent breach of ethics in that it's hard to imagine the very idea even being discussed in a US newsroom. Even the most politically zealous journalist would find it abhorrent."

In his position as editor of the News of the World, Myler is alleged to have instructed a team of six reporters to dig for dirt on every member of the Commons culture select committee that at a time was investigating phone hacking at the British tabloid. Reporters were asked to find out if any of the members had had illicit affairs or were gay.

The allegations were made last week by Tom Watson, a Labour MP who has been at the forefront of the exposure of phone hacking and other illegal activities within Rupert Murdoch's UK newspapers. At the launch of his new co-authored book, Dial M for Murdoch, Watson said he had been told of Myler's attempted intimidation of MPs by Neville Thurlbeck, former chief reporter at the News of the World.

Thurlbeck later confirmed that reporters had been asked to monitor committee members, but added that he had "no evidence" that it had come from the editor's office.

Colin Myler declined to comment on the accusations. Mort Zuckerman, the business tycoon who owns the New York Daily News and and who brought Myler across the Atlantic to lead it, also declined to comment on whether the new allegations cast doubt on the wisdom of the appointment.

In the New York magazine profile of Myler, Zuckerman tells writer Steve Fishman that he had no qualms about Myler's role in the phone-hacking scandal. "He's not involved," Zuckerman said.

Watson's new book may not be the last time that Myler faces serious allegations arising from his tenure as News of the World editor. Discrepancies in his evidence to parliament over phone hacking could feature in the final report of the culture select committee that MPs are currently completing.

In July 2009, when he was still News of the World editor, Myler appeared before the culture select committee and told MPs that he had personally supervised a trawl through thousands of emails and had found no evidence that phone hacking went beyond a single "rogue" reporter at the newspaper.

Yet it has since been revealed that more than a year previously, in May 2008, Myler had engaged in internal correspondence with the News of the World's lawyer Tom Crone, in which Crone made clear that other reporters had also been involved in hacking and that illegal activities were far more widespread.

MPs will also need to consider apparent contradictions in evidence given to the committee by Myler and Crone, on the one hand, and James Murdoch, former chairman of the UK newspaper group News International, on the other. Last November, James Murdoch openly disputed the testimony that Myler and Crone had given the committee.

Murdoch told MPs that contrary to what Myler and Crone had told parliament, the pair had failed to inform him of wider illegality at the paper. "I believe their testimony was misleading and I dispute it," he said.

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Research Center's project for excellence in journalism, said it was not clear how the new allegations surrounding Myler would affect his New York position. Rosenstiel said he was struck by how the phone-hacking scandal had "remained a British scandal despite the size of News Corp operations over here."

[Douglas Caddy]

Michael Moore predicts phone-hacking scandal will spread to Fox News

Documentary film-maker has 'gut feeling' investigations will reveal phone hacking at Murdoch subsidiary Fox News

By Ben Child

guardian.co.uk,

Monday 23 April 2012 11.18 BST

The film-maker Michael Moore has suggested that the phone-hacking scandal at News International may spread to US subsidiary Fox News while speaking at a film festival event in New York.

Moore, a long-term critic of the rightwing cable channel, said he found it hard to believe that the practice could be limited to the media conglomerate's UK businesses. UK Sunday newspaper the News of the World, which is owned by News International, was closed in July after 168 years in print after phone hacking was found to be widespread there.

"I'm interested to see what happens with Fox News and phone hacking," said Moore during an onstage conversation with actor Susan Sarandon at the Tribeca film festival on Sunday. "I really can't believe it just happens in Great Britain. Because really, who cares about just hacking phones over there?

"I'll make a prediction about something — I think the phone-hacking thing Murdoch is involved in ... is going to be investigated, and it will be found that it's been going on here too," said the documentary film-maker. "I just have a gut feeling."

So far there is no evidence to suggest that the phone-hacking scandal has spread to News International's US businesses, and Moore did not offer any to back up his claims. British prosecutors have raised the prospect of bringing legal proceedings in the US if British citizens' phones are found to have been hacked while they were on American soil, and several US politicians have called for investigations into suggestions that the company hacked the phones of 9/11 victims.

Moore and Sarandon, who is also known for her liberal leanings, both said they believed themselves to be under surveillance by US government agencies.

"I've gotten my [FBI] file twice," Sarandon said. "I know my phone was tapped. If they're not surveilling you, then everyone else has cameras on phones. I was denied security clearance to go to the White House [next week], and I don't know why."

Moore replied: "I never think about it. It would unwind me. I assume everything I'm saying in an email or saying on the telephone is being looked at."

[Douglas Caddy]

Jeremy Hunt visited News Corp in US as Murdochs considered BSkyB bid

James Murdoch told David Cameron News Corp would support Tories soon after Hunt's US trip in 2009, documents reveal

By David Leigh and Vikram Dodd

guardian.co.uk,

Wednesday 25 April 2012 11.11 EDT

Jeremy Hunt spent five days in the US holding meetings with News Corp at the same point Rupert and James Murdoch were first deciding whether to bid for Sky, official documents reveal.

