DialMForMurdoch_Hacking" style="color: #000000; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">DialMForMurdoch_Hacking
                
     Murdoch Attempting to Buy the UK General Election for the Conservative Party

   
        David Cameron and Rupert Murdoch singing the the chorus of Ruperts New Hit Song... "I'm going to buy the BBC"

"I'm Rupert Murdoch just brought the Wall Street Journal, and now I'm off to London after I get David Cameron and his Tory Party into power then David will let me buy the BBC..."
The above is the chorus of Rupert Murdoch's new hit Single..."I'm going to buy the BBC".....selling very well amoundst Tory Party members
 
"he is all carvivorous, no. taste.....will eat anything in his path...who has been persoanlly respncible for the decline of quality and investigative journalism in America by turning it into cheap profitable junk news....as he now want to do with his planned take over of UK's much respected and loved  BBC if David Cameron and his Tory Party will the next 2010 UK election...
                           ......you can fight back and stop................... 
               ..............Rupert Murdoch's nextmedia take over the the BBC.. 
the last well funded and truely free speach and independent and investigative journalism organisation oin the world where it's journalists, TV and Internet presentors and editors are not told what to say, when to say it and how to say it by a private media boss who's only interest is in bigger profits, cheap and junk journalism and shaping and controlling the editorial content to support a political party that will play by his rules to further his and his powerful silent multi trillionaire backers known the Builderberger Group's business's interests...."


Rupert Murdoch- I've Just Brought The Wall Street Journal!!!! I am so excited!!!!



 Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism- Rupert Murdoch OutFoxed Part 1



Promo Clip for the INL News Film- The Great American Novel Part 1

 
Keith Oberman on Rupert Murdoch





 
Rupert Murdoch admits manipulating the News




Dial M For Murdoch

by Tom Watson and Martin Hickman;


...Dial M For Murdoch.. uncovers the inner workings of one of the most powerful companies in the world: how it came to exert a poisonous, secretive influence on public

life in Britain, how it used its huge power to bully, intimidate and cover up, and how its exposure has changed the way we look at our politicians, our police service and our

press...”

Rupert Murdochʼs newspapers had been hacking phones, blagging information and casually destroying peopleʼs lives for years, but it was only after a trivial report about

Prince Williamʼs knee in 2005 that detectives stumbled on a criminal conspiracy. A five year cover-up concealed and muddied the truth.

Dial M for Murdoch gave the first connected account of the extraordinary lengths in which the Murdochʼs News Corporation went to ʻ put the problem in a boxʼ (in James

Murdochʼs words), how its efforts to maintain and extend its power were aided by its political and police friends, and how it was finally exposed.

Dial M For Murdoch is full of details which have never been disclosed before, including the smears and threats against politicians, journalists and lawyers. It reveals the

existence of brave insiders who pointed those pursuing the investigations towards pieces of secret information that cracked open the case.

By contrast, many of the main players in the book are unsavoury, but by the end of it you have a clear idea of what they did. Seeing the story whole, as it is presented here

for the first time, allows the character of the organisation it portrays to emerge unmistakeably...you will hardly believe it.....


TOM WATSON is the MP for West Bomwich East. He campaigned against unlawful
media practices and led the questioning of Rupert and James Murduch when they

appeared before Parliament in July 2011. Tom Watson is the deputy chair of the Labour Party...


MARTIN HICKMAN has worked for the Independent since 2001, and has driven the
paperʼs coverage of the phone hacking scandal. TOM HICKMAN was named Journalist

of the Year by the Foreign Press Association in 2009.


ʻ.......IN THE END, THE STORY IS ABOUT CORRUPTION BY POWER....ʼ


Some of Murdochʼs enforcers departed from the company line ( itʼs all about business) and pursued personal agendas and vendettas, even against minor politicians. Their arrogance was so stratospheric they discussed their crimes even though they knew

they were being recorded.

ʻOn the afternoon of 8th June, 2011 Tom Watson said in the House of Commons: The

Metropolitan Police are in possession of paperwork detailing the dealings of criminal

private investigator Jonathan Rees. It strongly suggests that he was illegally targeting

members of the Royal Family, senior politicians, and high-level terrorist informers yet

the head of Operation Weeting has recently written to me to inform me that this

evidence may be outside the inquiryʼs terms of reference. Prime Minister, I believe

powerful forces are involved in a cover-up, please tell me what you intend to do to

make sure that that does not happen....ʼ

ʻ..It is well documented that Jonathan Rees and Southern Investigations worked for a

whole variety of newspaper groups...ʼ....stated Daisy Dunlop acting for News

International and News Corporation... the Met Police have not asked for any information

regarding Rees..ʼ

Dial M For Murdoch helps brings to public light many details about the wrongful and immoral and at times

illegal and criminal activities of Rupert and James Murdochʼs News Corporation and

their silent partners which they have been able to carry on with over the last over 30

years without interference, prosecution, investigation and/or any sort of public exposure

through strong control of The Corporation of Britain

(which.... as shown by the details set out in Stephen Carew-Reidʼs book The Australian

Media Conspiracy .... with the initial research material and draft for the book illegally

taken in 2005 as further evidence of commercial sabotage to try and stop the books

being completed and published by corrupt Queensland Freemason Police working for

Rupert and James Murdochʼs News Corporation and their silent partners ... to try and

stop Stephen Carew-Reidʼs book The Australian Media Conspiracy being completed

and published ... there seems no doubt seems to also extend to an event greater level

of control and power to The Corporation of Australia and The Corporation of the United

States of America ...Stephen Carew-Reid and the INL News Group in 2012 have

formerly issued a High Court of Justice Claim for £1 billion pounds in damages against

the Queensland Government and the Queensland Police for illegally taking the original

manuscripts of Stephen Carew-Reidʼs seven volume series of books entitled ʻ The

Triumph of Truth -Who Is Watching The Watchers?... and the initial research material

and draft for the book Australian Media Conspiracy which has caused Rupert and

James Murdochʼs News Corporation to instruct their enforcers in the criminal networks

and secret service organisations around the world to work on a way of eradicating

Stephen Carew-Reid and the INL News Group in any way possible.. physically,

financially, by being set up with false arrest on a false charge, illegally detained,

murdered.. suffer a serious and/or fatal accident etc putting Stephen Carew-Reidʼs life

in further danger after his close friend INL News undercover investigative

reporter Thomas Allwood was conveniently murdered in Broxburn Scotland on the 21st

June, 2012 with the Scottish Lothian Borders Police and the Scottish Fiscal

Procurator-Prosecution helping to cover up the real facts of who actually murdered

Thomas Allwood, who organised the murder of Thomas Allwood and why was the

murder of Thomas Allwood organised and carried out...which is the subject of a new

book being published and made into a film by the INL News Group entitles ʻ Who

Murdered Thomas Allwood and Why?....as Stephen Carew-Reid states in his first

volume of his series of books entitled ʻ The Triumph of Truth -Who Is Watching The

Watchers?. The Truth will always Triumph and the longer it takes to come to the surface

and the harder people and organisations try to suppress the truth .. when the Truth finally

surfaces as it always eventually does... the more powerful and extent of the mud that

covers those involved will be greatly increased .. just like a pussy boil that eventually

explodes everywhere if let to fester for too long without being lanced in an early stage

of the infection... )

through their control and influence of many major politicians, the major political party

organisations, many senior members and other levels of the British, Scottish, Wales

and Irish Police Force, many powerful banking organisations and their directors and

management, many powerful business people and business organisations, ownership

and control and support of all much of the main stream media, film, TV, newspapers,

magazines, internet and book publishing outlets throughout the world, the secret

services organisations around the world such as the CIA (USA) , MI5/MI6 ( United

Kingdom), Mossad (Israel), ASIO ( Australia), well known and not so well knowns

criminals and criminal networks prepared to commit any crime for them that is required

including phone and computer hacking-police blinging-police bribery-criminal threats

and intimidation- and even murder (well known Freemason Jonathan Lees who was

charged with the murder of his partner and thought to have been involved with other

murders such as the murder of INL News undercover journalists Shaun Hoare, Thomas

Allwood and others and threats against he life of Stephen Carew-Reid to stop them

exposing Rupert and James Murdochʼs News Corporation and their silent partners and

associates

(such as David Cameron the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and George

Osborne the Chancellor of the United Kingdom for instructing their Treasury Solicitors

to prepare and present a false-misleading and fraudulent document to Freemason

Master Bowles in Londonʼs High Court of Justice to in support of an letter requesting

that Thomas Allwoodʼs £500 million damages claim against David Cameron-the Prime

Minister of the United Kingdom and George Osborne-the Chancellor of the United

Kingdom, the UK Government and the UK Border Agency to help commercial sabotage

of the INL News Groups filming of the pilot of the Fringe Shows Have Talent TV Show in

Edinburgh ... as a favour for Rupert and James Murdochʼs News Corporation for

organising the wrongful arrest of USA Commedian Ronnie Prouty at Heathrow Airport

on the 27th April, 2011 who was travelling from Los Angeles to Edinburgh to help

Thomas Allwood and the INL News Group for no payment to introduce the talented

Scottish, Welsh and Irish entertainers being filmed to promote their talent and help

convinve major TV Networks throughout the world to provide airtime for the Fringe

Shows Have Talent TV Show to be an international showcase for Fringe Entertainers,

to provide thousands of jobs to film and arts students coming out of Scottish

Universities each year and help create a fringe film and TV industry in Scotland that

would help create many thousands of jobs and help bring in hundreds of millions of

much needed income to Scotland from the sale of TV and Film licences to the rest of

the world for fringe TV shows and films),

court judges- magistrates-mastersadjudicators-

lords-lawyers-solicitors-barristers-advocates-court staff

(which are very much controlled around the world by Freemasonary with so many being

involved in the legal system being Freemsons and others whom are not members being

too frightened to do or say anything against those who are Freemasons and/or or do

not want to help rock to the boat because they feel the need to protect the public

respectability of the legal sysem they have spend their whole lives working for and feel

even if there are wrongful things going on inside the legal system they do not have the

courage and conviction to expose such wrongful activities and feel the need to protect

the system and their work mates from being publicly exposed...

Tom Watson and Martin Hickman show in great detail the extreme and absolute power

of Rupert and James Murdochʼs News Corporation and how it has until now gone

completely unchecked and unfortunately even though a few of the low level players in

the game their seem to control have been publicly exposed and arrested... the real

power brokers remain in control and will never be chanrged and for many of them will

never even be publicly named and will simply pay, train and organise another set of

hired hands that will always be prepared to carry out their bidding and any of their

instructions no matter how wrongful, immoral, currupt and/or illegal those instructions

are for a nice life syle, well paid job, a nice car, a nice house for themselves and their

immediate families and friends ... just as it is always possible for Governments to obtain

as many people as they need to fight business, banking, oil and power wars for them

and go and kill, touture, main and destroy innocent men women and children that the

individuals fighting the war as servants for the governments have no person grievance

against.. but in return for a well paid job are prepared to go out and kill, touture, main

and destroy innocent men women and children all in the name of ʻwarsʼ which Rupert

and James Murdochʼs News Corporation and their silent partners through their all

powerful media outlets convince the average person as honest and just wars that are

started for rightful and morla reasons.....

by Tom Watson and Martin Hickman;

...Dial M For Murdoch.. uncovers the inner workings of one of the most powerful

companies in the world: how it came to exert a poisonous, secretive influence on public

life in Britain, how it used its huge power to bully, intimidate and cover up, and how its

exposure has changed the way we look at our politicians, our police service and our

press...”

Rupert Murdochʼs newspapers had been hacking phones, blagging information and

casually destroying peopleʼs lives for years, but it was only after a trivial report about

prince Willimiamʼs knee in 2005 that detectives stumbled on a criminal conspiracy. A

five year cover-up concealed and muddied the truth.

Dial M for Murdoch gave the first connected account of the extraordinary lengths in

which the Murdochʼs News Corporation went to ʻ put the problem in a boxʼ (in James

Murdochʼs words), how its efforts to maintain and extend its power were aided by its

political and police friends, and how it was finally exposed.

Dial M For Murdoch is full of details which have never been disclosed before, including

the smears and threats against politicians, journalists and lawyers. It reveals the

existence of brave insiders who pointed those pursuing the investigations towards

pieces of secret information that cracked open the case.

By contrast, many of the main players in the book are unsavoury, but by the end of it

you have a clear idea of what they did. Seeing the story whole, as it is presented here

for the first time, allows the character of the organisation it portrays to emerge

unmistakeably...you will hardly believe it.....

TOM WATSON is the MP for West Bomwich East. He campaigned against unlawful

media practices and led the questioning of Rupert and James Murduch when they

appeared before Parliament in July 2011. Tom Watson is the deputy chair of the Labour

Party...

MARTIN HICKMAN has worked for the Independent since 2001, and has driven the

paperʼs coverage of the phone hacking scandal. TOM HICKMAN was named Journalist

of the Year by the Foreign Press Association in 2009.

ʻ.......IN THE END, THE STROY IS ABOUT CORRUPTION BY POWER....ʼ

Some of Murdochʼs enforcers departed from the company line ( itʼs all about business)

and pursued personal agendas and vendettas, even against minor politicians. Their

arrogance was so stratospheric they discussed their crimes even though they knew

they were being recorded.

ʻOn the afternoon of 8th June, 2011 Tom Watson said in the House of Commons: The

Metropolitan Police are in possession of paperwork detailing the dealings of criminal

private investigator Jonathan Rees. It strongly suggests that he was illegally targeting

members of the Royal Family, senior politicians, and high-level terrorist informers yet

the head of Operation Weeting has recently written to me to inform me that this

evidence may be outside the inquiryʼs terms of reference. Prime Minister, I believe

powerful forces are involved in a cover-up, please tell me what you intend to do to

make sure that that does not happen....ʼ

ʻ..It is well documented that Jonathan Rees and Southern Investigations worked for a

whole variety of newspaper groups...ʼ....stated Daisy Dunlop acting for News

International and News Corporation... the Met Police have not asked for any information

regarding Rees..ʼ

ʻ...However the Guardian and Independent ʻs stories disclosed a roll-call of Reeʼs

political, royal, police and financial targets, on whom he had used a variety of

techniques ( some apparently illegal) to gain information.. Amoung them werer Tony

Blair and Kate Middleton, Prince Williamʼs fiancee..they also included Blairʼs director of

communications, Alistair Campbell, his Home Sectary Jack Straw and Peter Mendalson,

then his Business Secretary. Several targets had been in charge of media policy: Gerald

Kaufmann, the Labour chair of the Culture Committee between 1992 and 2005, and the

Tory MP David Mellor, who threatened the press with tighter regulation in the early

1990ʼs. Rees even targeted the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir

John Stephens, and John Yates....Peter Mendelson sais he was writing to Scotland

Yard to ask what information had been held on him by Rees...Iritated by Watsonʼs

implied criticism of her and the Met and her inquiry, Sue Akers as to see the MP Tom

Watson..at the Met Headquarters...Tome Watson and Sue Akers had a candid

conversation which involved very sensitive evidence that Tom Watson has seen

showing that Jonathan Rees had a close business relationship with Alex Marunchak,

the News of the World-News Corporation executive.. by then there were at lease 15

detectives at Scotland Yard investigating the dark arts of Fleet Street...

On the 25th February, 2011 the Guardianʼs deputy editor, Ian Katz, phone Steve Hilton,

David Cameronʼs director of strategy. He wanted him to know that Andy Coulson, David

Cameronʼs press secretary, had worked with a notorious private investigator (Jonathan

Rees) at the News of the World-News Corporaton..after the manʼs release from a long

prison term for conspiring to pervert the course of justice...The Guardian could not

publicly report Reeʼs conviction to avoid prejudicing a new court case: the man now

working for the An Coulsonʼs News of the World-News Corporation was now on trial for

murder. accused of killing his former business partner.. Daniel Morgan..the case which

revealed close links between tabloid newspapers and corrupt police, dated back three

decades tp the late 1980ʼs, when Scotland Yard was awash with bent coppers - and

Rees (a well known and powerfully connected senior Freemason) co-owned detective

agency on Thornton Heath, South London.. his business partner at Southern

Investigations was Daniel Morgan, a gregarious 37 year-old who had become

concerned about Reesʼs close links with corrupt police. On 10 March 1987, Daniel

Morgan had been having a drink with Rees at the Golden Lion pub in Sydenham. One

of the topics for discussion that night was the teft of £18,000 in cash Rees had been

transporting for a client, Belmnont Car Auctions. Belmont and Morgan suspected that

Reeʼs and his associates - some of whom were moonlighting police officers- had stolen

the money...

Daniel Morganʼs brother Alastair Morgan, spoke to Jonathan Rees about what had

happened but was unconvinced by his explanation. Alastair Morgan went to the police

incident room at Sydenham, where he was interviews by a CID officer, Sid Fillery, one

of the detectives who had moonlighted for Rees. The murdered man brother, Alastair

Morgan was surprised by Filleryʼs casual manner. At Daniel Morganʼs inquest n 1998,

Kevin Lennon, Southern Investigationʼs bookkeeper, testified that six months before the

murder, Rees was planning a contract hit to murder Daniel Morgan: “ My mates are

going to arrange it. Those police officers are friends of mine and will either murder

Danny or I will arrange it”.. Asked if he had murdered Morgan, Rees replied: “I did not.”

The inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing. The coroner said there was no forensic

evidence to link anyone to the murder.

A second murder inquiry failed in 1989, by which time Fillery, who had omotted to

disclose is work for Southern Investigations during the first murder inquire, had left the

Metropolitan on medical grounds and stepped into Daniel Morganʼs shoes as Reesʼs new

business partner at Southern Investigations. Business boomed..the most lucrative

worked selling confidential information and data to the media, much of it from bent

detectives at Scotland Yard, though Rees and Fillery developed contacts in other

forces. In the late 1990ʼs. heir best customers were the News of the World, the Sunday

Mirror and the Daily Mirror..

Jonathan Rees, whose office was bugged by the Metropolitan Police, said: ʻNo one

pays like News of the World do,ʼ ... Andy Coulsonʼs News of the World re-employed

Rees after he was jailed for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice...”

..As the clock ticked down to the Murdochʼs appearance before the Commons Culture

Committee, the first journalist to speak out abut phone hacking was found dead at his

house in Langley Road, Watford. twenty miles from central London...More than any

other former News of the World reporter, Sean Hoare had expsoed the paperʼs darks

arts, and now had paid the ultimate price (death)..who was treated as a suspect rather

than a witness for the police...a day before Hoare was about to see his old boss

account to parliament for his conduct...Hertfordshire police began investigating the

whistleblowerʼs death... a inquest very conveniently later ruled that he had died of liver

failure, seven months after he started drinking again because of stress..

Shortly after news of Hoare's death, the Guardianʼs Amelia Hill, who had co-authored

the Milly Downer story, revealed that the Metropolitan Police were examining a laptop

computer found in a bin at Londonʼs Che;sea Harbour, the riverside apartment

complex where Rebekah and Charles Brooks lived. At around 3 p.m. that day, the day

after Rebekah Brooks had been released from twelve hours questioning, the computer

had been handed to a security guard. Charlie Brooks had tried to reclaim it but had

been unable to prove it was his and the guard had called the police. Within half an

hour, two unmarked police cars and an unmarked forensics vehicle had arrived at the

scene...

..In 1997, following pressure from Alastair Morgan, Scotland Yard launched a third

murder inquiry, Operation Nigeria. An elite anti-corruption squad, CIB3, planted a

listening device in Southern Investigationʼs office in the hope of recording Rees and

Fillery talking about Morganʼs killing. Stressing the need to place the bug with great

delicacy, a CIB3 report warned: ʻ They are alert, cunning and devious individuals who

have current knowledge of investigative methods and techniques which may be used

against them. Such us their level of access to individuals within the police, through

professional and social contats, that the treat of compromise to any conventional

investigation against them is constant and very real ( see: ʻFraudster Squadʼ, Graeme

McLagan, Guardian, 21st September 2002)

The bub. which was active between April and September 1999, unintentionally picked up

chatter between Rees and his Fleet Street customers. The Metropolitan Police gave a

briefing on the conversation to journalist Graham McLagan, who published then in an

article in the Guardian on 21st September 2002...through their corrupt contacts in the

police, Rees had sold a string of juicy stories about ongoing investigations, such as

obtaining about the former Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet, the Yorkshire

Ripper Peter Sutcliffe and the neo-Nazi nailbomber David Copeland... before the

gangster Kenneth Noye was convicted in 2000 for the M25 road-rage killig four years

earlier, Rees sold the fact GCHQ had helped track him down to Spain, from where he

had been extradited, as well as the secret route by which he was being transported to

court..

In Aprl, 1998 Rees discussed the arrest by anti-corruption police of another private

detective later jailed for nine years for corruption and conspiracy, Duncan Hanrahan.

The Bug caught Rees telling an unidentified person: ʻ Hanrahan siad what (CIB3) want

to do is fuck us all. He said they keep talking about the fucking Morgan murder every time

they see me..ʼ

Rees also had corrupt contacts outside the police. He was in touch with a corrupt VAT

inspector who could access business records, two corrupt bank employees ( including

Fat Bob and Rob the Bank) who could provide details of personal accounts, and two

former police officers workig for Customs and excise. Two blaggers conned phone

companies into handing over names and addresses of customers and itemised phone

bills. One, John Gunning - later convicted - was a specialist in blagging ex-directory

numbers from BT. On one Occassion Rees was asked by an unnamed journalist to

trace the owner of a Porche who registration number had been given. He had the

ownerʼs name and address from the DVLA and his criminal record from the Police

National Computer in thirty-four minutes.

While the Mirror titles were enthusiastic customers, the News of the World was paying

Rees £150,000 a year.. The bug recorder Rees saying: ʻNo one pays like the News of

the World do.....ʼ

A corrupt police officer Austin Warnes conspired with Rees to plant cocaine on a former

model, Kim Jams so businessman Simon Jam0esm her former husband could gain

custody of their child... Rees was sentenced to 7 years jail in December 2000 for

conspiring to pervert the course of justice and Warnes was sentenced to four year

jail..as they closed down the corruption ring, police arrested twelve suspects and raided

twenty-three premises..

With Rees in jail for a long stretch, the police began a fourth inquiry into Daniel Morganʼs

murder in early 2002 and arranged for an appeal to be made on BBCTVʼs Crimewatch,

The husband of one of the programeʼs presenters, Jaqui Hames, herself a former Met

police officer, was Detective Superintendent David Cook, head of the Metʼs north

London Murder Squad, and it was agreed that he would make the appeal. The day after

it was broadcast on 16th June 2002, Scotland Yard warned Cook that it had picked up

intelligence that Reeʼs partner Sid Fillery, had been in touch with Reesʼs handler at

News of the World, Alex Marunchak, now editing its Irish edition, who had agreed to

sort Cook outʼ.

Surrey Police, where Cook had previously worked, also told him someone purporting

to be an “Inland Revenue inspector” had tried to balg his home address from its

finance department.

Unknown to Hames and Cook, Glenn Mulcaire had started tacking data about them.

Under the heading 3 July, Mulcaire recorded the date Hames had joined the Met in

1977, her payroll and warrant numbers, the name, location and phone number and

address. Mulcaire recorded Cookʼs name, phone number, rank and made a reference to

his Crimewatch appeal.

Hames later said: ʻ This information could only have come from one place :the MPS (

Metropolitan Police Service). I was horrified by the realization that someone within the

MPS had supplied information from my personal file to Mr Mulcaire, and probably for

money..ʼ

On 10th July, 2002 noticed a van parked opposite his and Hamesʼs home. The

following day there were two vans. When he took Hamesʼs son to school, both vehicles

started following them. When the vans followed them again again soon after, Cook

contacted the MT who asked a policeman to stop one of the vehicles on the pretext of it

having a broken tail light. Both vans were leased to News-International. Police then

mobilzed a witness protection unit and counter-serveillance team to protect the couple

and their children.

Hames told the Leverson Inquiry in 2012:

ʻThe News of the World has never supplied a coherent reason for why we were placed

under surveillance .. I belie that the real reason for the News of the World placing us

under surveillance was that suspects in the Daniel Morgan murder inquiry were using

their association with a powerful and well-resourced newspaper to try to intimidate us

and so, attempt to subvert the investigation. These events left me distressed, anxious

and needing counselling and contributed to the breakdown of my marriage to David in

2012..(see: Jacqui Hames, written evidence, Leverson Inquiry, 22 February 2012)ʼ

After his release from jail in 2005, Jonathan Rees was re-employed by Any Coulsonʼs

News of the World until Met charged him with murder three years later. For in secrecy,

in 2006, a fifth inquiry, Operation Abelard, had begun away from Scotland Yard, led by

David Cook and supervised by Assistant Commissioner Yates - who had vowed to

uncover the truth about what he described as ʻone of the most disgraceful episodes on

the History of the Metʼ..

Te squad consisted of thirty-five officers, all of who, were asked to declare that they

were not Freemason, Cook built a case which included testimony from career criminals

who had turned ʻQueenʼs evidence and whose sentences were reduced as a result of

their cooperation. In April 2008, the police charged Rees, two brothers G;en and Garry

Vian, and a builder, James Cook, with Morganʼs murder.

Sid Filley - who had been convicted of possessing indecent images of children in 2003 -

was charged with perverting the course of justice. In October 2009, the murder trial

began at the old Baily. The laws of contempt of court, meant the Guardian could not

report Jonathan Reesʼs re-employment by Any Coulson at the News of the World, after

his jail term - but, in February 2010, Ian Katz spoke about it in his phone call to David

Cameronʼs office. Cameron still kept Andy Couson as his press secretary.

While Reesʼs lawyers sought to throw out the murder charge at the Old Bailey, the

Central Criminal Court in London, the hacking scandal was developing in the civil

courts. Despite the unwillingness of Murdochʼs British news operation to acknowledge

there was a case to answer, Max Clifford pursued his civil claim for breach of privacy.

ithin days of David Cameron obtaining power as the new Prime Minister of the United

Kingdom... he invited Rupert Murdoch to thank him at a secret meeting and entered

Downing Street through a back door.. and not long after that Rupert Murdoch was keen

to exploit his honeymoon with the Prime Minister and thus then quickly launched a bid

to take over sole control of BSkyB, which through aggressive management had become

the UKʼs wealthiest broadcaster. with revenues of £5.9 billion, with News Corp already

owing 39%.

Away from the phone hacking, Jonathan Reesʼs and the Vian brotherʼs trial for murder

very conveniently collapsed on Friday 11th March 2011 (no doubt with the influence and

help of Jonathan Reesʼs very powerful Freemason friends and associates in the police,

prosecution, judiciary, media, banking, business and parliament) ... even with a witness

saying that he heard Rees admitting to wanting t plan the murder of his then partner

Daniel Morgan .... when the Crown prosecution finally abandoned the long attempt to

bring Daniel Morganʼs suspected killers to justice.. Jonathan Rees and the Vian brothers

- Gary and Glen - were acquitted at the Old Bailey. The Acquittal allowed the revelation

of another of the News of the Worldʼs covert techniques: computer hacking.

For Scotland Yard, the collapse of the prosecution was another humiliating defeat in its

attempts to right the corruption riddles initial investigations into the murder of the South

London private eye Daniel Morgan.

Eighteen months of legal argument had ensured after Rees and his four co-accused

had gone on trial in October 2009, as the defence picked away at the creditability of the

prosecution case, particularity on the disclosure of evidence.

Despite the Metʼs determination to bring Morganʼs suspected killers to justice, there had

been problems with the evidence.

The murder squad had disclosed 250 crates of notes on the case dating back

twenty-four years and the super-grasses it was relying on to secure a conviction.

But in 2010, eighteen crates of further evidence relating to a super-grass from the

criminal world, James Ward, were discovered by chance is a disused building and

presented to the trial.

On the 7th March 2011, the police handed over another four crates of evidence

inexplicably missed by the exhibits officer.

Although the evidence did not strike at the heart of the case, the Crown Prosecution

Service felt that the Metropolitan Police;s credibility had been fatally undermined. In

February 2012, the case against Reesʼs business partner Sid Filley, was stayed and, in

November 2012, the builder James Cook was acquitted, followed, in March 2011, by

Rees and the Vian Brothers.

After twenty-four years, five investigations, 750,000 documents and expenditure of £50

million, Scotland Yard had again failed to jail anyone for the murder of Daniel Morgan.

Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell said” ʻ This current investigation has

identified ever more clearly how the in initial inquiry failed the family and wider public. It

is quite apparent that corruption was a deliberate factorʼ.

Outside court, Jonathan Rees said that he should not have been prosecuted, claiming

the police had failed to investigate uo to forty other potential suspects.

Rees also sought to implicate the BBC in his activities, claiming that Pamorama had

paid the police. While The Times had been able to find little space to report the phone

hacking scandal, despite the growing number of civil court cases, several parliamentary

inquiries and a new police investigation, but it managed to find space to report on Reeʼs

claims...

Though a devastating blow for Alastair Morgan and Scotland Yard, the end of the case

meant newspapers no longer had to withhold their coverage of Reesʼs connections to

the News of the World for fear of contempt of court.

The Independent ran a story in the following day's paper headlined: ʻ Private

investigator cleared of murder was on Cousonʼs payrollʼ.

In the Guardian, Nick Daviesʼs story, which referred tp Rees commissioning burglaries,

was headed” ʻJonathan Rees: private investigator who ran an empire of tabloid

corruptionʼ.

At the BBC, Panoramaʼs Glenn Campbell had already spent five months investigating

Rees, with the help of police, Alastair Morgan and Nick Davies. By, January 2011, he

gathered enough evidence to expose a further and even more serious deveopment in

the hacking story: as well as hacking phone and blagging bank and medical details, the

News of the World had been hacking computers.

One especially sensitive target was Ian Hurst, a former intelligence officer in Northern

Island, who handled Britainʼs most valuable agent in the IRA...Hurst wanted to expose

what he said was the dirty work done by the British in Northern Island and wrote a book

with a former Independant journalist, Greg Harkin, Stakeknife:Britainʼs Secret Agents in

Ireland, which alleged that in order to maintain Freddie Scappaticciʼs cover (code

named Stakeknife...who infiltrated the IRAʼs notorious ʻNutting Squadʼ which hunted

down and tortured and killed suspected informers), the British Army allowed him to

commit murder.

In 2006, Panorama discovered, Jonathan Rees had introduced the News of the Worldʼs

lex Marunchat, now editig its Irish edition, to a computer hacker, who sent a Trojan virus

to Hurstʼs computer Once opened, Hurstʼs emails were faxed to Mabchurakʼs office in

Dublin.

Pamorama filmed Hurst as he was shown faxed copied of the emails that had arrived at

the News of the World. ʻThe hairs on the back of my head are up,ʼ he said. Hurst

subsequently secretly recorded a meeting with the alleged hacker, who explained: ʻ It

werenʼt that hard. I sent you an email that you opened, and thatʼs it ... I sent it from a

bogus address .... Now itʼs gone. It shouldnʼt even remain on the hard drive. I think I

programmed it to stay on for three months.ʼ Questioned about who had asked him to do

the hacking, he replied: ʻ The faxes would go to Dublin ....He was the editor of the News

of the World for Ireland. A Slovak-type name. I canʼt remember his fucking name. Alex his

name is. Marunchak.ʼ

The BBC faced down the complaints from News Corporation claiming the BBC was

trying to damage its BShyB bid, and Panorama as broadcast on 14th March 201.

giving viewers an insight into the range of covert techniques used by News

International. Marunchak made no comment to Panorama, but later denied its

allegations in a statement to UK Press Gazette.

News International records showed that the News of the World paid Rees more than

£4,000 for research on Stakeknife in 2006.

On 20th May, 2011, Tom Watson, the Guardianʼs Nicj Davies and BBC Panormaʼs

Glenn Campbell met a Watsonʼs flat in South London, where they discussed News

Internationalʼs use of Jonathan Rees.

The Guardian and Independantʼs stories disclosed a roll-call of Reesʼs political, royal,

police and financial targets, on whom he had use a variety of techniques (some

apparently illegal) to gain information




                                            The Australian Media Conspiracy

                                                             by Stephen Carew-Reid
                                                       out soon in your local book stores
                                                       also being made into a Movie by the
                                          INL News Group.. formerly the Australian Weekend News Group
                         the News Group that the Murdoch Family did everything to stop form existing..
with one of the main purposes to stop the INL News Group's 'Australian Weekend News' newspaper masthead from being launched into an Australia wide weekend newspaper..
which would compete again the Murdoch News Corporation's 70% stranglehold on  Australian Newspapers... 
The real story will shock the readers as to the length and breadth of the clandestine methods that the Murdochs and their all powerful multi billion dollar News Corporation were prepared to use to make sure no competitor reached first base in mounting any challenge to News Corporation's stranglehold on the Australian Newspaper Industry... what is described in the Australian Media Conspiracy makes the the Murdoch's News International and News Corporation Phone Hacking and Police Bribing look like child's play at a kindergarden school..







