Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

The Culture, Media and Sport select committee’s report is published at 11.30am


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-05-2012, 22:59
solenoid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,903
If it comes down to MPs "loving" or "hating" Murdoch they why bother having the investigation at all? I'd like to think that there were at least some members of the committee who would have looked at things with an open mind. If this was a jury in court most of the CMS members wouldn't be eligible as they have open biases and conflicts of interest.
Yeh, it's not like Watson forejudged everything in his book "Dial M for Murdoch" is it?
solenoid is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 02-05-2012, 01:32
Sad_BB_Addict
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Essex
Posts: 86,771
"Martin Hickman: If Murdoch thought the worst was over, he was wrong "
Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...g-7704399.html

"Sketch: Rupert Murdoch hacked down by the Freewheelin' Tom Watson"
Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...om-Watson.html

"Until recently, Britain's political leaders jostled to eat out of Rupert Murdoch's hand. Now he is deemed 'not fit' to run his empire"
Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...test-editorial

"Former NOTW editor Colin Myler, lawyer Tom Crone and NI chairman Les Hinton could be summoned to House of Commons over claim they 'misled parliament' "
Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...obal-firm.html

"The 100-page document, one of the most damning Parliamentary reports ever written, delivers yet another hammer blow to the billionaire and his already shattered reputation in the UK."
Express http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...stating-report

"In a statement, News Corporation condemned the report by the Commons Culture Committee as "unjustified and highly partisan"."
Belfast Telegraph http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-16152832.html
Sad_BB_Addict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 03:01
Sad_BB_Addict
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Essex
Posts: 86,771
Across the pond

Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Lates...-unfit-to-lead

New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/wo...g-scandal.html

L.A. Times http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ente...rp-errors.html

Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,3204828.story
Sad_BB_Addict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 05:17
Sad_BB_Addict
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Essex
Posts: 86,771
"Then there's the question of television licenses. Angela Campbell, a professor of media law at Georgetown University, said the study's findings may impact the company's ability to renew its licenses with the Federal Communications Commission. She said that the commission requires that broadcasters have good character."

http://www.thewrap.com/media/article...rs-argue-38081
Sad_BB_Addict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 05:41
Tonyface
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,522
You can deny Watson had any personal animosity towards Murdoch if you wish.

Even if you were right, a member of the Select Committee must act impartially. Its hard to see how Watson could have been impartial whilst he was writing a book: 'Dial M for Murdoch' when still a member of the Committee and before it had completed its findings.

In any case you would have to be blind not to notice Watson's personal animosity towards Murdoch both in Committee and elsewhere.
Even if your right need I remind you the Lib Dem voted in favour of Tom Watson's amendment, he didn't have to
I am inclined to agree with Menadarva somewhat, Watson did seem to have his mind made up before the select committee hearings, but then they did hack into his phone, and have private investigator follow him around attempt to gather any dirt they could on him.
Its hard to be impartial when you have caught someone burgling your house, so perhaps he should not have been on the panel.

Ellenopagerocks has a good point and as one of the reporters pointed out, if the Lib-Dem member of the panel had not voted with the Labour MP's then we could have had a report that came up with entirely different conclusions.
I suspect that the Conservative members could have got away with not even having to agree with the criticisms that they eventually probably felt obliged to concur with.

The not FIT to run a business assertion of the report, will come into its own when the dealings between Cameron & the Murdoch's are revealed, and I feel that is probably the real reason why the Tories resisted its inclusion.
Tonyface is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 07:08
Jilly
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 17,313
I am inclined to agree with Menadarva somewhat, Watson did seem to have his mind made up before the select committee hearings, but then they did hack into his phone, and have private investigator follow him around attempt to gather any dirt they could on him.
Its hard to be impartial when you have caught someone burgling your house, so perhaps he should not have been on the panel.

Ellenopagerocks has a good point and as one of the reporters pointed out, if the Lib-Dem member of the panel had not voted with the Labour MP's then we could have had a report that came up with entirely different conclusions.
I suspect that the Conservative members could have got away with not even having to agree with the criticisms that they eventually probably felt obliged to concur with.