Almost immediately after Hunt's trip, James Murdoch visited David Cameron in London, and privately told him that News Corp had agreed to switch support to the Tories in the upcoming election. Hunt then became culture secretary in the victorious Tory government.

Hunt's officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) declined to comment on what Hunt had been doing at News Corp's headquarters during the August 2009 visit, which was disclosed in the register of members' interests later that year.

But the timing of the visit was thrown into focus on Tuesday when James Murdoch revealed that this was the moment his company was weighing up whether it could overcome the likely obstacles to a takeover bid for the share of Sky it did not already own. James Murdoch told the Leveson inquiry: "I remember there was a meeting in the summertime about it in Los Angeles, in sort of August, but that was sort of where it was coming – starting to come together, thinking: would it be possible to do that?"

Critics of the bid are now questioning whether this could be the moment that News Corporation was given the political green light to proceed.

On 30 August, Hunt, then the Tories' culture spokesman, left for New York. He declares on his register of interests that he funded the trip with £4,000 taken from donations to his office by John Lewis, a wealthy lawyer and businessman, a regular supporter. The donations paid for flights for two and accommodation.

Hunt did not reveal who he saw at News Corp's headquarters. His register entry says: "Purpose of visit: to look into local media ventures. Meetings with representatives of News Corp (including Wall Street Journal), Fox Five and WNET."

Hunt returned from the US on 4 September 2009. Six days later, James Murdoch, who was in charge of the as yet unannounced Sky bid, met Cameron, then leader of the opposition, at the discreet George Club in Mayfair, and gave him the news that the Sun would switch its support to the Conservatives.

Labour politicians, who are calling for Hunt's resignation over his secret links with Murdoch during the bid process, are likely to see the timing of his 2009 visit to News Corp as more evidence of a link between the Sky bid and the Sun's switch of political allegiance.

They are now calling on Hunt to declare whether or not he discussed the Sky bid or the likelihood of Tory support for it during his visit.

The Labour MP Tom Watson, a member of the culture, media and sport select committee, said Hunt's journey to the US was suspicious: "After the James Murdoch revelations, this points the finger of suspicion at this particular trip.

"What was discussed, who did Jeremy Hunt meet?

"If the possibility of the BSkyB bid was discussed at any point, did Mr Hunt declare this to MPs in the chamber? Who did he go with?

"Leveson will see this as a disastrous piece of timing and the inquiry is allowing people to join the dots about the web of connections spun by Rupert Murdoch's News International."

In the weeks that followed Hunt's trip to visit News Corp in the US there was a flurry of activity.

James Murdoch used his MacTaggart lecture on 28 August in the UK to publicise a set of demands that were in the commercial interests of News Corp's UK broadcasting interests.

Without disclosing that News Corp was planning after the election to launch a bid to take over the whole of BSkyB, he called for the power of media regulators to be reduced.

He said: "A radical reorientation of the regulatory approach is necessary if dynamism and innovation is going to be central to the UK media industry. Intervention should only happen on the evidence of actual and serious harm to the interests of consumers: not merely because a regulator armed with a set of prejudices and a spreadsheet believes that a bit of tinkering here and there could make the world a better place."

He added that the BBC was "dumping free, state-sponsored news on the market". The next day he said the licence fee must be cut and the BBC made "much, much smaller".

And in what appeared to be a deliberate piece of timing to inflict maximum damage on the then Labour prime minister, Gordon Brown, the announcement of the switch was delayed until 30 September, when Brown was due to make his party conference speech.

Rupert Murdoch apparently had breakfast with Cameron on that morning, according to the News Corp evidence submitted to Leveson, and he would have been able to see the Murdochs' handiwork on that morning's Sun front page. Rupert Murdoch disputed this to Leveson on Wednesday, saying: "I wasn't here on the day we came out for the Tories."

A spokesman for the DCMS declined to answer questions, saying: "He [Hunt] made a statement yesterday and we're not adding to it. We're not commenting." Asked if he was prepared to take questions, the spokesman said: "No, we're not adding to the statement."

[Douglas Caddy]

Leveson: Murdoch hints that hacking crisis could spread to US

Rupert Murdoch has given the biggest hint to date that the phone-hacking crisis could spread to his US interests.

News Corporation Chief Executive and Chairman, Rupert Murdoch, gives evidence at the Leveson Inquiry

By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter

The Telegraph

12:02PM BST 25 Apr 2012

In his witness statement to the Leveson Inquiry, he discloses that “evidence of alleged or suspected illegality” by News International staff is being passed to investigators from the US Department of Justice.

Earlier this month, Mark Lewis, the lawyer representing dozens of hacking victims, travelled to America where he said he was representing at least three people who believe their phones were hacked on US soil.

