JFK Researchers and the Murdoch Investigation

[Greg Parker]

So the article is fictitious?

No. The article is "fair & balanced". In the usual News Corp fashion.

If the "investigators" are as clever as Greg, they'll certainly get to the bottom of things in short order.

Whatever Mike.

Anyone who reads News Corp coverage and compares it to other media outlets will immediately recognize where the Murdoch press is putting the emphasis.

In short, it isn't necessarily a case of making it up, nor is making it up necessarily needed. It is the parts of the story that are omitted or watered down and the parts of the story that are stressed so hard they may as well be in bold-face and underlined that are the Murdoch Press signatures.

Whatever Greg.

The source of Hoare's health and cocaine abuse for Ralph's article in The Australian was Nick Davies of The Guardian:

He made no secret of his massive ingestion of drugs. He told me how he used to start the day with "a rock star's breakfast" – a line of cocaine and a Jack Daniels – usually in the company of a journalist who now occupies a senior position at the Sun. He reckoned he was using three grammes of cocaine a day, spending about £1,000 a week. Plus endless alcohol. Looking back, he could see it had done him enormous damage. But at the time, as he recalled, most of his colleagues were doing it, too....

.....In the end, his body would not take it any more. He said he started to have fits, that his liver was in such a terrible state that a doctor told him he must be dead. And, as his health collapsed, he was sacked by the News of the World – by his old friend Coulson.....

.....His health never recovered. He liked to say that he had stopped drinking, but he would treat himself to some red wine. He liked to say he didn't smoke any more, but he would stop for a cigarette on his way home. For better and worse, he was a Fleet Street man.

http://www.guardian....ws-of-the-world

_______________________________________________________________________

Hoare's health is certainly an important aspect of any speculation about his death and deserves to be covered. And to make the determination

that parts of the story (his health and cocaine use) were "stressed so hard" is just your opinion, certainly not a fact.

Whether or not a news organization's coverage is "fair and balanced" cannot be judged by one reporter's article.

Would you also make similar accusations of The Guardian simply because they ran Davies' story?

Mike,

unlike you, I grew up with the Murdoch Press.

What they omitted was that he was recently looking much better than he had - something that I read in a number of other reports.

[Greg Parker]

Would you also make similar accusations of The Guardian simply because they ran Davies' story?

Mike, I know little about the Guardian. The problem with the Murdoch media empire is that what I pointed to is the entrenched practice. Is it the same with the Guardian? I don't know.

Did any of the Murdoch press report on this?

She and another neighbour described Hoare as a jovial man who would often sit on his balcony, overlooking the block entrance, and talk to residents. They said he lived in the block with his partner, a woman called Jo, who they believed had been away on holiday. Neither had seen Hoare for a few days.

Paul Pritchard, 30, another neighbour, said Sean Hoare was "the most sociable" resident, and they would regularly see him watering the communal front lawn.

"It is just such a shock. About a month ago he said he felt unwell and he said he went to the doctors for a checkup. Then I saw him again and he seemed well."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/news-of-the-world-sean-hoare

On the basis of the above, the Guardian does seem a tad more "fair and balanced" on this story. You may hold a different opinion.

[John Simkin]

Would you also make similar accusations of The Guardian simply because they ran Davies' story?

Mike, I know little about the Guardian. The problem with the Murdoch media empire is that what I pointed to is the entrenched practice. Is it the same with the Guardian? I don't know.

Did any of the Murdoch press report on this?

She and another neighbour described Hoare as a jovial man who would often sit on his balcony, overlooking the block entrance, and talk to residents. They said he lived in the block with his partner, a woman called Jo, who they believed had been away on holiday. Neither had seen Hoare for a few days.

Paul Pritchard, 30, another neighbour, said Sean Hoare was "the most sociable" resident, and they would regularly see him watering the communal front lawn.

