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".
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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!
"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.
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.
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.
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