Any criminal action against News Corporation in the US would be hugely costly both in terms of financial outlay and reputational damage.

It would also bring the criminal investigations closer to Mr Murdoch’s door, as he is based in the US.

Last year the FBI launched an investigation into whether any News Corporation companies accessed voicemails of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the Department of Justice is looking into possible breaches of the Foreign Corrupt Practices ActIn his witness statement, Mr Murdoch gives details of the working of News International’s Management and Standards Committee, which was set up partly to provide police with any relevant evidence of phone-hacking.

He says: “Since July 2011, the MSC, working with a legal team, has actively cooperated with the Metropolitan Police as well as with the United States Department of Justice, turning over evidence of alleged or suspected illegality, and responding to all requests for information.

“This has led to the arrests of a number of NI employees. Our cooperation is continuing to date.”

Mr Murdoch repeats his comment, made to the Parliamentary culture, media and sport select committee last year, that he had been “humbled by the events of the past year” and “with the wisdom of hindsight, I have learned that even experienced and long serving members of staff can fail to meet their responsibilities”.

He adds: “All of us regret that some of our colleagues fell far short of what is expected of them. I feel great personal regret that we did not respond more quickly or effectively.

“This company has been my life’s work, and I feel a strong sense of responsibility for everything we do and fail to do.”

Edited April 25, 2012 by Douglas Caddy

[Douglas Caddy]

http://www.dailymail...on-Inquiry.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134850/Rupert-Murdoch-sends-60k-emails-US-detectives-investigating-phone-hacking.html

Edited April 25, 2012 by Douglas Caddy

[Douglas Caddy]

Harold Evans hits back at 'comic and sad' Rupert Murdoch

Former Times editor accuses News Corp boss of 'spectacular displays of imagination' in his evidence to Leveson inquiry

By Ben Dowell

guardian.co.uk,

Wednesday 25 April 2012 13.21 EDT

Harold Evans, the former Times and Sunday Times editor, has accused Rupert Murdoch of displaying "spectacular displays of imagination" in his evidence to the Leveson inquiry of his account of the takeover of the papers in 1981.

Evans, who had led a management buyout group hoping to acquire the Sunday Times, accused the News Corporation chairman, of being disingenuous about his claims that he did not lobby then prime minister Margaret Thatcher at a lunch he attended at Chequers before he took over the papers.

News of the lunch emerged in March when the Churchill Archives Centre in Cambridge released documents from the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, including a note from her press secretary, Bernard Ingham, about the meeting.

In an article posted on the Daily Beast website, which is run by his wife Tina Brown, Evans also said Murdoch's testimony reflected the traditional pattern of all "Murdoch sagas".

"He responds to serious criticism by a biting wisecrack or diversionary personal attack. What is denied most sharply invariably turns out to [be] irrefutably true. As with the hacking saga, so with my charges."

Murdoch told the Leveson inquiry into phone hacking and media standards in London on Wednesday he sacked Evans after he was told there was a rebellion at the Times against its then editor.

He also recounted an incident in which he claimed Evans took him aside to demand what editorial line he should be taking. Murdoch said Evans had asked him: "'Look, tell me what you want to say and it needn't leave this room, but I will do it'."

Evans said it was "comic and sad" to see Murdoch's Leveson appearance.

"It was comic for me because he had to find a way of denying that he ever broke his promise to maintain the independence of the Times under my editorship. Political independence was only one of the promises he made and broke," he added.

"It was sad that, having lost his memory, he compensated by spectacular displays of imagination. On the stand he invented a scene in which I came on my knees, begging him to tell me what to think, and not to tell anybody that I'd asked him."

Murdoch told Leveson he did not recall the details of the lunch with Thatcher, but maintained the meeting was "quite appropriate" because it concerned the possible takeover of a "great economic asset".

He also said he had never asked a prime minister for anything, including Thatcher. He added that notes by Ingham would confirm his view, saying: "I hope they will be put on the web."

Evans attacked "the pretence … that Murdoch was afforded a private meeting with the prime minister so she could be briefed on the takeover battle", speaking of the lunch held on 4 January 1981.

"That's absurd enough, given the coverage in the press and the responsibilities of the Department of Trade. The larger absurdity is that the prime minister's redundant "briefing" is being done by only one bidder, and by one who has an urgent interest in rubbishing his competitors," he said.

"We are asked to believe that there was no mention at the lunch of the clear legal requirement for Murdoch's bid to be referred to … the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The prime minister had a duty to remind him of the laws she had sworn to honour and enforce. Did she not emit at least a polite cough? If she did not, she was uncharacteristically negligent.

"And if she did murmur something, why did Ingham choose not to record it? Sir Bernard is, alas, unable to help us with anything. He has no memory of the meeting."

Evans also took issue with the wording of the note by Ingham about the meeting, which he suggested was written carefully in case it was leaked or emerged in posterity.

"Ingham's 'note for the record' reeks of cover-up in triplicate," he said. "It bears some parsing."