"It is just such a shock. About a month ago he said he felt unwell and he said he went to the doctors for a checkup. Then I saw him again and he seemed well."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/news-of-the-world-sean-hoare

On the basis of the above, the Guardian does seem a tad more "fair and balanced" on this story. You may hold a different opinion.

As someone living in Britain who kept a close look at the way the case has been reported. The scandal would never have been exposed if it had not been for the Guardian. Since the Guardian broke the story, all the News International stable of newspapers refused to publish anything on the story. They even sent in the Met to tell the Guardian that the story was untrue. In fact, every last detail that has appeared in the Guardian has been proven to be true. Even the so-called serious newspapers owned by Murdoch, the Times and Sunday Times, refused to cover the story until two weeks ago, it was revealed that Milly Downer's phone was hacked. That is why so many people are now refusing to buy these newspapers, that were more keen to cover-up the misdeeds of their owners.

The main strategy adopted by James and Rupert Murdoch was that they were shocked and ashamed about the hacking scandal and that they were doing all they could to help the truth to come out. This proved to be a complete lie when the information was dragged out of James Murdoch (apparently, Rupert knew nothing about what was going on) that News International were still paying the legal fees of Glen Mulcaire, the man who hacked into 5,000 phones, including those of murder victims such as Milly Downer. Why would they do that if they were truly horrified by Mulcaire's behaviour. The reason of course is that they are paying for Mulclaire's silence. In the same way that they paid nearly 2 million to keep Gordon Taylor and Max Clifford to keep quiet about what they knew about the phone-hacking. James Murdoch unbelievably told the committee that he was unaware of how much Mulcaire had been paid since he lost his job at the News of the World. Both James and Rupert Murdoch both refused to stop paying Mulcaire's legal fees (hush money). It appears that they are not sorry at all and are still doing what they can to cover-up what happened.

[John Dolva]

Dads' a master at it and he's taught his son well. The game is far from over. Any serious investigation into this will necessarily involve many persons so far not mentioned.

Many have been bought.

[John Dolva]

I would like to thank Julian Assange for everything he has done to highlight media issues and a thank you to John Pilger another typical fellow aussie citizen, you make us proud.

I wish Gough was around to comment.

[John Simkin]

The main strategy adopted by James and Rupert Murdoch was that they were shocked and ashamed about the hacking scandal and that they were doing all they could to help the truth to come out. This proved to be a complete lie when the information was dragged out of James Murdoch (apparently, Rupert knew nothing about what was going on) that News International were still paying the legal fees of Glen Mulcaire, the man who hacked into 5,000 phones, including those of murder victims such as Milly Downer. Why would they do that if they were truly horrified by Mulcaire's behaviour. The reason of course is that they are paying for Mulclaire's silence. In the same way that they paid nearly 2 million to keep Gordon Taylor and Max Clifford to keep quiet about what they knew about the phone-hacking. James Murdoch unbelievably told the committee that he was unaware of how much Mulcaire had been paid since he lost his job at the News of the World. Both James and Rupert Murdoch both refused to stop paying Mulcaire's legal fees (hush money). It appears that they are not sorry at all and are still doing what they can to cover-up what happened.

News Corporation has decided to terminate arrangements to pay legal fees of private investigator Glenn Mulcaire "with immediate effect."

The law firm hired by News International in 2007 to review allegations of phone hacking says it is being prevented from responding to "inaccurate" comments made by James Murdoch. Mr Murdoch said a letter written by the law firm made executives at News International believe that hacking was a "matter of the past". Harbottle and Lewis says it is not being allowed to breach client confidentiality.

[Greg Parker]

More Murdoch Press coverage... again from "The Australian"...

A neighbour said: "I feared the worst a couple of months ago. He wasn't looking in great shape physically. He was not his usual, bubbly, friendly self."

