Comments on: Who cares if Murdoch lobbied? http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/04/25/who-cares-if-murdoch-lobbied/ Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:54:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: OlivesDad http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/04/25/who-cares-if-murdoch-lobbied/#comment-1163 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 05:27:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=808#comment-1163 Jack, Jack, Jack…

As hard as it is for me to admit publicly (or even secretly!) but I agree with you that no one should be surprised by Murdoch’s actions…nor should anyone display feigned outrage at mundane and routine lobbying at stratospheric levels as he did/does/will do.

But just as much…no one should give a rat’s ham about your being spared from the petty annoyance of reporting on hearings addressing Murdoch’s shananigans. Spare your own readers (the few that may still endure) your feigned outrage about “who cares?”.

Jack…that’s what I have been saying about your blog.

]]>
By: ptiffany http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/04/25/who-cares-if-murdoch-lobbied/#comment-1162 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:57:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=808#comment-1162 So, if Murdock met privately with the President of the United States as he did with Margaret Thatcher, you’d feel the same way?

What’s the opposite of a cynic? Would that be a naive person?

]]>
By: SanPa http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/04/25/who-cares-if-murdoch-lobbied/#comment-1160 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:37:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=808#comment-1160 Had the author watched the hearing with Rupert Murdoch, it would have been evident that truth was not pouring out of his mouth. As for the who cares question, remember that Murdoch controls the news and hence truth, and lobbying serves to expand influence.

]]>
By: MIKEROL http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/04/25/who-cares-if-murdoch-lobbied/#comment-1159 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:32:37 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=808#comment-1159 I think it ought to have behooved you, Jack, to note what the Columbia Journalism Review posted on the matter yesterday, that is a bit more than “lobbying”, no?
“The Murdoch scandal heated (hotted?) up yet again today with James Murdoch’s testimony to the Leveson Inquiry, and it now threatens to bring down a key member of the prime minister’s cabinet—or more.

Emails detail an awfully close relationship and perhaps an illegal back-and-forth, sometimes twelve messages a day, between James Murdoch and Jeremy Hunt. The problem is Hunt was acting as a sort of regulator/judge overseeing News Corporation’s bid to consolidate its grip on British by buying the rest of the BSkyB satellite network.

The Guardian:

What made this busy back channel particularly remarkable was that the culture secretary was constantly claiming no such relationship existed. Hunt told the Commons on 30 June: “I am deciding this deal on a quasi-judicial basis, but I have not met Rupert Murdoch or James Murdoch in recent weeks, and all the meetings I have had with them have been minuted and done through official channels.”
Here’s one of the most damning emails:

The following day, an email sent at 3.21pm shows Murdoch being supplied with the wording of Hunt’s crucial, and market-sensitive, official statement, due to be delivered the next day.
“Confidential: managed to get some infos [sic] on the plans for tomorrow (although absolutely illegal!). Press statement at 7.30am … Lots of legal issues around the statement so he has tried to get a version which helps us … JH will announce … that he wishes to look at any undertakings that have the potential to prevent the potential threats of media plurality.”

Tomorrow Rupert Murdoch is going to testify. Pass the popcorn, but leave your foam pies at home.

— The Guardian’s Nick Davies, who broke this scandal, writes about what the news means, and what it could come to mean:

Now we come to the dark heart of this strange affair.

Critics of the Murdochs have often suspected that they have exploited their position as newspaper owners to win secret favours from governments – and the Murdochs and the politicians alike have denied it. Now, for the first time, courtesy of the volatile chain-reaction of the phone-hacking scandal, we have compelling evidence…
At a time when Hunt was required to act in the legal role of a judge overseeing Ofcom’s inquiry into the bid, this evidence suggests he was secretly supplying News Corp with information about his confidential dealings with Ofcom, advising them on how to pick holes in Ofcom’s arguments, allowing their adviser to help him prepare a public statement, offering to “share the political heat” with them, and repeatedly pledging his support for their position.

If proved, this pushes Hunt’s political career to the edge of destruction. It cannot help him that his website currently displays an interview describing him as a cheerleader for Rupert Murdoch. But the pressure may not stop there. The question now is whether Lord Justice Leveson will order the disclosure of more emails or other evidence that could conceivably see the prime minister and his government pushed out to the edge as well.