At the time of Murdoch's proposed takeover of the Times, Evans had expected that Murdoch's bid would be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because of his ownership of the Sun and News of the World.

When it was not, he and many commentators at the time suspected there had been a political fix.

[Douglas Caddy]

Rupert Murdoch admits NoW phone-hacking cover-up

Murdoch says he was 'misinformed and shielded' from events at paper and points finger at 'one or two strong characters'

By Lisa O'Carroll and Josh Halliday

guardian.co.uk,

Thursday 26 April 2012 06.59 EDT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/26/murdoch-admits-phone-hacking-coverup

News Corp chairman admits he should have paid more attention to what was going on at the News of the World Link to this video

Rupert Murdoch has admitted to the Leveson inquiry there was a "cover-up" at News International over the phone-hacking scandal.

Murdoch, the News Corp chairman and chief executive, giving his second day of evidence to the inquiry in London, said he was "misinformed and shielded" from what was going on at the News of the World, adding that there was a "cover-up".

Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, said there had been a consistent theme of cover-up during the phone-hacking scandal, and asked Murdoch where he thought this emanated from. "I think from within the News of the World," he replied.

Murdoch said there were "one or two very strong characters" on the now-defunct Sunday paper who, according to reported statements, had forbidden people from talking to Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch, at the time News International chief executive and chairman respectively.

Murdoch said a News of the World editor was appointed – referring to Colin Myler, although he did not name him at this point – "with specific instructions to find out what was going on". "He did, I believe, put in two or three new steps of regulation but never reported back that there was more hacking than we had been told."

Myler was appointed in January 2007, after the News of the World royal reporter, Clive Goodman, and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire admitted phone hacking and went to prison. His predecessor, Andy Coulson, denied any knowledge of phone hacking but resigned, saying he took responsibilty for what happened.

Murdoch told the inquiry Myler "would not have been my choice" and that he was the choice of Les Hinton, who at the time was News International's executive chairman. He said he thought at the time there were stronger candidates from News International sister title the Sun.

Jay then asked if Myler was a weak individual and wrong man for the job. "I would say that was a slight exaggeration," replied Murdoch. "I would hope Mr Myler would do what he was commissioned to do."

When asked by Jay whether News Corp had managed the legal risk of phone hacking by covering it up, Murdoch replied: "No. There was no attempt either at my level or several levels below to cover it up. We set up inquiry after inquiry, we employed legal firm after legal firm. Perhaps we relied too much on the conclusions of the police.

"Our response was far too defensive and worse, disrespectful of parliament."

Murdoch later revealed he wished he had closed the News of the World earlier and also admitted he panicked when the phone-hacking affair blew up into a major scandal in July 2011.

"When the Milly Dowler [story] was first given huge publicity, I think newspapers took the chance to make this a huge national scandal. It made people all over the country aware of this, you could feel the blast coming in the window," he told the inquiry.

"I'll say it succinctly: I panicked, but I'm glad I did. And I'm sorry I didn't close it years before and put a Sun on Sunday in. I tell you what held us back: News of the World readers. Only half of them read the Sun. Only a quarter, regular."

Murdoch said he also made a major mistake listening to lawyers when Goodman alleged that others on the News of the World knew about the phone hacking.

"I should have thrown all the lawyers out of the place and seen Mr Goodman one on one and cross-examined him myself and made up my mind, maybe rightly or wrongly, was he telling the truth? And if I had come to the conclusion that he was telling the truth, I'd have gone in and torn the place apart and we wouldn't be here today," he added.

Earlier during the hearing, Murdoch agreed with Jay that the phone-hacking scandal had forced News Corp to drop its controversial £8bn takeover bid for BSkyB in July 2011.

He told the Leveson inquiry the scandal spiralled into a "great, national" issue after it emerged that the News of the World intercepted the voicemail messages of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler.

News Corp withdrew its bid for BSkyB in July last year, nine days after the Guardian revealed that Dowler's phone had been hacked by the Sunday tabloid.

Asked by Jay whether the Dowler claims ultimately derailed the bid, Murdoch said: "Well, I don't know whether we can put it down to the Milly Dowler misfortune, but the hacking scandal, yes."

He added: "The hacking scandal was not a great national thing until the Milly Dowler disclosure, half of which - look, I'm not making any excuses for it at all, but half of which has been somewhat disowned by the police."

Murdoch also said he was surprised at the extent of lobbying of the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt's office by Fred Michel, the News Corp public affairs executive, while the Sky takeover bid was under regulatory scrutiny between June 2010 and July 2011.

Murdoch refused to criticise Michel, but said he may have used "a bit of exaggeration" to tell his son James about his alleged closeness to the culture secretary.

Michel's activities were revealed in a series of emails between him and James Murdoch, the News Corp deputy chief operating officer, that were submitted to the Leveson inquiry and published on Monday.