Another neighbour said Mr Hoare was "paranoid" about people seeing him and spoke of a "conspiracy" and that he was afraid of the police and the Government. "He talked about all sorts of problems that he had in his life. A lot of it was alcohol-related. His passage through life has not been an easy one." The neighbour added: "He said he was in trouble and he was worried about people coming to get him."

Tributes were paid to Mr Hoare on Twitter last night with David Yelland, a former Editor of The Sun, writing: "Sean Hoare was trying to be honest, struggling with addiction. But he was a good man. My God."

Mr Hoare was sacked from the News of the World by Mr Coulson because of the effects his drink and drug problems were having on his health. Mr Hoare, who had previously worked with Mr Coulson on The Sun's Bizarre showbiz section and later at the Sunday People under Neil Wallis, was notorious on Fleet Street for his destructive lifestyle.

He told a fellow journalist of his "rock star's breakfast" - Jack Daniels and a line of cocaine. He said he took three grams of cocaine a day, which cost him about $1500 a week.

"Everyone got overconfident. We thought we could do coke, go to Brown's, sit in the Red Room with Paula Yates and Michael Hutchence. Everyone got a bit carried away," he once told The Guardian.

Former colleagues said that his dismissal had left him bitter and resentful. In an interview with the New York Times he claimed that Mr Coulson not only knew of phone hacking at the News of the World but he had "actively encouraged" it. He said he had played tape recordings of hacked messages for Mr Coulson. His allegations were heavily rejected by his former boss, who had become David Cameron's Director of Communications in May last year.

He made stronger allegations in a subsequent interview with the BBC, claiming Mr Coulson had personally asked him to hack phones and that the practice was "endemic".

In September last year he was interviewed by police about his claims but would not make a further comment, according to Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions. He was understood to be affronted when John Yates, then the Met's Assistant Commissioner, instructed officers to interview him as a suspect, rather than as a witness.

Then, a week before his death, he made separate allegations again to the New York Times that reporters at the News of the World had paid police to use technology to locate people using their mobile phone signals, a technique called "pinging".

Although he was known to be in ill health and smoked and drank, he was still active. He recently attended a weekend children's party and had been injured taking down the marquee. He told The Guardian that he had broken his nose and injured his foot when he was struck by the pole.

One neighbour said last night: "He was physically going down hill. He was yellow in colour and wasn't looking well for the last month and was off sorts and I was really worrying about him.

"He had a constant struggle with alcohol and talked to me about how much he had put his wife through. He was talking about how he was in trouble and that he thought someone was going to come and get him, but I didn't known whether to believe half the stuff he was saying. He did say something about phone hacking and I think that was his main worry."

------------------

This isn't about whether he was murdered or not; it's about how he is being portrayed by the Murdoch press with the twin aims of:

( a ) destroying his credibility and

( b ) putting his death down to self-destruction - regardless of any evidence to the contrary; and before the results of toxicology tests

The Guardian managed to at least put a name to one of the neighbours it quoted.

[John Simkin]

More Murdoch Press coverage... again from "The Australian"...

A neighbour said: "I feared the worst a couple of months ago. He wasn't looking in great shape physically. He was not his usual, bubbly, friendly self."

Another neighbour said Mr Hoare was "paranoid" about people seeing him and spoke of a "conspiracy" and that he was afraid of the police and the Government. "He talked about all sorts of problems that he had in his life. A lot of it was alcohol-related. His passage through life has not been an easy one." The neighbour added: "He said he was in trouble and he was worried about people coming to get him."

Tributes were paid to Mr Hoare on Twitter last night with David Yelland, a former Editor of The Sun, writing: "Sean Hoare was trying to be honest, struggling with addiction. But he was a good man. My God."

Mr Hoare was sacked from the News of the World by Mr Coulson because of the effects his drink and drug problems were having on his health. Mr Hoare, who had previously worked with Mr Coulson on The Sun's Bizarre showbiz section and later at the Sunday People under Neil Wallis, was notorious on Fleet Street for his destructive lifestyle.