— Simon Kelner, the former editor of The Independent, recalls the bizarre episode when James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks stormed into the paper’s newsrooms to scream at him for an ad campaign that said, “Rupert Murdoch won’t decide this election. You Will”. Kelman writes that it showed how the Murdochs do business:

Brooks said very little, but, when her boss’s rage blew itself out, chipped in with: “We thought you were our friend”. Their use of language and the threatening nature of their approach came straight from the “Mafioso for Beginners” handbook.

Murdoch referred to “my family” constantly, something he echoed in his Leveson evidence today. Referring to this exchange, he said that I had been the beneficiary “of my family’s hospitality for a number of years”. Set in the context of his many dissemblings and obfuscations over recent months, the fact that this is a bald-faced lie is neither here nor there, just a casual slur despatched with little regard for the facts. (For the record, I went to Elisabeth Murdoch’s 40th birthday party in September 2008, the only time I can be accused of “availing myself” of Murdoch hospitality.)

His statement does, however, reveal a much wider and more significant truth: the Murdoch way of doing business. If you come to our parties, if you join us on our yachts, if you are at our cosily-arranged dinner table, we might expect something in return, but we certainly don’t expect you act in a way contrary to our interests. And if our largest-selling newspaper supports your political party … well, it’s not difficult to guess the rest.

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/audit_notes _murdoch_minister_e.php

]]>
By: ofilha http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/04/25/who-cares-if-murdoch-lobbied/#comment-1158 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:06:10 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=808#comment-1158 I am tired of these hearings. It is an embarrassment for the Congress or the Parliament. It is useless, pandering big waste of time and money; nothing ever happens. These representatives milk the neighbor’s cow and when they get caught they blame the cow.

]]>
By: pavlaki http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/04/25/who-cares-if-murdoch-lobbied/#comment-1156 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:05:15 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=808#comment-1156 Is anyone going to seriously suggest that phone and e mail hacking has not been a widespread practice by ALL newspaper journalists? I recall one of them commenting that he would have been left behind in the race for a ‘scoop’ if he didn’t do the same. Clean up the media by all means but let’s not just have a Murdoch witch hunt.

]]>
By: pavlaki http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/04/25/who-cares-if-murdoch-lobbied/#comment-1155 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 19:04:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=808#comment-1155 Is anyone going to seriously suggest that phone and e mail hacking has not been a widespread practice by ALL newspaper journalists? I recall one of them commenting that he would have been left behind in the race for a ‘scoop’ if he didn’t do the same. Clean up the media by all means but let’s not just have a Murdoch witch hunt.

]]>
By: Ian_Kemmish http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/04/25/who-cares-if-murdoch-lobbied/#comment-1151 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:32:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=808#comment-1151 The outrage, surely, is that information was leaked by an adviser ahead of a ministerial announcement to the Commons, which is a breach of the ministerial code. Further, the leak contained market sensitive information and was made at a time when the markets were open, which is a breach of all sorts of things.

If the same had happened in the US, the SEC would already be getting the handcuffs out.

Please don’t lecture us or feign ennui simply because it’s the only way you can think of to generate advertising clicks on your blog.

]]>
By: Dafydd http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/04/25/who-cares-if-murdoch-lobbied/#comment-1150 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:27:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=808#comment-1150 Sure, we all KNEW that the Murdochs lobbied. Except that they kind of always denied it. Now we have proof.

Oh and spare the bullshit about threatening the establishment, he owns the times FFS. Murdoch IS establishment.

He is also chairman of an organisation that has been criminally corrupting public officals on a grand scale.

Do you think the worlds greatest media tycoon is so incompetent that he didn’t know? Or is he culpable?

That is the question.

]]>
By: TIREDINPHILLY http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2012/04/25/who-cares-if-murdoch-lobbied/#comment-1149 Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:10:58 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/?p=808#comment-1149 Sad to say that the rule of law only applies if you cannot afford a lawyer. If any of the cited allegations were applied against the common man or woman, they would be in jail already. Not so with those who have the government in their pocket.

]]>