Hunt's special adviser who dealt with Michel during the Sky bid, Adam Smith, resigned on Wednesday.

Hunt made a statement to the Commons defending his conduct over the takeover bid, but is still facing calls from Labour leader Ed Miliband to resign

[Douglas Caddy]

Top civil servant refuses to back Jeremy Hunt on BSkyB

Senior civil servant working for Jeremy Hunt has refused to back the Culture Secretary’s account of his dealings with the Murdoch empire in a row that threatens his career

By James Kirkup, Deputy Political Editor

The Telegraph

1:44PM BST 26 Apr 2012

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9228826/Top-civil-servant-refuses-to-back-Jeremy-Hunt-on-BSkyB.html

Jonathan Stephenson, the permanent secretary at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, repeatedly declined to answer questions about the matter from a committee of MPs.

Mr Hunt is facing calls for his resignation after admitting that his special adviser, Adam Smith, inappropriately supplied information to News Corporation about Mr Hunt’s decisions on the company’s bid to control BSkyB.

Mr Smith resigned on Wednesday, saying he had acted without his minister’s approval.

However, the fact that he was in regular contact with News Corp about Mr Hunt’s “quasi-judicial” decision has raised questions. Former Labour ministers have said it is unusual for a political aide to be given a central role in such a matter.

Mr Hunt told the Commons on Wednesday that Mr Smith’s role as the main point of contact for News Corp was “agreed by the permanent secretary” in the department, Mr Stephenson.

At a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee today, Mr Stephenson was repeatedly asked to confirm that he had agreed Mr Smith’s role in the BSkyB decision.

Margaret Hodge, the committee chairman, asked Mr Stephenson: “Did you know that Adam Smith was acting as a channel of communication between the department and Murdoch?”

The official replied: The Secretary of State made a full statement to Parliament yesterday. He has made it clear that he’s providing full written evidence and is looking forward to providing oral evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.

“There was a statement by the special adviser yesterday which made it clear that he accepted that the nature and content of those contacts was not authorised by the Secretary nor by me. I think that is the right forum for those matters to be answered.”

Mr Stephenson added that because the committee hearing was originally scheduled to discuss the Olympics, he was not prepared to discuss the BSkyB case.

His answer was criticised by MPs, and Nick Smith, a Labour member of the committee, suggested has trying to “stonewall”.

Mr Stephenson replied: “I am very sorry. These are very important matters. They are rightly the subject of interest of Parliament. That’s why the Secretary of State made a full statement yesterday and answers questions. I have come ready to speak about the Olympics.

“I have made clear the position set out in various statements yesterday and I think I need to stand on that without any implications being drawn whatsoever. I was not given any notice of these questions.”

In all, Mr Stephenson was asked about Mr Smith’s role ten times, but refused to give any information about his own knowledge or authorisation of that role.

[Steve Knight]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9229550/Sketch-Rupert-Murdoch-gets-grumpy.html

Sketch: Rupert Murdoch gets grumpy

Michael Deacon describes Rupert Murdoch's second day at the Leveson Inquiry into media ethics and phone hacking.

By Michael Deacon, Parliamentary Sketchwriter

6:22PM BST 26 Apr 2012

If Rupert Murdoch had known that phone hacking was widespread at the News of the World, he would, he said, “have torn the place apart”. It was a vision to make even the strongest man quail: this pint-sized elderly businessman mutating, Hulk-style, into a rage-fuelled nine-foot monster, green muscles bulging as he flings errant reporters through walls, drops printing presses onto editors’ heads and strangles executives with their own ties. Thank goodness the truth about hacking was kept from him for so long.

At the Leveson Inquiry yesterday Mr Murdoch didn’t look capable of tearing a sandwich apart, let alone the offices of a newspaper, but he was, without question, in far more combative mood than he had been the day before. On Wednesday the News Corp CEO had spoken as calmly as a country parson; yesterday he grumbled, carped and glared. He looked like a grumpy boiled egg.

Although he claimed that there had been a “cover-up” (by unnamed senior figures) at the News of the World, and that the hacking scandal would be “a blot on my reputation for the rest of my life”, he also took the opportunity to attack foes and rivals. The BBC; former employees; Vince Cable; competing newspapers; even his ex-housekeeper (“a very strange bird indeed, although he did keep it clean”).

Remarkably, he also criticised his son James, the former chairman of News International, for paying such a large sum in compensation to one hacking victim, Gordon Taylor. This error apparently showed that James was “pretty inexperienced”.

A couple of times he snapped back at his interrogator, Robert Jay QC. At one point Mr Jay queried Mr Murdoch’s failure to involve himself personally in dealing with phone hacking: “Some might say this is consistent with a desire to cover up.”

“Maybe people with minds like yours,” snorted Mr Murdoch. Lord Leveson looked at him. “I take that back,” said Mr Murdoch quickly.