 
 

Meet The Murdochs!*

Nicholas Carlson | Sep. 4, 2009,
 
News Corp (NWS) chairman Rupert Murdoch has six children by three wives, two living sisters, one deceased sister, a 100-year-old mother, and a father who died in 1952.

Click here to meet the Murdochs →

To learn more about Rupert's family, we spoke to his biographer, Michael Wolff, author ofThe Man Who Owns The News.

Here's the first story you need to hear to know how the Murdoch family works: During the recession of 1990 and 1991, Rupert Murdoch promised his then-wife, Anna Torv Murdoch, that as soon as he got the company through the mess he would finally begin to retire.

That didn't happen, and in 1999, the couple divorced. The same year, Rupert married a young News Corp executive named Wendi Deng, with whom he eventually had two more children.

The new happy family faced a problem. When Rupert divorced, he agreed to leave his News Corp voting shares to a trust that would be controlled by his four children -- the Murdoch Family Trust. He also agreed to Anna's stipulation that no one could be admitted to the trust -- not even new children.

Wendi could not live with this arrangement. So a new one was agreed to. Rupert paid each of his four adult children $150 million. Suddenly, Wendi's kids were allowed into the Murdoch Family Trust -- though they will remain without voting participation.

What, that's not how your family works?

Meet the Murdochs:

Click here to meet the Murdochs →

Note: Michael Wolff tells us we "really got a lot of that stuff I told you wrong," but won't tell us what, exactly. He suggests we read his book



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-murdochs-2009-9?op=1#ixzz2Jr5x9OKx

Keith Murdoch -- The Newspaper Man Father

Running the largest newspaper company in Australia, Rupert's father Keith was the the most famous and powerful newspaper man in Australia. He owned two papers on his own. When he died deeply in debt in 1952 the family inherited both and sold one for taxes.

Elisabeth Murdoch -- Rupe's Mother
 

Rupert's mother, neé Elisabeth Joy Greene, is still alive at age 100. She married Keith Murdoch at age 19, when he was 42.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-murdochs-2009-9?op=1#ixzz2Jr6DLwnZ

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-murdochs-2009-9?op=1#ixzz2Jr66syrx
 


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-murdochs-2009-9?op=1#ixzz2Jr5jBxMw
 
Rupert's Sisters Back Home
 

Rupert Murdoch's only siblings were sisters Helen, Anne and Janet. Helen died in 2004.

From Keith Murdoch's death until 1992, Rupert, his mother and his three sisters all owned equal shares in News Corporation. Then Rupert forced the rest of his immediate family out, paying them a total of $600 million.

Says Wolfe, "Rupert said 'This is ridiculous, I've built this company, I do all the work, I need to pass the company to my children.'"

One of Rupert's nephews continues to be upset over the arrangement.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-murdochs-2009-9?op=1#ixzz2Jr6LgqrW
Patricia Murdoch -- The First, Forgotten Wife

Rupert has been married three times. His first wife was named Patricia. She met Rupert when she was an intern -- called a "cadet" -- at one of his papers. Tasked with writing a profile about Rupert for an in-house magazine, she went to interview him and that was it.

When she wasn't an intern, Patricia was stewardess and a department store model. Rupert's family -- one of the most famous families in Australia -- disapproved of this marriage. It lasted from 1956 to 1967.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-murdochs-2009-9?op=1#ixzz2Jr6Sh4Z2
Prudence Murdoch -- The Australian Daughter

Prudence MacLeod is Rupert's oldest daughter, and his only child from the first marriage. Living in Sydney, she's married to a a senior executive in News Corp's Australian operation.

Prudence is the only adult child who is not involved in the company. She never went to college and was never considered a potential heir.

Wolff says none of this is because Pru -- as he calls her -- isn't smart. More likely, it's do with Prudence being a female who grew up while Rupert was still living in Australia and not New York.

Prudence has a reputation for being shy with the media, so when Wolff asked Rupert if he could interview her for his book, the mogul essentially said, "Don't expect much."

So it was a surprise when Wolff knocked her door and she opened it, saying, "My father says I can tell you anything." The biographer and Rupert's first daughter spent the next two days talking.

Now Wolff is convinced that of all the children, Prudence is the closest to her father. "She's not involved in company politics and so she's very forthright with her father," he says.

Prudence Murdoch -- The Australian Daughter

Prudence Murdoch -- The Australian Daughter

Prudence MacLeod is Rupert's oldest daughter, and his only child from the first marriage. Living in Sydney, she's married to a a senior executive in News Corp's Australian operation.

Prudence is the only adult child who is not involved in the company. She never went to college and was never considered a potential heir.

Wolff says none of this is because Pru -- as he calls her -- isn't smart. More likely, it's do with Prudence being a female who grew up while Rupert was still living in Australia and not New York.

Prudence has a reputation for being shy with the media, so when Wolff asked Rupert if he could interview her for his book, the mogul essentially said, "Don't expect much."

So it was a surprise when Wolff knocked her door and she opened it, saying, "My father says I can tell you anything." The biographer and Rupert's first daughter spent the next two days talking.

Now Wolff is convinced that of all the children, Prudence is the closest to her father. "She's not involved in company politics and so she's very forthright with her father," he says.

Anna Torv Murdoch Mann -- The Second Wife

Anna Torv Murdoch Mann -- The Second Wife

Anna Torv married Rupert Murdoch in 1969. Wolff is convinced it is due to her influence that Rupert became the right-wing conservative who started Fox News.

"An ideal, classic corporate wife," according to the biographer, Anna was almost as instrumental within News Corp itself, serving on its board until the 1999 divorce.

The couple split for two main reasons. The first was Wendi Deng, Rupert's third wife. The second was a broken promise.

When the economy fell apart in 1990 and 1991, Rupert worked like mad to get the company through it. He promised Anna then that when it was all over, yes, they could finally retire to Florida. We know that didn't happen.

Elisabeth Murdoch -- The Independent Daughter

Elisabeth Murdoch -- The Independent Daughter

Elisabeth Murdoch -- Rupert's second child and the first by his second wife-- lives in London, where she owns and operates a television production company called Shine. It's the largest independent producer of television shows in the world, known for hits like 'The Office' and 'Ugly Betty.'

She's married to a man named Matthew Freud,  who is supposed to be the most famous PR man in London. 

A Vassar grad, Elisabeth had all the opportunities Prudence did not. She joined News Corp at a very young age and her father gave her all sorts of responsibilities. But Wolff says he also constantly looked over her shoulder. Rival News Corp executives made sure to make her feel as unwelcome as possible.

She soon quit. She's now the most independently successful of all Rupert's children.

Lachlan Murdoch -- The Dependent Son

Lachlan Murdoch -- The Dependent Son

Like his sister Elisabeth, Rupert's oldest son Lachlan joined News Corp at an early age.

Though at one point he was considered his father's successor, he's no longer with News Corp. He hated his father's control and the company's bruising internal politics.

Now he lives in Sydney, married to a famous model.

At one point during his time with the company, Lachlan oversaw Australian media operations and oversaw them well. Wolff says that people in the family hope he'll return to some version of that role some day.

He almost did 18 months or so ago, as he moved to close a multi-billion dollar portfolio of Australian media assets. The highly-leveraged deal fell through when the debt markets collapsed. Lachlan was crushed; his father was not.

James Murdoch -- The Heir To The Empire

James Murdoch -- The Heir To The Empire

Rupert's second son and fourth child, James, is now the undisputed heir to the News Corporation empire.

Wolff drives at how he got there in a recent post to Newser:

Both of James’s siblings who worked at News Corp—his older sister Elisabeth, and older brother Lachlan—balked at being under their father’s relentless thumb and at the side of someone who never listened to them. James’s way of getting out from under is to out Murdoch Murdoch—his father listens to him because he says exactly (actually, rather more articulately) what his father would say. (One reason why James and his brother are so often at odds—Lachlan thinks his brother is a total suck-up.)

James, in a way that seems to startle even his father, has elevated Murdochness to cultishness. To be a Murdoch, in James’s version, is to believe in certain things and to behave in certain ways. It’s a mafia-type thing: The most grievous sin is to go against the family.

It is, too, an ordinary family-type thing. Murdoch clearly favors his oldest son, Lachlan—who has pulled away. The younger son has stepped into the breach—willing to do anything to please the old man.

Wendi Deng -- The Third Wife, The Negotiator

Wendi Deng -- The Third Wife, The Negotiator

Wendi Deng -- Chinese immigrant, mother to Grace and Chloe, powerful News Corp exec -- is Rupert's third and current wife. People say she's liberalized him.

Wolff portrays her a someone who is exceedingly ambitious and knows how to get what she wants.

She came to the country without any English as a nanny for an American couple she met in China. Soon, that couple broke up and she married the husband. That marriage lasted about long enough for her to get a green card.

Then Wendi went to Yale on a scholarship and landed a job with News Corp in China. During one of Rupert's visits to the country, his usual translator failed to show and she stepped in. Romance blossomed.

According to Wolff, Rupert paid his other four children $150 million each so that they would agree to include Wendi's children into the Murdoch Family Trust, which will inherit Rupert's wealth upon his death.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-murdochs-2009-9?op=1#ixzz2Jr7Op8Jv

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-murdochs-2009-9?op=1#ixzz2Jr6cSBqh
 

Murdoch's eldest child sells Vaucluse home

Date 2010
 
Off-market deal … the MacLeod residence, centre, and Carrara, right. Photo: Tim Mooney

Prudence MacLeod ... seventh-highest Sydney price this year. Photo: David Mariuz

THE Vaucluse home of Prudence MacLeod, the oldest child of Rupert Murdoch, sold quietly this week for about $13.25 million in an off-market deal. It is the seventh-highest price in Sydney this year.

The sprawling three-storey residence stands on a 1060-square-metre waterfront reserve block in Carrara Road, one of Vaucluse's most prestigious addresses. The property last traded in 2002 for $7.5 million, when MacLeod and her husband Alasdair bought it from the Hargreaves family.

The McGrath selling agent Ben Collier would not divulge any details surrounding the sale due to confidentiality agreements, but he confirmed it is the second-highest price in Vaucluse this year. ''It's an outstanding result for this waterfront reserve property,'' Mr Collier said. ''This sale should encourage buyer confidence for quality properties at the top end of the market.''

The MacLeod residence stands on the northern side of Carrara, a landmark three-level European-style villa, set on a 1600-square-metre block, that sold for $26.75 million in 2010.

Set high above the harbour, these properties border Hermitage Reserve, a public waterfront parkland with a walking track between Hermit Bay and Milk Bay. The Hermitage Reserve is part of the Sydney Harbour National Park.

At the Hermit Bay end of the track is the Hermitage, a vast estate owned by the Hemmes family who own restaurants, bars and pubs around Sydney including the Ivy, the Establishment and Mr Wong. Above Milk Bay stands Strickland House, a circa 1850s heritage-listed Victorian Italianate mansion (set in 4.9 hectares of grounds) owned by the NSW government.

 
 
Murdoch family portrait: (l-r) James Murdoch and wife Kathryn Hufschmid, Matthew Freud, husband of Elisabeth Murdoch, Wendi Deng, wife of Rupert Murdoch, Sarah O'Hara, wife of Lachlan Murdoch. Photograph: Tom Stoddart/Getty

Meet the Murdochs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/29/rupert-murdoch-elisabeth-james

Their father is media mogul Rupert Murdoch, the family business a global giant worth billions of dollars. So what do the sons and daughters of one of the world's most powerful and controversial men really think about him? They rarely speak to the press, but here, on Dad's orders, they reveal all to Michael Wolff

  • Michael Wolff
  • The Guardian, Saturday 29 November 2008
  • Having been in journalism in New York for more than 30 years, I inevitably became an anti-Murdochian. During the dotcom era, I had a public spat with Rupert's son, James, who was at the time running his father's none-too-successful internet businesses. I ridiculed his messianic pronouncements and he called me "an obnoxious dickhead". Or, as he tells it, "a jerk".

    When I became the media columnist at New York magazine in 1998, my first piece was about Rupert Murdoch's imminent divorce from Anna, his wife of 32 years and mother of Elisabeth, Lachlan and James, all of whom have held senior positions at Murdoch's News Corporation and have at some time been viewed as Rupert's heirs-in-waiting. I found it a delightful possibility that marital acrimony might fracture the empire (I was wrong).

    During the 2004 presidential campaign, meanwhile, I found myself, as the result of some idle cocktail party chatter, in a room of determined leftwing types considering how to counter yet another part of News Corp. We would attack the pro-Bush Fox News with a campaign to demonise Murdoch, who was not only the very personification of Big Media but a thrice-married foreigner with an Australian accent so thick that no one in America's foreigner-hating heartland would ever mistake him for anything else. You couldn't have a better villain.

    On the other hand, I was curious about someone who so obviously did what he enjoyed doing. As much as you might detest him, Rupert Murdoch had been, over so many years, an original and unstoppable force.

    I ran into Murdoch himself in 2002 at a technology conference in California. He'd seemed hapless, holding on to a stuffed animal he'd been given in a swag bag and planned to give to his new daughter - but also, it seemed, holding on for dear life. In wise-guy fashion, a few of us - fellow conference attendees - asked if he wanted to go for a drink. He accepted our invitation with alacrity and, finding the bartender awol, commandeered the bar himself. Here was an appealing man, puckish, easy-going, unpretentious, in a Wal-Mart flannel shirt. He seemed like someone's grandfather - indeed, he bore a strange resemblance to my own. We ended up having dinner and chatting for several hours.

    Six years later, I found myself interviewing Murdoch's four grown-up children for a book about "the man who owns the news". Murdoch himself had fixed it for them to talk to me. I assume this is part of his branding and legacy strategy, but there was no insistence on copy approval, or restrictions on what I might ask.

    The timing could hardly have been better: Murdoch is by nature a cheap patriarch, but in 2007 he was forced to give the children of his first two marriages $150m each in stocks and shares as part of a deal that would open up the family trust to Grace and Chloe, his much younger kids by Wendi Deng. Now only the older kids' desire to please the old man could tie them to his business empire - just as it entered one of its most challenging periods, with the controversial takeover of Dow Jones, publisher of the Wall Street Journal.

    Prue

    Prudence MacLeod, Rupert's oldest child, whose mother Patricia was married to Rupert between 1956 and 1966, has a sprawling, comfortable house overlooking Sydney Harbour in Vaucluse, one of Australia's most expensive neighbourhoods. It is filled with teenage children and their friends, and on the day I visit, Prue's husband, Alasdair, a Scotsman via Eton who is one of the senior-most guys at News Limited, News Corp's Australian arm, is sick in bed.

    "Dad said, 'Say whatever you like,'" Prue says. Her openness comes as a surprise given that Rupert likes to portray her as nearly reclusive. As with Elisabeth, Lachlan and James, however, the message she wants to get across seems aimed not at the public but at her father.

    Prue's message to 77-year-old Rupert is that, as the odd duck out, the housewife who chose to make her life outside the family business, she possesses a unique and perhaps powerful perspective. She is a truth teller, and an entirely good-natured one. Indeed, while her siblings display a certain forced and watchful attention, she is easy, unconcerned, eager to throw caution to the wind. That goes for the small things as well as the big. She reports telling her father, " 'Dad, I understand about dyeing the hair and the age thing. Just go somewhere proper. What you need is very light highlights.' But he insists on doing it over the sink because he doesn't want anybody to know. Well, hello! Look in the mirror. Look at the pictures in the paper." She further reports his response: "Well" - sputter, sputter - "you need a facelift."

    Today, Prue wants to tell her father that she's owed something more for being excluded from the family's ring of accomplishment. There's no bitterness. In fact, it's sort of that she's owed something for not being bitter. And what she's owed has nothing much to do with anything material, but rather some further relationship with her father, some deeper level of rapport and understanding. She's her father's daughter, and hence different from Anna's children. "I had a stepmother," she says, "and they had a mother."

    While Elisabeth, 40, Lachlan, 37, and James, 35, have become more and more self-conscious about being Murdochs, and increasingly see themselves as living inside a bubble, 50-year-old Prue has cultivated her outsiderness. As the Murdochs prepare to spend Christmas 2008 together, Prue is adamant that she won't be buying a yacht to join the family flotilla wherever it docks. No, she plans to rent one. She reached this decision after taking her son James on vacation with her family as they sailed around the Aeolian Islands. "They have massive boats, all of them," she says. "I never feel sophisticated enough to be on this big boat. They are all taller than me, that's the worst thing, so they all look chicer wherever they are, but especially on a boat, where everyone is in shorts or a swimsuit and I'm the short, fat one."

    Her father's divorce from Anna in 1999 and subsequent marriage to Wendi Deng have, however, given her a kind of levelling confidence when it comes to her siblings: nobody understands better than Prue. "Elisabeth and I discussed it at one point in the very beginning, when everyone was hurt. It was interesting because I was just sitting there thinking, 'Well, hello, I've done this.' "

    The bond with her siblings is real and obviously fierce. When Liz married the PR man Matthew Freud - of whom everybody was deeply wary at the time - Prue took it on herself to deliver the family ultimatum: "If you hurt her, I'll kill you." (Freud pointed out that James had just told him the same thing.)

    But there's business, too. Prue's most direct point of competition is with Lachlan on the other side of Sydney. This is partly territorial: if Lachlan comes back into the business he left in 2005 (and it is hard to believe he won't), and if he takes the job most obviously suited to him - running News Corporation's Australian operations - that will mean he's blocked her husband from getting to the top.

    But it is also temperamental: Prue is anonymous - "I've always been low-key and not many people know about me, and I like that, I just love that" - and Lachlan, to Prue, is the "king of Sydney". Lachlan lives in a $7m home with meticulous design detail overlooking Bronte Beach, the most fashionable address in this most fashionable of cities, and Prue lives, in Lachlan's dismissive description, with the uptight people overlooking the harbour.

    Lachlan

    Lachlan's turf, in addition to Bronte, is Surry Hills, where News Ltd has its HQ and where he has opened offices for the mostly as-yet-to-be-determined activities of his new company. In a converted warehouse, they resemble all self-consciously uncorporate offices in recently gentrified suburbs around the world.

    Once famously handsome and fit - the striking good looks of both Murdoch sons help account for the gay rumours attached to both of these complacently married men - Lachlan is now a contented 30lb overweight. Indeed, he has the same boyish chubbiness that his father had in his late 30s. (Rupert, Prue says, desperately tried to lose weight when they lived in London by trying all manner of faddish diets, grapefruit diet included.) People mostly comment on the differences between father and son, but the similarities are as pronounced. They both, in one sense, have an odd lack of presence. They're both standoffish or even shy - making eye contact isn't their first move - and unexpectedly inarticulate. They both need someone to finish their sentences. So much for Murdoch's description to me of Prue as the inarticulate one.

    In our interview, Lachlan is skittish and put-upon. He is talking only on his father's request; he would rather not be. Except that he, like Prue, seems clearly to regard this as a dialogue with his old man. The point he wants to make is about being infantilised. He makes it without obvious recrimination but with a sense of great burden, weariness almost. Lachlan, whose career has, in a sense, yet to start, has already experienced a great rollercoaster ride in his professional life. He has been tutored, elevated, anointed, then thwarted by his father's courtiers - and finally turned his back on it all.

    It's important to understand how much the Murdochs' business is suffused with emotion, and how deeply involved the children have been with the affairs of the father. When News Corp almost went under in 1991, Lachlan remembers, "I think really, that, um, you know, shook him more than I've ever seen. He was, I remember, like, almost like putting him to bed. " Also: "It wasn't like Dad goes to work and works in the media and comes home, and you know, he's just Dad. Every breakfast was about media. My dad was, you know, we went through the newspapers every breakfast, through things - when we got home, Dad would come home usually with, um, businesspeople... even on weekends, right."

    Now, in its way, all this living over the store added up to a stellar upbringing. From an early age, each of the professional Murdoch kids was good at what he or she did, far advanced beyond their age. Rupert, focused by his then-wife Anna, raised a coven of media managers. But while he empowered, he then didn't want to cede power. He trained, but didn't let go. It didn't even cross his mind to let any of the kids get an outside job, say.

    In Lachlan's case, the father tried to recreate his own history. Lachlan at 22 (Rupert's age when he took over the Adelaide News) was sent like a viceroy from his home in the US to Australia - not so much the boy publisher as the boy governor-general. And he was received, in the land Murdoch had departed a quarter-century before, like a piece of the cloth. Everybody at News Ltd took pride in his least accomplishments. From 1997 to 2001, he ran the Australian business with distinction. And he became the prince of Australia - learned, in fact, how to be an Aussie - and married a girl who is just like (or at least looks just like) the girl who married dear old Dad. He learned the newspaper business and pretty much did everything he was supposed to do that Dad did, and then he was brought back from the provinces to take his rightful place at HQ.

    What must the old man have been thinking? He must have been thinking in novelistic rather than business or managerial terms. It was some fine fantasy: the beloved son at his side. The beloved son taking over his beloved New York Post and, most of all, patiently, admiringly, loyally, lovingly watching the father as the years ran out, in this way being passed all the secrets of the Murdoch line.

    There is no misunderstanding this storyline among his father's retainers. As a name throughout News Corp, Lachlan is almost as redolent as Rupert. Still, if there is within the company an absolute belief in a forthcoming succession and in the Murdochs as royalty, a people apart, there is, too, an obvious and constant comparison between once and future. If in Australia Lachlan was regarded as a clever, sophisticated guy - a tastemaker - and a good manager who built a strong rapport in newsrooms and with his executives, in the US the perception is that he was a weak, even pitiable, version of his dad. He was too sensitive; he was petulant; he lacked charm; he was not sharp. Formally, his title at News Ltd was chief executive. Both in name and in practice, he ran News Ltd's entire operations, overseeing all its newspapers and its pay television joint venture. In New York, his official title was deputy chief operating officer, which was meant to give him control of News Corp's US publications - the Post - and make him Peter Chernin's deputy at Fox.

    The father in small but constant ways humiliated the son, which made him a joke to everybody else. In every meeting the father was the impatient, domineering, fussing presence. He couldn't stop calling attention to himself and away from the son. At the same time, the son, stamping his foot, was trying to call attention to himself. He started marketing campaigns for the Post; tried to bring a little class to a notoriously unclassy operation by throwing functions and parties in the tabloid's name. Over on the west coast, he hung out with movie stars and insisted his dad make smarter and hipper movies (Fight Club, which Rupert detested, was a Lachlan-supported project).

    "Family businesses are great businesses," Lachlan says, "but they're, they're also fraught with difficulties, so, um, so the, uh... I think because you go back to that fundamental character trait that has served Dad so well, which is forward thinking and always driving forward, I think he, um, misunderstood - doesn't understand or appreciate sometimes, or he does, but doesn't think about how complicated they are, um - I'm not really answering the question, but, uh, don't you know my dad's never going to die?"

    The curious thing, the unexpected thing, was that the son upped and resigned, just as his sister had a few years before. What's more, Lachlan, like Elisabeth, gave up his position without having any money. And yet here, in the old man's defence, is the other elemental point: if he tried to hold them and dominate them, he also apparently raised them to be able to say, "Fuck you."

    The exit couldn't have been more painful for both father and son. Not only was Rupert embarrassed, but it showed his relative corporate vulnerability - News Corp's president, Peter Chernin, and the head of Fox News, Roger Ailes, made life difficult for Lachlan and openly took credit for pushing him out.

    But never mind. The Murdochs are sentimental only up to a point. Before his chair was cold, Lachlan was eclipsed in his father's estimation by his brother James, who had been hounding his back since childhood. In the blink of an eye, Lachlan went from the chosen one to the fallen one.

    And then there was the issue of money. Lachlan's payout from News Corp was certainly generous. He didn't want for relocation expenses to Australia and a gilded exile lifestyle. But he didn't have enough money to make himself into something other than Murdoch's son. It has become one of his own parenting mantras: when his kids turn 18, he's giving them control of their dough.

    It is for him, then, a significant development that the trust issue with Grace and Chloe was settled with $150m payouts. Because even as Rupert is considering ways to bring him back into the fold, Lachlan is finally in a position to make other plans. And he's not telling his father - or at least he's sharing as little as possible, and driving his father crazy in the process.

    In early 2008, he tries to start his own Australian media empire with Jamie Packer, the son of Rupert's old rival, Kerry. Not only is Lachlan setting himself up as a potential competitor to the family business, but both Rupert and James think he is striking a terrible deal. He won't listen to them.

    In the end, the transaction falls through. But it is hard for Murdoch to fathom why his son, who has Australia's most powerful media enterprise at his disposal, would even want a lesser one of his own. "I don't understand it, his brother doesn't understand it," the Old Man tells me. "Lachlan, from the age of four, was a stubborn bastard. He always was."

    Elisabeth

    Lachlan and Elisabeth form a special Murdoch club, the resignees - and Lachlan's exit from News Corp in 2005 and the surrounding press were managed by Elisabeth's husband, Matthew Freud. Like Lachlan, Elisabeth has a fierce defensiveness when it comes to her mother, Anna: she didn't louse up the marriage, their father did. And, like Lachlan, Elisabeth has set up on her own. She's hot media stuff. Both Lachlan and Elisabeth, in Australia and London, have become personalities (something their father never was).

    Indeed, this is the context in which Elisabeth falls in love with Freud: he's her image consultant. This in itself is something of a rebellion against her father. It's a kind of insiderness that their father finds gauche. With their famous friends and their reputation as the British media's golden couple, his daughter and son-in-law are the kind of people his tabloids would naturally ridicule.

    Elisabeth is, arguably, Rupert's most successful child - and his angriest. When I meet her in London at the inauspicious offices of her company, Shine, which is now one of the largest independent television producers in the world, she is as wary as Lachlan about speaking to me, and as concise in her message to her father: he's created vast emotional turmoil and ought to thank his lucky stars he's also produced children strong enough to survive it.

    "It hasn't been an easy couple of years," says Elisabeth, who was managing director of BSkyB, News Corp's British satellite TV arm, from 1996 to 2001. "He still falls into stupid old habits. I mean, he's impossible to figure. He's weirdly awkward about things, but his heart is in the right place. He's very old-fashioned. He finds it hard to talk about emotions, hard to say... If somebody doesn't know it... He'll say sorry if you call him on it, but he walks straight into it."

    It is a curious new reality: the ageing patriarch subject to the modern language of behaviour and relationships. The Murdoch children's wherewithal to critique their father comes not just from the psychological predicament they have shared - in this Elisabeth sounds like any well-analysed fortysomething - but also from the fact that they share his professional world. Talking about their father is shop talk. Indeed, they've often conspired together in the workplace - they know his moves. When Elisabeth first came to London and was given a job at BSkyB under Sam Chisholm, Murdoch had him believe she was an underling, but then he was on the phone with her constantly and she became his back channel. He promoted his inexperienced offspring into his formidable tool. His children know better than anybody how he works.

    This is one of the odder aspects of the Murdoch dynasty - its relatively clear awareness of itself, and its analytic regard for the patriarch. There's a sense that the children are intent on not being played the way he's playing everyone else.

    The addition of Freud added a further ironic twist to this analysis. After the birth of Matthew and Elisabeth's first child, Charlotte, it was Anna Murdoch who marvelled in an interview she gave in 2001 in Australia: "I thought, what on earth is this baby going to be like, with the blood of Rupert Murdoch and Sigmund Freud running about its veins?" Freud has added another level, not just of modern personal astuteness but of media consciousness. At times, he almost makes Murdoch seem like an innocent.

    Murdoch was at first rather horrified by this man of deep connectedness, superb analytic abilities and possibly dynastic ambitions of his own. But he has come to quite like his son-in-law, something in which the son-in-law seems to take enormous pride. In the summer of 2007, when the family is sailing around Sicily, a photo is taken of the pair arm in arm, hanging off the top of the boat. Freud gets a framed copy as a keepsake.

    Elisabeth and Matthew, of course, started a business together. It's an example, finally, of true media synergy: her name and his connections jump-started a scrappy television production company into which she threw her all and out of which she created a significant business. She has built a media company apart from her father's media company. This confuses him as much as it impresses him. He frequently imagines her moving back to New York or to Los Angeles, but Elisabeth is keeping herself at bay, which of course makes her all the more alluring.

    James

    James may be the kid his father understands least of all. This may be calculated, a certain cat-and-mouse game with the old man. You can dodge him by talking over his head.

    James's record label, Rawkus, which he dropped out of Harvard to set up in 1995, was either a conscious or instinctive move into the one area of media in which his father has no interest or experience. Music hadn't ever been among the Murdoch media businesses. But suddenly he had a son full of A&R talk. A semi-hipster son with his hip-hop acts and bleached blond hair, which would be traded in (as soon as Pop bought the record label) for sharp suits and black, thick-rimmed glasses when he grabbed the internet business at News Corp during the dotcom boom. He set himself up, in his mid-20s, as technologist and futurist and digital leader. His father had no idea what he was talking about, but was pleased someone was doing the talking. And then came satellites. James took over the Asian satellite operation in 2000, months after he was married. Satellites were a business in which his father had been successful but, in essence, didn't know beans about. Once more, James put himself out of harm's way in his canny appreciation of his father's MO: dominate what he understands, find someone to trust when he doesn't. His brother, running newspapers, was bound to be second-guessed by his father; James had a much wider berth. On virtually any issue involving technology, from the mid-90s on, Murdoch would seek his son's counsel, regardless of his having no established technological expertise. Like so many people in the early internet boom, James could talk the talk. His father has, curiously, come to believe that James is not just so much smarter about all this stuff than he is, but better educated, too - which is, Oxford graduate to Harvard dropout, not exactly true.

    Certainty comes naturally to James. He is the most articulate member of the family - really the only articulate Murdoch. He's all about constant, declarative conversation (though he is the only one of his siblings to put direct quotes from our interview off the record). It's all challenge and menace. He wants to joust, clash, correct, instruct, prevail. No niceties. When I meet him in London at the BSkyB offices, he discusses the advantages of his father's menacing reputation with a pleased glint in his eye. "A little menace isn't a bad thing." But his father's menace - cowboy- or outlaw-style - has mutated in James into a sort of programmatic, techno-manager, automaton-like cultishness. And from his mouth comes paragraph after paragraph of super-abstracted business-speak.

    His sister, Prue, refers - half-affectionately, half-mockingly - to his OCD. The first to have children, she noticed James' horror one day as they ate dinner on his yacht and her youngest, Clementine, then five, ate her spaghetti with her hands. "Because James is almost obsessive-compulsive, he started having contortions," Prue says. "I had hoped he would learn the lesson about children when he had his own. But no, James's children are perfect. Elisabeth's children are perfect. Lachlan's children are perfect. And I have got the ragamuffins."

    James's arrival at BSkyB in 2003 required a special brazenness. This was, after all, a major independent public company and here he was, the inexperienced, barely adult son of the chairman of the controlling shareholders, being handed the top job. True, his arrival was carefully orchestrated by his father (there was Murdoch's deal with Conrad Black that his papers would go easy on Black's legal problems if Black's Telegraph went easy on James' appointment), as well as Murdoch calling in favours from investors in London's financial community. But what finally carried the day was James's own relentlessness. He stared everybody down. As British investors were wiping 19% off BSkyB stock in one day in 2004, James was adamantly telling them he would make the outrageous target of eight million subscribers by 2006. By the time his brother announced his resignation in July 2005, it was clear James would exceed all the company's goals - and suddenly the non-Murdoch British press seemed happy to call him the deserved heir apparent.

    And then he really made his bones, facing down arch competitor Richard Branson when he attempted to merge his cable company Virgin Media with ITV. In 2006, as Virgin Media and ITV were negotiating their merger, James swooped in, dead of night, and bought 17.9% of ITV, seriously lousing up the Virgin deal.

    It was so Murdochian: the suddenness, the secrecy, the game-changing, the lack of manners, the audacity. Actually, it was audacious, in part, because it was such a crummy deal. News Corp would never be allowed to buy the whole company (it probably wouldn't want it, anyway), it paid way above market value and would probably be forced at some point to sell its position (it has). If News Corp loses its appeal against the ruling and has to sell its stake, losses could exceed a billion dollars. On the other hand, this bad deal bought BSkyB probably three years to get its broadband play in place without a serious competitor - and what matters is that the Murdoch kid did something his old man might have done.

    Throughout the deal to buy Dow Jones, which faces fierce opposition from the American establishment, he is his father's constant confidant. In James's telling, everybody else - in and outside News Corp - is resistant. It's he and Rupert toughing it out.

    His father, perhaps most of all, is wowed by the boy's pure aggression, by his fight, by his fearsomeness. Which is why the old man figures that, as he chases the Wall Street Journal, it's time to move James up. Having proved his Murdochness, in December 2007 James is named head of News Corp in Europe and Asia, in addition to BSkyB. For now at least, he seems destined to take over the "empire" - and the Murdoch children really do call it that. ·

    • This is an edited extract from The Man Who Owns The News, by Michael Wolff, published by The Bodley Head next week (£20)

    Rupert Murdoch's back – and this time he's tweeting orders

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/rupert-murdoch

    Most recent

    The storm over the Gerald Scarfe cartoon in the Sunday Times, featuring Israel's prime minister Binyamin Netanyahulooks to be over.