He told a fellow journalist of his "rock star's breakfast" - Jack Daniels and a line of cocaine. He said he took three grams of cocaine a day, which cost him about $1500 a week.

"Everyone got overconfident. We thought we could do coke, go to Brown's, sit in the Red Room with Paula Yates and Michael Hutchence. Everyone got a bit carried away," he once told The Guardian.

Former colleagues said that his dismissal had left him bitter and resentful. In an interview with the New York Times he claimed that Mr Coulson not only knew of phone hacking at the News of the World but he had "actively encouraged" it. He said he had played tape recordings of hacked messages for Mr Coulson. His allegations were heavily rejected by his former boss, who had become David Cameron's Director of Communications in May last year.

I have seen the two interviews that Hoare gave to the BBC. He did appear to be paranoid. He was also clearly someone who had problems with drink and drugs. However, that does not mean he was not telling the truth. Only two reporters from the News of the World have gone on record that they were involved in phone-hacking. Sam Hoare and Paul McMullan. In doing so, they both opened themselves up to criminal prosecution. McMullan also appears to be paranoid. On Tuesday, McMullan said on BBC television, that he also fears for his life. I once read that the purpose of killing JFK assassination witnesses was not only to keep them quiet, but to stop others who knew the truth to keep quiet. I suspect the same is also true of the Hoare case. Sometimes it makes sense to feel paranoid.

[Greg Parker]

More Murdoch Press coverage... again from "The Australian"...

A neighbour said: "I feared the worst a couple of months ago. He wasn't looking in great shape physically. He was not his usual, bubbly, friendly self."

Another neighbour said Mr Hoare was "paranoid" about people seeing him and spoke of a "conspiracy" and that he was afraid of the police and the Government. "He talked about all sorts of problems that he had in his life. A lot of it was alcohol-related. His passage through life has not been an easy one." The neighbour added: "He said he was in trouble and he was worried about people coming to get him."

Tributes were paid to Mr Hoare on Twitter last night with David Yelland, a former Editor of The Sun, writing: "Sean Hoare was trying to be honest, struggling with addiction. But he was a good man. My God."

Mr Hoare was sacked from the News of the World by Mr Coulson because of the effects his drink and drug problems were having on his health. Mr Hoare, who had previously worked with Mr Coulson on The Sun's Bizarre showbiz section and later at the Sunday People under Neil Wallis, was notorious on Fleet Street for his destructive lifestyle.

He told a fellow journalist of his "rock star's breakfast" - Jack Daniels and a line of cocaine. He said he took three grams of cocaine a day, which cost him about $1500 a week.

"Everyone got overconfident. We thought we could do coke, go to Brown's, sit in the Red Room with Paula Yates and Michael Hutchence. Everyone got a bit carried away," he once told The Guardian.

Former colleagues said that his dismissal had left him bitter and resentful. In an interview with the New York Times he claimed that Mr Coulson not only knew of phone hacking at the News of the World but he had "actively encouraged" it. He said he had played tape recordings of hacked messages for Mr Coulson. His allegations were heavily rejected by his former boss, who had become David Cameron's Director of Communications in May last year.

I have seen the two interviews that Hoare gave to the BBC. He did appear to be paranoid. He was also clearly someone who had problems with drink and drugs. However, that does not mean he was not telling the truth. Only two reporters from the News of the World have gone on record that they were involved in phone-hacking. Sam Hoare and Paul McMullan. In doing so, they both opened themselves up to criminal prosecution. McMullan also appears to be paranoid. On Tuesday, McMullan said on BBC television, that he also fears for his life. I once read that the purpose of killing JFK assassination witnesses was not only to keep them quiet, but to stop others who knew the truth to keep quiet. I suspect the same is also true of the Hoare case. Sometimes it makes sense to feel paranoid.

John, I don't don't doubt for a minute he actually had drink and drug problems. Apparently most of Fleet St did - without turning up dead at all too young an age.