He was certainly less careful with his phrasing than he had been on Wednesday. He referred to the hacking of a dead schoolgirl’s mobile phone as “the Milly Dowler misfortune”. Look at that word. “Misfortune.” As if her messages had been hacked by unhappy accident – a mere slip, the sort of mistake anyone could make.

Still, at least Mr Murdoch deigns to use the word “hacking”. His son James has consistently preferred the phrase “voicemail interception”, which somehow makes it sound gentler, less invasive, a clean and possibly even harmless surgical procedure.

Of course, two days of intense legal questioning must place quite a strain on an 81-year-old man – especially one with a memory as sketchy as Mr Murdoch’s. (Now we know where James gets it from – it must be genetic.) There proved to be a long list of events, meetings, people and actions that Mr Murdoch had “no memory of”. He didn’t “believe” he’d ever met Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, whose behaviour in relation to Mr Murdoch’s BSkyB takeover bid is now under ominous scrutiny.

Often, after a question had been posed, Mr Murdoch would for some time sit silently staring at his hands, as if expecting to find the answers inscribed on them in tiny letters. But it seemed that they generally weren’t.

======

I just loved his pop at the "destructive technologies" - Internet. Had a good old whinge that free news online was reducing his chances at making money....then was all over the place saying print media had 10-20 years of life left in it...4 or 5 different responses, gave 3 different time-scales....he was all over the place...

"Nice" little pop at the BBC, too. He came across as a pathetic, bitter, angry figure....

[Douglas Caddy]

Jeremy Hunt to hand over all relevant BSkyB emails and texts

Culture secretary to give messages he sent to Adam Smith and News Corp executives about takeover bid to Leveson inquiry.

By Josh Halliday, Patrick Wintour and Shiv Malik

guardian.co.uk,

Friday 27 April 2012 07.37 EDT

Jeremy Hunt said he was confident the emails would 'vindicate that I handled the BSkyB merger process with total propriety'. Photograph: Luke Macgregor/Reuters

Jeremy Hunt, the embattled culture secretary, is to disclose all his private correspondence over the BSkyB takeover deal to the Leveson inquiry.

Hunt will disclose any "relevant" emails and text messages to News Corporation executives and his former special adviser Adam Smith over the controversial takeover bid, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has confirmed.

Earlier on Friday, Hunt said he would disclose messages sent to Smith as Lord Oakeshott, the senior Liberal Democrat peer, joined the call by his party colleague Simon Hughes for David Cameron to refer the culture secretary to the independent adviser on the ministerial code, Sir Alex Allan. The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, accused the prime minister of "organising a cover-up" over the affair.

Smith resigned on Wednesday after admitting that his communications with a News Corp lobbyist while the company was trying to take full control of BSkyB "at times went too far".

Hunt said on Friday: "I will be handing over all my private texts and emails to my special adviser to the Leveson inquiry and I am confident they will vindicate that I handled the BSkyB merger process with total propriety."

The DCMS later confirmed that Hunt would pass "all relevant information" on the matter – not just messages to Smith – to the inquiry.

A department spokesman said: "The secretary of state gave a statement to parliament this week in which he made it clear that he would be co-operating fully with the inquiry and submitting evidence in due course. He feels strongly that the inquiry is the right forum for this to be discussed, and this is the clear wish of the judge himself too. This is the right process for addressing these issues."

The culture secretary has faced mounting pressure since Tuesday, when the Leveson inquiry published more than 160 pages of emails between News Corp's European public affairs director, Frédéric Michel, and his boss, James Murdoch, detailing apparently extensive contact between Hunt's office and the lobbyist at a time when Hunt was considering the company's £8bn bid for the 60.9% of BSkyB it did not already own.

Hughes, deputy leader of the Lib Dems, refused on Thursday night to back Hunt over the BSkyB affair. Appearing on BBC1's Question Time, Hughes said he could not understand why the prime minister had not referred the case for examination under the ministerial code of conduct.

Oakeshott said on Thursday night that Hughes "speaks for all Lib Dems. We all agree with him."

But Liberal Democrat officials representing Nick Clegg were less emphatic, saying: "Nick shares Simon's desire to get to the truth. Whether through Leveson or another route is a question of process."

The Conservatives argue that Leveson may not be able to rule on whether there has been a breach of the ministerial code since that is beyond the inquiry's terms of reference, but it can look at the evidence with which a judgment could be made.

Miliband said on Friday: "Every day David Cameron looks more like a prime minister organising a cover-up rather than standing up for the public. First he refuses to sack Jeremy Hunt despite the weight of evidence against him. Now, despite all-party calls to do so, he refuses even to ask the independent adviser on ministerial interests to examine whether Mr Hunt broke the ministerial code."

The shadow culture secretary, Harriet Harman, said Hunt should release the texts and emails to parliament and not just the Leveson inquiry. Harman accused the government of using the inquiry as "a big carpet under which they can sweep everything".

She accused the prime minister of doing everything in his power to avoid an investigation: "Lord Leveson's inquiry is of huge importance, but it is not in its terms of reference to look into breaches of the ministerial code.