    But it is far from being a lone example of accusations of anti-semitism against journalists who dare to be controversial when they touch on Israeli politics, as I note in my London Evening Standard column today.

    I wrote it after listening to the discussion between Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, and The Guardian's cartoonist, Steve Bell, on yesterday's Today programme onRadio 4.

    Though some selected quotes from that heated exchange - hosted by Jim Naughtie - were carried in various outlets yesterday, I present this (very lightly) edited transcript because it deserves a wide audience.

    It highlights a continuing dilemma for journalists and cartoonists who do not regard themselves as being in the least bit anti-semitic and do not intend their work to be anti-semitic, but find themselves accused of anti-semitism.

    JN: Stephen Pollard, you're a strong believer in free speech. Don't you think cartoons should be offensive?

    SP: Oh yes, you have to separate out the difference between the right to publish something, whether there's a right to be offensive, and whether that means you always have to be offensive, and I don't think you do.

    I think this is an absolute model of how you deal with such a situation. Clearly, there was a mistake made. We're all human - cartoonists are human, journalists are human, editors are human… The mistake was printing the cartoon. Whether it was Gerald Scarfe's in drawing it. Whether it was the Sunday Times in printing it. Whatever. It was a mistake.

    JN: I just want to be clear here. Are you referring to the timing, which was a matter of particular offence to some people… or in general?

    SP: As it happens, I think both. The timing was grotesque. Clearly, we have to take what Gerald Scarfe says at face value and accept he didn't know [it was Holocaust Memorial Day].

    JN: Yes, it was clear he didn't know.

    SP: But actually I think the cartoon itself is disgusting. I think it's some of the worst anti-semitic blood libels being repeated. Whether there's the right to publish the cartoon is a different issue. I think it was a misjudgement and I think News International have handled it absolutely right in saying, 'you know what, it was a mistake and we're sorry.'"

    JN: OK, so Steve Bell, Stephen Pollard believes in free speech, believes in the right of cartoonists, paraphrasing what he just said, this was over the top. What's your response?

    SB: First, I'd like to say it's astonishing. It's the first time I've ever heard Rupert apologise for anything… all his many crimes through his life… but apologising for this cartoon, which for once wasn't a bad cartoon.

    I think Stephen Pollard invokes terms like the blood libel and genocidal hate rage. He's attributing this to a cartoon which is actually sort of like a mirror image of the cartoon that Scarfe did the week before about President Assad clutching the head of a baby, which was even more offensive. Not a squeak about that.

    The problem with the state of Israel and, if you like, the Zionist lobby, is that they never acknowledge the crime of ethnic cleansing upon which the state was founded, and that's a permanent problem that's always going to be a difficult issue. It's always going to set people at odds like this…

    If you use the term 'blood libel' as loosely and as ridiculously as that… blood libel refers to a medieval belief that Jews ate their own children or ate Christian children, which is not a current idea that's abroad…

    JN: You've made a series of strong points. Stephen Pollard come in.

    SP: I'm interested in your assertion that nobody's talking about the blood libel. I would have thought that as a cartoonist you look at other cartoons. Did you not look at the Middle Eastern press? Did you not look at that, ever… it is an absolutely current, regular, almost weekly image that is used in the Arab and Middle Eastern press about Jews. This is absolutely on a par with that.

    We can argue til the cows come home about whether the cartoon is anti-semitic, whether it's offensive, whatever. The fact is, Mr Bell may not like it and indeed… the difference between what Gerald Scarfe and News International have done and what The Guardian have done with Steve Bell's own cartoons… in November he had a cartoon of Binyamin Netanyahu as a puppet master with William Hague and Tony Blair…

    SB: It wasn't as a puppet master. It was a Harry Corbett figure with a glove puppet. Now that's the first absurdity. Don't start repeating that nonsense.

    JN (as both men try to speak): I'm going to try to separate you two for a minute. Steve, why did you object to what Stephen said about the puppet master cartoon?

    SB: It was a cartoon specifically about Netanyahu, it wasn't about the Jews, or Jewish people, or the Jew as some kind of manipulating evil genius. It was instantly taken up by some lunatic right-wing websites who ran alongside something plucked out of Der Stürmer that bore no resemblance to it, no relationship to it at all. My cartoon had Netanyahu with rather pathetic glove puppets, one of whom was William Hague and the other was Tony Blair. The main image was of Netanyahu himself…

    JN: Why do you think that was, Stephen Pollard?

    SP: In a way this whole discussion is surreal because I defend The Guardian's righ to print such a a cartoon and I defend the Sunday Times's right to print the Gerald Scarfe cartoon. What I'm saying is, if you print such cartoons you have to be aware of the consequences.

    And one of those consequences will be that some people will describe those cartoons, and I'm one of them, as anti-semitic. That doesn't mean that I would ban the publication of such cartoons. But I think if you're going to draw such images you have to be aware where the cultural resonances, and precisely who you're giving offence to

    JN: Aren't you in danger of saying that there's one prime minister in this world that a cartoon of this kind cannot be drawn?

    SP: Have a look at the Israeli press. Every day there are cartoons about Bibi Netanyahu that are grotesques. But they do not slip over the edge into what I would consider to be anti-semitism.

    JN: Do you ever censor yourself, Steve Bell, when you're drawing a vile image, whoever it happens to be, David Cameron or Tony Blair or Ed Miliband or Benjamin Netanyahu, or George W Bush?

    SB: That's what drawing a cartoon involves. You have to think about what you do. You think very carefully about it. The problem with this whole argument is extraneous notions are dragged in... sensitivities are talked up. The very word 'anti-semitic' becomes devalued. It's thrown around with such abandon and if there is real anti-semitism it's actually getting ignored.

    JN: Last word, Stephen Pollard.

    SP: I ask listeners to have a look at the cartoons and make their own minds up. It's how the individual perceives it. I defy anyone not to see this cartoon as being about Benjamin Netanyahu glorying in the blood of Palestinians.

    Source: BBC Radio 4 Today

     

    Rupert Murdoch's Twitter account offers revealing glimpse of character

    From smackdown of Sunday Times editor to jokes about daughters, tycoon's tweets are opinionated and often surprising

  • The Guardian, Wednesday 30 January 2013
  • Rupert Murdoch was late to Twitter, sending his first tweet on New Year's Eve 2011. Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex Features

    "Gerald Scarfe has never reflected the opinions of the Sunday Times," Rupert Murdoch tweeted on Monday. "Nevertheless, we owe major apology for grotesque, offensive cartoon." And with that, in 137 characters, the matter was settled.

    Martin Ivens, promoted barely more than a week earlier to acting editor of the title, had initially been bullish in his defence of Scarfe's depiction at the weekend of Binyamin Netanyahu building a wall using the blood of Palestinians, saying that the "typically robust" cartoon was "aimed squarely at Mr Netanyahu and his policies, not at Israel, let alone at Jewish people".

    But with the emphatic – and very public – smackdown from his proprietor, Ivens had no choice but to backpedal, fast. The day after Murdoch's intervention he issued a second statement that, tellingly, echoed his boss's description of the work as "grotesque". "I'd like to apologise unreservedly for the offence we clearly caused. This was a terrible mistake."

    With Murdoch having assured the Leveson inquiry last year that he guided his editors only with the lightest of touches, the incident offered a revealing glimpse, in case there were any doubt, of where the final editorial word still lies in the Murdoch newspaper empire.

    Also revealing, however, was Murdoch's choice of Twitter both to upbraid his new editor and to scramble in defence of his group's reputation. The octogenarian proprietor was late to the microblogging site, sending his first tweet, complete with typing error, from his holiday in St Barth's on New Year's Eve 2011 ("Have just. Read The Rational Optimist. Great Book."). So notable was his acquisition of a Twitter account that the site's founder, Jack Dorsey, heralded his arrival, saying the mogul had been tweeting "with his own voice, in his own way".

    And for 13 months that is exactly what Murdoch has been doing, in a stream that is always opinionated, at times combative, but often surprising – and offers arguably a fuller portrait of the billionaire than has been available at any time during his long career in the spotlight.

    Murdoch types his tweets himself on his iPad – any suspicion that he is not personally behind them is dispelled by the frequent slips ("Re complaints about my spelling! Problem is my pathetic typing. Sorry, if anyone really cares," he tweeted on 8 January last year), and by a tone that, for those who obsessively followed his appearances before parliament and Lord Justice Leveson last year, is recognisably his own ("Only ever met PMs when asked, believe it or not. And NEVER asked for anything. That is, I never asked for anything!" "I stand by every word is aid at Leveson").

    Though he rarely responds directly to a follower, Murdoch has told his followers that he "reads all" (while upbraiding them on their language), and his tweets are frequently responses to questions – however impolite – from his followers.

    Certainly Murdoch uses his feed strategically. During the US election campaign he kept up a stream of disdainful tweets about Barack Obama in a forlorn bid to help Mitt Romney to the presidency. "Romney looking better and better while Obama seems devoid of anything new," he said on 26 October. "May try October surprise, bomb someplace! Remember Clinton?"

    Even after the president's re-election in November, he couldn't resist a sniff. "Obama looking confident, presidential, even if not totally frank about number of issues. He won, and sure knows it!"

    He is repeatedly sceptical on the merits of green energy, but has been an outspoken proponent of gun reform, even tweeting this week: "Let's have petitiion to keep Piers Morgan in US. We need him, as does CNN." "Maybe a Fox/NYPost campaign?" replied Morgan. ("MAKE OUT. MMMAAAAAKEEE OOOUTTT]" was the response of user @piss_wizard).

    He is no less outspoken on British politics, though his view of the prime minister is decidedly ambivalent. "Cameron's UK cabinet reshuffle first class and probably secures his position for full term. Previous ditherer- in-chief looks better," he judged in August. Alex Salmond, pointedly, he named "clearly most brilliant politician in UK", while even Gordon Brown "deserves much credit on euro". About Michael Gove, whose frequent dinners with him drew criticism, there is no ambiguity. "Don't know how many meals with Gove, but not enough. Admirable character, great work."

    The News Corp chief executive is also happy to nudge his 401,000 followers towards his own products, praising Team Sky during the Tour de France, the Wall Street Journal (frequently compared to the "boring" New York Times), and a succession of Fox films from Life of Pi to the critically panned Taken 2.

    But there are also glimpses of the family man: "Young daughters looking for another dog to adopt! Help!" He takes hikes in Australia ("saw hundreds of kangaroos, two wombats, two foxes, two echidnas, great birds") and reads books by Alain de Botton and Niall Ferguson, others about US politics or energy, and even a dieting volume called The Lean by Kathy Freston ("v interesting book on health and weight loss … Makes sense and seems ez").

    And however sharp his reprimand this week, in a year of tweeting Murdoch has himself had cause to apologise more than once – to Lord Coe ("Sorry, it's Sebastian Coe, not Zeb!"), General Petraeus and Hugh Grant ("Hugh Grant states that he is deeply involved in his daughter's life – I accept that,regret tweet on the matter. Apologies to both parents.")

    In November, the stridently pro-Israel Murdoch was even obliged to backtrack over accusations of antisemitism, after wondering why the "Jewish owned press" was not more supportive of Israel. The tweet had, he acknowledged the following day, been "sternly criticised" for relying on prejudiced tropes. "Don't see this, but apologise unreservedly."

    Murdoch's top tweets

    31 Dec 2011
    Vacations great time for thinking. St Barth's too many people. Thoughts best kept private around here. Like London!

    12 Jan 2012
    Many questions and jokes about My Space.simple answer - we screwed up in every way possible, learned lots of valuable expensive lessons.

    13 Jan 2012
    Normally disapprove of casinos,but hitting 16s and 17s lot of fun. To hell with theories!

    13 Jan 2012
    Why is every tweet thought to conspiratorial or sexual. I was talking blackjack. Give me a break.

    9 Feb 2012
    Please keep tweeting. I read all but how about cleaning up language? Incidentally most credit me with non- existent power and money.

    13 Feb 2012
    To hell with politicians! When are we going to find some to tell the truth in any country? Don't hold your breath.

    14 April 2012
    What happened to "land of hope and glory" New poll today shows 48 percent of Brits would like to emigrate.

    5 May 2012
    Having great day baby sitting young est daughter while Wendi takes Grace scout camping!

    11 Jul 2012
    What was wrong with Iraq war? Sad dam Hussein evil major killer, etc. Execution another matter.. Afghan bad every way now.l

    28 Jul 2012
    London Olympic opening surprisingly great, even if a little too politically correct. Danny Boyle a creative genius.

    13 Oct 2012
    Told UK's Cameron receiving scumbag celebrities pushing for even more privacy laws. Trust the toffs! Transparency under attack. Bad.

    3 Dec 2012
    Many thanks for condolences about my Mum. A great lady, wife. mother and citizen. 193 yo, but still a blow.

    5 Dec 2012
    No, 103 yo! There are limits!

    •  
    23 attachments — Download all attachments   View all images  
    murdochs460.jpg The murdochs 
    Rupert-Murdoch-009.jpg Rupert-Murdoch-
    Rupert-Murdoch-010.jpg Rupert-Murdoch 
    art-Murdoch-20daughter3-620x349.jpg
    art-353-Murdoch-20daughter2-300x0.jpg Murdoch's-daughter
    Prudence MacLeod_Murdochdaughter_INLNews.com.jpg Prudence MacLeod_Murdochdaughter
    Rupert-Murdoch(9)-INLNews.com.jpg Rupert-Murdoch(9)
    Rupert-Murdoch(10)-INLNews.com.jpg Rupert-Murdoch(10)-
    Themurdochs_INLNews.com.jpg Themurdochs

    VaucluseHouseOfPrudence MacLeod_Murdochdaughter_INLNews.com.jpg VaucluseHouseOfPrudence MacLeod_Murdochdaughter
    prudecnceMurdocj.bmp prudecnceMurdoc  
    Murdochs3_INLNews.com.bmp Murdochs3_INLNews.com
    elisabeth-murdoch-rupes-mother.jpg elisabeth-murdoch-rupes-mother


    ruperts-sisters-back-home.jpg Rupert Murdoch's-sisters-back-home
    james-murdoch-the-heir-to-the-empire.jpg james-murdoch-the-heir-to-the-empire
    elisabeth-murdoch-the-independent-daughter.jpg elisabeth-murdoch-the-independent-daughter
    anna-torv-murdoch-mann-the-second-wife.jpg Rupert Murdoch and Anna-Murdoch-the-second-wife
    lachlan-murdoch-the-dependent-son.jpg lachlan-murdoch-the-dependent-son





    The Australian media Conspiracy
    Ran could play James Murdoch very well
    and of course Sifoe Elizebeth murdoch
    Kindest regards
     
     

    Meet The Murdochs!*

    Nicholas Carlson | Sep. 4, 2009,
     
    News Corp (NWS) chairman Rupert Murdoch has six children by three wives, two living sisters, one deceased sister, a 100-year-old mother, and a father who died in 1952.

    Click here to meet the Murdochs →

    To learn more about Rupert's family, we spoke to his biographer, Michael Wolff, author ofThe Man Who Owns The News.

    Here's the first story you need to hear to know how the Murdoch family works: During the recession of 1990 and 1991, Rupert Murdoch promised his then-wife, Anna Torv Murdoch, that as soon as he got the company through the mess he would finally begin to retire.

    That didn't happen, and in 1999, the couple divorced. The same year, Rupert married a young News Corp executive named Wendi Deng, with whom he eventually had two more children.

    The new happy family faced a problem. When Rupert divorced, he agreed to leave his News Corp voting shares to a trust that would be controlled by his four children -- the Murdoch Family Trust. He also agreed to Anna's stipulation that no one could be admitted to the trust -- not even new children.

    Wendi could not live with this arrangement. So a new one was agreed to. Rupert paid each of his four adult children $150 million. Suddenly, Wendi's kids were allowed into the Murdoch Family Trust -- though they will remain without voting participation.

    What, that's not how your family works?

    Meet the Murdochs:

    Click here to meet the Murdochs →

    Note: Michael Wolff tells us we "really got a lot of that stuff I told you wrong," but won't tell us what, exactly. He suggests we read his book



    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-murdochs-2009-9?op=1#ixzz2Jr5x9OKx

    Keith Murdoch -- The Newspaper Man Father

    Running the largest newspaper company in Australia, Rupert's father Keith was the the most famous and powerful newspaper man in Australia. He owned two papers on his own. When he died deeply in debt in 1952 the family inherited both and sold one for taxes.

    Elisabeth Murdoch -- Rupe's Mother
     

    Rupert's mother, neé Elisabeth Joy Greene, is still alive at age 100. She married Keith Murdoch at age 19, when he was 42.



    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-murdochs-2009-9?op=1#ixzz2Jr6DLwnZ

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-murdochs-2009-9?op=1#ixzz2Jr66syrx
     


    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-murdochs-2009-9?op=1#ixzz2Jr5jBxMw
     
    Rupert's Sisters Back Home
     

    Rupert Murdoch's only siblings were sisters Helen, Anne and Janet. Helen died in 2004.

    From Keith Murdoch's death until 1992, Rupert, his mother and his three sisters all owned equal shares in News Corporation. Then Rupert forced the rest of his immediate family out, paying them a total of $600 million.

    Says Wolfe, "Rupert said 'This is ridiculous, I've built this company, I do all the work, I need to pass the company to my children.'"

    One of Rupert's nephews continues to be upset over the arrangement.



    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-murdochs-2009-9?op=1#ixzz2Jr6LgqrW
    Patricia Murdoch -- The First, Forgotten Wife

    Rupert has been married three times. His first wife was named Patricia. She met Rupert when she was an intern -- called a "cadet" -- at one of his papers. Tasked with writing a profile about Rupert for an in-house magazine, she went to interview him and that was it.

    When she wasn't an intern, Patricia was stewardess and a department store model. Rupert's family -- one of the most famous families in Australia -- disapproved of this marriage. It lasted from 1956 to 1967.



    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-murdochs-2009-9?op=1#ixzz2Jr6Sh4Z2
    Prudence Murdoch -- The Australian Daughter

    Prudence MacLeod is Rupert's oldest daughter, and his only child from the first marriage. Living in Sydney, she's married to a a senior executive in News Corp's Australian operation.

    Prudence is the only adult child who is not involved in the company. She never went to college and was never considered a potential heir.

    Wolff says none of this is because Pru -- as he calls her -- isn't smart. More likely, it's do with Prudence being a female who grew up while Rupert was still living in Australia and not New York.

    Prudence has a reputation for being shy with the media, so when Wolff asked Rupert if he could interview her for his book, the mogul essentially said, "Don't expect much."

    So it was a surprise when Wolff knocked her door and she opened it, saying, "My father says I can tell you anything." The biographer and Rupert's first daughter spent the next two days talking.

    Now Wolff is convinced that of all the children, Prudence is the closest to her father. "She's not involved in company politics and so she's very forthright with her father," he says.

    Prudence Murdoch -- The Australian Daughter

    Prudence Murdoch -- The Australian Daughter

    Prudence MacLeod is Rupert's oldest daughter, and his only child from the first marriage. Living in Sydney, she's married to a a senior executive in News Corp's Australian operation.

    Prudence is the only adult child who is not involved in the company. She never went to college and was never considered a potential heir.

    Wolff says none of this is because Pru -- as he calls her -- isn't smart. More likely, it's do with Prudence being a female who grew up while Rupert was still living in Australia and not New York.

    Prudence has a reputation for being shy with the media, so when Wolff asked Rupert if he could interview her for his book, the mogul essentially said, "Don't expect much."

    So it was a surprise when Wolff knocked her door and she opened it, saying, "My father says I can tell you anything." The biographer and Rupert's first daughter spent the next two days talking.

    Now Wolff is convinced that of all the children, Prudence is the closest to her father. "She's not involved in company politics and so she's very forthright with her father," he says.

    Anna Torv Murdoch Mann -- The Second Wife

    Anna Torv Murdoch Mann -- The Second Wife

    Anna Torv married Rupert Murdoch in 1969. Wolff is convinced it is due to her influence that Rupert became the right-wing conservative who started Fox News.

    "An ideal, classic corporate wife," according to the biographer, Anna was almost as instrumental within News Corp itself, serving on its board until the 1999 divorce.

    The couple split for two main reasons. The first was Wendi Deng, Rupert's third wife. The second was a broken promise.

    When the economy fell apart in 1990 and 1991, Rupert worked like mad to get the company through it. He promised Anna then that when it was all over, yes, they could finally retire to Florida. We know that didn't happen.

    Elisabeth Murdoch -- The Independent Daughter

    Elisabeth Murdoch -- The Independent Daughter

    Elisabeth Murdoch -- Rupert's second child and the first by his second wife-- lives in London, where she owns and operates a television production company called Shine. It's the largest independent producer of television shows in the world, known for hits like 'The Office' and 'Ugly Betty.'

    She's married to a man named Matthew Freud,  who is supposed to be the most famous PR man in London. 

    A Vassar grad, Elisabeth had all the opportunities Prudence did not. She joined News Corp at a very young age and her father gave her all sorts of responsibilities. But Wolff says he also constantly looked over her shoulder. Rival News Corp executives made sure to make her feel as unwelcome as possible.

    She soon quit. She's now the most independently successful of all Rupert's children.

    Lachlan Murdoch -- The Dependent Son

    Lachlan Murdoch -- The Dependent Son

    Like his sister Elisabeth, Rupert's oldest son Lachlan joined News Corp at an early age.

    Though at one point he was considered his father's successor, he's no longer with News Corp. He hated his father's control and the company's bruising internal politics.

    Now he lives in Sydney, married to a famous model.

    At one point during his time with the company, Lachlan oversaw Australian media operations and oversaw them well. Wolff says that people in the family hope he'll return to some version of that role some day.

    He almost did 18 months or so ago, as he moved to close a multi-billion dollar portfolio of Australian media assets. The highly-leveraged deal fell through when the debt markets collapsed. Lachlan was crushed; his father was not.

    James Murdoch -- The Heir To The Empire

    James Murdoch -- The Heir To The Empire

    Rupert's second son and fourth child, James, is now the undisputed heir to the News Corporation empire.

    Wolff drives at how he got there in a recent post to Newser:

    Both of James’s siblings who worked at News Corp—his older sister Elisabeth, and older brother Lachlan—balked at being under their father’s relentless thumb and at the side of someone who never listened to them. James’s way of getting out from under is to out Murdoch Murdoch—his father listens to him because he says exactly (actually, rather more articulately) what his father would say. (One reason why James and his brother are so often at odds—Lachlan thinks his brother is a total suck-up.)

    James, in a way that seems to startle even his father, has elevated Murdochness to cultishness. To be a Murdoch, in James’s version, is to believe in certain things and to behave in certain ways. It’s a mafia-type thing: The most grievous sin is to go against the family.

    It is, too, an ordinary family-type thing. Murdoch clearly favors his oldest son, Lachlan—who has pulled away. The younger son has stepped into the breach—willing to do anything to please the old man.

    Wendi Deng -- The Third Wife, The Negotiator

    Wendi Deng -- The Third Wife, The Negotiator

    Wendi Deng -- Chinese immigrant, mother to Grace and Chloe, powerful News Corp exec -- is Rupert's third and current wife. People say she's liberalized him.

    Wolff portrays her a someone who is exceedingly ambitious and knows how to get what she wants.

    She came to the country without any English as a nanny for an American couple she met in China. Soon, that couple broke up and she married the husband. That marriage lasted about long enough for her to get a green card.

    Then Wendi went to Yale on a scholarship and landed a job with News Corp in China. During one of Rupert's visits to the country, his usual translator failed to show and she stepped in. Romance blossomed.

    According to Wolff, Rupert paid his other four children $150 million each so that they would agree to include Wendi's children into the Murdoch Family Trust, which will inherit Rupert's wealth upon his death.



    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-murdochs-2009-9?op=1#ixzz2Jr7Op8Jv

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-murdochs-2009-9?op=1#ixzz2Jr6cSBqh
     

    Murdoch's eldest child sells Vaucluse home

    Date 2010
     
    Off-market deal … the MacLeod residence, centre, and Carrara, right. Photo: Tim Mooney

    Prudence MacLeod ... seventh-highest Sydney price this year. Photo: David Mariuz

    THE Vaucluse home of Prudence MacLeod, the oldest child of Rupert Murdoch, sold quietly this week for about $13.25 million in an off-market deal. It is the seventh-highest price in Sydney this year.

    The sprawling three-storey residence stands on a 1060-square-metre waterfront reserve block in Carrara Road, one of Vaucluse's most prestigious addresses. The property last traded in 2002 for $7.5 million, when MacLeod and her husband Alasdair bought it from the Hargreaves family.

    The McGrath selling agent Ben Collier would not divulge any details surrounding the sale due to confidentiality agreements, but he confirmed it is the second-highest price in Vaucluse this year. ''It's an outstanding result for this waterfront reserve property,'' Mr Collier said. ''This sale should encourage buyer confidence for quality properties at the top end of the market.''

    The MacLeod residence stands on the northern side of Carrara, a landmark three-level European-style villa, set on a 1600-square-metre block, that sold for $26.75 million in 2010.

    Set high above the harbour, these properties border Hermitage Reserve, a public waterfront parkland with a walking track between Hermit Bay and Milk Bay. The Hermitage Reserve is part of the Sydney Harbour National Park.

    At the Hermit Bay end of the track is the Hermitage, a vast estate owned by the Hemmes family who own restaurants, bars and pubs around Sydney including the Ivy, the Establishment and Mr Wong. Above Milk Bay stands Strickland House, a circa 1850s heritage-listed Victorian Italianate mansion (set in 4.9 hectares of grounds) owned by the NSW government.

     
     
    Murdoch family portrait: (l-r) James Murdoch and wife Kathryn Hufschmid, Matthew Freud, husband of Elisabeth Murdoch, Wendi Deng, wife of Rupert Murdoch, Sarah O'Hara, wife of Lachlan Murdoch. Photograph: Tom Stoddart/Getty

    Meet the Murdochs

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/29/rupert-murdoch-elisabeth-james

    Their father is media mogul Rupert Murdoch, the family business a global giant worth billions of dollars. So what do the sons and daughters of one of the world's most powerful and controversial men really think about him? They rarely speak to the press, but here, on Dad's orders, they reveal all to Michael Wolff

  • Michael Wolff
  • The Guardian, Saturday 29 November 2008
  • Having been in journalism in New York for more than 30 years, I inevitably became an anti-Murdochian. During the dotcom era, I had a public spat with Rupert's son, James, who was at the time running his father's none-too-successful internet businesses. I ridiculed his messianic pronouncements and he called me "an obnoxious dickhead". Or, as he tells it, "a jerk".

    When I became the media columnist at New York magazine in 1998, my first piece was about Rupert Murdoch's imminent divorce from Anna, his wife of 32 years and mother of Elisabeth, Lachlan and James, all of whom have held senior positions at Murdoch's News Corporation and have at some time been viewed as Rupert's heirs-in-waiting. I found it a delightful possibility that marital acrimony might fracture the empire (I was wrong).

    During the 2004 presidential campaign, meanwhile, I found myself, as the result of some idle cocktail party chatter, in a room of determined leftwing types considering how to counter yet another part of News Corp. We would attack the pro-Bush Fox News with a campaign to demonise Murdoch, who was not only the very personification of Big Media but a thrice-married foreigner with an Australian accent so thick that no one in America's foreigner-hating heartland would ever mistake him for anything else. You couldn't have a better villain.

    On the other hand, I was curious about someone who so obviously did what he enjoyed doing. As much as you might detest him, Rupert Murdoch had been, over so many years, an original and unstoppable force.

    I ran into Murdoch himself in 2002 at a technology conference in California. He'd seemed hapless, holding on to a stuffed animal he'd been given in a swag bag and planned to give to his new daughter - but also, it seemed, holding on for dear life. In wise-guy fashion, a few of us - fellow conference attendees - asked if he wanted to go for a drink. He accepted our invitation with alacrity and, finding the bartender awol, commandeered the bar himself. Here was an appealing man, puckish, easy-going, unpretentious, in a Wal-Mart flannel shirt. He seemed like someone's grandfather - indeed, he bore a strange resemblance to my own. We ended up having dinner and chatting for several hours.

    Six years later, I found myself interviewing Murdoch's four grown-up children for a book about "the man who owns the news". Murdoch himself had fixed it for them to talk to me. I assume this is part of his branding and legacy strategy, but there was no insistence on copy approval, or restrictions on what I might ask.

    The timing could hardly have been better: Murdoch is by nature a cheap patriarch, but in 2007 he was forced to give the children of his first two marriages $150m each in stocks and shares as part of a deal that would open up the family trust to Grace and Chloe, his much younger kids by Wendi Deng. Now only the older kids' desire to please the old man could tie them to his business empire - just as it entered one of its most challenging periods, with the controversial takeover of Dow Jones, publisher of the Wall Street Journal.

    Prue

    Prudence MacLeod, Rupert's oldest child, whose mother Patricia was married to Rupert between 1956 and 1966, has a sprawling, comfortable house overlooking Sydney Harbour in Vaucluse, one of Australia's most expensive neighbourhoods. It is filled with teenage children and their friends, and on the day I visit, Prue's husband, Alasdair, a Scotsman via Eton who is one of the senior-most guys at News Limited, News Corp's Australian arm, is sick in bed.

    "Dad said, 'Say whatever you like,'" Prue says. Her openness comes as a surprise given that Rupert likes to portray her as nearly reclusive. As with Elisabeth, Lachlan and James, however, the message she wants to get across seems aimed not at the public but at her father.

    Prue's message to 77-year-old Rupert is that, as the odd duck out, the housewife who chose to make her life outside the family business, she possesses a unique and perhaps powerful perspective. She is a truth teller, and an entirely good-natured one. Indeed, while her siblings display a certain forced and watchful attention, she is easy, unconcerned, eager to throw caution to the wind. That goes for the small things as well as the big. She reports telling her father, " 'Dad, I understand about dyeing the hair and the age thing. Just go somewhere proper. What you need is very light highlights.' But he insists on doing it over the sink because he doesn't want anybody to know. Well, hello! Look in the mirror. Look at the pictures in the paper." She further reports his response: "Well" - sputter, sputter - "you need a facelift."

    Today, Prue wants to tell her father that she's owed something more for being excluded from the family's ring of accomplishment. There's no bitterness. In fact, it's sort of that she's owed something for not being bitter. And what she's owed has nothing much to do with anything material, but rather some further relationship with her father, some deeper level of rapport and understanding. She's her father's daughter, and hence different from Anna's children. "I had a stepmother," she says, "and they had a mother."

    While Elisabeth, 40, Lachlan, 37, and James, 35, have become more and more self-conscious about being Murdochs, and increasingly see themselves as living inside a bubble, 50-year-old Prue has cultivated her outsiderness. As the Murdochs prepare to spend Christmas 2008 together, Prue is adamant that she won't be buying a yacht to join the family flotilla wherever it docks. No, she plans to rent one. She reached this decision after taking her son James on vacation with her family as they sailed around the Aeolian Islands. "They have massive boats, all of them," she says. "I never feel sophisticated enough to be on this big boat. They are all taller than me, that's the worst thing, so they all look chicer wherever they are, but especially on a boat, where everyone is in shorts or a swimsuit and I'm the short, fat one."

    Her father's divorce from Anna in 1999 and subsequent marriage to Wendi Deng have, however, given her a kind of levelling confidence when it comes to her siblings: nobody understands better than Prue. "Elisabeth and I discussed it at one point in the very beginning, when everyone was hurt. It was interesting because I was just sitting there thinking, 'Well, hello, I've done this.' "

    The bond with her siblings is real and obviously fierce. When Liz married the PR man Matthew Freud - of whom everybody was deeply wary at the time - Prue took it on herself to deliver the family ultimatum: "If you hurt her, I'll kill you." (Freud pointed out that James had just told him the same thing.)

    But there's business, too. Prue's most direct point of competition is with Lachlan on the other side of Sydney. This is partly territorial: if Lachlan comes back into the business he left in 2005 (and it is hard to believe he won't), and if he takes the job most obviously suited to him - running News Corporation's Australian operations - that will mean he's blocked her husband from getting to the top.

    But it is also temperamental: Prue is anonymous - "I've always been low-key and not many people know about me, and I like that, I just love that" - and Lachlan, to Prue, is the "king of Sydney". Lachlan lives in a $7m home with meticulous design detail overlooking Bronte Beach, the most fashionable address in this most fashionable of cities, and Prue lives, in Lachlan's dismissive description, with the uptight people overlooking the harbour.

    Lachlan

    Lachlan's turf, in addition to Bronte, is Surry Hills, where News Ltd has its HQ and where he has opened offices for the mostly as-yet-to-be-determined activities of his new company. In a converted warehouse, they resemble all self-consciously uncorporate offices in recently gentrified suburbs around the world.