And isn't the use of the word "paranoia" just a more prejudicial description of someone (rightfully) nervous or scared?

What I object to with the Murdoch coverage is that it will hammer all the negatives they can into any story on him, cramming it with quotes from un-named sources while NOT reporting comments such I previously posted suggesting that he was actually looking much better lately - and that from a NAMED source.

And earlier today, they Murdoch press was screaming in it's headlines that there were no officially no suspicious circumstances. Who needs autopsy test results first?

[Don Jeffries]

The simple fact is, once again we have a person who was in a position to be a thorn in the side of powerful forces, who winds up dying an unnatural death. After telling others he feared for his life and that someone was out to get him. Sound familiar? Haven't we heard this story countless times over the past few decades?

And people wonder why some of us believe in conspiracies....

[John Simkin]

It is of course impossible for the Murdoch's to kill off all the witnesses. There is probably up to 50 people able to tell what really happened at the News of the World. So far they have been paid to keep quiet. When this stops, people will talk. That is what happened when Colin Myler a Tom Crone were sacked last week.

At the committee hearing on Tuesday, Labour's Tom Watson asked James Murdoch: "When you signed off the Taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the full Neville (Thurlbeck) email, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages?" Mr Murdoch replied: "No, I was not aware of that at the time". He had to say this otherwise he would have been guilty of paying money to cover-up a crime.

Last night, two senior executives at News International, Colin Myler (editor at the News of the World) and Tom Crone (head of the legal department), issued a statement said: "Just by way of clarification relating to Tuesday's CMS select committee hearing, we would like to point out that James Murdoch's recollection of what he was told when agreeing to settle the Gordon Taylor litigation was mistaken." In other words, he lied.

Tom Watson told the BBC: "This is the most significant moment of two years of investigation into phone hacking. If [Colin Myler and Tom Crone's] statement is accurate it shows James Murdoch had knowledge that others were involved in hacking as early as 2008, it shows he failed to act to discipline staff or initiate an internal investigation, which undermines Rupert Murdoch's evidence to our committee that the company had a zero tolerance to wrongdoing... More importantly it shows he not only failed to report a crime to the police but because there was a confidentiality clause involved in the settlement it means that he bought the silence of [chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association] Gordon Taylor and that could mean he is facing investigation for perverting the course of justice."

[John Simkin]

Miliband mulls MPs' demands to remove hacking-inquiry judge

Labour leader shares concerns over impartiality of Lord Justice Leveson after revelations that he attended parties at the home of Elisabeth Murdoch

The Independent

By Jane Merrick, Jonathan Owen, Brian Brady and Martin Hickman

Sunday, 24 July 2011

Ed Miliband is considering demands by MPs for the judge in charge of the phone-hacking inquiry to be removed from his post after reports that he had socialised with members of Rupert Murdoch's family.

Sources close to the Labour leader said he shared the concerns raised over the impartiality of Lord Justice Leveson after it emerged that the judge attended two parties at the London home of Elisabeth Murdoch, the News Corporation chairman's daughter who is regarded as the heir to the business, and her husband, Matthew Freud.

David Cameron knew about the parties before appointing Lord Leveson to chair the inquiry into the scandal, Downing Street admitted.

Reminds me of how LBJ formed the Warren Commission with fully compromised individuals.

[Ian Kingsbury]

Miliband mulls MPs' demands to remove hacking-inquiry judge

Labour leader shares concerns over impartiality of Lord Justice Leveson after revelations that he attended parties at the home of Elisabeth Murdoch

The Independent

By Jane Merrick, Jonathan Owen, Brian Brady and Martin Hickman

Sunday, 24 July 2011

Ed Miliband is considering demands by MPs for the judge in charge of the phone-hacking inquiry to be removed from his post after reports that he had socialised with members of Rupert Murdoch's family.