"That is the job of the independent adviser, and the prime minister will not allow him to look into this."

Cameron's spokesman has acknowledged that Leveson's terms of reference do not allow the inquiry to examine breaches of the ministerial code but says Cameron sees no reason to refer the issue to Allan.

On Thursday, Hunt's most senior civil servant, Jonathan Stephens, refused 10 times before a parliamentary committee to either confirm or deny his alleged role in allowing Smith to speak to Michel. The DCMS issued a statement late on Thursday night saying Stephens was "content" with the role played by Smith.

Miliband has claimed it was not credible to say Smith acted as "a lone wolf" without the knowledge of Hunt in repeatedly briefing News Corp on how the culture secretary wanted to help the company in its bid for BSkyB.

Hunt has asked Leveson to allow him to give evidence to the inquiry earlier than scheduled in an attempt to head off the mounting controversy.

The former leader of the Conservative party Lord Howard defended Hunt on Friday, saying he should not resign and everyone should wait for the Leveson inquiry to get "to the bottom of what happened".

"The facts make it clear that Jeremy Hunt at every stage took independent advice and followed that independent advice," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "We should wait to hear every side of the story before coming to conclusion."

Howard, a former home secretary, said there was a danger in arguing that politicians be kept out all quasi-judicial processes such as the BSkyB bid.

"Some people have suggested that these decisions should be taken from politicians and I wouldn't dismiss that suggestion out of hand, but you've always got to remember that when you take decisions from elected politicians and give them to other people, so called independent people, you're losing an important element of accountability, and accountability is at the heart of parliamentary democracy," he said.

Michael Fallon, the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, told the BBC Politics Show: "We already have an inquiry into the relationship between government and BSkyB under way, headed by a very senior judge and he himself has said the better course would be to allow that inquiry to proceed to see the evidence, to test Jeremy Hunt on the evidence, and for him to give his side of the story and later on if it transpires there has been some breach of the ministerial code, then of course that can be looked at".

Tom Watson, the deputy chairman of the Labour party, countered: "The only person that does not want an independent assessor to do an independent inquiry is the prime minister. The truth about this is that everyone is running absolutely terrified because they are going to be exposed as in hock to Rupert Murdoch".

He accused the Conservatives of running away from the procedure for policing ministerial code.

[John Dolva]

''Tom Watson, the deputy chairman of the Labour party, countered: "The only person that does not want an independent assessor to do an independent inquiry is the prime minister.''

I disgree.

An independent inquiry could do far far more damage to persons at the core of this. It could lead to avenues of inquiry that spans decades of events across the globe that have the potential to rewrite official histories in ways that probably few can imagine. Certainly the prime minister is reluctant to open such a can of worms.

Must be tough trying to squirm out from between a rock and a hard place.

But, hey, what are friends for?

edit add here's an odd site

http://www.mail-archive.com/cia-drugs@yahoogroups.com/msg13259.html

Edited April 27, 2012 by John Dolva

[Douglas Caddy]

April 27, 2012, 8:40 pm

Murdoch’s Denials of Political Favors Hard to Swallow in New York

By JENNIFER PRESTON The New York Times Former Mayor Edward I. Koch said he was in his West Village apartment early one morning in 1977 when the phone rang and the man on the other end of the line said, “Good morning, Congressman. It’s Rupert.”

“I say to myself: ‘Rupert? That’s not a Jewish name. Who could be calling me named Rupert?’ ”

Then, Mr. Koch said, he recognized an Australian accent. It was Rupert Murdoch, the new owner of The New York Post.

“ ‘I don’t know if it will help, but we are endorsing you on the front page of The New York Post,’ ” Mr. Koch recalls Mr. Murdoch telling him.

“I said, ‘Rupert, you have just elected me.’ ”

Mr. Murdoch’s relationships with British politicians from Margaret Thatcher to David Cameron were dissected this week during his two days of testimony before a judicial inquiry in London looking into the phone hacking scandal that has shaken the media mogul’s $60 billion News Corporation. Throughout his testimony, Mr. Murdoch adamantly denied ever using his considerable political influence to win favor for his business interests.

So what about Mr. Murdoch’s relationships with politicians here in New York City, where he bought The New York Post in 1976, founded the Fox News Channel in 1996 and purchased The Wall Street Journal in 2007?

Without question, Mr. Koch said in an interview on Thursday, Mr. Murdoch’s decision to use The New York Post to throw its support behind his candidacy helped him defeat Mario Cuomo in the 1977 Democratic mayoral primary, the runoff and then in the general election.

“That made the difference between winning and losing, and I am very grateful,” Mr. Koch said about the endorsement.

Lawrence Jackson/Associated PressRupert Murdoch with Rudolph W. Giuliani in 2007.

What did Rupert want in return? “He never, ever in the course of the 12 years that I was there asked me for a single thing, except one small thing,” Mr. Koch recalled.