    Once famously handsome and fit - the striking good looks of both Murdoch sons help account for the gay rumours attached to both of these complacently married men - Lachlan is now a contented 30lb overweight. Indeed, he has the same boyish chubbiness that his father had in his late 30s. (Rupert, Prue says, desperately tried to lose weight when they lived in London by trying all manner of faddish diets, grapefruit diet included.) People mostly comment on the differences between father and son, but the similarities are as pronounced. They both, in one sense, have an odd lack of presence. They're both standoffish or even shy - making eye contact isn't their first move - and unexpectedly inarticulate. They both need someone to finish their sentences. So much for Murdoch's description to me of Prue as the inarticulate one.

    In our interview, Lachlan is skittish and put-upon. He is talking only on his father's request; he would rather not be. Except that he, like Prue, seems clearly to regard this as a dialogue with his old man. The point he wants to make is about being infantilised. He makes it without obvious recrimination but with a sense of great burden, weariness almost. Lachlan, whose career has, in a sense, yet to start, has already experienced a great rollercoaster ride in his professional life. He has been tutored, elevated, anointed, then thwarted by his father's courtiers - and finally turned his back on it all.

    It's important to understand how much the Murdochs' business is suffused with emotion, and how deeply involved the children have been with the affairs of the father. When News Corp almost went under in 1991, Lachlan remembers, "I think really, that, um, you know, shook him more than I've ever seen. He was, I remember, like, almost like putting him to bed. " Also: "It wasn't like Dad goes to work and works in the media and comes home, and you know, he's just Dad. Every breakfast was about media. My dad was, you know, we went through the newspapers every breakfast, through things - when we got home, Dad would come home usually with, um, businesspeople... even on weekends, right."

    Now, in its way, all this living over the store added up to a stellar upbringing. From an early age, each of the professional Murdoch kids was good at what he or she did, far advanced beyond their age. Rupert, focused by his then-wife Anna, raised a coven of media managers. But while he empowered, he then didn't want to cede power. He trained, but didn't let go. It didn't even cross his mind to let any of the kids get an outside job, say.

    In Lachlan's case, the father tried to recreate his own history. Lachlan at 22 (Rupert's age when he took over the Adelaide News) was sent like a viceroy from his home in the US to Australia - not so much the boy publisher as the boy governor-general. And he was received, in the land Murdoch had departed a quarter-century before, like a piece of the cloth. Everybody at News Ltd took pride in his least accomplishments. From 1997 to 2001, he ran the Australian business with distinction. And he became the prince of Australia - learned, in fact, how to be an Aussie - and married a girl who is just like (or at least looks just like) the girl who married dear old Dad. He learned the newspaper business and pretty much did everything he was supposed to do that Dad did, and then he was brought back from the provinces to take his rightful place at HQ.

    What must the old man have been thinking? He must have been thinking in novelistic rather than business or managerial terms. It was some fine fantasy: the beloved son at his side. The beloved son taking over his beloved New York Post and, most of all, patiently, admiringly, loyally, lovingly watching the father as the years ran out, in this way being passed all the secrets of the Murdoch line.

    There is no misunderstanding this storyline among his father's retainers. As a name throughout News Corp, Lachlan is almost as redolent as Rupert. Still, if there is within the company an absolute belief in a forthcoming succession and in the Murdochs as royalty, a people apart, there is, too, an obvious and constant comparison between once and future. If in Australia Lachlan was regarded as a clever, sophisticated guy - a tastemaker - and a good manager who built a strong rapport in newsrooms and with his executives, in the US the perception is that he was a weak, even pitiable, version of his dad. He was too sensitive; he was petulant; he lacked charm; he was not sharp. Formally, his title at News Ltd was chief executive. Both in name and in practice, he ran News Ltd's entire operations, overseeing all its newspapers and its pay television joint venture. In New York, his official title was deputy chief operating officer, which was meant to give him control of News Corp's US publications - the Post - and make him Peter Chernin's deputy at Fox.

    The father in small but constant ways humiliated the son, which made him a joke to everybody else. In every meeting the father was the impatient, domineering, fussing presence. He couldn't stop calling attention to himself and away from the son. At the same time, the son, stamping his foot, was trying to call attention to himself. He started marketing campaigns for the Post; tried to bring a little class to a notoriously unclassy operation by throwing functions and parties in the tabloid's name. Over on the west coast, he hung out with movie stars and insisted his dad make smarter and hipper movies (Fight Club, which Rupert detested, was a Lachlan-supported project).

    "Family businesses are great businesses," Lachlan says, "but they're, they're also fraught with difficulties, so, um, so the, uh... I think because you go back to that fundamental character trait that has served Dad so well, which is forward thinking and always driving forward, I think he, um, misunderstood - doesn't understand or appreciate sometimes, or he does, but doesn't think about how complicated they are, um - I'm not really answering the question, but, uh, don't you know my dad's never going to die?"

    The curious thing, the unexpected thing, was that the son upped and resigned, just as his sister had a few years before. What's more, Lachlan, like Elisabeth, gave up his position without having any money. And yet here, in the old man's defence, is the other elemental point: if he tried to hold them and dominate them, he also apparently raised them to be able to say, "Fuck you."

    The exit couldn't have been more painful for both father and son. Not only was Rupert embarrassed, but it showed his relative corporate vulnerability - News Corp's president, Peter Chernin, and the head of Fox News, Roger Ailes, made life difficult for Lachlan and openly took credit for pushing him out.

    But never mind. The Murdochs are sentimental only up to a point. Before his chair was cold, Lachlan was eclipsed in his father's estimation by his brother James, who had been hounding his back since childhood. In the blink of an eye, Lachlan went from the chosen one to the fallen one.

    And then there was the issue of money. Lachlan's payout from News Corp was certainly generous. He didn't want for relocation expenses to Australia and a gilded exile lifestyle. But he didn't have enough money to make himself into something other than Murdoch's son. It has become one of his own parenting mantras: when his kids turn 18, he's giving them control of their dough.

    It is for him, then, a significant development that the trust issue with Grace and Chloe was settled with $150m payouts. Because even as Rupert is considering ways to bring him back into the fold, Lachlan is finally in a position to make other plans. And he's not telling his father - or at least he's sharing as little as possible, and driving his father crazy in the process.

    In early 2008, he tries to start his own Australian media empire with Jamie Packer, the son of Rupert's old rival, Kerry. Not only is Lachlan setting himself up as a potential competitor to the family business, but both Rupert and James think he is striking a terrible deal. He won't listen to them.

    In the end, the transaction falls through. But it is hard for Murdoch to fathom why his son, who has Australia's most powerful media enterprise at his disposal, would even want a lesser one of his own. "I don't understand it, his brother doesn't understand it," the Old Man tells me. "Lachlan, from the age of four, was a stubborn bastard. He always was."

    Elisabeth

    Lachlan and Elisabeth form a special Murdoch club, the resignees - and Lachlan's exit from News Corp in 2005 and the surrounding press were managed by Elisabeth's husband, Matthew Freud. Like Lachlan, Elisabeth has a fierce defensiveness when it comes to her mother, Anna: she didn't louse up the marriage, their father did. And, like Lachlan, Elisabeth has set up on her own. She's hot media stuff. Both Lachlan and Elisabeth, in Australia and London, have become personalities (something their father never was).

    Indeed, this is the context in which Elisabeth falls in love with Freud: he's her image consultant. This in itself is something of a rebellion against her father. It's a kind of insiderness that their father finds gauche. With their famous friends and their reputation as the British media's golden couple, his daughter and son-in-law are the kind of people his tabloids would naturally ridicule.

    Elisabeth is, arguably, Rupert's most successful child - and his angriest. When I meet her in London at the inauspicious offices of her company, Shine, which is now one of the largest independent television producers in the world, she is as wary as Lachlan about speaking to me, and as concise in her message to her father: he's created vast emotional turmoil and ought to thank his lucky stars he's also produced children strong enough to survive it.

    "It hasn't been an easy couple of years," says Elisabeth, who was managing director of BSkyB, News Corp's British satellite TV arm, from 1996 to 2001. "He still falls into stupid old habits. I mean, he's impossible to figure. He's weirdly awkward about things, but his heart is in the right place. He's very old-fashioned. He finds it hard to talk about emotions, hard to say... If somebody doesn't know it... He'll say sorry if you call him on it, but he walks straight into it."

    It is a curious new reality: the ageing patriarch subject to the modern language of behaviour and relationships. The Murdoch children's wherewithal to critique their father comes not just from the psychological predicament they have shared - in this Elisabeth sounds like any well-analysed fortysomething - but also from the fact that they share his professional world. Talking about their father is shop talk. Indeed, they've often conspired together in the workplace - they know his moves. When Elisabeth first came to London and was given a job at BSkyB under Sam Chisholm, Murdoch had him believe she was an underling, but then he was on the phone with her constantly and she became his back channel. He promoted his inexperienced offspring into his formidable tool. His children know better than anybody how he works.

    This is one of the odder aspects of the Murdoch dynasty - its relatively clear awareness of itself, and its analytic regard for the patriarch. There's a sense that the children are intent on not being played the way he's playing everyone else.

    The addition of Freud added a further ironic twist to this analysis. After the birth of Matthew and Elisabeth's first child, Charlotte, it was Anna Murdoch who marvelled in an interview she gave in 2001 in Australia: "I thought, what on earth is this baby going to be like, with the blood of Rupert Murdoch and Sigmund Freud running about its veins?" Freud has added another level, not just of modern personal astuteness but of media consciousness. At times, he almost makes Murdoch seem like an innocent.

    Murdoch was at first rather horrified by this man of deep connectedness, superb analytic abilities and possibly dynastic ambitions of his own. But he has come to quite like his son-in-law, something in which the son-in-law seems to take enormous pride. In the summer of 2007, when the family is sailing around Sicily, a photo is taken of the pair arm in arm, hanging off the top of the boat. Freud gets a framed copy as a keepsake.

    Elisabeth and Matthew, of course, started a business together. It's an example, finally, of true media synergy: her name and his connections jump-started a scrappy television production company into which she threw her all and out of which she created a significant business. She has built a media company apart from her father's media company. This confuses him as much as it impresses him. He frequently imagines her moving back to New York or to Los Angeles, but Elisabeth is keeping herself at bay, which of course makes her all the more alluring.

    James

    James may be the kid his father understands least of all. This may be calculated, a certain cat-and-mouse game with the old man. You can dodge him by talking over his head.

    James's record label, Rawkus, which he dropped out of Harvard to set up in 1995, was either a conscious or instinctive move into the one area of media in which his father has no interest or experience. Music hadn't ever been among the Murdoch media businesses. But suddenly he had a son full of A&R talk. A semi-hipster son with his hip-hop acts and bleached blond hair, which would be traded in (as soon as Pop bought the record label) for sharp suits and black, thick-rimmed glasses when he grabbed the internet business at News Corp during the dotcom boom. He set himself up, in his mid-20s, as technologist and futurist and digital leader. His father had no idea what he was talking about, but was pleased someone was doing the talking. And then came satellites. James took over the Asian satellite operation in 2000, months after he was married. Satellites were a business in which his father had been successful but, in essence, didn't know beans about. Once more, James put himself out of harm's way in his canny appreciation of his father's MO: dominate what he understands, find someone to trust when he doesn't. His brother, running newspapers, was bound to be second-guessed by his father; James had a much wider berth. On virtually any issue involving technology, from the mid-90s on, Murdoch would seek his son's counsel, regardless of his having no established technological expertise. Like so many people in the early internet boom, James could talk the talk. His father has, curiously, come to believe that James is not just so much smarter about all this stuff than he is, but better educated, too - which is, Oxford graduate to Harvard dropout, not exactly true.

    Certainty comes naturally to James. He is the most articulate member of the family - really the only articulate Murdoch. He's all about constant, declarative conversation (though he is the only one of his siblings to put direct quotes from our interview off the record). It's all challenge and menace. He wants to joust, clash, correct, instruct, prevail. No niceties. When I meet him in London at the BSkyB offices, he discusses the advantages of his father's menacing reputation with a pleased glint in his eye. "A little menace isn't a bad thing." But his father's menace - cowboy- or outlaw-style - has mutated in James into a sort of programmatic, techno-manager, automaton-like cultishness. And from his mouth comes paragraph after paragraph of super-abstracted business-speak.

    His sister, Prue, refers - half-affectionately, half-mockingly - to his OCD. The first to have children, she noticed James' horror one day as they ate dinner on his yacht and her youngest, Clementine, then five, ate her spaghetti with her hands. "Because James is almost obsessive-compulsive, he started having contortions," Prue says. "I had hoped he would learn the lesson about children when he had his own. But no, James's children are perfect. Elisabeth's children are perfect. Lachlan's children are perfect. And I have got the ragamuffins."

    James's arrival at BSkyB in 2003 required a special brazenness. This was, after all, a major independent public company and here he was, the inexperienced, barely adult son of the chairman of the controlling shareholders, being handed the top job. True, his arrival was carefully orchestrated by his father (there was Murdoch's deal with Conrad Black that his papers would go easy on Black's legal problems if Black's Telegraph went easy on James' appointment), as well as Murdoch calling in favours from investors in London's financial community. But what finally carried the day was James's own relentlessness. He stared everybody down. As British investors were wiping 19% off BSkyB stock in one day in 2004, James was adamantly telling them he would make the outrageous target of eight million subscribers by 2006. By the time his brother announced his resignation in July 2005, it was clear James would exceed all the company's goals - and suddenly the non-Murdoch British press seemed happy to call him the deserved heir apparent.

    And then he really made his bones, facing down arch competitor Richard Branson when he attempted to merge his cable company Virgin Media with ITV. In 2006, as Virgin Media and ITV were negotiating their merger, James swooped in, dead of night, and bought 17.9% of ITV, seriously lousing up the Virgin deal.

    It was so Murdochian: the suddenness, the secrecy, the game-changing, the lack of manners, the audacity. Actually, it was audacious, in part, because it was such a crummy deal. News Corp would never be allowed to buy the whole company (it probably wouldn't want it, anyway), it paid way above market value and would probably be forced at some point to sell its position (it has). If News Corp loses its appeal against the ruling and has to sell its stake, losses could exceed a billion dollars. On the other hand, this bad deal bought BSkyB probably three years to get its broadband play in place without a serious competitor - and what matters is that the Murdoch kid did something his old man might have done.

    Throughout the deal to buy Dow Jones, which faces fierce opposition from the American establishment, he is his father's constant confidant. In James's telling, everybody else - in and outside News Corp - is resistant. It's he and Rupert toughing it out.

    His father, perhaps most of all, is wowed by the boy's pure aggression, by his fight, by his fearsomeness. Which is why the old man figures that, as he chases the Wall Street Journal, it's time to move James up. Having proved his Murdochness, in December 2007 James is named head of News Corp in Europe and Asia, in addition to BSkyB. For now at least, he seems destined to take over the "empire" - and the Murdoch children really do call it that. ·

    • This is an edited extract from The Man Who Owns The News, by Michael Wolff, published by The Bodley Head next week (£20)

    Rupert Murdoch's back – and this time he's tweeting orders

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/rupert-murdoch

    Most recent

    The storm over the Gerald Scarfe cartoon in the Sunday Times, featuring Israel's prime minister Binyamin Netanyahulooks to be over.

    But it is far from being a lone example of accusations of anti-semitism against journalists who dare to be controversial when they touch on Israeli politics, as I note in my London Evening Standard column today.

    I wrote it after listening to the discussion between Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, and The Guardian's cartoonist, Steve Bell, on yesterday's Today programme onRadio 4.

    Though some selected quotes from that heated exchange - hosted by Jim Naughtie - were carried in various outlets yesterday, I present this (very lightly) edited transcript because it deserves a wide audience.

    It highlights a continuing dilemma for journalists and cartoonists who do not regard themselves as being in the least bit anti-semitic and do not intend their work to be anti-semitic, but find themselves accused of anti-semitism.

    JN: Stephen Pollard, you're a strong believer in free speech. Don't you think cartoons should be offensive?

    SP: Oh yes, you have to separate out the difference between the right to publish something, whether there's a right to be offensive, and whether that means you always have to be offensive, and I don't think you do.

    I think this is an absolute model of how you deal with such a situation. Clearly, there was a mistake made. We're all human - cartoonists are human, journalists are human, editors are human… The mistake was printing the cartoon. Whether it was Gerald Scarfe's in drawing it. Whether it was the Sunday Times in printing it. Whatever. It was a mistake.

    JN: I just want to be clear here. Are you referring to the timing, which was a matter of particular offence to some people… or in general?

    SP: As it happens, I think both. The timing was grotesque. Clearly, we have to take what Gerald Scarfe says at face value and accept he didn't know [it was Holocaust Memorial Day].

    JN: Yes, it was clear he didn't know.

    SP: But actually I think the cartoon itself is disgusting. I think it's some of the worst anti-semitic blood libels being repeated. Whether there's the right to publish the cartoon is a different issue. I think it was a misjudgement and I think News International have handled it absolutely right in saying, 'you know what, it was a mistake and we're sorry.'"

    JN: OK, so Steve Bell, Stephen Pollard believes in free speech, believes in the right of cartoonists, paraphrasing what he just said, this was over the top. What's your response?

    SB: First, I'd like to say it's astonishing. It's the first time I've ever heard Rupert apologise for anything… all his many crimes through his life… but apologising for this cartoon, which for once wasn't a bad cartoon.

    I think Stephen Pollard invokes terms like the blood libel and genocidal hate rage. He's attributing this to a cartoon which is actually sort of like a mirror image of the cartoon that Scarfe did the week before about President Assad clutching the head of a baby, which was even more offensive. Not a squeak about that.

    The problem with the state of Israel and, if you like, the Zionist lobby, is that they never acknowledge the crime of ethnic cleansing upon which the state was founded, and that's a permanent problem that's always going to be a difficult issue. It's always going to set people at odds like this…

    If you use the term 'blood libel' as loosely and as ridiculously as that… blood libel refers to a medieval belief that Jews ate their own children or ate Christian children, which is not a current idea that's abroad…

    JN: You've made a series of strong points. Stephen Pollard come in.

    SP: I'm interested in your assertion that nobody's talking about the blood libel. I would have thought that as a cartoonist you look at other cartoons. Did you not look at the Middle Eastern press? Did you not look at that, ever… it is an absolutely current, regular, almost weekly image that is used in the Arab and Middle Eastern press about Jews. This is absolutely on a par with that.

    We can argue til the cows come home about whether the cartoon is anti-semitic, whether it's offensive, whatever. The fact is, Mr Bell may not like it and indeed… the difference between what Gerald Scarfe and News International have done and what The Guardian have done with Steve Bell's own cartoons… in November he had a cartoon of Binyamin Netanyahu as a puppet master with William Hague and Tony Blair…

    SB: It wasn't as a puppet master. It was a Harry Corbett figure with a glove puppet. Now that's the first absurdity. Don't start repeating that nonsense.

    JN (as both men try to speak): I'm going to try to separate you two for a minute. Steve, why did you object to what Stephen said about the puppet master cartoon?

    SB: It was a cartoon specifically about Netanyahu, it wasn't about the Jews, or Jewish people, or the Jew as some kind of manipulating evil genius. It was instantly taken up by some lunatic right-wing websites who ran alongside something plucked out of Der Stürmer that bore no resemblance to it, no relationship to it at all. My cartoon had Netanyahu with rather pathetic glove puppets, one of whom was William Hague and the other was Tony Blair. The main image was of Netanyahu himself…

    JN: Why do you think that was, Stephen Pollard?

    SP: In a way this whole discussion is surreal because I defend The Guardian's righ to print such a a cartoon and I defend the Sunday Times's right to print the Gerald Scarfe cartoon. What I'm saying is, if you print such cartoons you have to be aware of the consequences.

    And one of those consequences will be that some people will describe those cartoons, and I'm one of them, as anti-semitic. That doesn't mean that I would ban the publication of such cartoons. But I think if you're going to draw such images you have to be aware where the cultural resonances, and precisely who you're giving offence to

    JN: Aren't you in danger of saying that there's one prime minister in this world that a cartoon of this kind cannot be drawn?

    SP: Have a look at the Israeli press. Every day there are cartoons about Bibi Netanyahu that are grotesques. But they do not slip over the edge into what I would consider to be anti-semitism.

    JN: Do you ever censor yourself, Steve Bell, when you're drawing a vile image, whoever it happens to be, David Cameron or Tony Blair or Ed Miliband or Benjamin Netanyahu, or George W Bush?

    SB: That's what drawing a cartoon involves. You have to think about what you do. You think very carefully about it. The problem with this whole argument is extraneous notions are dragged in... sensitivities are talked up. The very word 'anti-semitic' becomes devalued. It's thrown around with such abandon and if there is real anti-semitism it's actually getting ignored.

    JN: Last word, Stephen Pollard.

    SP: I ask listeners to have a look at the cartoons and make their own minds up. It's how the individual perceives it. I defy anyone not to see this cartoon as being about Benjamin Netanyahu glorying in the blood of Palestinians.

    Source: BBC Radio 4 Today

     

    Rupert Murdoch's Twitter account offers revealing glimpse of character

    From smackdown of Sunday Times editor to jokes about daughters, tycoon's tweets are opinionated and often surprising

  • The Guardian, Wednesday 30 January 2013
  • Rupert Murdoch was late to Twitter, sending his first tweet on New Year's Eve 2011. Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex Features

    "Gerald Scarfe has never reflected the opinions of the Sunday Times," Rupert Murdoch tweeted on Monday. "Nevertheless, we owe major apology for grotesque, offensive cartoon." And with that, in 137 characters, the matter was settled.

    Martin Ivens, promoted barely more than a week earlier to acting editor of the title, had initially been bullish in his defence of Scarfe's depiction at the weekend of Binyamin Netanyahu building a wall using the blood of Palestinians, saying that the "typically robust" cartoon was "aimed squarely at Mr Netanyahu and his policies, not at Israel, let alone at Jewish people".

    But with the emphatic – and very public – smackdown from his proprietor, Ivens had no choice but to backpedal, fast. The day after Murdoch's intervention he issued a second statement that, tellingly, echoed his boss's description of the work as "grotesque". "I'd like to apologise unreservedly for the offence we clearly caused. This was a terrible mistake."

    With Murdoch having assured the Leveson inquiry last year that he guided his editors only with the lightest of touches, the incident offered a revealing glimpse, in case there were any doubt, of where the final editorial word still lies in the Murdoch newspaper empire.

    Also revealing, however, was Murdoch's choice of Twitter both to upbraid his new editor and to scramble in defence of his group's reputation. The octogenarian proprietor was late to the microblogging site, sending his first tweet, complete with typing error, from his holiday in St Barth's on New Year's Eve 2011 ("Have just. Read The Rational Optimist. Great Book."). So notable was his acquisition of a Twitter account that the site's founder, Jack Dorsey, heralded his arrival, saying the mogul had been tweeting "with his own voice, in his own way".

    And for 13 months that is exactly what Murdoch has been doing, in a stream that is always opinionated, at times combative, but often surprising – and offers arguably a fuller portrait of the billionaire than has been available at any time during his long career in the spotlight.

    Murdoch types his tweets himself on his iPad – any suspicion that he is not personally behind them is dispelled by the frequent slips ("Re complaints about my spelling! Problem is my pathetic typing. Sorry, if anyone really cares," he tweeted on 8 January last year), and by a tone that, for those who obsessively followed his appearances before parliament and Lord Justice Leveson last year, is recognisably his own ("Only ever met PMs when asked, believe it or not. And NEVER asked for anything. That is, I never asked for anything!" "I stand by every word is aid at Leveson").

    Though he rarely responds directly to a follower, Murdoch has told his followers that he "reads all" (while upbraiding them on their language), and his tweets are frequently responses to questions – however impolite – from his followers.

    Certainly Murdoch uses his feed strategically. During the US election campaign he kept up a stream of disdainful tweets about Barack Obama in a forlorn bid to help Mitt Romney to the presidency. "Romney looking better and better while Obama seems devoid of anything new," he said on 26 October. "May try October surprise, bomb someplace! Remember Clinton?"

    Even after the president's re-election in November, he couldn't resist a sniff. "Obama looking confident, presidential, even if not totally frank about number of issues. He won, and sure knows it!"

    He is repeatedly sceptical on the merits of green energy, but has been an outspoken proponent of gun reform, even tweeting this week: "Let's have petitiion to keep Piers Morgan in US. We need him, as does CNN." "Maybe a Fox/NYPost campaign?" replied Morgan. ("MAKE OUT. MMMAAAAAKEEE OOOUTTT]" was the response of user @piss_wizard).

    He is no less outspoken on British politics, though his view of the prime minister is decidedly ambivalent. "Cameron's UK cabinet reshuffle first class and probably secures his position for full term. Previous ditherer- in-chief looks better," he judged in August. Alex Salmond, pointedly, he named "clearly most brilliant politician in UK", while even Gordon Brown "deserves much credit on euro". About Michael Gove, whose frequent dinners with him drew criticism, there is no ambiguity. "Don't know how many meals with Gove, but not enough. Admirable character, great work."

    The News Corp chief executive is also happy to nudge his 401,000 followers towards his own products, praising Team Sky during the Tour de France, the Wall Street Journal (frequently compared to the "boring" New York Times), and a succession of Fox films from Life of Pi to the critically panned Taken 2.

    But there are also glimpses of the family man: "Young daughters looking for another dog to adopt! Help!" He takes hikes in Australia ("saw hundreds of kangaroos, two wombats, two foxes, two echidnas, great birds") and reads books by Alain de Botton and Niall Ferguson, others about US politics or energy, and even a dieting volume called The Lean by Kathy Freston ("v interesting book on health and weight loss … Makes sense and seems ez").

    And however sharp his reprimand this week, in a year of tweeting Murdoch has himself had cause to apologise more than once – to Lord Coe ("Sorry, it's Sebastian Coe, not Zeb!"), General Petraeus and Hugh Grant ("Hugh Grant states that he is deeply involved in his daughter's life – I accept that,regret tweet on the matter. Apologies to both parents.")

    In November, the stridently pro-Israel Murdoch was even obliged to backtrack over accusations of antisemitism, after wondering why the "Jewish owned press" was not more supportive of Israel. The tweet had, he acknowledged the following day, been "sternly criticised" for relying on prejudiced tropes. "Don't see this, but apologise unreservedly."

    Murdoch's top tweets

    31 Dec 2011
    Vacations great time for thinking. St Barth's too many people. Thoughts best kept private around here. Like London!

    12 Jan 2012
    Many questions and jokes about My Space.simple answer - we screwed up in every way possible, learned lots of valuable expensive lessons.

    13 Jan 2012
    Normally disapprove of casinos,but hitting 16s and 17s lot of fun. To hell with theories!

    13 Jan 2012
    Why is every tweet thought to conspiratorial or sexual. I was talking blackjack. Give me a break.

    9 Feb 2012
    Please keep tweeting. I read all but how about cleaning up language? Incidentally most credit me with non- existent power and money.

    13 Feb 2012
    To hell with politicians! When are we going to find some to tell the truth in any country? Don't hold your breath.

    14 April 2012
    What happened to "land of hope and glory" New poll today shows 48 percent of Brits would like to emigrate.

    5 May 2012
    Having great day baby sitting young est daughter while Wendi takes Grace scout camping!

    11 Jul 2012
    What was wrong with Iraq war? Sad dam Hussein evil major killer, etc. Execution another matter.. Afghan bad every way now.l

    28 Jul 2012
    London Olympic opening surprisingly great, even if a little too politically correct. Danny Boyle a creative genius.

    13 Oct 2012
    Told UK's Cameron receiving scumbag celebrities pushing for even more privacy laws. Trust the toffs! Transparency under attack. Bad.

    3 Dec 2012
    Many thanks for condolences about my Mum. A great lady, wife. mother and citizen. 193 yo, but still a blow.

    5 Dec 2012
    No, 103 yo! There are limits!

    •  
    23 attachments — Download all attachments   View all images  
    murdochs460.jpg murdochs460.jpg
    29K   View   Download  
    Rupert-Murdoch-009.jpg Rupert-Murdoch-009.jpg
    22K   View   Download  
    Rupert-Murdoch-010.jpg Rupert-Murdoch-010.jpg
    31K   View   Download  
    art-Murdoch-20daughter3-620x349.jpg art-Murdoch-20daughter3-620x349.jpg
    115K   View   Download  
    art-353-Murdoch-20daughter2-300x0.jpg art-353-Murdoch-20daughter2-300x0.jpg
    24K   View   Download  
    Prudence MacLeod_Murdochdaughter_INLNews.com.jpg Prudence MacLeod_Murdochdaughter_INLNews.com.jpg
    24K   View   Download  
    Rupert-Murdoch(9)-INLNews.com.jpg Rupert-Murdoch(9)-INLNews.com.jpg
    22K   View   Download  
    Rupert-Murdoch(10)-INLNews.com.jpg Rupert-Murdoch(10)-INLNews.com.jpg
    31K   View   Download  
    Themurdochs_INLNews.com.jpg Themurdochs_INLNews.com.jpg
    29K   View   Download  
    VaucluseHouseOfPrudence MacLeod_Murdochdaughter_INLNews.com.jpg VaucluseHouseOfPrudence MacLeod_Murdochdaughter_INLNews.com.jpg
    115K   View   Download  
    prudecnceMurdocj.bmp prudecnceMurdocj.bmp
    311K   View   Download  
    Murdochs3_INLNews.com.bmp Murdochs3_INLNews.com.bmp
    352K   View   Download  
    elisabeth-murdoch-rupes-mother.jpg elisabeth-murdoch-rupes-mother.jpg
    21K   View   Download  
    f.jpg f.jpg
    24K   View   Download  
    ruperts-sisters-back-home.jpg ruperts-sisters-back-home.jpg
    22K   View   Download  
    untitled.bmp untitled.bmp
    352K   View   Download  
    james-murdoch-the-heir-to-the-empire.jpg james-murdoch-the-heir-to-the-empire.jpg
    20K   View   Download  
    elisabeth-murdoch-the-independent-daughter.jpg elisabeth-murdoch-the-independent-daughter.jpg
    19K   View   Download  
    anna-torv-murdoch-mann-the-second-wife.jpg anna-torv-murdoch-mann-the-second-wife.jpg
    27K   View   Download  
    lachlan-murdoch-the-dependent-son.jpg lachlan-murdoch-the-dependent-son.jpg
    25K   View   Download  





    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/dec/11/dial-m-for-murdoch-watson-hickman-review

    Dial M for Murdoch

    by Tom Watson and Martin Hickman – review

    Essential reading on the state of the popular press

     

    News Corporation chief Rupert Murdoch, with his wife Wendi Deng, on his way to give evidence at the Leveson inquiry. Photograph: Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty Images

     

    Dial M for Murdoch: News Corporation and the Corruption of Britain

    by Tom Watson and Martin Hickman

    One would not wish the serene back pages of Review to become the scene of an ugly legal battle between the bosses of News International and me, so I will not say that it is clear, from this book, that Rupert Murdoch is a liar. There is indeed another reading: that he is suffering from amnesia. How else to account for the exchange, reported here on pp 216-7, between Philip Davies MP and Murdoch Sr, when Davies asked him if he would have expected to be told if an editor on one of his papers had made a payoff of £1m to an individual?

    "No," said Murdoch. "He might say 'We've got a great story exposing X or Y' or, more likely, he would say, 'Nothing special.' He might refer to the fact that however many extra pages were dedicated to the football that week."

    "But he wouldn't tell you about a £1m pay-off?"

    "No."

    Well, I'm glad we have cleared that up. Still, earlier this year the House of Commons culture committee report on phone hacking at News International described Rupert Murdoch as "not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company". Or, you might think after reading more of his vague and feeble excuses in this book, a whelk stall.

    Where to start? Perhaps with our own Nick Davies, a journalist memorably described by Stephen Glover in the Independent as "a misanthropic, apocalyptic sort of fellow – the sort of journalist who can find a scandal in a jar of tadpoles." The authors of Dial M for Murdoch reproduce this without further comment (although Watson and Hickman later call him "one of the great exemplars of good journalism"), but they need add none: Glover's comment was made after the first stirrings, in 2009, of the phone-hacking scandal, about which you may since have heard one or two things. The Times said the Guardian had been guilty of perpetrating "selective and misleading journalism", a wording that also appeared in the News of the World's denunciation the day after.

    You may think that you have heard enough about this whole business, and I must admit to thinking it was more of a duty than a pleasure to pick up this book, but really, it is important. It is the one book you need to read on the subject. And it is still a live issue, as we watch Cameron happily renege on his word and instead say that he will not, after all, abide by the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry. We might, from sheer weight of data and epic length, have become overwhelmed by details and feel that all we need to know now is News International = bad. It is, though, more important than that; and only reading this book has made it quite so plain how low the company fell. I know that I am, by writing these words in the Guardian, preaching to the choir, but really, there is some eye-popping stuff here. (Although I hasten to add that the shady practices exposed here are probably not only confined to NI operations.) Even what you might have called the more trivial crimes – say, the hacking of Sienna Miller's voicemail – have their own poignancy. Your sympathy for her may be attenuated simply because she is famous, but who deserves to have their love affairs exposed so casually and callously? You could argue that it is the public's very appetite for this kind of stuff that has created the monster; but after reading this you might begin to realise that it is the monster of tabloid journalism that has created the appetite.

