Talk

Advanced search

Rupert Murdoch himself acted as editor of the News of the World

(20 Posts)
bkgirl Fri 08-Jul-11 01:31:34

Rupert Murdoch does act as editor-in-chief of the Sun, former Sunday Times editor Andrew Neil told a Lords committee contradicting evidence by Rebekah Wade.

Neil, who edited the Sun's News International sister title the Sunday Times between 1983 and 1994, told the Lords communications committee that although Murdoch is not named as editor-in-chief of the Sun and the News of the World, "that is in reality what he is".

CogitoErgoSometimes Fri 08-Jul-11 06:49:06

As with a lot of things Andrew Neill says, this isn't news. It's common knowledge that Murdoch took a hands-on approach to what appeared on the front page and in the leader column.

bkgirl Sat 09-Jul-11 23:49:34

Coggy, yes indeed....my point was that I don't believe for a second that the murdochs didn't know how the info was gained. Since all this came out the spin has been trying to distance him from these editorial stuff.

Nancy66 Sun 10-Jul-11 00:37:22

I honestly think he DIDNT know - the editors did.

bkgirl Sun 10-Jul-11 00:49:06

Nancy, you gotta read more about RM's methods established over decades.

CogitoErgoSometimes Sun 10-Jul-11 07:27:40

Murdoch would not have been interested in the nitty-gritty day-to-day. His involvment, from what I've been told by people who worked on the NOTW, was at a high level. Very interested in the main story on the front page - changing it if he didn't like it. Obviously, very interested in any big political stories and definitely steered the way those were covered. And the leader column, the newspaper's opinion, was always determined by him.

Journalists adopt a lot of dodgy methods to get their stories and few of us have questioned them until now. We didn't even question the illegal methods until it started involving dead children and soldiers. Murdoch's managers should have questioned the methods more closely, that was their job. James Murdoch, Rebekah Wade, Andy Coulson... that level in the strata. Realise this is now seen as an opportunity to 'kill Murdoch'.

meditrina Sun 10-Jul-11 07:34:14

Brooks was responsible for the corporate governance of the organisation - and if Murdoch was really that involved, so would he be (this isn't nitty gritty, it's key accountability to management). There does not appear to be any third parties in the frame for setting up "plausible deniability" - but even if it were heading that way, I'm not persuaded that's adequate these days anyhow.

Corporate governance failed - spectacularly. Either they were complicit, or they were incompetent.

CogitoErgoSometimes Sun 10-Jul-11 08:06:39

In any company scandal, the CEO resigns, not the owner. They can't resign. If it's shown in the investigation that Murdoch was personally involved in getting the phone hacking PI onto certain people, then he goes to court. Another publishing baron, Conrad Black, was sent down for fraud. If there's evidence against Murdoch he'll meet the same fate.

TalkinPeace2 Sun 10-Jul-11 18:00:08

Black went down for PERSONALLY defrauding the company.

Murdoch has always kept his well maincured nails several steps away from the odure
the only thing they will get him personally on is the US law on being the ultimate owner of a company that offers bribes
as his deputy/fifth daughter Rebekah testified to the UK parliament that they had done exactly that, a fair bit of wriggling will ensue!

SardineQueen Sun 10-Jul-11 18:16:01

"Another publishing baron, Conrad Black, was sent down for fraud."

that was in the US wasn't it? They seem to be better at clobbering these types of people than us. I can't imagine us sending RM to jail in a million years. The US, maybe, if stuff has happened over there too and he's implicated.

TalkinPeace2 Sun 10-Jul-11 18:23:33

RM has not committed Fraud.
Just amoral business style - its not a crime
What RB sanctioned (and admitted to parliament) is another matter

bkgirl Sun 10-Jul-11 18:26:54

How do you know RM was not involved in any way? Let the yard see his emails or is he above the law?

SardineQueen Sun 10-Jul-11 18:29:19

We don't know what any of them have done, do we. I don't think anyone on the thread has said that RM committed fraud, though.

If illegal activity was going on worldwide (ie including the US) and it can be proved that RM knew about it / agreed it, well then. (Don't for a minute think this will happen! But you never know...)

SardineQueen Sun 10-Jul-11 18:30:01

No way will we do any of the big players for anything. We just won't. never do. More's the pity.

TalkinPeace2 Sun 10-Jul-11 18:35:20

RM does not do email
he's an old fashioned man who does not like the internet
he likes newspapers
and money
there will be NO emails with his name on I'll bet
and I have boycotted his products since he took over the Times.

bkgirl Sun 10-Jul-11 18:39:54

talkininpeace...lol fair point! However, his private secretary is bound to work with emails.I just don't think he should be above investigation. I want to see how high the corruption went.

As for your boycott - well done smile

ThisIsANiceCage Sun 10-Jul-11 19:03:13

Rupert Murdoch is the CEO. He's not the owner.

The publisher of NOTW title was News International. The owner of News International is News Corp. And News Corp is a public company owned by its shareholders - of which the Murdoch family together own less than 50%, iiuc.

The Murdochs have closed down a newspaper they didn't own (or owned only a small part of). They're just employed management. In theory the shareholders could sack them.

bkgirl Sun 10-Jul-11 19:10:59

Thanks. So could the shareholders who I presume include pension schemes legally chase the murdochs for poor management?

ThisIsANiceCage Sun 10-Jul-11 19:33:34

Bound to be loads of people here who actually know how this stuff works, so maybe they can advise.

Looking at it further, some of News Corp's shares seem to be "non-voting stock", so iiuc have no vote on the running of the company. So maybe those shareholders couldn't after all sack anyone.

But I wonder if non-voting shareholders have legal rights wrt corporate misbehaviour? God, this is so not my field.

TalkinPeace2 Sun 10-Jul-11 19:47:55

The American anti Bribery laws (and the UK / EU ones) go for the executive directors, not the shareholders.
RM, JM and all the rest of the family are voting board members as well as shareholders
THEY are who the act would chase - not corporate shareholders

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now