Mr. Koch said he remembered getting a request from a representative of The New York Post to temporarily lift the ban on trucks using the West Side and East Side Highways so The Post could get its newspapers out more quickly during a newspaper strike. “I said, sure,” Mr. Koch said.

But things were different with Rudolph W. Giuliani’s administration.

In 1989, Mr. Murdoch’s New York Post endorsed Mr. Giuliani over David N. Dinkins, who became the city’s first African-American mayor. Mr. Giuliani’s media adviser, as it turns out, was Roger E. Ailes, who would go on to start and run Fox News.

In 1993, Mr. Giuliani defeated Mr. Dinkins’s bid for a second term, becoming mayor in 1994. Two years later, Mr. Ailes was the founding chief executive officer of Fox News, a subsidiary of Mr. Murdoch’s News Corporation.

Mr. Murdoch said in London that he did not use his political ties for his business interests, but he and his executives did turn to Mayor Giuliani for help after the Time Warner Cable New York City Group rejected their request for Fox News to have a channel, according to court records and news accounts at the time.

In an interview on Thursday, Richard Aurelio, then the president of Time Warner Cable New York City Group, said there were only 80 channels in the city when the Fox News 24-hour channel began in the fall of 1996 and wanted access to Time Warner’s 1.1 million New York City cable customers.

Mr. Aurelio, a former deputy mayor for John Lindsay, said he told Fox News that he would not have a channel to give them until more channels became available when they went digital.

Fox News did not want to wait. My colleague Clifford Levy reported in 1996 that Mr. Ailes contacted Mr. Giuliani to try to persuade Time Warner to change its position.

Then, on Oct. 1, 1996, at a launch party for the new Fox News Channel, Mr. Murdoch himself expressed concern about the situation to some of New York’s leading politicians who attended, including Mr. Giuliani, Gov. George E. Pataki and Dennis C. Vacco, the state attorney general.

“He complained to them at the party that I was the big bottleneck, and that I refused to carry Fox News,” Mr. Aurelio said. “They tried to put pressure on me. I said, ‘I can’t help you right now.’ ”

Mr. Aurelio also got a call from Senator Alfonse M. D’Amato. “Both Pataki and D’Amato were pretty pleasant about it,” he said. “They didn’t twist any arms. They were unhappy. But, it seemed to me, in their case, they were doing it because they were asked to do it by Murdoch.”

Mr. Aurelio said Mr. Giuliani and his staff took a different approach. “He summoned us down to City Hall, and had one of his advisers try to browbeat me.”

Then, the Giuliani administration decided to help Fox News by turning over one of the city’s five municipal channels, as Mr. Levy reported.

“This was illegal,” Mr. Aurelio said. “We got an injunction and the court agreed.”

To “Time Warner executives,” Mr. Levy reported, “the contacts demonstrate that Mr. Murdoch, a prominent conservative who also owns The New York Post, wields excessive influence over the mayor.”

Mr. Giuliani was unavailable to comment on Friday, according to an aide. A spokeswoman for Mr. Ailes did not immediately respond to a request to speak to him.

There are other examples of a cozy relationship between the News Corporation and the Giuliani administration, as the investigative reporter Wayne Barrett described in The Daily Beast last year.

In 1996, Mr. Giuliani and his aides fiercely defended their conversations with the News Corporation. They emphasized that their interest was in protecting local jobs.

Protecting jobs prompts elected officials to do a lot on behalf of business owners, even when they don’t benefit from Mr. Murdoch’s media empire. Mr. Murdoch did not endorse former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo during the 1977 mayoral race and urged Mayor Koch to run for governor against him in the 1980s. But Mr. Cuomo recalled in an interview on Friday that he helped Mr. Murdoch on multiple occasions, including winning a waiver from the Federal Communications Commission so that Mr. Murdoch could run The New York Post.

“The paper beat me to a pulp, but my feeling was that 800 jobs or so were on the line,” he said.

Finally, after Mr. Aurelio retired in July 1997, Mr. Murdoch got the channel for Fox News on Time Warner’s cable system in New York City.

At the same time, another New York City media mogul got a channel on Time Warner for his cable programming. The Giuliani administration was looking to help him, as well.

That mogul’s name was Michael R. Bloomberg.

What did Mr. Murdoch have to say about Mr. Bloomberg during his testimony in London this week?

In response to a question about the perception that he trades political support for favors, Mr. Murdoch cited Mr. Bloomberg as proof that was not the case.

“I think it’s a myth,” he said about political influence. “And everything I do every day, I think, proves it to be such. Have a look at — well, it’s not relevant, but how I treat Mayor Bloomberg in New York. Sends him crazy. But we support him every time he runs for re-election.”

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 28, 2012

An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified Roger E. Ailes's role in Rudolph W. Giuliani's campaign in 1989. Mr. Ailes was his media adviser, not his campaign manager.