    Watson and Hickman (the former is referred to, sometimes disconcertingly, in the third person, but then he's an MP and Hickman's an Independent journalist, so presumably the one who crafted the sentences) have produced an essential book: simply by keeping a close eye on events, they have given us an invaluable tool for assessing the state of the British popular press, and for working out how much weight to place on any statement made by Rupert or James Murdoch. Keep this by your bedside and refer to it from time to time, lest your outrage soften.

    Dec 11, 2012 – Nicholas Lezard finds this book is essential reading on the state of the popular press.

     

    Apr 25, 2012 – Will the phone-hacking scandal be bigger than Watergate? Peter Wilby on a gobsmacking account of the problems engulfing News ...

    Dial M for Murdoch by Tom Watson and Martin Hickman – review

    Will the phone-hacking scandal be bigger than Watergate? This is a gobsmacking account of the problems engulfing News International

    Peter Wilby

    The Guardian, Wednesday 25 April 2012

     

    Empire of the Sun … Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corporation, whose employees are facing allegations of phone hacking. Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex Features

     

    Even if you are familiar with the News of the World phone-hacking saga, you will be gobsmacked by this account. It is a tale of stupidity, incompetence, fear, intimidation, lying, downright wickedness and corruption in high places. It is constructed like a thriller, with cliffhanging chapter endings and a final section entitled "Darker and darker". Men and women fear for their lives and their families, remove batteries from their mobiles, keep their blinds down and curtains closed, check their homes for bugging devices, see sinister vehicles in rear-view mirrors, and vary their routes to work each day. Vivid characters hop on and off stage, one of them a former policeman running a private detective agency called Silent Shadow. There's even a murder. The improbable hero, doggedly pursuing his quarry, is the portly Labour MP Tom Watson – "the tub of lard", Rupert Murdoch's papers called him, in the charming way they have with people they don't like. Rather confusingly, he's also (with an Independent journalist) the co-author, but referred to throughout in the third person.

     

    The book opens with a quote from Carl Bernstein, one of the Washington Post journalists who unearthed Watergate, comparing phone-hacking to that celebrated scandal. The parallels are indeed close, right down to the allegation that News International (NI) eventually bugged Rebekah Brooks, its own chief executive, just as Richard Nixon bugged his own White House office. In both scandals, dirty work was done by low-level operatives. Paper (or electronic) trails couldn't establish conclusively that they acted on orders from above. But in phone hacking, as in the Watergate burglary, top people (we still don't know how near the top the trail will lead) implicated themselves through a systematic cover-up. With a bit of stretch, you could argue that hacking may yet turn out to be bigger than Watergate. Nixon may have been leader of the world's most powerful nation but he was, so to speak, just a rogue president. The products of Murdoch's global media corporation, on the other hand, are consumed annually by a billion people, and the hacking cover-up appears to have encompassed not just one political leader but the entire British political establishment, to say nothing of the police, the legal services and much of the media.

    What stands out from this book is the lengths to which NI went to bury the hacking scandal and how, before the revelations in July 2011 that Milly Dowler's phone was hacked, the company nearly got away with it. Clive Goodman, the NoW's royal reporter, was jailed in January 2007, along with the private detective Glenn Mulcaire. The police had evidence that Mulcaire's targets went well beyond the royal family and that, almost certainly, many reporters other than Goodman were involved. Yet no proper investigation followed, and no more arrests until 2011. The police deployed, on different occasions, a range of implausible excuses: they were too busy investigating terrorism; Mulcaire had actually hacked only "a handful" of the phone numbers he held; the law allowed prosecution only where a voice message was intercepted before the owner heard it.

    Perhaps they were just frightened. When police raided the NoW offices in the wake of Goodman's arrest, they faced a hostile, unco-operative and (some thought) potentially violent response. In effect, they were sent packing, and didn't dare return. As revelations grew, NI's response was, first, to deny them, second, to put pressure on newspapers and MPs to drop their investigations (pressure that was complemented by the advice of senior police officers) and third, to take further steps to cover its tracks.

    In November 2009, NI agreed a policy of deleting "unhelpful" emails from its internal computer system. "How are we doing with the email deletion policy?" asked an anxious senior executive nearly a year later. Around the same time, the company was smashing up reporters' computers during "a routine technical upgrade". In January 2011, an email chain to James Murdoch, then chief executive of News Corp Europe and Asia, regarding Gordon Taylor, the footballers' union official who was paid £645,000 to keep the hacking of his phone out of the public domain, was deleted as part of a "stabilisation and modernisation programme". Emails were still being deleted up to the NoW's closure in July 2011, as a technology firm used by NI testified to the home affairs select committee. No wonder a judge in January this year, rejecting a request to halt a search of computers belonging to former NoW employees, said the company should be treated as "deliberate destroyers of evidence".

    All the while, the Murdoch papers and their allies were pooh-poohing hacking stories published by the Guardian and other papers. Roger Alton, executive editor of the Times and a former Observer and Independent editor, compared the NoW's offences to parking in a resident's bay; Kelvin MacKenzie, the former Sun editor, to stealing tools from a garden shed. Boris Johnson, mayor of London, described Guardian allegations as "a load of codswallop cooked up by the Labour party" and in April 2011 his aide Kit Malthouse was still pressing Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan police commissioner, to ignore "political media hysteria", in Stephenson's phrase.

    NI had allies and clients in the right places. When the Guardian's Nick Davies published the first stories in 2009 suggesting that NoW hacking was on an industrial scale, both Labour and the Tories were anxiously seeking Murdoch's backing in the 2010 general election. The NoW had 10 former employees in Scotland Yard's public affairs department. It had its former editor Andy Coulson in David Cameron's office. Actors, who were among the main victims of hacking, are biddable people at the best of times and would hesitate to challenge publicly the owner of a Hollywood film studio. As for the fearless seekers of truth in the fourth estate, few wanted to kill for ever their chances of employment on Murdoch's numerous papers and broadcast news stations in Britain and the US. Whistleblowers? When a former NoW employee spilled the beans to the New York Times, the police interviewed him under caution (by contrast, Coulson was initially questioned only as "a witness"). The whistleblower later died of drink-related disease.

    If all else failed, Murdoch's papers possessed the ultimate deterrent: the threat to investigate and publish details of the private lives of anybody who crossed them. Even those whose cupboards were empty of skeletons feared their families might be vulnerable. That is what gives a dominant media company its unique power: in effect, it can, tacitly if not explicitly, blackmail almost anybody, and it's no use going to the police because, if they're not actually being paid by the press, they're scared too. The fear probably outstrips the reality, but not many risked it. One hostile biography of Rupert Murdoch, published in 2008, was followed by a Murdoch-owned US tabloid exposing the author's extramarital affair. Neville Thurlbeck, the former NoW chief reporter, told Watson that an editor instructed staff to "find out every single thing you can about every single member" of the Commons media select committee of which Watson was a member. The paper hired Silent Shadow to follow Watson's every move, and later used the same firm to put lawyers acting for hacking victims under surveillance. Both Andy Hayman and John Yates, the senior Met officers who chose not to challenge NI's denials of mass criminality at the NoW, are said to have had controversial personal relationships, and both had their phones hacked (though they explicitly denied that fear influenced their decisions).

    The saga is nowhere near its end. No sooner does NI settle with one group of hacking victims than more emerge. The prime minister's loss of Coulson has been followed by a threat to his culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt. Police inquiries have extended to computer hacking, illegal acquisition of private data and corruption of police and other public officials. The number of arrests is closing on the half-century mark. It seems likely that Murdoch and his family will be forced to sell all their British papers, probably their interests in BSkyB and possibly even News Corporation itself. Nothing is forever, not even Murdoch. But nobody can be confident that he won't bounce back. Many twists in the plot are still to come. This book covers just the first, enthralling instalment. The sequels could be even more dramatic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial_M_for_Murdoch

    Dial M for Murdoch

    Author(s)Tom Watson

    Martin Hickman

    CountryUnited Kingdom

    LanguageEnglish

    Genre(s)politics and government

    PublisherAllen Lane

    Publication date19 April 2012

    Pages384

    ISBN1846146038

    Dial M for Murdoch: News Corporation and the Corruption of Britain is a 2012 book written by British Labour Party MP Tom Watson, and Martin Hickman, a journalist with The Independent newspaper. Published in the United Kingdom on 19 April 2012 by Allen Lane, an imprint of Penguin Books the book deals with the relationship between newspapers belonging to Rupert Murdoch's News International and senior British politicians and police officers, and how the company allegedly used its political influence to mask illegal newsgathering techniques at its London headquarters.

    Details of the title and publication date were kept under wraps, with those involved in its production required to sign confidentiality agreements, a move adopted amid fears News International would try to prevent the launch. Allen Lane announced the book's release on 16 April, three days before the publication date. The timeframe between receipt of the final manuscript and the book's publication is believed to be the shortest in Penguin's history.[1] On the day details of the book were revealed, Watson indicated on his blog his belief that the book would be controversial: "Very excited to say we've finally finished the book. It's out this Thursday. I have a hunch it will be one of the most attacked books this year."[2] The title is a play on the 1954 film Dial M for Murder.

    References

    ^ Hall, Richard (17 April 2012). "New book 'exposes links between Murdoch, politicians and police'". The Independent (Independent Print Ltd). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/new-book-exposes-links-between-murdoch-politicians-and-police-7648278.html. Retrieved 17 April 2012.

    ^ McNally, Paul (16 April 2012). "Tom Watson phone hacking book out this week".Journalism.co.uk. http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/news-international-news-of-the-world-labour-mp-tom-watson-phone-hacking-book/s2/a548785/. Retrieved 17 April 2012.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmcumeds/903/903i.pdf

    House of Commons  Culture, Media and Sport 

    Committee  

    News International and  Phone-hacking  

    Eleventh Report  

    Volume I  

    Volume I: Report, together with formal 

    minutes 

    Volume II: Oral and written evidence  

    Ordered by the House of Commons 

    to be printed 30 April 2012  

     

    HC 903-I  

    Published on 1 May 2012 

    by authority of the House of Commons 

    London: The Stationery Office Limited 

    £0.00  

    The Culture, Media and Sport Committee 

    The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is appointed by the House of 

    Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the 

    Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its associated public bodies. 

    Current membership 

    Mr John Whittingdale MP (Conservative, Maldon) (Chair) 

    Dr Thérèse Coffey MP (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal) 

    Damian Collins MP (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe) 

    Philip Davies MP (Conservative, Shipley) 

    Paul Farrelly MP (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme) 

    Louise Mensch MP (Conservative, Corby) 

    Steve Rotheram MP (Labour, Liverpool, Walton) 

    Mr Adrian Sanders MP (Liberal Democrat, Torbay) 

    Jim Sheridan MP (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North) 

    Mr Gerry Sutcliffe MP (Labour, Bradford South) 

    Mr Tom Watson MP (Labour, West Bromwich East) 

    Powers 

    The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of 

    which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 

    152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk

    Publication 

    The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery 

    Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press 

    notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/parliament.uk/cmscom. A list 

    of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this 

    volume. 

     

    The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral 

    evidence taken and some of the written evidence are available in a printed 

    volume.  

     

    Additional written evidence is published on the internet only. 

    Committee staff 

    The following staff assisted the Committee in the preparation of this report: 

    Emily Commander (Clerk of the Committee till April 2012), Elizabeth Flood (Clerk 

    of the Committee from April 2012), Jackie Recardo and Victoria Butt (Senior 

    Committee Assistants), Keely Bishop and Alison Pratt (Committee Assistants), 

    Elizabeth Bradshaw (Committee Specialist), Jessica Bridges-Palmer (Media 

    Officer), Michael Carpenter (Speaker's Counsel) and Andrew Kennon (Clerk of 

    Committees). 

    Contacts 

    All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Culture, Media and 

    Sport Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The 

    telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6188; the Committee’s email 

    address is cmscom@parliament.uk 

    Contents 

    Report Page 

    1 Introduction 3 

    Background: the Committee’s work on phone-hacking 3 

    Parliamentary context 6 

    The wider context and other investigations into phone-hacking 7 

    Scope of the Committee’s investigation 7 

    2 News International: cooperation with the Committee and other 

    investigations 9 

    3 The Goodman and Mulcaire employment claims 15 

    Clive Goodman’s dismissal 15 

    The Harbottle & Lewis investigation 16 

    The decision to settle Clive Goodman’s claim 23 

    Amounts and authorisation 24 

    Legal fees 30 

    Clive Goodman’s prospects for re-employment 31 

    Confidentiality 32 

    The settlement with Glenn Mulcaire 33 

    4 The Gordon Taylor and subsequent settlements 36 

    Timeline 36 

    The settlement amount 38 

    Confidentiality 40 

    The ‘for Neville’ email 42 

    The significance of the ‘for Neville’ email and the Silverleaf opinion 46 

    What James Murdoch knew in 2008 49 

    Further evidence received 56 

    Evidence from the Clifford and subsequent settlements 59 

    The corporate culture at News International 63 

    5 The hacking of Milly Dowler’s telephone 71 

    6 The original investigation by the Metropolitan Police 77 

    Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) 77 

    Contacting victims 79 

    7 Surveillance 82 

    8 Conclusions and next steps 84 

    Annex 1: Who’s who 86 

    Annex 2: Timeline of events 90 

    Formal Minutes 100 

    List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 121 

    1 Introduction 

    1. This Report examines whether or not there is good evidence to suggest that the  Committee and its predecessor Committees have been misled by any witnesses during the  course of their work on the phone-hacking scandal, which continues to reverberate around  News International and to have major repercussions for the British newspaper industry as  a whole. 

     

    Background: the Committee’s work on phone-hacking 

    2. In the last decade, the Committee’s predecessors have conducted three separate inquiries  into press standards, taking a special interest in privacy. In the last Parliament, as part of  the most recent of the three Reports—Press standards, privacy and libel—the Committee  looked into allegations of widespread phone-hacking at the News of the World.1 It was not  convinced by assurances given to it that phone-hacking had been the work of a single  ‘rogue reporter’ and was frustrated by what it described as the “collective amnesia” that  seemed to afflict witnesses from News International.2 It also criticised the Metropolitan 

    Police for failing to pursue its own investigation into phone-hacking.3 The Committee  made it clear that it regarded some of the contentions made by witnesses as straining  credulity but, faced with a repeated insistence that wrongdoing was not widespread, and  the unwillingness of police and prosecutors to investigate further, it was not possible to  conclude definitively that we had knowingly been given evidence which was deliberately  misleading or false, either by individuals or by News International itself.  

    3. A series of events in 2011 changed the situation: 

    # On 5 January 2011, the News of the World suspended its Assistant Editor Ian  Edmondson over alleged involvement in phone-hacking. 

     

    # On 15 January 2011, following continued civil cases by phone-hacking victims, the  Crown Prosecution Service announced a review of the evidence collected in the  Metropolitan Police’s original investigation of phone-hacking at the News of the World

     

    The announcement was made after News International had tasked Group General  Manager Will Lewis with re-examining all the documents held by Harbottle & Lewis, a firm of solicitors that—in 2007—had conducted an independent review of those papers  in the context of an unfair dismissal claim being brought by Clive Goodman, the News  of the World’s former Royal Editor, against the company. Mr Lewis had passed the 

    material to a different firm of solicitors, Hickman Rose, who in turn had referred the  material to Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, a former Director of Public Prosecutions,  for an opinion. On the basis of his opinion, it was decided to refer the matter  immediately to the police. 

     

    1 Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, Second Report of Session 2009-10, Press standards, privacy and libel, HC 

    362 (hereafter referred to as Press standards, privacy and libel) 

    2 Press standards, privacy and libel, paras 441 and 442 

    3 Press standards, privacy and libel, para 467

    # On 26 January 2011, the Metropolitan Police announced that it was re-opening its  investigation into phone-hacking. The new investigation, Operation Weeting, is being  led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, who replaced Acting Deputy  Commissioner John Yates, one of the Metropolitan Police witnesses who appeared  before the Committee in 2009. It is conducting a fresh examination of all evidence,  including that held by the police since the prosecution of the newspaper’s former Royal 

    Editor, Clive Goodman, and the private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, and is  contacting, with distinctly more vigour and purpose, victims of the newspaper’s phone-  hacking activities. Since then, two further, parallel investigations have been launched,  also headed by DAC Akers: Operation Elveden into alleged payments to police officers;  and Operation Tuleta into other activities beyond phone-hacking, including e-mail and 

    computer hacking.

     

    #  On 10 March 2011, Chris Bryant MP held an adjournment debate on the floor of the  House of Commons, during the course of which he accused Acting Deputy  Commissioner John Yates of having misled both the Culture, Media and Sport and  Home Affairs Select Committees when giving evidence on phone-hacking. Mr Yates  had asserted that, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), it was  only possible to prosecute illegal voicemail intercepts if it could be proved that the 

    hacker had accessed the voicemail before the intended recipient had listened to it.4  Written evidence to the Home Affairs Committee from the Director of Public  Prosecutions stated, however, that “the prosecution [in the cases of Clive Goodman and  Glenn Mulcaire] did not in its charges or presentation of the facts attach any legal  significance to the distinction between messages which had been listened to and  messages that had not”.5 In fact, because both Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire had  pleaded guilty, this issue was never tested.6 On 14 March 2011, Acting Deputy  Commissioner John Yates wrote to the Committee offering to give evidence in  response to the comments made by Mr Bryant in his debate four days earlier and did so 

    on 24 March. 

     

    #On 5 April 2011, Ian Edmondson and Neville Thurlbeck, the News of the World’s Chief 

    Reporter, were arrested on suspicion of unlawfully intercepting voicemail messages, the 

    first arrests in the course of the new police investigations.7 

    • On 7 July 2011, James Murdoch, Deputy Chief Operating Officer and Chairman and 

    Chief Executive Officer (International), News Corporation, made a public statement 

    announcing the closure of the News of the World, in which he stated that wrongdoing 

    was not confined to one reporter and that both the newspaper and News International 

    had failed to get to the bottom of this affair. He also said that “the paper made 

    statements to Parliament without being in the full possession of the facts. This was 

    wrong”.8  

     

    4.  Taken together, all these events made it inevitable, and imperative, that the Committee  would wish to re-open its inquiries into the phone-hacking affair, and its fall-out, and  investigate in particular the extent to which we, and previous Committees, had been  misled. We re-opened our inquiry. Given James Murdoch’s public assertion that the News  of the World had “made statements to Parliament without being in the full possession of  the facts”, we decided to invite James Murdoch to give oral evidence on 19 July 2011 so that  he could expand on this admission. We invited Rebekah Brooks, then Chief Executive  Officer of News International, and Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive  Officer of News Corporation, to give evidence alongside him. Rebekah Brooks responded  that she would be able to give oral evidence at the time requested. Rupert Murdoch  declined to attend and James Murdoch said that he would be willing to attend on an  unspecified future date. Finding this to be unsatisfactory, we issued an Order summoning 

    Rupert and James Murdoch to attend the Committee on 19 July 2011, which they did. 

     

    5. During the evidence session on 19 July 2011, Rupert Murdoch was subjected to an  assault by a member of the public. The Chairman expressed his grave concern that such a  serious incident was able to take place within the precincts of Parliament and apologised to  Rupert Murdoch on behalf of the Committee. Similarly, the Speaker of the House of  Commons stated that “it is wholly unacceptable for a member of the public to treat, and to  be able to treat, a witness in this way”. He commissioned an independent review into the  security breach and steps have been taken to ensure that no such thing can happen again.9 

    We thank Rupert Murdoch for his willingness to continue to give evidence to us in those 

    circumstances. 

     

    6. Given the testimony of the Murdochs, what we had heard from other witnesses  previously and a dispute between two previous witnesses—Tom Crone and Colin Myler—  and James Murdoch,10 we held a series of further evidence sessions. On 6 September, we  heard from various former News International employees: Jonathan Chapman, former  Director of Legal Affairs; Daniel Cloke, former Group Human Resources Director; Tom  Crone, former Legal Manager for News Group Newspapers; and Colin Myler, the former 

    Editor of the News of the World. On 19 October, we heard from Julian Pike, a solicitor at  Farrer & Co and long-time legal adviser to News International, and Mark Lewis, a solicitor  at Taylor Hampton, whose pursuit of the affair as the legal adviser to Gordon Taylor, the  first victim to sue, had been instrumental in exposing the extent of phone-hacking at the  News of the World. Les Hinton, former Executive Chairman of News International, gave  evidence by video-link on 24 October and, on 10 November, we heard again from James  Murdoch. Our predecessor Committees had heard from Rebekah Brooks, Tom Crone,  Colin Myler, former News of the World Editor Andy Coulson, former News of the World  Managing Editor Stuart Kuttner, Mark Lewis and Les Hinton during the course of their  previous inquiries. 

     

    4 AC John Yates oral evidence to Home Affairs Committee, Sept 7 2010, Q5, published as Specialist Operations, HC 

    441-i, of session 2010-12 

    5 Memorandum submitted by Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions to the Home Affairs Committee, 

    October 2010, published in Home Affairs Committee, Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile 

    communications, Thirteenth Report of Session 2010-12, HC 907, Ev 126 

    6 Standards & Privileges Committee, Privilege: Hacking of Members’ Mobile Phones, Fourteenth Report of Session 

    2010-12, HC 628, Appendix 

    7 “Phone hacking: NoW journalist arrested” The Guardian online, 5 April 2011 

    8 News International Press Release, 7 July 2011 

    9 HC Deb, 20 July 2011, Column 917 

    10 www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/10/james-murdoch-phone-hacking-myler-crone 

    7. We also received a considerable amount of very detailed written evidence, all of which is  published alongside the transcripts of the oral evidence sessions as part of this Report. For  ease of reference, a timeline of events and list of the people involved are both included as  annexes to this Report. 

    Parliamentary context 

     

    8. The truthfulness of evidence given before a select committee, whether in written or oral  form, is a cornerstone of the parliamentary select committee system. Erskine May, The  Treatise on the Law, Privileges and Usage of Parliament, notes that “the House requires  truthful evidence from witnesses and seeks to protect them from being obstructed from  giving evidence”.11 So strong is the presumption of truth, and so seriously do most  witnesses take the process of giving evidence, that it is not usual for select committees to  administer oaths to witnesses.12  

     

    9. To enable it to carry out its functions, each House of Parliament enjoys certain rights  and immunities, foremost amongst which is freedom of speech. The sum of these rights  and immunities is known as parliamentary privilege. Breaches in privilege are punishable  under the law of Parliament. Actions which are not breaches of a specific privilege but are  offences against the authority and dignity of the House, and would tend to obstruct or  impede it, are known as contempts of Parliament. Erskine May notes that “the power to  punish for contempt has been judicially considered to be inherent in each House of  Parliament”.13 

     

    10. As bodies of the House of Commons, select committees and their members share in the  House’s privileges and the same principles of contempt apply. Witnesses found to have  misled a select committee, to have wilfully suppressed the truth, to have provided false  evidence and even to have prevaricated have all been considered to be guilty of contempt of  Parliament in the past.14 This is no trivial matter, either for select committees or for  witnesses. Select committees rely upon the truthfulness of the evidence given to them in  order to conduct their business. As far as witnesses are concerned, even setting aside the 

    issue of punishment, to be found in contempt of Parliament brings reputational damage  and public opprobrium. It is, therefore, something that all witnesses would normally strive  to avoid. This perhaps explains why committees only very rarely need to consider the issue  of contempt. 

     

    11. The allegation that witnesses have misled the Committee is a grave one and the  awareness of the potentially serious consequences of our conclusions for the individuals  concerned has been an important consideration to us in our work. A select committee  inquiry is not a judicial process but the same principles of fairness and impartiality should  apply, particularly where so much is at stake for specific individuals. For this reason, we  have been particularly careful to separate out fact from opinion in both the evidence that 

    we have received and in the conclusions that we have reached. 

     

    11 Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, 24th ed., pp 817-818 

    12 Erskine May, 24th ed., p 824 

    13 Erskine May, 24th ed., p 203 

    14 Erskine May, 24th ed., pp 252-253  

    The wider context and other investigations into phone-hacking 

     

    12. Phone-hacking is currently the subject of the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Weeting  investigation, as well as a separate inquiry by Strathclyde Police and Lord Justice Leveson’s  public inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the media. Given that we have been  inquiring into the issue of whether or not the Committee has been misled, in theory the  scope for overlap with either the police investigation or Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry  should be limited. In practice, the issue of whether or not we have been misled turns on a  detailed understanding of the scope and implications of a number of documents and events, most of which are likely also to be of interest to the Metropolitan Police and to Lord  Justice Leveson. 

     

    13. We have, from the outset of this inquiry, been mindful of the need to avoid  unnecessary overlap with either the work of the Police or Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry. 

    Where some degree of duplication has been unavoidable, we have worked very hard to  ensure that we did not pursue lines of inquiry which risked prejudicing future criminal  prosecutions. If some of the individuals who have been of interest to us are suspected of  any form of criminal activity, it is clearly of paramount importance that it is possible for a  case to be brought and for any resulting trial to be fair. For this reason, we have been  careful to respect the requests of individuals who have been arrested, in view of ongoing 

    police proceedings. 

     

    14. The issue of whether or not we have been misled is, however, properly a matter for the  Committee itself to investigate. Indeed, had it not been for our insistence—as well as the  persistence of the Guardian newspaper, certain lawyers and the civil claimants—many of  the issues might never have come to light. We believe that in our work we have struck the  appropriate balance between considering the important matter of a possible contempt of  the House and allowing the Metropolitan Police investigation and the inquiry by Lord  Justice Leveson to proceed unimpeded. As with the 2010 Report into Press standards,  privacy and libel, we have also had to be pragmatic. Fresh revelations occur in this affair  day by day and civil claimants, their lawyers and the judges involved have in their  possession more facts than this Committee, including disclosures protected by court  confidentiality. Conversely, through the powers of Parliamentary privilege and our  decision not to depose witnesses under oath, we have been able both to ask questions of 

    witnesses and to receive written evidence that other inquiries and proceedings would never  have been able to obtain. We recognise that matters are fluid, and any report of ours may  be overtaken by events. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the Committee to produce a  report based on the evidence before us, which is substantial. 

    Scope of the Committee’s investigation 

     

    15. News International’s claim that phone-hacking could be dismissed as the work of a  single ‘rogue reporter’ at the News of the World was a false one. As a result not only of our  own investigation, but also of civil cases currently before the courts, Lord Justice Leveson’s  inquiry and investigative journalism, there has been a steady flow of evidence which, taken  together, comprehensively discredits that assertion. This is beyond dispute. We have not,  therefore, sought to test News International’s original claim against every new piece of  evidence: to do so would not only consume many more months and pages than we have at 

    our disposal, but would also replicate work being done quite properly elsewhere. Instead,  we have conducted detailed scrutiny of a small number of events and documents that are  pivotal to any assessment of the truthfulness of the more specific assertions made to the  Committee on previous occasions, in particular: 

     

    a) The nature of the so-called ‘investigations’ at the News of the World involving its 

    solicitors Burton Copeland and Harbottle & Lewis; 

     

    b) The allegations made by Clive Goodman in pursuit of his employment claim and his 

    subsequent pay-off, as well as that made to Glenn Mulcaire; 

     

    c) Awareness of the so-called ‘for Neville’ e-mail, and its implications, within the News of 

    the World and its two holding companies News Group Newspapers and News 

    International; 

     

    d) The out-of-court settlements made by News Group Newspapers with Gordon Taylor 

    and other victims or claimants, insofar as evidence revealed in their cases is material as 

    to whether the Committee has been misled; and 

     

    e) The illegal interception of voicemails left on Milly Dowler’s mobile telephone. 

    16. During the course of this inquiry, we have been very concerned to learn of the alleged 

    surveillance conducted by, or on behalf of, the News of the World, on members of our 

    predecessor Committee during the course of its inquiry. We have, therefore, also followed 

    up this serious matter in our questioning. 

     

    17. In the light of the serious events since our 2010 Report, not least the summary closure 

    of the News of the World in July 2011, before examining these areas in detail, we turn first 

    to the approach of the newspaper and News International towards previous inquiries by 

    the Committee, and also towards those of the Metropolitan Police and the Press 

    Complaints Commission. 

    2 News International: cooperation with the 

    Committee and other investigations 

     

    18. Following the convictions of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire in 2007, and the Guardian’s revelation of the civil settlement with Gordon Taylor in 2009, the News of the  World and its parent companies made several key assertions, which have proven to be  untrue:  

    That phone-hacking was limited to one ‘rogue reporter’ working with one private 

    detective/enquiry agent. 

    That the affair had been thoroughly investigated by the organisation, not once or 

    twice, but on three occasions, and no further evidence of wrongdoing had been 

    found. 

    That phone-hacking was limited in time between 2005 and 2006, the years covered 

    by the original police investigation leading to the criminal charges against 

    Goodman and Mulcaire.  

    That potentially illegal intrusion was limited to phone-hacking, and confined also 

    to the News of the World among News International’s newspaper titles.  

     

    19. In 2009, when the Committee re-opened its inquiry into phone-hacking following  publication of the Gordon Taylor settlement, senior witnesses from the News of the World  recounted their reaction in vivid terms to the original arrests in 2006.  

     

    20. Giving evidence on 21 July 2009, for example, Stuart Kuttner, former Managing Editor  of the News of the World, said he had never come across cases before where his journalists  had tried to obtain information illegally, or from sources who would do so. And he added: 

    The events of the day that the police came and Clive Goodman was arrested are  seared into my brain. It was a traumatic event and I cannot state too strongly how  alarming that was, and ‘surprising’ is not even an adequate term.15  

     

    21. In its 2010 Report, Press standards, privacy and libel, the Committee nonetheless was  “struck by the collective amnesia afflicting witnesses from the News of the World”.16 During  the inquiry which led to the production of that Report, the forgetfulness of News  International reached new levels on 15 September 2009, when Les Hinton, formerly Chief  Executive of News International, appeared before the Committee and stated that he did not  know, could not recall, did not remember or was not familiar with the events under  scrutiny a total of 72 times.17 

     

    15 Published in Press standards, privacy and libel, Volume II, Q1685 

    16 Press standards, privacy and libel, para 442 

    17 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Qqs 2107, 2111, 2114, 2117, 2118, 2119, 2121, 2123, 2126, 2134, 2135, 2140, 

    2141, 2143, 2149, 2150, 2154, 2155, 2156, 2157, 2161, 2167, 2171, 2173, 2174, 2175, 2176, 2177, 2178, 2188, 2189, 

    2191, 2196, 2199, 2201, 2202, 2206, 2207, 2208, 2213, 2220, 2228, 2230, 2234 and 2236 

    22. In 2009, witnesses from News International had noticeably less difficulty remembering the investigative measures to which the company claimed it had been subject following the  arrest of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire. On 21 July 2009, Andy Coulson, who had  resigned as Editor in 2007 following the convictions, said: “Obviously we wanted to know  internally very quickly what the hell had gone on. Then I brought in Burton Copeland, an  independent firm of solicitors, to carry out an investigation. We opened up the files as  much as we could. There was nothing that they asked for that they were not given.”18 Colin 

    Myler, then Editor of the News of the World, told us that “I do not know of any  newspaper—and this is the fourth national newspaper that I have had the privilege of  editing—or broadcasting organisation that has been so forensically investigated over the  past four years—none”.19 He later listed those investigations and said that “if it comes  down to this Committee and others not being satisfied by those inquiries, I really do not  know what more I can say”.20 At the same evidence session, Tom Crone, then Legal 

    Manager of News Group Newspapers, told us that: 

    In the aftermath of Clive Goodman and Mulcaire’s arrest and subsequent conviction 

    various internal investigations were conducted by us. This was against the 

    background of a nine month massively intense police investigation prior to arrest 

    and then a continuing investigation in the five months up to conviction. [...] At no 

    stage during their investigation or our investigation did any evidence arise that the 

    problem of accessing by our reporters, or complicity of accessing by our reporters, 

    went beyond the Goodman/Mulcaire situation.21 

     

    23. In 2009, News International’s lone ‘rogue reporter’ defence was based upon the stated  thoroughness of two allegedly independent investigations by solicitors, Burton Copeland  and Harbottle & Lewis, which included an extensive review of senior staff e-mails; the  company’s further internal investigation following the Guardian’s revelations in July 2009;  on the Metropolitan Police’s investigation into the affair and the unwillingness of either the  police or the Crown Prosecution Service to re-open the matter subsequently; and on a  review by the Press Complaints Commission, which found not only that the News of the  World had no further case to answer, but which castigated the Guardian in its  conclusions.22 The Committee’s 2010 Report rejected News International’s account, stating  that “evidence we have seen makes it inconceivable that no-one else at the News of the  World, bar Clive Goodman, knew about the phone-hacking”.23 On 19 July 2011, Rebekah  Brooks told us that “everyone at News International has a great respect for Parliament and 

    for this Committee. Of course, to be criticised by your Report was something that we  responded to”.24 The response at the time was hardly as respectful as this comment  suggests. Indeed, the Committee’s conclusions were forcefully rejected in a press release  issued by News International on the day of publication, which started with: 

     

    18 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Q 1719 

    19 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Q 1406 

    20 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Q 1487 

    21 Press standards, privacy and libel, Q 1339 

    22 PCC report on phone message tapping allegations, November 9 2009, Press Complaints Commission. This report was 

    subsequently withdrawn by the PCC on 6 July 2011. 