Sources close to the Labour leader said he shared the concerns raised over the impartiality of Lord Justice Leveson after it emerged that the judge attended two parties at the London home of Elisabeth Murdoch, the News Corporation chairman's daughter who is regarded as the heir to the business, and her husband, Matthew Freud.

David Cameron knew about the parties before appointing Lord Leveson to chair the inquiry into the scandal, Downing Street admitted.

Reminds me of how LBJ formed the Warren Commission with fully compromised individuals.

Looks like the infection is spreading:-

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/07/24/general-broadcasting-amp-entertainment-eu-britain-phone-hacking_8581521.html

How many more confessions before Murdoch capitulates .

Cameron is putting distance between himself and Roop cos Murdoch has the dirt on them all and will drag all down with himself OR the enquiry will have to be BENT.Maybe in 10 years we will have another enquiry to say the first and second enquiries were wrong or maybe a fourth or fifth!.anything but the right result seems paranoidly familiar!.

[John Dolva]

He's going down allright, the damage he will do in the process and concurrently will be a system in damage control, while the potential if some one with absolutely goes through this and clears it all up when that someone will be up against an old entrenched almost all encompassing conspiracy. Any bets on who'll win?

edit add I think Murdoch owns like 70% of oz media and no doubt indirectly others. He has always been a barrier to true democracy in Australia with unrelenting campaigns, often to make it easier to cheat and to bust unions which ultimately means busting the Labor party which was born out of the union movement. His influence is phenomenal, and it IS slanted.

Edited July 24, 2011 by John Dolva

[Michael Hogan]

Mike,

unlike you, I grew up with the Murdoch Press.

What they omitted was that he was recently looking much better than he had - something that I read in a number of other reports.

Greg, who or what you grew up with is irrelevant. Your posts keep straying far away from what started our back and forth. I could care less

about any minor content differences between The Guardian and The Australian.

I often post links to news articles. That does not constitute an endorsement. If I think an article is spot on, I'll say something.

In this case I posted a link to an article that discussed, among other things, Hoare's and cocaine use and questionable health.

I only statement I added was this: "And as with the JFK assassination, it's going to prove difficult to sort fact from fiction."

I did that to tie into the theme of John Simkin's thread thread JFK Researchers and the Murdoch Investigation. I was also replying to

something John said in his post.

Your reply was: "In this case, I don't think it's too hard. The Australian is owned by News Corp...."

I took that to mean that something in Ralph's article was ficitive. Presumably reports of his drug use or general health, since that is what I excerpted.

Just to be sure, I simply asked you: So the article is fictitious?

Your reply was flippant, sarcastic, dismissive and non-responsive as far as I am concerned: "No. The article is 'fair & balanced'. In the usual News Corp fashion."

Greg, you've been around the block enough that you don't evaluate news by the major outlet it appears in. You evaluate it by the reporter, his or her perceived credibillty,

and the sources of the author's information. You approach everything that makes the news with an extremely sceptical view. You weigh it against other sources and your own

points of view.

In this case, the fact that The Australian reporter got his information from The Guardian reporter's story negates any insinuation that it was only published because it was

favorable to Murdoch, and that it veracity was therefore questionable, or whatever it was you were trying to say. I'm still not exactly sure.

In a fast breaking blockbuster story like this one, and with a sudden death of a key participant, reporters hurry and strain to get a story out there. Usually they base

their stories on what is already in the public domain with any and all personal sources they may be able to summon. It is unrealistic to expect all of these stories to

mesh or be fair and balanced to your personal satisfaction in every instance.

It was good that you pointed out The Australian is owned by Murdoch; that may have bearing on the slant of the article. But that fact has no bearing on whether or not

Hoare had a massive cocaine habit or his healthy was dodgy. True or false, that's major news.

The notion that a neighbor saw Hoare after he went for a physical and, apparently without speaking to him, told someone: "Then I saw him again and he seemed well."

Greg, that isn't major news. You may hold a different opinion.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Michael Hogan