    23 Press standards, privacy and libel, para 440 

    24 Q 559 

    The credibility of the Select Committee system relies on committee members  exercising their powers with responsibility and fairness, and without bias or external  influence. Against these standards, the CMS Committee has consistently failed.  The reaction of the Committee to its failure to find any new evidence has been to  make claims of ‘collective amnesia’, deliberate obfuscation and concealment of the  truth. 

    News International strongly rejects these claims. 

    News International believes that the Select Committee system has been damaged and  materially diminished by this inquiry and that certain members of this CMS  Committee have repeatedly violated the public trust.25  

     

    24. A comment piece, published in the News of the World the following Sunday was, if  anything, more vitriolic. In a full page editorial, headlined ‘YOUR right to know is mired in  MPs’ bias. But a free press is far too precious to lose’, the newspaper stated: 

    Sadly, the victims here are YOU, the public. If these MPs get their way, our media  landscape will be changed forever. 

    Serious reform of the laws that stop us telling the truth—reform on which this  committee should have spent the vast bulk of its time—has at the very least been  delayed.  

    And, with no hint of parody or irony, it concluded: 

    That each time you read a revelation in the News of the World or any paper, bear in mind the forces that are at work trying to silence us and keep you in ignorance. 

    They are many and they are powerful. And right now they’re doing their damndest  to wreck the most precious of basic press freedoms—your right to know. As they  watched the Select Committee descent into bias, spite and bile, they’d have been  cheering. 

    We’ll take no lessons in standards from MPs—nor from the self-serving pygmies  who run the circulation-challenged Guardian

    But we promise this: As long as we have the power to fight, you can rely on us to  keep doing what we do best—revealing the misdeeds that influential people are  desperate to hide. 

    And we’ll let YOU be our judge and jury.26  

    The Editor of the newspaper at the time was Colin Myler and the Legal Manager of News  Group Newspapers was Tom Crone.  

     

    25 News International statement, 23 February 2010 

    26 News of the World, Sunday 28 February 2010 

    25. The newspaper’s—and News International’s—denials continued subsequently  throughout 2010, until disclosures secured in a civil action by the actress Sienna Miller  forced a change of stance at the end of the year. Notably, in a characteristically robust  response to an in-depth investigation by the New York Times in September 2010—which  cited several named and un-named former staff alleging that phone-hacking was 

    widespread—the newspaper stated: 

    As a general point, we reject absolutely any suggestion or assertion that the activities  of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, at the time of their arrest, were part of a  ‘culture’ of wrong-doing at the News of the World and were specifically sanctioned or  accepted at senior level in the newspaper. 

    We equally reject absolutely any suggestion or assertion that there has continued to  be such a culture at the newspaper. 

    At the time of those arrests, and subsequently, we co-operated with the authorities in  their investigations (which resulted in criminal convictions which were followed by 

    the then Editor taking responsibility and stepping down), just as we co-operated with  the CMS Select Committee in its extensive inquiry last year. 

    No evidence came out of those investigations or that inquiry that corroborates any  such suggestion or assertion. 27 

     

    26. As far as that statement’s depiction of our inquiry was concerned, nothing could have  been further from the truth. We had seen evidence that more than one reporter had been  involved in phone-hacking, and had said so. Conveniently, the response to the New York  Times piece omitted any reference to our Report’s trenchant criticisms of the News of the  World

     

    27. On 10 November 2011, on his second appearance before the Committee, James 

    Murdoch explained this reaction as “the tendency for a period of time to react to criticism 

    or allegations as being hostile, or motivated commercially or politically”.28 During his two 

    appearances, he apologised for what he termed the company’s ‘aggressive defence’.29 This 

    apology was certainly a long time in coming. 

    28. The reality is that News International took no further investigative or disciplinary 

    action as a result of the Select Committee’s 2010 Report, nor following further civil actions 

    following the confidential, out-of-court settlement with Gordon Taylor all the way back in 

    2008. In oral evidence in 2011, James Murdoch acknowledged this to have been a mistake: 

    “a more forensic look at the specific evidence that had been given to this Committee in 

    2009 would have been something that we could have done [...] I look back at the reaction to 

    the Committee’s Report and think that would be one turning point, if you will, that the 

    company could have taken”.30 He also told us that “you can imagine my own frustration in 

    2010, when the civil litigation came to a point where these things came out, to suddenly 

    realise that the pushback or the denial of the veracity of allegations that had been made 

    earlier, particularly in 2009, had been too strong”.31 Indeed, as this Report sets out, the 

    conclusions reached by the Committee in 2010 have been vindicated by evidence that 

    started to emerge as a result of civil cases later that year and as a result of our work in 2011. 

    As for its own so-called thorough, independent investigations, in evidence on 10 

    November 2011, Mr Murdoch asked: “did the company rely on those things for too long? I 

    think it’s clear the company did.”32 

    29. We stand by the conclusions over phone-hacking in the Committee’s 2010 Report 

    on Press standards, privacy and libel. As this Report sets out, those conclusions have 

    been vindicated—and, indeed, reinforced—by evidence which started to emerge 

    because of civil actions later that year, from continued pursuit of the matter by the 

    Guardian and other newspapers, and from further disclosures made as a result of our 

    work in 2011. Unlike the results of previous police and Press Complaints Commission 

    inquiries, our conclusions have stood the test of time. It is a matter of great regret, 

    therefore, that so much time elapsed before further action was finally taken by News 

    International and the Metropolitan Police, in particular, to investigate phone-hacking. 

    30. Throughout the course of our current investigation, witnesses from News International 

    have made protestations of their willingness to provide assistance to the Committee. On 10 

    November 2011, James Murdoch, for example, told us that “since the end of 2010, as the 

    company has found things out and discovered the extent of what has been suspected of 

    happening [...] we have sought to be as transparent as the company can be”.33 It is true that 

    News International has cooperated more fully with our current investigation than it did 

    with our inquiry in 2009, although the standard was hardly very high at that time. We note 

    for example, the willingness of the newly-established Management and Standards 

    Committee to provide the Committee with unsolicited copies of recently unearthed e-mail 

    exchanges that are of relevance to the events under investigation.34

    31. The most significant evidence received by the Committee—we note in particular Clive 

    Goodman’s letter appealing his dismissal; Tom Crone’s memorandum of May 2008; and 

    Michael Silverleaf QC’s opinion on the Gordon Taylor case—has, however, been provided 

    by other witnesses.35 Unlike the recently unearthed e-mails, these documents have been in 

    the company’s possession all along. At no point did the company itself provide them or 

    refer to them, either in 2009 or in 2011. In subsequent chapters, we examine the 

    significance of these and other documents, including the recent letter to us from Surrey 

    Police36 regarding the News of the World’s hacking of the phone of murdered teenager 

    Milly Dowler, the revelation which immediately precipitated the closure of the News of the 

    World last July.  

    32. Despite the professed willingness of witnesses from News International to assist the 

    Committee, the company has continued to downplay the involvement of its employees 

    in phone-hacking by failing to release to the Committee documents that would have 

    helped to expose the truth. 

    33. Other inquiries also faced similar problems with News International’s ‘aggressive 

    defence’. Despite the ‘co-operation’ it subsequently professed to have extended to the 

    Metropolitan Police, our 2010 Report documented the reality of its approach—which was 

    described in evidence to us by one of the chief investigating officers as ‘robust’.37 Senior 

    Metropolitan Police officers have since then been less circumspect—to us, the Home 

    Affairs Select Committee and the Leveson inquiry as to how, far from co-operating, the 

    News of the World deliberately tried to thwart the police investigation. 

    34. The Press Complaints Commission has also been a further, major casualty of the 

    phone-hacking affair. In November 2009, following its own review, the self-regulatory 

    body produced a report exonerating the News of the World of materially misleading it, 

    while criticising the Guardian’s reporting. In our 2010 Report, we were critical of the PCC 

    for so doing and its then Chairman, Baroness Buscombe, has since recognised it was not 

    told the truth by the News of the World

    35. Both Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire pleaded guilty to the criminal charges and 

    did not, therefore, give evidence in court. To date, no civil claim over phone-hacking has 

    gone to a full trial. In settling the claims, News International’s subsidiary News Group 

    Newspapers (NGN) has not only been willing to pay out huge sums of money, but it has 

    also finally had to make some wide-ranging admissions in doing so.  

    36. The willingness of News International to sanction huge settlements and damaging, 

    wide-ranging admissions to settle civil claims over phone-hacking before they reach 

    trial reinforces the conclusion of our 2010 Report that the organisation has, above all, 

    wished to buy silence in this affair and to pay to make this problem go away. 

    3 The Goodman and Mulcaire employment 

    claims 

    Clive Goodman’s dismissal  

    37. Clive Goodman, then Royal Editor at the News of the World, and Glenn Mulcaire, a 

    private investigator, were arrested in August 2006 on suspicion of illegally intercepting 

    voicemail messages. On 29 November 2006, both Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire 

    pleaded guilty to the charges, brought under section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and 

    section 1(1) Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. They were convicted and jailed 

    on 26 January 2007. 

    38. Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman were jointly charged with accessing the voicemails 

    of three employees of the royal household. Glenn Mulcaire alone faced charges of accessing 

    the voicemails of five further people: the publicist Max Clifford, sports agent Skylet 

    Andrew, Professional Footballers’ Association Chief Executive Gordon Taylor, politician 

    Simon Hughes MP and model Elle MacPherson. All bar Ms MacPherson, to the knowledge 

    of the Committee, subsequently commenced civil privacy claims and each has been settled 

    out of court. As none of these five individuals was connected to the royal family, none 

    would have been of journalistic interest to Clive Goodman, the newspaper’s Royal Editor. 

    As he and Glenn Mulcaire had pleaded guilty, however, neither gave evidence in court so 

    there was no opportunity to test the newspaper and News International’s ‘one rogue 

    reporter’ stance at the time. 

    39. During the course of our current investigation, solicitors Harbottle & Lewis, who 

    advised News International on the claim, were granted a limited waiver of legal 

    professional privilege by the company as client to co-operate with the Committee. In a 

    letter dated 11 August 2011,38 they disclosed to us that, on 5 February 2007, Les Hinton, 

    then Executive Chairman of News International, wrote to Clive Goodman terminating his 

    employment with News Group Newspapers and offering him 12 months’ base salary. The 

    letter made it clear that this offer was by way of a final settlement and that the company 

    was under no obligation to pay Clive Goodman anything at all. His guilty plea, the letter 

    made clear, was sufficient to ‘warrant dismissal without any warnings’ and, as for the offer 

    of payment of a year’s salary, News International was only proposing to do so in 

    recognition of long service. On 8 February 2007, Clive Goodman’s base salary, £90,502.08, 

    was paid.39 On 2 March 2007 Clive Goodman responded by initiating an appeal against his 

    dismissal on the grounds that his activities had been known about, and supported, by 

    various senior members of staff at the News of the World.40 Specifically, he stated that: 

    This practice [phone-hacking] was widely discussed in the daily editorial conference, 

    until explicit reference to it was banned by the Editor. The legal manager, Tom 

    Crone, attended virtually every meeting of my legal team and was given full access to 

     

    the Crown Prosecution Service’s evidence files. He, and other senior staff of the 

    paper, had long advance knowledge that I would plead guilty.41 

    40. Upon receipt of this letter, Daniel Cloke, Group HR Director, and Jonathan Chapman, 

    Director of Legal Affairs, both at News International, undertook a review of e-mails “with a 

    view to determining whether the individuals specified in Mr Goodman’s letter knew about 

    his voicemail interception activities”.42 The review took approximately six weeks to 

    conduct.43 The e-mails had been retrieved “against specific search terms related to the 

    names of the individuals named in Mr Goodman’s letter”.44 The e-mail review was 

    carefully circumscribed, as Jonathan Chapman explained to us: “the parameters for the e- 

    mail review were set by claims made by Mr Goodman in the context of his appeal”, and, 

    later, “it was reactive [...] it was quite limited in scope”.45 Daniel Cloke told us that “I believe 

    that we carried out the search carefully and diligently”.46 

    41. Colin Myler, who by then had replaced Andy Coulson as the Editor of the News of the 

    World in January 2007, and Daniel Cloke then interviewed the individuals mentioned by 

    Clive Goodman.47 Daniel Cloke told us that “no one, when we spoke to them, admitted any 

    wrongdoing at all”.48 Les Hinton said that he was not directly involved: “I obviously did not 

    look at those e-mails personally but I know that that scrutiny went on and no e-mails that 

    raised any further suspicion were brought to my attention”.49 However, Les Hinton was 

    consulted about the review by Daniel Cloke and was informed of its conclusion. 

    The Harbottle & Lewis investigation 

    42. Daniel Cloke suggested to Jonathan Chapman and subsequently to Les Hinton that an 

    external review of the relevant e-mails “by a law firm or barrister might be a good idea and 

    both readily agreed as did Mr Myler”. He told us that “I was concerned that as I was 

    inexperienced in this area and as a result might have missed something, that there be a 

    further and independent review”.50 Thus on Daniel Cloke’s suggestion, and with Les 

    Hinton’s authorisation, a firm of solicitors specialising in employment law, Harbottle & 

    Lewis, was commissioned to examine the e-mails identified by the initial, internal review. 

    The solicitors’ examination was limited to a remote, electronic review of the emails, which 

    were made available to them by means of electronic folders held on the company’s 

    computer system. 

    3. On 10 May 2007, Jonathan Chapman e-mailed Lawrence Abramson, a partner at 

    Harbottle & Lewis, stating that he and Daniel Cloke had gone through internal e-mails in 

    the categories to which Clive Goodman’s letter had referred “to find any evidence in such 

    e-mails to support the contentions made by Clive Goodman [...] We found nothing that 

    amounted to reasonable evidence of either of the above contentions [that Clive Goodman’s 

    illegal actions were known about and supported by senior staff]”. The e-mail goes on to 

    state that: 

    Because of the bad publicity that could result in an allegation in an employment 

    tribunal that we had covered up potentially damaging evidence found on our e-mail 

    trawl, I would ask that you, or a colleague, carry out an independent review of the e- 

    mails in question and report back to me with any findings of material that could 

    possibly tend to support either of Goodman’s contentions.51  

    44. In written evidence, Harbottle & Lewis summed up its understanding of these 

    instructions as follows: “if we reject Clive Goodman’s appeal against dismissal and he 

    brings employment tribunal proceedings, what is the risk of him establishing from these e- 

    mails that other people were aware of his phone-hacking activities, or were doing the same 

    thing themselves?”52 Similarly, Daniel Cloke told us that “the reason why I was anxious to 

    get the e-mails reviewed by a third party was to give us comfort on this employment matter 

    that the review Jon Chapman and I carried out was accurate”.53 Thus the Harbottle & Lewis 

    investigation was no more than a risk mitigation exercise in the event of employment 

    tribunal proceedings. 

    45. Following a written exchange between the Committee and News International, in 2009, 

    the company’s then Chief Executive, Rebekah Brooks, provided a copy of a letter—dated 

    29 May 2007—from Lawrence Abramson to Jonathan Chapman. The letter, which was 

    quoted and published in the Committee’s 2010 report 54 said:  

    Re Clive Goodman 

    We have on your instructions reviewed the e-mails to which you have provided 

    access from the accounts of: 

    Andy Coulson 

    Stuart Kuttner 

    Ian Edmonson [sic

    Clive Goodman 

    Neil Wallis 

    Jules Stenson 

    I can confirm that we did not find anything in those e-mails which appeared to us to 

    be reasonable evidence that Clive Goodman’s illegal actions were known about and 

    supported by both or either of Andy Coulson, the Editor, and Neil Wallis, the 

    Deputy Editor, and/or that Ian Edmondson, the News Editor, and others were 

    carrying out similar illegal procedures. 

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

    46. The wording of that letter had been a matter of debate between Lawrence Abramson 

    and Jonathan Chapman. The latter had suggested to Lawrence Abramson that the original 

    wording for the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph should be “having seen a copy 

    of Clive Goodman’s notice of appeal of 2 March 2007, we did not find anything that we 

    consider to be directly relevant to the grounds of appeal put forward by him”. To this 

    Lawrence Abramson responded: “I can’t say the last sentence in the penultimate para, I’m 

    afraid”.55 As may be seen, the original proposed wording was broader and would have 

    given more comfort than the wording eventually agreed upon. 

    47. Jonathan Chapman told us that there was nothing unusual in the process of negotiating 

    wording: 

    I am not sure that those outside the hallowed portals of the legal profession will 

    necessarily know this, but when you get a report or an opinion from external 

    counsel, your job is to get it as wide as possible if you are in-house, and their job is to 

    cut it back as far as possible and thus limit their liability subsequently, you might say. 

    There was a normal to-ing and fro-ing, and I would say that, as usual, Mr Abramson 

    won on that one and I lost.56 

    48. The process of negotiating wording may have been a normal one. Nonetheless, the 

    bluntness of the letter from Lawrence Abramson is pronounced and it is difficult to 

    understand why he would have baulked at saying that Harbottle & Lewis did not find 

    anything that it considered to be directly relevant to the grounds of appeal put forward by 

    Clive Goodman if that was indeed the case. The terms of reference given to Harbottle & 

    Lewis were narrowly drawn and the findings of that firm were accordingly narrow. 

    Lawrence Abramson would not commit himself to anything more general. 

    49. Indeed, the evidence is clear that not all of the e-mails examined by Harbottle & Lewis 

    were entirely straightforward. Lawrence Abramson told us that: 

    There remained somewhere in the order of a dozen e-mails that I had a query about. 

    I therefore spoke to Jon Chapman and discussed these e-mails with him. During the 

    course of that conversation, Jon Chapman explained and I accepted why those e- 

    mails fell outside the scope of what News International Limited [...] had instructed 

    Harbottle & Lewis to consider. In one specific case, Jon Chapman instructed me to 

    look at News’ server myself to put the e-mail in its context which I duly did.57 

     

    50. The matter appears to have been resolved to the satisfaction of those involved at that 

    time. It is notable that Lawrence Abramson only dismissed the e-mails that had been of 

    concern to him on the basis that they “fell outside the scope of what News International 

    Limited [...] had instructed Harbottle & Lewis to consider”. He did not assert that they 

    could or should have been dismissed on any other basis. 

    51. When the same e-mails were examined by News International’s Group General 

    Manager Will Lewis between April and June 2010 they were not dismissed.58 Indeed, Will 

    Lewis referred some of the material on to a different law firm, Hickman Rose, which in 

    turn referred the matter to the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald of 

    River Glaven.59 Lord Macdonald told the Home Affairs Committee that the file of e-mails 

    that he was handed “was evidence of serious criminal offences. I gave that advice to the 

    News Corp board, and I have to say that it accepted the advice unhesitatingly and 

    instructed that the file should be handed to the police”.60 He went on to say that “I cannot 

    imagine anyone looking at the file and not seeing evidence of crime on its face”. He also 

    explained that making his assessment had taken him very little time: “about three minutes, 

    maybe five minutes”.61  

    52. Lord Macdonald explained that, because of his role as Director of Public Prosecutions 

    at the time that the original police investigation into phone-hacking had taken place, any 

    material in the e-mails that related to phone-hacking had been withheld from him on his 

    request. The evidence that he referred to the police thus related to criminal matters other 

    than phone-hacking.62 The e-mails now form part of Operation Elveden. For this reason, 

    and given the police investigation in which a number of arrests have now been made, we 

    have neither had, nor sought access to, the relevant e-mails and are not aware of their 

    contents. 

    53. Nobody has taken responsibility for the fact that e-mails included in—and disregarded 

    by—the two reviews by Daniel Cloke and Jonathan Chapman and by Harbottle & Lewis 

    have subsequently merited referral to the police. Daniel Cloke suggested that, had there 

    been evidence in the e-mail cache of any wrongdoing that lay outside the scope of the 

    employment dispute, it was for Harbottle & Lewis to have acted: “I would have hoped that 

    if an independent third party had thought that there was definite evidence of criminal 

    activity, that that lawyer would have told us. And that lawyer did not tell us that”.63 It is 

    possible that this is not the whole truth: Lawrence Abramson told us that he did indeed 

    query some of the e-mails within the sample, but that he was offered reassurance by Daniel 

    Cloke and Jonathan Chapman.  

    54. Rupert and James Murdoch placed similar emphasis on the importance of the role 

    played by Harbottle & Lewis. Rupert Murdoch claimed that the firm had been engaged “to 

    find out what the hell was going on”.64 James Murdoch claimed that the letter from 

    Harbottle & Lewis “is a key bit of outside legal advice from senior counsel that was 

    provided to the company, and the company rested on it”.65 Indeed, he claims that the 

    Harbottle & Lewis letter “was one of the pillars of the environment around the place that 

    led the company to believe that all of these things were a matter of the past and that new 

    allegations could be denied”.66 

    55. The letter sent by Harbottle & Lewis to News International at the conclusion of the 

    review is, however, tightly worded and does not suggest the granting of a clean bill of 

    health. It does not draw any conclusions about the existence, or otherwise, of evidence of 

    any form of criminal activity other than phone-hacking. Daniel Cloke was quick to note 

    that the review was never intended to range more widely than the parameters set by Clive 

    Goodman’s letter: “if there had been a more wide-ranging inquiry [...] frankly, I would not 

    have been involved in it, because I do not have those investigative skills”.67 Jonathan 

    Chapman told us that “I think that Mr Murdoch did not have his facts right when he 

    [blamed Harbottle & Lewis...]. I do not think he had been briefed properly”.68 Harbottle & 

    Lewis, indeed, defended itself vigorously against claims that it should have taken action as a 

    result of its review, stating that “there was absolutely no question of the Firm being asked 

    to provide News International with a clean bill of health which it could deploy years later in 

    wholly different contexts for wholly different purposes”.69 Taken literally, this is correct: 

    Harbottle & Lewis was asked to investigate a specific matter and drew its conclusions 

    accordingly.  

    56. Rupert Murdoch suggested that Jonathan Chapman had been negligent in failing to act 

    on the basis of the information uncovered during the e-mail review. He told us that “Mr 

    Chapman, who was in charge of this, has left us. He had that [e-mail cache] for a number 

    of years. It wasn’t until Mr Lewis looked at it carefully that we immediately said, ‘We must 

    get legal advice, see how we go to the police with this and how we should present it’”.70 In 

    response to this Jonathan Chapman told us that “we came to the conclusion, having carried 

    out that exercise carefully and taken quite a long time on it, that there was nothing there 

    that indicated reasonable evidence of the matters that we were looking for, which was 

    knowledge of, or complicity, in voicemail interception”.71 He then went on to say: 

    In terms of other illegal activities, I am well aware that Lord Macdonald mentioned 

    stuff to the Home Affairs Select Committee in July. What I can say on that is that I 

    have no recollection of specific e-mails at the time that would have led me to that 

    conclusion, but I am at a disadvantage, of course, because he has seen those e-mails 

    and I haven’t seen anything subsequently. If I were to look at those again, I could give 

    my reaction, but I cannot recollect specific e-mails that led me to that conclusion.72 

    When questioned further, Jonathan Chapman reiterated that “to my recollection, as we sit 

    here today, there was nothing that gave me cause for concern or that needed to be 

    escalated”.73 

    57. The accounts given by Jonathan Chapman and Daniel Cloke explaining why they took 

    no further action in relation to the e-mails they reviewed are rendered less credible by Lord 

    Macdonald’s statement that the criminal activity that he found in the e-mails was obvious 

    to anybody. Since we are unable to view the e-mails for ourselves, we are not in a position 

    to adjudicate. We note, however, that there was sufficient doubt about the content of some 

    of the e-mails examined for Lawrence Abramson to need reassurance on them from 

    Jonathan Chapman. In this context, we are astonished that neither Jonathan Chapman nor 

    Daniel Cloke appear to have referred those e-mails anywhere else. We were particularly 

    surprised that their certainty about these e-mails was such that they did not consult anyone 

    with expertise in the criminal law to set their minds at rest. When we asked them about 

    this, Daniel Cloke did not directly answer the question, even though it was put to him three 

    times. Instead, he replied that the steps that the pair had taken “gave me comfort as an HR 

    director that we had covered all the bases and done the proper thing in terms of 

    investigating these claims, bearing in mind that this was an employment dispute”.74 In 

    other words, Jonathan Chapman and Daniel Cloke were not willing to consider any 

    matters that came to their attention that were not directly related to Clive Goodman’s 

    employment claim. 

     

    58. Our exchanges on the subject of the Harbottle & Lewis investigation provide an 

    instructive insight into the approach taken by executives at News International to 

    providing evidence to the Committee. On the one hand, senior executives have been quick 

    to point out that they had no involvement. When asked about the Clive Goodman 

    settlement, for example, James Murdoch stated that “first, I do not have first-hand 

    knowledge of those times. Remember that my involvement in these matters started in 

    2008. In 2007, up until December, I was wholly focused in my role as chief executive of a 

    public company. I was not involved in those things”.75 Similarly, in written evidence about 

    the Clive Goodman settlement, Rebekah Brooks did not herself personally endorse the 

    account that she was giving to the Committee but instead explicitly inserted text drafted by 

    Jonathan Chapman into her letter.76 

     

    59. Thus senior executives have both denied responsibility for the conduct of the e-mail 

    reviews, but on the other hand have been quick to rely on them when it has suited them to 

    do so. As Jonathan Chapman told us: 

    I do not think any of them would have direct knowledge of it, because Rebekah 

    Brooks was an editor at the time, Mr James Murdoch was out of the country doing 

    other things and Mr Rupert Murdoch was in the States, so to the extent only that Mr 

    Hinton told him what was going on; there would be no real knowledge of that 

    process. That is why I found it strange that they were very definitive about what had 

    happened, and what its [the Harbottle & Lewis review] parameters were and so on.77  

     

    60. News International repeatedly made misleading and exaggerated claims regarding 

    the ‘investigations’ it had purportedly commissioned following the arrests of Clive 

    Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire. As with the Harbottle & Lewis review, this conclusion 

    applies similarly to the earlier engagement of solicitors Burton Copeland in August, 

    2006. On 30 August 2011, Burton Copeland wrote to the Committee, clarifying that 

    their role was to respond to requests for information from the Metropolitan Police. 

    ‘BCL was not instructed to carry out an investigation into ‘phone hacking’ at the News 

    of the World,’’ the firm wrote.78 Prior to that, on 22 July 2011, Linklaters—the solicitors 

    acting for News Corporation’s Management and Standards Committee—also wrote to 

    disown evidence given by Colin Myler and Tom Crone in 2009 that Burton Copeland 

    undertook an investigation into wrongdoing at the paper.79 Throughout this affair, 

    senior News of the World and News International executives have tried to have it both 

    ways. They have been quick to point to ‘investigations’ which supposedly cleared the 

    newspaper of wider wrongdoing, but have also distanced themselves from the detail 

    when it suited them.  

    61. The account we have heard of News International’s internal e-mail review and the 

    second review, conducted by Harbottle & Lewis, is unedifying. It is clear that the e- 

    mails examined did not exonerate company employees from all suspicion of possible 

    criminal wrongdoing, possibly not even from phone-hacking. It is probable that all 

    those who reviewed the e-mails will have been aware that this was the case. Indeed, if 

    the content of the e-mails had exonerated News International employees entirely, it is 

    doubtful that Daniel Cloke and Jonathan Chapman would have seen the need to refer 

    the matter to a firm of external lawyers at all. Doing so can only be seen as an exercise 

    in self-protection. The fact that Jonathan Chapman drew up such narrow terms for the 

    Harbottle & Lewis review strongly suggests that he was deliberately turning a blind eye 

    to e-mails that he did not want to investigate further. In keeping his conclusions about 

    the e-mails strictly within the narrow scope of his investigation, Lawrence Abramson 

    was undoubtedly simply doing his job as a lawyer. Indeed, he seems to have made some 

    effort to alert News International to problems that he uncovered. If either Jonathan 

    Chapman or Daniel Cloke had raised the alarm internally, instead of sticking so rigidly 

    to the terms of the reviews, it is conceivable that criminal activity would have been 

    exposed and stopped far earlier. The fact that they were only looking for evidence that 

    supported Clive Goodman’s specific assertions is not an excuse for dismissing evidence 

    of anything else. 

     

    62. Senior executives at News International undoubtedly extolled the thoroughness of 

    the reviews rather too fervently. It was certainly expedient for them to rely upon the 

    apparently positive outcomes of the reviews in giving evidence to the Committee. 

    Senior executives were clearly aware that the reviews proved less than they were 

    claiming for them and that the assertions that they made to the Committee were the 

    result of a deliberate strategy to exaggerate evidence in support of the company’s 

    innocence.  

    The decision to settle Clive Goodman’s claim 

     

    63. In the context of the unprompted offer of a year’s salary and his criminal conviction 

    leading to dismissal for gross misconduct, Clive Goodman’s claim for unfair dismissal is 

    startling. Indeed, on 6 September 2011, Colin Myler told us several times that he had been 

    very surprised that the Company had any obligation to hear Clive Goodman’s appeal: “I 

    felt it was a pretty extraordinary sequence of events that a man who had pleaded guilty and 

    served a prison sentence then had the opportunity to appeal against his dismissal”.80 We 

    have sought to understand why News International should have settled the claim under 

    such circumstances, unless it felt that it had something to hide that it would not want to be 

    aired at a tribunal. 

     

    64. News International has repeatedly denied that the payments made to Clive Goodman 

    compromise the company in any way. Witnesses have consistently argued that the decision 

    to settle his employment claim was made for pragmatic, commercial reasons. Jonathan 

    Chapman did not think that this was surprising in a commercial context, telling us that 

    “many companies, particularly big companies, pay out on employment claims of little or 

    no merit for pragmatic reasons, because they do not want stuff to be raked up. Even if 

    allegations that are unfounded are made in the context of a tribunal, those who wish to 

    believe those allegations will believe them”.81 This is true: clearly, companies will often 

    settle employment claims before they reach tribunal to avoid embarrassing publicity and 

    the cost of litigation, which is not recovered in employment cases. Even where there has 

    been a criminal conviction, there remains the risk that procedural errors might render a 

    dismissal unfair.  

     

    65. Jonathan Chapman categorically denied that the company had anything to hide, 

    repeating the claim that the company had investigated the claims being made by Clive 

    Goodman and had found them to be baseless: “we had carried out an e-mail review and a 

    number of executives had been interviewed by Mr Cloke and Mr Myler”.82 In October, Les 

    Hinton told us that: “I decided at the time that the right thing to do was to settle this and 

    get it behind us”.83 

     

    66. When Clive Goodman was dismissed in February 2007, Les Hinton made it clear 

    that the company was not obliged to pay him anything, but was offering him a year’s 

    salary in recognition of long service and the needs of his family. The decision to settle 

    Clive Goodman’s employment claim is at variance with the terms of this letter but has, 

    nonetheless, been presented to us as a pragmatic, commercial decision. We recognise 

    the legal precedents and accept that News International was acting within accepted 

    commercial norms by settling before the case reached tribunal in order to avoid 

    litigation costs and reputational damage. Despite the legal precedents, however, we are 

    astonished that a man convicted of a criminal offence during the course of his work 

    should be successful in his attempt to seek compensation for his perfectly-proper 

    dismissal. Illegally accessing voicemails is wrong and News International should have 

    been willing to stand up in an employment tribunal and say so. 

     

    67. In the rush to “get it behind us”, News International neglected to go further than 

    the narrow confines of the due diligence exercise it had commissioned in response to 

    Clive Goodman’s employment claim. Ironically, by not taking Clive Goodman more 

    seriously, the company ensured that, far from being put behind them, the matters that 

    Clive Goodman raised in his appeal were left to fester untreated. The reputational 

    damage is by now far worse than it would have been had the company acted on Clive 

    Goodman’s warning early in 2007. 

    Amounts and authorisation 

     

    68. The amounts paid to Clive Goodman did not stop at a year’s salary. In fact, he was paid 

    a total of £243,502.08 by News International from the time of his arrest in August 2006. 

    until the conclusion of his claims. In a letter of 11 August 2011—the same date as the 

    disclosures by Harbottle & Lewis and a full two years after the Committee first sought to 

    get to the bottom of what pay-offs were made to Clive Goodman—James Murdoch told us: 

    I am informed that Mr Goodman was paid £90,502.08 in April 2007 and £153,000 

    (£13,000 of which was to pay for his legal fees) between October and December 2007. 

    The first payment was approved by Mr Daniel Cloke, Director of Human Resources 

    for News International. The second was approved by Mr Cloke and Mr Jon 

    Chapman, Director of Legal Affairs for News International. These payments were in 

    the context of an unfair dismissal claim brought by Mr Goodman.84 

     

    69. The second payment of £153,000 was broken down by Jonathan Chapman as, 

    approximately, £90,000 notice; £40,000 compensation; and £13,000 legal expenses.85 The 

    total amount of the payments made to Clive Goodman came as a surprise to the 

    Committee, which in 2009 had been left with the impression that the amount was much 

    smaller. This is important because any suggestion that the Committee was deliberately 

    given the impression that the payment totalled less than was actually paid to Mr Goodman 

    would tend to lend weight to the argument that News International had something to 

    cover up; had paid Clive Goodman to remain silent; and had concealed information about 

    the payments from the Committee and others to prevent this being known. 

     

    70. In a letter dated 4 November 2009, which was marked confidential at the time but has 

    been published with this Report, Rebekah Brooks cited Jonathan Chapman as saying:  

    Pursuant to the agreement, Mr Goodman was paid his notice and an agreed amount 

    representing a possible compensatory award at tribunal (which was some way below 

    the then £60,600 limit on such awards). It should be noted that, as a matter of policy, 

    News International companies tend always to pay notice, even in cases of summary 

    dismissal (which is not unusual).86 

     

    71. In the counter-intuitive circumstances of Clive Goodman being successful at an 

    employment tribunal, despite his conviction, any statutory compensation award would 

    have been made in addition to any contractual pay entitlement. Legal fees apart, therefore, 

    the £153,000 pay-off made to Clive Goodman in the autumn of 2007 is, strictly speaking, 

    not at variance with the careful wording in Rebekah Brooks’ 2009 letter to the 

    Committee.87 That letter failed, however, to make explicit the terms of the payment, in 

    particular the fact that “his notice” here meant a year’s salary.  

     

    72. We accept that Rebekah Brooks’ letter to the Committee of November 2009 was 

    accurate in stating that the amount of compensation paid to Clive Goodman (£40,000) 

    fell below the statutory limit of £60,600 on such awards. The answer that she and 

    Jonathan Chapman gave the Committee in that letter was, however, incomplete 

    because it did not specify the significant amount of money paid to Clive Goodman by 

    way of “notice” (£90,000), nor that he had already separately been paid £90,500 when he 

    was first notified about his dismissal. Such incompleteness is either the result of an 

    attempt to play down the settlement, or of ignorance about the full extent of the 

    payments or both. None of these scenarios casts Rebekah Brooks and Jonathan 

    Chapman in a positive light: either they should have been more frank or else they 

    should have been better informed. 

     

    73. The discretionary payment of a year’s salary, £90,500, made in early 2007, was not 

    accounted for in the November 2009 letter. We have sought to ascertain whether this 

    amount was deliberately concealed, or was simply not known about within the company. 

    James Murdoch’s written evidence asserts that Daniel Cloke authorised the first payment 

    of £90,502.08, made in February 2007. Daniel Cloke’s oral evidence on 6 September 2011 

    contradicted this: “in terms of the first £90,000, I was not even aware that that had been 

    paid, because the letter was—I think—in February, and I did not know of any of this until 

    the appeal process came”.88 It is clear that the payment was made at Les Hinton’s 

    suggestion. In oral evidence Jonathan Chapman stated that: “Mr Hinton asked me to help 

    him with that letter [of 5 February 2007]. He indicated that he was going to pay 12 months’ 

    salary, and he said that he wanted to do it on compassionate grounds because of Mr 

    Goodman’s family situation”.89 He emphasised Les Hinton’s responsibility for the decision 

    to make the payment in the answers to several subsequent questions, for example: “It was 

    not me agreeing to that, it was not me having a say on that finally. It was Mr Hinton”.90 Les 

    Hinton agreed: “I made that decision myself”.91 

     

    74. We did not find any evidence to disprove the account that the only people involved in 

    the decision-making chain that led to the payment of £90,502.08 to Clive Goodman in 

    February 2007, as part of his dismissal terms, were Les Hinton, who suggested the 

    payment; Jonathan Chapman, who assisted in the drafting of the letter to Clive Goodman; 

    and Daniel Cloke, who authorised the payment when it was made. The evidence suggests 

    that Les Hinton also authorised the £153,000 settlement to Clive Goodman, paid out 

    between October and December 2007. In 2009, he himself stated that “putting aside 

    signatures, I would take responsibility for a payment such as that”.92 In written evidence 

    Daniel Cloke described the authorisation process for the payment: 

    As is usual in contentious employment cases, Mr Chapman as Director of Legal 

    Affairs to the Company assessed the matter to make a recommendation as to 

    whether to settle or try to defend the case. [...] Mr Chapman made the 

    recommendation (with which I agreed) to try to settle the case on reasonable 

    grounds which after negotiation with Mr Goodman’s lawyers was approved by Les 

    Hinton.93 

     

    75. This account is supported by the November 2009 letter from Rebekah Brooks to the 

    Committee, which states that “Les Hinton [...] authorised the settlement with, and payment 

    to, Clive Goodman, following discussions with Jon Chapman and Daniel Cloke”.94 Thus it 

    is clear that Les Hinton authorised both of the payments made to Clive Goodman, and so 

    will have been aware that they totalled around £1/4 million.  

     

    76. When Les Hinton gave evidence to the Committee, for the second time, on 15 

    September 2009, he made it clear he was under instructions from News International not 

    to discuss the settlement with Clive Goodman (and with Glenn Mulcaire, to which we turn 

    later in this chapter), on the grounds that they were confidential.95 Nonetheless, he 

    certainly played down his role in relation to them: “I ended up being advised that we 

    should settle with [Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire] and I authorised those 

    settlements”; and again: “the employment law was complicated and I was told that we 

    should settle and I agreed to do it”.96 It is clear that both Jonathan Chapman and Daniel 

    Cloke had a role in the process by which the amounts were arrived at, although Jonathan 

    Chapman has sought to distance himself from the earlier payment, made in April 2007: 

    “The £90,000, I have to leave to Daniel or Mr Hinton to explain, because that was outside 

    my brief and I don’t really have any recollection of how that fitted into it. It is not part of 

    the settlement—the £90,000”.97 He later described that first payment as “gratuitous”.98 This 

    is not the description that he would have given had the payments been made on the basis 

    of his advice. Jonathan Chapman’s evidence suggests that Les Hinton’s role was far more 

    directive than he had led us to believe in 2009.     

     

    77. As well as downplaying his role, in evidence in 2009, Les Hinton also appeared to lose 

    much of his memory, certainly as far as Clive Goodman was concerned: 

    Well there were employment-related payments made to them. Even though I have 

    been told not to relay the information, I do not remember it except that in the case of 

    Glenn Mulcaire it had reached some point of employment tribunal proceedings but I 

    ended up being advised that we should settle with them and I authorised those 

    settlements.99  

     

    78. Whilst citing the involvement of Daniel Cloke and Jonathan Chapman in the process, 

    when pressed as to who precisely had given him the advice to settle with Clive Goodman 

    on employment grounds, Les Hinton went on to say: 

    You know what, there were several senior people, and I cannot remember. Nor can I 

    remember the particular legal people. There were people who gave me the advice and 

    I cannot remember who they were.100  

     

    79. On 24 October 2011, on his third appearance following the disclosures of the Clive 

    Goodman payments and correspondence, Les Hinton’s memory was—in some respects, at 

    least—distinctly sharper: 

    Chair: you decided that he should receive one year’s salary payment of £90,000, and 

    you authorized that payment.  

    Les Hinton: I did. 101 

    Chair: So you paid him in essence, two years’ notice, or one year’s notice twice over?                  

    Les Hinton: We paid him a year’s salary, and we paid him the £90,000 of notice in 

    relation to his appeal, yes.102 

     

    80. Asked to explain the double payment, however, Les Hinton’s memory again began to 

    fail him: ‘I can’t recall exactly what the process was of those payments, Chairman, but what 

    I can say is that, in my mind and, I think, in others’ minds, the matter of my having given 

    Clive Goodman a year’s salary and the subsequent appeal were treated separately”.103 He 

    did not specify who the ‘others’ allegedly were.             

     

    81. Tom Crone was also certainly aware that payments had been made to Clive Goodman, 

    though not necessarily the full amount. This is clear from the evidence he gave on 21 July 

    2009. Under persistent questioning, he first categorically denied knowledge of any 

    payment, then cited misunderstanding and ‘confusion’ about the question, before finally 

    admitting the newspaper group ‘may have’ made a payment.104 While Tom Crone was 

    evasive, and plainly reluctant to make the admission, from the same evidence session it 

    seemed clear to us that Colin Myler did not know, even though he was aware that Clive 

    Goodman had lodged an appeal against dismissal. Repeatedly Colin Myler said he was not 

    aware105 and Tom Crone’s eventual admission appeared to Committee members to come 

    as a complete surprise to the News of the World’s editor: 

    Paul Farrelly: Would you clarify that [payments to Clive Goodman] to us? 

    Mr Crone: I am not absolutely certain, but I have a feeling there may have been a 

    payment of some sort. 

    Mr Myler [turning to Mr Crone]: With? 

    Mr Crone: Clive Goodman. 

    Mr Myler: I would have to check.106   

     

    82. In subsequent written evidence, nonetheless, Colin Myler backtracked as to his lack of 

    knowledge. In a letter dated 4 August 2009,107 he wrote: ‘I and Tom Crone were broadly 

    aware of the claims and the fact that they were settled, but not of the terms of the 

    settlement.’ This was clearly an attempt to salvage something of the united front which had 

    cracked in oral evidence—and typifies the initial, closing ranks approach of the News of the 

    World and News International in dealing with questions about phone-hacking affair and 

    its aftermath.  

     

    83. It is not clear the extent to which either of the Murdochs were made aware of either of 

    the payments to Clive Goodman. When asked whether Les Hinton had referred the matter 

    to either of the Murdochs, Daniel Cloke answered, “Not to my knowledge, no, I am not 

    aware of the conversations that Les Hinton might have had with those two gentlemen”.108 

    In 2009, Les Hinton was asked what Rupert Murdoch thought about the “Clive Goodman 

    case” and answered that “he was very concerned about it”.109 He did not, however, state 

    whether Rupert Murdoch had been made specifically aware of the financial settlement 

    arising from the case. The oral evidence given by Rupert and James Murdoch on 19 July 

    2011 would tend to suggest that they had not been—Rupert Murdoch because he has no 

    involvement in his companies at that level and James Murdoch because it predated his 

    arrival at News International.110 James Murdoch, for example, told us in a variety of 

    different ways that “I do not have any direct knowledge of the specific legal arrangements 

    with Mr Goodman in 2007, so I cannot answer the specifics of that question”.111

     

    84. The total amount paid to Clive Goodman is extraordinary when one considers that 

    he had been convicted of a criminal offence and that his actions had helped stain the 

    reputation of the company. The double payment of a year’s salary was, by any 

    standards, ‘over-generous’ and it is impossible, therefore, not to question the 

    company’s motives. The pay-offs to a convicted criminal hardly reflect well on Les 

    Hinton, who had authority over both payments. When questioned about them in 2009 

    he was startlingly vague and—inexcusably—sought to portray his role as a passive one, 

    simply following the advice given to him by his subordinates. The evidence we took in 

    2011 suggests that he not only authorised the payments, but took the decision to make 

    them in the first place. Furthermore, he was responsible for the double payment of 

    Clive Goodman’s notice and, his ‘selective amnesia’ notwithstanding, he would have 

    been perfectly well aware of what he had done. We consider, therefore, that Les Hinton 

    misled the Committee in 2009 regarding the extent of the pay-off to Clive Goodman 

    and his own role in making it happen. 

    85. The testimony regarding the payments to Clive Goodman is not the only evidence 

    from Les Hinton which we find unsatisfactory. He first appeared before the Committee 

    on 6 March 2007, precisely four days after Clive Goodman’s letter alleging widespread 

    involvement in phone hacking, which was copied to him.112 Whether or not Les Hinton 

    had seen this letter before his appearance in 2007, he certainly had by the time he did so 

    on 15 September 2009 when he said: ‘There was never firm evidence provided or 

    suspicion provided that I am aware of that implicated anybody else other than Clive 

    within the staff of the News of the World. It just did not happen’.113 This was not true. 

    Clive Goodman had certainly provided ‘suspicion’ of wider involvement, but Les 

    Hinton failed to mention it to the Committee.114 At no stage did Les Hinton seek to 

    correct the record, even when invited by the Committee to do so. We consider, 

    therefore, that Les Hinton was complicit in the cover-up at News International, which 

    included making misleading statements and giving a misleading picture to this 

    Committee. 

    86. When the predecessor Committee published its Report on Press standards, privacy 

    and libel in 2010, it did not know the amount of News International’s settlement with 

    Clive Goodman but was left with the “strong impression that silence has been 

    bought”.115 We have subsequently learnt that News International paid Clive Goodman 

    a total of £243,502.08 from the time of his arrest in August 2006. The size of the pay-off 

    serves to confirm our view that it was used to buy Clive Goodman’s silence. 

    87. It was only on 11 August 2011, in the letter to us from James Murdoch,116 that News 

    International finally came clean about the extent of the pay-offs to Clive Goodman. Up 

    until then, the evidence given by News International executives had been vague and at 

    times incomplete, often for the stated reason that the person being asked was not the 

    person ultimately responsible. In the case of the vague answers given by the Murdochs

     

    on 19 July 2011, we would have thought that they could have anticipated the line of 

    questioning simply by reading the transcripts from the Committee’s evidence sessions 

    in 2009. It is not a sufficient excuse that Les Hinton authorised the payments and has 

    since left for the United States. Personnel changes are commonplace and we would be 

    very surprised if News International did not keep records of its financial decisions.                        

    Legal fees 

    88. Approximately £13,000 of the £153,000 settlement with Clive Goodman comprised a 

    payment to cover his legal fees. In 2009, Les Hinton told us that this was not unusual: 

    “when employees get into difficulty it is not unusual for them to be indemnified by the 

    company that employs them and for their legal fees to be paid”.117 This is true: an employer 

    has to indemnify his employee against claims made against him for acts done by him in the 

    course of the employment. By extension, it could be said that there is a duty on the 

    employer to stand behind the employee and assist him in his defence in such 

    circumstances. It is unusual for an employer to pay the legal fees of an employee facing a 

    criminal charge, but this is because most criminal charges apply to acts committed outside 

    the scope of an employment. In Clive Goodman’s case, however, the criminal act involved 

    him carrying out his job in an illegal manner. In that case, it would not necessarily have 

    been improper or particularly surprising for News International to have paid his legal fees, 

    and—however distasteful it may seem in retrospect—it certainly does not imply complicity 

    by itself in the criminal act of phone-hacking.  

    89. The settlement with Clive Goodman, including the element to cover his legal fees, was 

    authorised by Les Hinton in 2007.118 However, when asked in 2009 whether or not News 

    International had paid Clive Goodman’s legal fees, Les Hinton answered “I absolutely do 

    not know. I do not know whether we did or not”.119 When he was asked if he knew who 

    would have authorised such a payment he answered: “I would guess the Director of 

    Human Resources but I do not know”.120 When questioned in 2011 about the discrepancy 

    between his 2009 answer and the fact that he authorised the payment of the fees, he said: “if 

    I had been sure at the time, I would have told you”.121 

    90. When asked about who would have authorised the payment of Clive Goodman’s legal 

    fees, Tom Crone answered that “Les Hinton was the chief executive at the time. I would 

    imagine that he would have authorised it”.122 When pressed, he said that “I’ve answered. 

    Les Hinton. It’s possible that Andy Coulson could have done it, as the editor at the time”, 

    and later “I am certain that Andy Coulson knew that and I am fairly sure that Les Hinton 

    knew, but I can’t be absolutely certain”.123 We have been unable to ask Andy Coulson for 

    his account of the payments made to Clive Goodman, so as not to impede ongoing police 

    proceedings and can, therefore, draw no conclusion about his involvement. 

    91. We accept that, however distasteful it may seem, there was nothing inherently 

    sinister about News International paying Clive Goodman’s legal fees in respect of the 

    criminal charges he faced. Now that we are certain that he authorised the payment, 

    however, we are distinctly unimpressed by Les Hinton’s 2009 assertion that he did not 

    know whether or not the company had paid those fees. Declarations of ignorance or 

    amnesia do not assist News International in its bid to convince the Committee, and the 

    wider public, that it had nothing to hide. If it was legitimate to have paid Clive 

    Goodman’s legal fees, the company would have been better advised to admit to having 

    done so. Again, we consider that Les Hinton’s unwillingness to be explicit over the 

    payment of legal fees was a deliberate effort to mislead the Committee over News 

    International’s payments to Clive Goodman after he was charged and convicted. 

    Clive Goodman’s prospects for re-employment 

    92. Far from expecting to be dismissed, his appeal against his dismissal suggests that Clive 

    Goodman may have hoped to have been given a job by News International once he had 

    served his sentence, as “a sub-editor, a book filleter or in such a capacity”.124 In oral 

    evidence on 6 September 2011, Tom Crone stated that, between Clive Goodman’s arrest 

    and his conviction, Clive Goodman: 

    was quite pessimistic, depressed and worried about his family for obvious reasons 

    and his future. Now, I was able to say to him, ‘Andy Coulson is hoping that he can 

    find a way that you can come back to the company. It is not absolutely certain that 

    you are going to lose your job over this [...] Once you have served whatever 

    sentence—if there is a sentence—is going to be imposed upon you.’125 

     

    93. Tom Crone was not sure whether Andy Coulson had raised the matter with Les 

    Hinton, though he remembered Andy Coulson saying that “I’m hoping I’ll be able to 

    persuade Les”.126 He also said that, when he had been shown a draft of the letter sent by Les 

    Hinton to Clive Goodman on 5 February 2007, in which Clive Goodman was summarily 

    dismissed, in the light of his earlier conversations with him, “I was very annoyed”.127 

     

    94. When we asked Les Hinton about whether he had considered giving Clive Goodman 

    his job back after his conviction, he said: “No. I dismissed him for gross misconduct, so of 

    course not”.128 Once again, we have been unable to ask Andy Coulson about the veracity of 

    Tom Crone’s account because of ongoing police proceedings. 

     

    95. Tom Crone’s account provides an intriguing insight into the culture at the News of the 

    World. Evidence given to the Committee points to a culture of mutual protection within 

    the newsroom at the News of the World. Jonathan Chapman told us that: 

    I have noted that on the editorial side at News International, there has certainly 

    always been more of a feeling of family compassion and humanitarian stuff, which, 

    as a person on the commercial side at News International, I am not sure that I would 

    enjoy. I do not think that there is anything sinister in that; I just think there is quite a 

    big feeling of family on newspapers. When someone messes up badly and commits a 

    crime, I think there was also a feeling that, yes, they have done a terrible wrong, but 

    their family should not suffer. I am not sure that applies through the business to the 

    rather newer commercial side at News International.129 

    Confidentiality 

     

    6. Clive Goodman’s financial settlement contained a confidentiality clause. We were 

    interested to find out whether the confidentiality requirement had any impact on the size 

    of the payment. When we asked Jonathan Chapman about this, he told us that: 

    After some discussion with Mr Goodman’s lawyers, a proposed settlement was 

    reached which was approved by Les Hinton and Daniel Cloke, our Director of 

    Human Resources. This was then embodied in a compromise agreement. This is a 

    type of settlement agreement required to be used in employment cases and which 

    complies with the specific requirements of section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 

    1996. In this case, we used a standard-form News International compromise 

    agreement and only minor changes were made to it. In particular, there was nothing 

    tailored specifically to Mr Goodman’s possible future activities.130 

    97. Les Hinton believed that the decision to include a compromise agreement in the 

    settlement had been “mutual”.131 As set out above, one of the considerations in making the 

    settlement without going to tribunal was the desire to avoid allegations made by Clive 

    Goodman being aired in the public domain. This rationale is not unusual in a commercial 

    context and could apply whether or not News International believed the allegations in 

    question to be true. Thus it could be argued that confidentiality was inherently a factor in 

    the settlement. How significant other factors may have been is unclear. The statutory cap 

    on awards by an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal, for example, does not apply 

    where the claim is based on discrimination or the making of a protected disclosure, 

    otherwise known as “whistleblowing”. We have received no evidence, however, that Clive 

    Goodman was claiming whistleblower status.  

     

    98. Regarding the principal reason for confidentiality in the Goodman settlement—making 

    sure his allegations were not aired in public—in 2009 Les Hinton continued to maintain 

    News International’s standard line, telling us: “I cannot actually see what silence there was 

    left because these chaps had been through months of police interrogation, months of 

    investigation, they were taken before the court and I do not know what silence there was. 

    There was a court hearing, there was a rigorous police enquiry; I am not sure what silence 

    you are talking about.”132 In fact, Les Hinton had no basis on which to say this. There was 

    no public cross-examination in court, nor any thorough investigation by the company into 

    wrongdoing. By settling with Clive Goodman, with a confidentiality clause included, News 

    International had ensured that its public stance would not be openly contradicted. 

    The settlement with Glenn Mulcaire 

     

    99. Neither Clive Goodman nor Glenn Mulcaire has co-operated with this Committee, nor 

    has News International provided us with copies of the settlement or compromise 

    agreements, including the clauses relating to confidentiality. Clive Goodman told us that he 

    wanted to put the affair behind him and, through an intermediary, we understood that 

    Glenn Mulcaire was concerned that saying anything to the Committee might prejudice an 

    indemnity he had been given by the newspaper group, which protected him from civil 

    action by phone hacking victims. The existence of an indemnity was alluded to in 

    questioning of Les Hinton in 2009, but he refused to confirm or discuss it.133 In evidence, 

    Les Hinton, Tom Crone and Colin Myler were open, however, in confirming that a 

    settlement had been reached with Glenn Mulcaire after he, too, had threatened to take the 

    organisation to an employment tribunal. They did not, however, reveal details.  

    100. When they appeared before us on 19 July 2011, Rupert and James Murdoch were 

    asked about the indemnity to Glenn Mulcaire and alleged payment of his legal fees. During 

    questioning, James Murdoch publicly confirmed—for the first time—payment of Glenn 

    Mulcaire’s legal fees, and Rupert Murdoch said he would put a stop to the arrangement “if 

    it is not in breach of a legal contract”.134 A halt was, in any event, called immediately after 

    their appearance at the Committee, following which Glenn Mulcaire sued News Group 

    Newspapers for breach of contract. Thanks to this questioning, Rupert Murdoch’s follow- 

    up action and Glenn Mulcaire’s lawsuit, we do now have details of the settlements the 

    group reached with the private investigator, including the agreements regarding 

    confidentiality. These are contained in a judgment delivered in the High Court on 21 

    December 2011,135 which upheld Glenn Mulcaire’s case and ordered the company to 

    adhere to the terms of the indemnity. The judgment discloses that Glenn Mulcaire was 

    given an indemnity on 28 January 2010 in a letter from Farrer & Co in respect of the costs 

    of opposing a court order to name those who had instructed him to target and hack into 

    the phone of Max Clifford. 

     

    101. Following further civil claims in 2010 by the interior designer Kelly Hoppen, by Skylet 

    Andrew and by Nicola Philips, then a colleague of Max Clifford’s, Glenn Mulcaire sought 

    confirmation that NGN would meet the costs of defending these claims, too. The 

    indemnity was duly given by Julian Pike of Farrer & Co in a letter dated 29 June 2010. It 

    was the second indemnity given by NGN to Glenn Mulcaire; the first was in relation to the 

    civil claim by Gordon Taylor in 2007, the judgment says. Under its terms, NGN agreed to 

    meet Glenn Mulcaire’s legal costs and any damages awarded against him, provided that he 

    kept NGN fully informed and did not publicly reveal the indemnity’s existence, especially 

    to claimants and their lawyers. The judgment discloses that in 2007 Glenn Mulcaire “was 

    paid £80,000 in full and final satisfaction of all his claims”—one third, as we now know, of 

    the total payments to Clive Goodman. As part of the settlement, the judgement states: “He 

    undertook not to disclose the terms of that settlement nor thereafter to make any statement 

    or comment which might injure, damage or impugn the good name, character or 

    reputation of NGN.” 

     

    102. By this time, Glenn Mulcaire knew the amount NGN was paying to settle the civil 

    claims, and clearly felt aggrieved. On 2 July 2010, his lawyer Sarah Webb, presently a 

    partner at solicitors Payne Hicks Beach, asked for a further £750,000 for Glenn Mulcaire 

    for further co-operation in all the civil litigation. “Mr Mulcaire considered,” the judgment 

    states, “that he had ‘carried the can’ for all those involved in telephone tapping at NGN. By 

    at least 2010 he felt he had been badly treated by NGN when compared with others also 

    involved in telephone tapping at NGN; as subsequently became apparent, some were paid 

    substantially more, others retained their positions in NGN.” As part of the negotiations 

    over the indemnity, Sarah Webb recorded in her attendance notes a conversation on 28 

    June 2010 with Julian Pike of Farrers: “Whilst he acknowledges the indemnity that they 

    have offered, I think he actually feels that News Group should be paying him more in effect 

    for his silence.” In the event, the indemnity was extended to cover the further cases and, 

    following this, on 1 September 2010, Tom Crone finally responded to the additional 

    £750,000 demand, refusing to pay the money.  

    103. Tom Crone was, according to the judgment, particularly sensitive about there being 

    any publicity at all about the arrangement: “His concern that any payment made to Mr 

    Mulcaire should not become public knowledge was not related just to the conduct of 

    NGN’s defence to claims made or anticipated”, as Sarah Webb’s evidence recorded. A 

    dispute then took place with NGN over whether Glenn Mulcaire should provide a defence 

    and information demanded in the Skylet Andrew claim. “NGN considered that it would be 

    easier to settle that claim if the information had not been provided and Mr Mulcaire did 

    not serve a defence,” the judgment stated. “On 9 September Mr Pike indicated in an email 

    to Ms Webb that service of a defence would bring into play conditions 2 and 4 of the 

    Indemnity Letter.” 

     

    104. In the event, Glenn Mulcaire served a defence in this case—but refused to supply the 

    additional information sought by the claimant—but subsequently, as the judgment states, 

    he co-operated with NGN after it extended the indemnity to all the 38 civil cases which had 

    started by 28 July 2011, including appealing a High Court ruling that he reveal who 

    instructed him over phone-hacking. The significance of 28 July 2011 is that it was the date 

    on which Farrer & Co wrote to Glenn Mulcaire confirming—following the Murdochs’ 

    appearance at the Committee—that NGN would no longer pay his legal fees. Glenn 

    Mulcaire’s legal action started on 17 August 2011. By that time, the judgment records, the 

    newspaper group had paid a total of £269,305.70 in respect of Glenn Mulcaire’s legal costs 

    in the civil claims, with a further £95,531.24 having been billed but not paid—making a 

    total of some £365,000. 

     

    105. The arrangements with Glenn Mulcaire following his conviction were every bit as 

    distasteful as those with Clive Goodman, if the newspaper had nothing to hide. The 

    settlement, though, is hardly surprising given News International’s over-riding desire 

    to avoid the bad publicity which an employment tribunal would bring. 

     

    106. The facts revealed in the High Court judgment in Glenn Mulcaire’s favour in 

    December 2011 are instructive as to the lengths to which News International has gone 

     

    104. In the event, Glenn Mulcaire served a defence in this case—but refused to supply the 

    additional information sought by the claimant—but subsequently, as the judgment states, 

    he co-operated with NGN after it extended the indemnity to all the 38 civil cases which had 

    started by 28 July 2011, including appealing a High Court ruling that he reveal who 

    instructed him over phone-hacking. The significance of 28 July 2011 is that it was the date 

    on which Farrer & Co wrote to Glenn Mulcaire confirming—following the Murdochs’ 

    appearance at the Committee—that NGN would no longer pay his legal fees. Glenn 

    Mulcaire’s legal action started on 17 August 2011. By that time, the judgment records, the 

    newspaper group had paid a total of £269,305.70 in respect of Glenn Mulcaire’s legal costs 

    in the civil claims, with a further £95,531.24 having been billed but not paid—making a 

    total of some £365,000. 

     

    105. The arrangements with Glenn Mulcaire following his conviction were every bit as 

    distasteful as those with Clive Goodman, if the newspaper had nothing to hide. The 

    settlement, though, is hardly surprising given News International’s over-riding desire 

    to avoid the bad publicity which an employment tribunal would bring. 

     

    106. The facts revealed in the High Court judgment in Glenn Mulcaire’s favour in 

    December 2011 are instructive as to the lengths to which News International has gone 

    to maintain confidentiality. The indemnity given to Glenn Mulcaire, paying any costs 

    and damages from the civil phone hacking claims, was not only conditional on its 

    existence not being revealed; it could also, the company’s lawyers sought to maintain, 

    prevent Glenn Mulcaire serving his own defence in those cases. The company’s 

    determination to cover up the extent of the phone hacking scandal is also further 

    demonstrated by its willingness to meet the costs of Glenn Mulcaire’s successive appeals 

    against court rulings to reveal who instructed him to hack the phones of the various 

    targets. 

    107. Following a recent Court of Appeal decision to uphold the High Court’s rulings, 

    Glenn Mulcaire is currently taking the matter to the Supreme Court—all at News 

    International’s expense. We look forward to the final judgment and any further light 

    that any evidence, finally, from Glenn Mulcaire sheds on this damaging affair. So far, 

    with the complicity and financial support of News International, he has kept silent.  

     

     

     

    27 Documents.nytimes.com/response-from-news-of-the-world 

    28 Q 1477 

    29 Q 1483 

    30 Ibid. 

    31 Q 373 

    32 Q 1480 

    33 Q 1657 

    34 Ev 271 

    35 Ev 216, Ev 240 and Ev 247 

    36 Ev 274 

    38 Ev 202 

    39 Ev 254 

    40 Ev 202 

    41 Ev 202 

    42 Ev 223 Colin Myler also indicated at one stage that he may have carried out the review (see Press Standards, Privacy 

    and Libel, Vol II, Ev 311), but there is no other evidence to support this. It seems that he probably conducted the 

    interviews but not the paper review. 

    43 Q 656 

    44 Ev 223 

    45 Qq 607 and 620 

    46 Ev 223 

    47 Ev 223 

    48 Q 611 

    49 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Ev 385 

    50 Ev 223 

    51 Ev 202 

    52 Ev 202 

    53 Q 638 

    54 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Ev 467 

    55 Ev 172 

    56 Q 630 

    57 Ev 227 

    58 Q 329 

    59 Home Affairs Committee, Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications, Thirteenth Report of 

    Session 2010-12, HC 907, Q 1003 (hereafter ‘Home Affairs Committee’) 

    60 Home Affairs Committee, Q 1010 

    61 Home Affairs Committee, Qq 1016 and 1059 

    62 Home Affairs Committee, Q 1020 

    63 Q 645 

    64 Q 366 

    65 Q 346 

    66 Ibid. 

    67 Q 640 

    68 Q 728 

    69 Ev 202 (para 8 but see paras 6-13 in their entirety for further detail) 

    70 Q 365 

    71 Q 594 

    72 Q 595 

    73 Q 599 

    74 Q 640. See also Qq 637-639 

    75 Q 288 

    76 Ev 231 

    77 Q 710 

    78 Ev 228 

    79 Ev 228 

    80 Q 1023 

    81 Q 669 

    82 Q 671 

    83 Q 1327 

    84 Ev 172. Subsequent evidence from Linklaters (Ev 254) to the Committee points out that the payment of £90,502.08 

    was made to Clive Goodman on 8 February 2007 but only passed through the payroll in April 2007. 

    85 Q 671 

    86 Ev 231. The statutory cap on compensatory awards by an Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal stood at £60,600 

    in 2007, and has increased after annual review to £63,000 in 2008, £66,200 in 2009, £65,300 in 2010 and £68,400 in 

    2011. 

    87 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Ev 464 

    88 Q 687 

    89 Q 662 

    90 Q 676 

    91 Q 1323 

    92 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Ev 393 

    93 Ev 223. See also Daniel Cloke’s answer to Q 689 

    94 Ev 231 

    95 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Q 2126 

    96 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Qq 2126 and 2127. Ev 387 

    97 Q 670 

    98 Q 674 

    99 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Q 2126 

    100 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Q 2206 

    101 Q 1322 

    102 Q 1331 

    103 Q 1324 

    104 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Qq 1416, 1531, 1532 and 1534-36 

    105 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Qq 1416, 1531 and 1533 

    106 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Q 1537 

    107 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Ev 321 

    108 Q 600 

    109 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Ev 390 

    110 Qq 289-301 

    111 Q 291 

    112 Culture Media and Sport Committee, Self regulation of the press, Seventh Report of session 2006-07, HC 375, Ev 32 

    113 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Q 2168 

    114 Q 1341 

    115 Press standards, privacy and libel, para 449 

    116 Ev 172 

    117 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Ev 386 

    118 Ev 231 

    119 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Ev 386 

    120 Ibid. 

    121 Q 1384 

    122 Q 941 

    123 Qq 944 and 949

    124 Q 756 

    125 Ibid. 

    126 Q 761 

    127 Q 757 

    128 Q 1399 129 Q 701 

     

    130 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Ev 464-465 

    131 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Ev 388 

    132 Ev 387, Q 2132 

    133 Press standards, privacy and libel, Vol II, Qq 2197-2200 

    134 Q 323 

    135 Mulcaire v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 3469 (ch) (21 December 2011) 





     

    Meet the Murdochs

     

    Rupert Murdoch

    Most recent

     
    Cherie Blair 9 Jan 2013: James Nesbitt and Tamzin Outhwaite among those who have settled at a cost to the company expected to run into millions. By Lisa O'Carroll
    7 Jan 2013:
    Michael Wolff: Never mind that the Journal has yet to yield him profit, Murdoch is convinced his transformation of the newspaper is a success
    48 comments
    7 Jan 2013:
    Roy Greenslade on the continuing debate about the supposedly negative effects of big publishers growing bigger still
    2 comments
    6 Jan 2013: Peter Preston: Buying up newspapers no longer seems a crazy idea – if you're prepared to attach them to the kind of multimedia empire that US regulators now seem more relaxed about 4 comments
    31 Dec 2012:
    Michael Wolff: As the octogenarian mogul marshals his ailing newspaper group, he faces the sternest test of his business acumen to date
    65 comments
    29 Dec 2012:
    Roy Greenslade pays tribute the former Times editor on the day his death was announced
    4 comments
    29 Dec 2012: The Times stalwart became one of Fleet Street's most respected leaders after failing to become a Tory MP 105 comments
    29 Dec 2012: The former Times editor whose remote manner belied a steely ambition that kept him active in journalism for decades
    Ralph Fiennes in Quiz Show (1994) directed by Robert Redford Audio (36min 25sec), 24 Dec 2012:
    Slip on some earphones and walk off that turkey in the company of John Plunkett – as he tests the panel on their knowledge of another dramatic year in the UK media
    1 comment
    21 Dec 2012:
    Robert Thomson will also receive £1.2m bonus as company hives off publishing division from TV and film business. By Mark Sweney
    20 Dec 2012:
    Carl Bernstein: Did the Washington Post and others underplay the story through fear of the News Corp chairman, or simply tin-eared news judgment?
    390 comments
    James Harding  16 Dec 2012: Peter Preston: The feted editor's departure comes at a confusing juncture: but the consequences of this muddle may be far-reaching 2 comments
    13 Dec 2012: Team set up to probe alleged illegal activity after phone-hacking scandal is costing more than £1m a week. ByJosh Halliday
    13 Dec 2012:
    Roy Greenslade: 'I have never known an editor pressured into resigning... who has enjoyed as glowing a send-off in his own paper'
    4 comments
    12 Dec 2012:
    Roy Greenslade on the latest dramas at News International as The Times's editor departs
     
    James Harding Editor of the Times 12 Dec 2012: One of youngest ever editors of the Murdoch-owned newspaper says it was made clear News Corp wanted to make new appointment. By Lisa O'Carroll
    12 Dec 2012:
    Ricken Patel: To stop a behemoth such as News Corp having so much influence again, there should be a 20% cap on media ownership
    79 comments
    Rupert Murdoch, Wendi Deng at Leveson 11 Dec 2012: Nicholas Lezard finds this book is essential reading on the state of the popular press12 comments
    9 Dec 2012: Victoria Coren: What's the secret of longevity? Well, you could start by abandoning futile pursuits 72 comments
    9 Dec 2012: Newsweek is hailing its new web-only self, but cyberspace isn't an easy place to thrive – just ask Murdoch, says Peter Preston 1 comment
    Rupert Murdoch 7 Dec 2012: More integration of titles difficult under terms that Rupert Murdoch agreed for Times Newspapers in 1981. By Dan Sabbagh 7 comments
    7 Dec 2012:
    It's the go-to network for outraged conservatives – but now Fox News has benched two high-profile pundits, and shown signs of retreat. Is the US's biggest cable news network going moderate?
    370 comments
    Dame Elisabeth Murdoch dies at the age of 103 5 Dec 2012:
    Media mogul's mother Dame Elisabeth Murdoch dies peacefully at home in Victoria, Australia, survived by 77 direct descendants. ByLisa O'Carroll
    5 Dec 2012: Philanthropist and mother of Rupert Murdoch, she was regarded as a national treasure in her native Australia
    5 Dec 2012:
    Roy Greenslade wonders whether News International will see the financial logic in creating a seven-day operation
    5 comments
    david petraeus president 4 Dec 2012:
    Bob Woodward reports on recorded conversation in which a Fox News analyst relayed offer from Ailes and Rupert Murdoch
    59 comments
    4 Dec 2012: Media Monkey: The media mogul celebrated with the new chief of the Wall Street journal, on the same day as he closed The Daily
    Rupert Murdoch  4 Dec 2012: Journalist will succeed Robert Thomson as Rupert Murdoch reshuffles management of worldwide newspaper operation. By Lisa O'Carroll
     
    elizabeth murdoch 3 Dec 2012: According to New Yorker article mogul began silence towards daughter for nine weeks after she criticised brother James. By Lisa O'Carroll
    3 Dec 2012:
    Michael Wolff: A newspaper empire is reinvented, but will Robert Thomson find himself playing Sancho Panza to his boss's Don Quixote?
    17 comments
    Elisabeth murdoch 3 Dec 2012:
    Rupert Murdoch's daughter is either a product of the men in her life or an independently successful businesswoman – or both
    1 comment
    3 Dec 2012:
    Jeff Jarvis: I would have loved to see it work, but Rupert Murdoch's iPad-only venture neglected key lessons of subscription news
    22 comments
    Robert Thomson 3 Dec 2012:
    Chase Carey and Robert Thomson placed into key roles in newly created entertainment and publishing divisions
    3 Dec 2012: News Corp boss announces move as film and TV businesses to be named Fox Group. By Josh Halliday
    3 Dec 2012:
    The former Times editor has a sense of humour but does he have the chops for a business that is about to be publicly listed? By Dan Sabbagh
    The Daily iPad 3 Dec 2012:
    Rupert Murdoch's online subscription venture was losing $30m a year and failed to win enough subscribers. ByMark Sweney
    27 comments
    3 Dec 2012: Chief executive's message to company personnel following formal announcement by Rupert Murdoch
    3 Dec 2012:
    Times editor denies report that he is on the verge of departure
    Robert Thomson 3 Dec 2012: Wall Street Journal managing editor will take post as Tom Mockridge steps down from UK publishing business. By Lisa O'Carroll
    3 Dec 2012:
    New world publishing arm to be headed by Robert Thomson, current managing editor of Wall Street Journal
    1 Dec 2012:
    WSJ managing editor and Murdoch confidant expected to be announced as head of hived off publishing arm next week
    1 comment
    01.12.12: Martin Rowson on David Cameron's response to the Leveson report Cartoon, 1 Dec 2012:
    Prime minister says statutory press regulation could infringe on free speech but Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband unite in acceptance of Leveson plan
    #
    News Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch and his wife Wendi Deng leaving the Leveson Inquiry.  30 Nov 2012: News of the World and the 'bombs under the newsroom floor'
    30 Nov 2012:
    Polly Toynbee: Politicians have a unique chance to stand up to the bullying barons. They must for their own sake
    185 comments
    Rupert Murdoch 30 Nov 2012:
    Michael Wolff: From the crises that set the Leveson inquiry in motion, the west's last great press baron has emerged not just intact, but revitalised
    40 comments
    Steve Bell 30.11.2012 Cartoon, 29 Nov 2012:
    Rupert Murdoch and David Cameron aligned, as are Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg after the publication of the Leveson report
    227 comments
    Former Sunday Times editor Harold Evans Video (2min 36sec), 29 Nov 2012:
    Former editor of the Sunday Times talks about how Rupert Murdoch was able to buy his paper through a back-room monopoly deal with Margaret Thatcher
    Lord Justice Leveson headline 29 Nov 2012: Leveson statutory battle may have been won by newspapers but they now face confused fight over regulation
    29 Nov 2012: Leveson report suggests only minor changes for future mergers such as Murdoch empire's BSkyB takeover bid
    29 Nov 2012: Criticised or cleared? The biggest winners and losers after Lord Justice Leveson's 16-month inquiry
    MARGARET THATCHER AND RUPERT MURDOCH 29 Nov 2012:
    Michael White: Back door visits to No 10 by Murdoch may end, but historic mutual dependency and cheerful loathing will endure
    11 comments
    Nick Clegg speaks to reporters ahead of Leveson report being published Video (29 sec), 29 Nov 2012:
    Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg says there needs to be balance between an independent press and the protection of ordinary people
    Bob and Sally Dowler give evidence at Leveson inquiry Video (4min 47sec), 29 Nov 2012:
    Key moments from evidence to the inquiry from Bob and Sally Dowler, Kate and Gerry McCann, Hugh Grant and Sienna Miller
    New Scotland Yard 28 Nov 2012: Letter from Leveson follows claims that Scotland Yard failed to fully investigate criminal practices at News International titles
    28 Nov 2012:
    Lord Justice Leveson's report is expected to cover much ground, and to set the stage for the next debate: what about the internet?
    28 Nov 2012: News International chief also warns against state involvement in regulating the press, saying it would 'cross the Rubicon'. By John Plunkett
    Leveson inquiry: what the politicians said Video (5min 01sec), 28 Nov 2012:
    Key evidence to the Leveson inquiry from politicians, including David Cameron and former prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown
     
     

    Archive (121-135 of 3528)

    Beijing Google China headquarters 26 Oct 2012: China's internet censorship is symbolic and ineffective, as Google found when it launched in the world's largest market
    26 Oct 2012:
    Ex-cons Conrad Black and Jonathan Aitken both know what it's like to fall from the pinnacle of the British establishment. Here they swap stories about life behind bars
    164 comments
    Rupert Murdoch 25 Oct 2012: Media Monkey: News Corp chairman refuses to rise to the bait when asked about rival's comment that is a 'psychopath'
    22 Oct 2012:
    Michael Wolff: News Corp's renewal of Roger Ailes' contract was inevitable. By putting the Tea Party on TV, he out-Murdoched his boss
    57 comments
    22 Oct 2012:
    Murdoch's company say LA Times story is 'wholly inaccurate'
    3 comments
    22 Oct 2012: Media Monkey: Former Daily Telegraph owner makes typically barbed attack on ex-rival
    21 Oct 2012:
    News Corp reported to be in talks with ailing Tribune Company
    5 comments
    20 Oct 2012:
    Report says News Corp has made approaches about buying LA Times and its Chicago stablemate from Tribune Company
    Jimmy Savile Audio (40min 22sec), 19 Oct 2012:
    As the director general prepares to go before a Commons committee, we examine his handling of the crisis so far
    5 comments
    18 Oct 2012: News Corporation boss makes second Twitter climbdown in less than 24 hours. ByJosh Halliday and Lisa O'Carroll
    17 Oct 2012: News International title loses almost 100,000 sales over weekend, dropping to lowest level since launching in February. By Mark Sweney
    Rupert Murdoch 16 Oct 2012: Chairman and chief executive spoke about division of roles and hacking scandal, but avoided questions about Rebekah Brooks
    16 Oct 2012:
    Mogul faces pressure from shareholders seeking to break his hold over the media empire. By Dan Sabbagh and Dominic Rushe
    27 comments
    15 Oct 2012: News Corp chairman angers phone-hacking campaigners by labelling them 'scumbag celebrities' on Twitter. By Lisa O'Carroll
    15 Oct 2012:
    Roy Greenslade believes Rupert Murdoch's intemperate tweet about hacking victims offers a glimpse of the man's real view of people
    Their father is media mogul Rupert Murdoch, the family business a global giant worth billions of dollars. So what do the sons and daughters of one of the world's most powerful and controversial men really think about him? They rarely speak to the press, but here, on Dad's orders, they reveal all to Michael Wolff
     
    Rupert Murdoch 14 Oct 2012: News Corp chief causes outrage on Twitter with caustic dismissal of victims who lobbied David Cameron last week
    11 Oct 2012: Media Monkey: Judge will fly to Australian media conference shortly after his report into the press is published
    Murdoch and Bloomberg 9 Oct 2012:
    Michael Wolff: Competition to buy the prestige title is intense – with Murdoch still capable of challenging the two business news titans
    27 comments
    7 Oct 2012:
    Majorie Scardino's departure as chief executive leaves the way open for new boss John Fallon to restructure. By Mark Sweney
    7 Oct 2012: Peter Preston: The death of Sulzberger and departure of Scardino have sparked palpitations at the New York Times and FT 7 comments
    Boris Johnson 6 Oct 2012:
    London mayor under pressure to give evidence to Leveson inquiry after diary reveals string of calls and meetings
    4 Oct 2012: Advisory firm ISS recommends re-election of members of Murdoch family to board despite criticisms last year
    3 Oct 2012:
    Group says News Corp has not addressed board structure and corporate culture and call on Murdoch to step down as chairman
    28 Sep 2012:
    Veteran journalists attack Murdoch paper for failure to disclose writers' political sympathies
    5 comments
    27 Sep 2012:
    Roy Greenslade on why he thinks Liverpool fans chose to attack The Sun, rather than any other newspaper, after the false police allegations
    24 comments
    26 Sep 2012: Geoffrey Wheatcroft: The chief whip behaved boorishly, but should not be vilified. This story is really about the deterioration of the police 379 comments
    The Village Voice, New York 24 Sep 2012:
    Michael Wolff: A once 'alternative' newspaper, accusations over sex-trafficking, a corporate ruse … it's mildly entertaining but all deeply phony
    16 comments
    24 Sep 2012:
    Roy Greenslade presents the final extract from The phone hacking scandal: journalism on trial. It is by one of the book's editors, John Mair, who takes a peep into the tabloid world through the Leveson inquiry keyhole
    4 comments
    21 Sep 2012:
    News that Rupert Murdoch's son could soon lead Fox Networks met with shock and anger from News Corp shareholders
    James Murdoch 20 Sep 2012: The regulator ruled the broadcaster was 'fit and proper' to hold licences – here's what it said about the Murdochs and more. By Lisa O'Carroll
     
    Rupert Murdoch 16 Sep 2012:
    Job: chairman and chief executive, News Corporation
    Age: 81
    Industry: broadcasting, publishing, digital media
    2011 ranking: 6
    14 Sep 2012:
    Roy Greenslade presents - after a little delay - a further extract from The phone-hacking scandal: journalism on trial. It's by Nicholas Jones
    6 comments
    14 Sep 2012:
    Roy Greenslade looks at the problems facing Leveson, the press and the Palace over drawing lines to protect privacy
    13 Sep 2012:
    Roy Greenslade remembers Derek Jameson, the man who helped him up the Fleet Street ladder
    8 comments
    12 Sep 2012: Fleet Street editor who became a popular TV and radio presenter
    News Corporation building 11 Sep 2012: Paul Cheesbrough will set global strategy for digital publishing and manage technical end of demerging the media company
    11 Sep 2012:
    Roy Greenslade: A further extract from the updated edition of The phone-hacking scandal: journalism on trial. It's by Steven Barnett, who outlines the principles necessary to create an effective ownership regime
    2 comments
    7 Sep 2012:
    Roy Greenslade presents a further extract from the updated edition of The phone-hacking scandal: journalism on trial. It's by the former Financial Times media correspondent Ray Snoddy
    5 comments
    6 Sep 2012:
    Roy Greenslade believes Rupert Murdoch has already won the battle with the royal family over publication of the naked prince's photos
    8 comments
    6 Sep 2012:
    Roy Greenslade presents more of Harry Evans's chapter in the updated edition of The phone-hacking scandal: journalism on trial.
    4 comments
    5 Sep 2012:
    Rupert Murdoch and other executives 'share collective responsibility', according to remuneration committee. ByMark Sweney
    5 Sep 2012:
    Roy Greenslade presents an extract from The phone-hacking scandal: journalism on trial byHarry Evans about politics, privacy and investigative journalism
    3 comments
    4 Sep 2012:
    Roy Greenslade presents the concluding part of his afterword, published in the second and updated edition of The phone-hacking scandal: journalism on trial
    7 comments
    4 Sep 2012:
    Subbing jobs to go in big restructuring of newsrooms
    1 comment
    Rupert Murdoch tweeted that 'every voter should see' Dinesh D’Souza's 2016: Obama's America. 30 Aug 2012: Australian-born magnate urges US voters to go and see 2016: Obama's America 'and decide for self what future they want'
     
     
    Charlotte Church 28 Aug 2012: Singer dives into 'free press' debate, telling BBC Wales the tabloid went too far by publishing nude photos. By Josh Halliday
    26 Aug 2012: Media mogul claims lack of free press in UK to justify publishing Las Vegas photographs freely available on the internet 384 comments
    Prince Harry 26 Aug 2012: NI owner's tweet comes amid claims Sun published naked pictures under Murdoch's orders to defy Leveson inquiry
    Martin Rowson cartoon Cartoon, 24 Aug 2012:
    Tabloid claims royal's pictures published in public interest, but critics say motive was money and more sales
    298 comments
    Richard Bacon lambasts the Media Guardian's reporting of Elisabeth Murdoch's MacTaggart lecture Video (5min 27sec), 24 Aug 2012:
    John Plunkett is joined by BBC Radio 5 Live presenter Richard Bacon and Dan Sabbagh to discuss Elisabeth Murdoch's keynote speech and how it was covered in the press
    Elisabeth Murdoch 24 Aug 2012: Rupert Murdoch's second daughter also confirms she asked for Rebekah Brooks to resign as NI chief executive last year. By Dan Sabbagh
    Delegates' reaction to Elisabeth Murdoch's MacTaggart lecture - video Video (2min 53sec), 24 Aug 2012:
    Media Industry figures including Alan Rusbridger and Richard Bacon, respond to Elisabeth Murdoch's MacTaggart lecture at the 2012 Media Guardian Edinburgh International Television Festival
    Elisabeth Murdoch gives MacTaggart lecture Video (7min 53sec), 24 Aug 2012:
    Delivering her MacTaggart lecture to the Edinburgh television festival, Elisabeth Murdoch comments on the News Corp 'nightmare', saying 'profit without purpose is a recipe for disaster'
    23 Aug 2012: Editorial: It showed a welcome awareness both of the limits of the market and of the value of publicly funded broadcasters 60 comments
    23 Aug 2012:
    Miller had overseen company's failed relaunch of MySpace as well as its involvement in Hulu and Roku streaming products
    23 Aug 2012: Brother James target of broadside at MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival
    Elisabeth Murdoch 23 Aug 2012:
    Rupert Murdoch's second daughter attacks News Corp values in keynote address at Edinburgh television festival
    314 comments
    22 Aug 2012: On eve of Elisabeth Murdoch's Edinburgh speech, Labour's deputy leader urges talks on tighter rules for media ownership
    15 Aug 2012: Mogul's message outlining review of compliance with bribery laws in several of its publishing arms, including News International
    Rupert Murdoch 15 Aug 2012: Media group to review compliance with bribery laws in several of its publishing arms, including News International in London. By Josh Halliday
    15 Aug 2012:
    Former Sunday Express editor in talks to acquire red-top
    2 comments
    12 Aug 2012:
    Rupert Murdoch calls choice 'almost perfect', while Obama prepares to attack Ryan over conservative budget he authored
    356 comments
    Murdoch quits director roles 8 Aug 2012:
    Losses include charges related to plan to split off publishing assets from more lucrative film and TV sectors
    7 Aug 2012:
    Andrew Brown: The C of E's pension fund does not easily mix with its principles. But disinvesting in News Corp sends an ethical signal
    115 comments
    7 Aug 2012: Fears that Rupert Murdoch group has failed to learn corporate governance lessons prompt church to offload £1.9m stake. By Rupert Neate
    David Cameron and Boris 5 Aug 2012: As the Sun apparently shines on the London mayor, the silly season is with us again, writes Peter Preston 27 comments
    2 Aug 2012: Media tycoon flies into London to be VIP guest of mayor at Aquatic Centre after praising 'brilliantly organised' Olympics
    Steve Bell 02.08.2012 Cartoon, 1 Aug 2012:
    Boris Johnson invites Rupert Murdoch to London 2012 while David Cameron and George Osborne seek to impress
    236 comments
    1 Aug 2012:
    Mazher Mahmood's former right-hand man will reveal how he went about his work
    31 Jul 2012: Lawyers for Rupert Murdoch's company have protested against criminal charges amid fears over broadcasting contracts
    31 Jul 2012: London mayor invites tycoon and wife Wendi Deng poolside to watch Rebecca Adlington defend 800 metre swimming gold. By Helene Mulholland
    30 Jul 2012:
    Disgraced former Telegraph owner talks about underpriced newspapers
    6 comments
    30 Jul 2012:
    Other lives: Trade unionist who stood up against Rupert Murdoch and the leadership of the EETPU during the Wapping dispute of 1986
    30 Jul 2012:
    Brit who broke major exclusive gets executive spot
    William Rees-Mogg 29 Jul 2012: A life lived on the shoulder of power offers more name-dropping than wisdom, says Alexander Larman
     
    25 Jul 2012:
    Roy Greenslade looks at the way today's national dailies dealt with the news that eight people will face trial in the hacking affair
    24 Jul 2012:
    Paper plans new online design with 'the hottest celebs'
    9 comments
    24 Jul 2012:
    Roy Greenslade is with the Indy in its desire to uphold freedom of the press but argues that licensing journalists is a no-no
    Rupert Murdoch 23 Jul 2012:
    Michael Wolff: Murdoch may be leaving the News International board in London, but don't regard it as anything more than a symbolic gesture
    Rupert Murdoch 22 Jul 2012:
    His resignations may be described as internal housekeeping but there is no likely family successor at News International
    22 Jul 2012:
    Roy Greenslade accepts the 'official version' about the board resignations being no more than corporate housecleaning. But there's still that matter of an investor rebellion...
    Rupert Murdoch 21 Jul 2012:
    Move fuels rumours of sell-off of UK newspapers despite media mogul's reassurance that he is 'fully committed' as chairman
    Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch 19 Jul 2012:
    Eighteen shareholders sign letter calling for the media mogul to step down ahead of annual meeting later in the year
    16 Jul 2012:
    Roy Greenslade wonders just why a highly-paid and successful columnist has walked away from the paper
    10 comments
    The Daily 16 Jul 2012:
    Frédéric Filloux: The year-old iPad newspaper has no breadth and no soul – and, without a clear business model, it faces an uncertain future
    Rupert Murdoch 11 Jul 2012: Murdoch takes to Twitter to deny allegations from journalist Andrew Neil that he had lobbied then-PM Tony Blair over media ownership rules. By Lisa O'Carroll
    Actor Tom Cruise at the opening of a Scientology church in Madrid 10 Jul 2012:
    Michael Wolff: Typically, Rupert Murdoch articulated what many are thinking but few will utter: there is 'something creepy' about these people
    587 comments
    Rupert Murdoch 10 Jul 2012: Mogul says he now agrees with judge's finding that behaviour of paper's chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, was unacceptable. By Lisa O'Carroll
    9 Jul 2012:
    Roy Greenslade on the Wapping diaspora as they mark the first anniversary of their paper's closure
    Stanley McChrystal 7 Jul 2012:
    Ana Marie Cox: A sideways look at the big US news events of the past seven days, plus one story you may have missed
     
    5 Jul 2012: Letters: Australians do need reports like Leveson's, especially if it fulfills the hope it may be the print equivalent of Pilkington or Annan
    5 Jul 2012:
    Roy Greenslade sees long-term problems for DMGT's national papers should its board do the same as Rupert Murdoch
    1 comment
    4 Jul 2012:
    Judge orders editor to answer questions about his discussions with News Corp boss
    4 Jul 2012: Founder of Glee Club comedy night seeks seven-figure sum in damages from Rupert Murdoch's film studio. By Josh Halliday
    2 Jul 2012:
    US commentator is sceptical about the financial future for Murdoch's publishing business
    Rupert Murdoch 1 Jul 2012:
    Tweeting that Scientology is 'evil' (but Mormonism OK), Murdoch took time to cement his opinions on important social matters
    53 comments
    1 Jul 2012: At a time when many publishers would love a fat entertainment division to keep disruption and recession at bay, Murdoch has gone in the opposite direction
    1 Jul 2012: Dan Sabbagh: The Times' heavy losses are offset by the Sun for now, but will there be time for sentiment if one of the papers can't perform?
    Rupert Murdoch 1 Jul 2012: Peter Preston: Will Murdoch really quit these shores as News Corp divides into two? It's hard to believe, but the national press will look a lot more ragged if he does
    29 Jun 2012:
    John Pilger: Rupert Murdoch controls most of Australia's media. But even the so-called free press serves only profit and PR
    187 comments
    Rupert Murdoch Audio (33min 52sec), 29 Jun 2012:
    Hugh Muir is steering the podcast, negotiating the events of another remarkable week with Maggie Brown, Lisa O'Carroll and Emily Bell
    Rupert Murdoch 29 Jun 2012: The mogul gave numerous interviews to New York's broadcast studios and newspaper offices. Here's what he said. By Lisa O'Carroll
    29 Jun 2012: Financial paper, to be renamed WSJ, likely to be business model as publisher seeks to generate revenue on multiple platforms. By Lisa O'Carroll
    28 Jun 2012:
    Dividing the family firm was part of the plan before phone hacking, according to Rupert Murdoch
    Rupert Murdoch 28 Jun 2012:
    Michael Wolff: Make no mistake, Murdoch has not given up his newspapers for lost. Expect him to stage a tenacious struggle to regain control
     
    Tom Mockridge 28 Jun 2012:
    Rupert Murdoch signals an internal promotion preferable and says it is 'highly unlikely' to be his son Lachlan. By Mark Sweney
    28 Jun 2012:
    News Corp chairman tells Fox he has 'moved on' after abandoning BSkyB bid amid phone-hacking scandal. By Dominic Rushe
    New Sunday Sun tabloid 28 Jun 2012: Dan Sabbagh: Phone hacking played down for the US audience but many questions remain about the future of the publishing arm
    28 Jun 2012:
    Rupert Murdoch's media empire confirms it will divide into separate entertainment and publishing companies. By Josh Halliday
    28 Jun 2012: Division into entertainment and publishing is a result of three-year review and will make businesses easier to manage. By Lisa O'Carroll
    Prometheus 28 Jun 2012: How Rupert Murdoch's empire will appear once it is divided into separate entertainment and publishing companies. By Lisa O'Carroll
    28 Jun 2012: Rupert Murdoch's empire outlines how it will divide into separate publishing and entertainment companies
    28 Jun 2012: Mogul confirms empire will be divided into separate entertainment and publishing companies. By Lisa O'Carroll
    28 Jun 2012:
    Roy Greenslade sees News International's desire for more sales revenue in terms of the mooted creation of a stand-alone publishing division
    28 Jun 2012: Tom Mockridge reassures staff as Rupert Murdoch prepares to confirm split into entertainment and publishing companies. By Josh Halliday
    28 Jun 2012:
    Murdoch expected to announce one company will hold his entertainment businesses, and the other his publishing assets
    News Corporation 27 Jun 2012: Analysts back plan to divide Murdoch group into entertainment and publishing companies as investors push for more change. By Dominic Rushe andLisa O'Carroll
    27 Jun 2012: Mogul to meet board on Wednesday and could announce decision as early as Thursday, according to reports. By Lisa O'Carroll
    27 Jun 2012:
    Novelist says what she thinks of media chiefs
    1 comment
    Steve Bell 27.06.2012 Cartoon, 26 Jun 2012:
    Rupert Murdoch concedes that his media empire may have to be split after being tarnished by hacking scandal
     
    wall street journal 26 Jun 2012:
    If the company becomes a house divided, the new bosses would likely come from the ranks of Murdochs' most trusted deputies
    26 Jun 2012:
    • Newspapers and book publishing to be spun off from TV, film
    • News Corp shares rise 8.3%
    • Split won't help any future play for BSkyB, regulator says
    • All times ET
    37 comments
    Rupert Murdoch 26 Jun 2012:
    Mogul finally admits that his worldwide media empire may have to be split after being tarnished by phone-hacking scandal
    26 Jun 2012: Decision to split News Corp will also make it easier for the publishing side of the business to offload News International
    26 Jun 2012:
    Many viewed newspaper scandal as a tiresome distraction caused by a business too small to be worth the trouble
    Rupert Murdoch and Chase Carey in 1998, at the LA Dodgers ground 26 Jun 2012:
    Michael Wolff: News Corp's division into entertainment giant and struggling newsprint empire is a humbling moment for Rupert Murdoch
    26 Jun 2012:
    Separating publishing from television will please shareholders and worry print staff and media plurality advocates
    26 Jun 2012:
    Rupert Murdoch's firm will look into separating publishing assets and film and TV businesses into two listed companies. By Jason Deans and Roy Greenslade
    26 Jun 2012:
    The London Mayor's very particular career history means he could assist the Leveson inquiry in many ways
    3 comments
    26 Jun 2012:
    Plan to divide publishing and entertainment divisions now a possibility
    25 Jun 2012:
    New shock after Australian publisher announced 1,900 job cuts
    3 comments
    21 Jun 2012: Letters: I strongly suspect that future historians will judge Brown rather more kindly than they will Blair and Campbell
    21 Jun 2012: London mayor met James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks during the phone-hacking scandal but left it off the hospitality register
    21 Jun 2012:
    Shareholders update their court writ against Rupert Murdoch's company
    Boris Johnson 20 Jun 2012: Labour calls for official investigation after meetings between mayor and News International come to light. By Josh Halliday
     
    News Limited headquarters 20 Jun 2012: News Limited makes £1.2bn offer to double its stakes in Foxtel and Fox Sports, Australia's dominant subscription TV channels
    19 Jun 2012:
    Michael Wolff: A New York Times profile extols Rupert Murdoch's wife – and her independence. The question is what it means, and why now?
    19 Jun 2012:
    Roy Greenslade argues that the Aussie newspaper industry was too slow to realise that people, and the advertisers who chase them, would move from print to screen
    24 comments
    18 Jun 2012:
    Leveson inquiry 'stars' in a revamp of da Vinci's painting
    17 Jun 2012: Catherine Bennett: Pity Lord Justice Leveson, confronted as he is by a barrage of obfuscation, evasion and connivance
    Jeremy Hunt respond to allegations in the Commons 16 Jun 2012: Culture secretary ignored deputy PM's advice in build-up to vote over BSkyB row that has fuelled coalition tensions
    15 Jun 2012: Murdoch joined an 'over-crude' attempt by US Republicans to accelerate British involvement in the Iraq war, Campbell says
    Alastair Campbell at The Guardian Hay Festival 2010 Audio (4min 08sec), 15 Jun 2012:
    Alastair Campbell, who is publishing the latest instalment of his diaries, talks to Nicholas Watt about Rupert Murdoch's calls to Tony Blair in the lead up to the Iraq war, and how Blair considered sacking Gordon Brown
    Rio Ferdinand and Cristiano Ronaldo celebrate in front of a Sky TV camera in a 2007 Man United match 15 Jun 2012: David Conn: If BSkyB hadn't secured the rights to the Premier League, the Leveson inquiry would almost certainly not be taking place
    15 Jun 2012: Rupert Murdoch claims Brown pledged war on News Corp in phone call. Evidence suggests call never happened
    14 Jun 2012: PM tells Leveson inquiry he stands by his decision and says hasty handover is a result of 24-hour news environment
    David Cameron giving evidence at the Leveson inquiry 14 Jun 2012:
    Andrew Gimson: Under fire at the Leveson inquiry, David Cameron deployed all his establishment charms
    14 Jun 2012: Michael White: Dave's diary details sounded as if he'd been having an affair with the entire Murdoch family and their inner circle
    14 Jun 2012:
    Michael Wolff: Hoist on his Leveson inquiry petard, the prime minister's account of accidental ties to the Murdoch elite was painfully unconvincing
    David Cameronat the Leveson inquiry Video (1min 18sec), 14 Jun 2012:
    In evidence to the Leveson inquiry, the prime minister lists his meetings with Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks while in opposition
     
    David Cameron and Jeremy Hunt 14 Jun 2012:
    Prime minister must explain why he hired Andy Coulson amid phone hacking scandal and let Jeremy Hunt handle BSkyB bid
    13 Jun 2012:
    Prime minister must fill in some blanks despite many government acknowledgments of guilt over failure to regulate press
    British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg 13 Jun 2012: Michael White: The Lib Dem leader's appearance at Leveson was like organising a diversionary feint that nobody would fall for