The not FIT to run a business assertion of the report, will come into its own when the dealings between Cameron & the Murdoch's are revealed, and I feel that is probably the real reason why the Tories resisted its inclusion.
You have seen that one of the Labour MP's has said they had no evidence to put that remark in?
Jilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 07:50
Majlis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Sandpit
Posts: 17,085
"Then there's the question of television licenses. Angela Campbell, a professor of media law at Georgetown University, said the study's findings may impact the company's ability to renew its licenses with the Federal Communications Commission. She said that the commission requires that broadcasters have good character."
Would you like your character assessment to be made by a bunch of politicians with a history of fiddling their expenses and lying?
Majlis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 07:55
Transient1
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,172
The thing about the make up of the select committee is the members were chosen whilst Murdoch still had a lot of influence , before the Milly Dowler story broke. I think some of the members were chosen because they were biased towards NI. Louise mensch in particular with her friendly question to RM about Piers Morgan. Her saying to R. Murdoch "good luck cleaning up your company" suggested she thought he was somehow above the accusations.
Transient1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 08:05
Lysandar
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,089
Clearly, Watson is unfit for purpose.
He serves on a Parliamentary Committee - the Culture, Media and Sport Committe - yet doesn't understand the word 'remit'
It was not within this particular remit to personalize judgement on Murdoch.
Whether he is fit etc. etc. is the job of OFCOM.
Watson and his fellow 'Socialists' on this Committee have diminished its standing.
Lysandar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 08:13
Jellied Eel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In a jar, on a shelf
Posts: 19,609
The not FIT to run a business assertion of the report, will come into its own when the dealings between Cameron & the Murdoch's are revealed, and I feel that is probably the real reason why the Tories resisted its inclusion.
The 'Not Fit' part is a specific wording in the 'Get Murdoch' campaign. Getting a licence to run TV channels or newspapers require them to be run by a 'fit and proper' person. Next steps, calls for those licences to be revoked and Murdoch's competitors can breath a sigh of relief.

Then there's the politics. Blair, Brown, Salmond were also all very close to their kingmaker. Until Murdoch broke faith with Labour, provoking a rare sighting of the lesser spotted Gordon Brown in the HoC using parliamentary privelige to attack his nemesis. And in typical Brown fashion, being somewhat economical with the truth.

The lefties are loving this because they see it as an opportunity to rid themselves of a political adversary, and for media organisations, a strong competitor. Mostly because Murdoch, as head of a rather large business supposedly had a duty to know everything that was happening in those enterprises. As a 'hands on' leader, he was supposed to have known. As a 'hands on' PM, Brown and Blair remained blissfully ignorant.

This fiasco really just begs the question as to how many MPs are fit to govern.
Jellied Eel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 08:29
WindWalker
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,334
Can I just say thanks to SBBA for creating this thread and maintaining it with solid information and links. It's good to have a factual thread relatively unsullied by party political flag wavers. Cheers SBBA.
WindWalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 08:32
Majlis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Sandpit
Posts: 17,085
Clearly, Watson is unfit for purpose.
Interesting that he feels he is qualified to sit in judgement when he leaks the results of the inquiry for personal gain.
Majlis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 08:38
divingbboy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ed Balls
Posts: 11,293
Interesting that he feels he is qualified to sit in judgement when he leaks the results of the inquiry for personal gain.
I'm actually a little shocked that, not only did he think that it was appropriate to write a book for commercial gain about the very committee upon which he was sitting, but that his fellow committee members weren't up in arms about it and slating him for the obvious conflict of interest. And that's not even taking into account the way that Watson conducted himself like a man with a vendatta.
divingbboy is online now Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 08:47
Majlis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Sandpit
Posts: 17,085
And that's not even taking into account the way that Watson conducted himself like a man with a vendatta.
Well given that he was Browns attack dog I can see why he would be very bitter about NI transferring their support to Cameron. The question is why the rest of the Committee allowed him to subvert the inquiry into a personal revenge crusade - they should all be sacked for dereliction of duty.
Majlis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 09:17
SheepdogNo1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blackpool on the seafront
Posts: 6,323
Regardless of Watson you are left with choice of did Murdoch knowingly preside over a company thats used illegal & illicit methods to garner news & use against people not sympathetic to them or did he just sit in a office alloof to what was going on quite happy with his companys near invincible position, & happy to let minions run his operations without a care in the world?

If it was the chairman of the BBC that had presided over such carryings on , you can bet your bottom dollar that the tory members of the committe would have used the same language & would have been relentless in making their position known. The torys didnt back the report fully because they are still reliant upon Rupert Murdoch & dont want to upset a trusty allie who down the yeras has done so much for them. All they have done is put more pressure on Cameron & give further weight to the notion that Cameron & Osborne scratched Ruperts back & in return for the old boy scratching theirs.

Maybe Watson did have a vendetta , but when you look at the lenghts that NI have gone to , to try & brush it all aside at the beginning , then his vendetta has been warranted.

SheepdogNo1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 09:32
Majlis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Sandpit
Posts: 17,085
Regardless of Watson you are left with choice of did Murdoch knowingly preside over a company thats used illegal & illicit methods to garner news & use against people not sympathetic to them or did he just sit in a office alloof to what was going on quite happy with his companys near invincible position, & happy to let minions run his operations without a care in the world?
I have no idea to be honest - but what is your objection to allowing OFCOM to rule on who is fit & proper to run media operations in the UK. Why do you think they need to be replaced by politicians?
Majlis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 09:33
Mr Jon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 488
Regardless of Watson you are left with choice of did Murdoch knowingly preside over a company thats used illegal & illicit methods to garner news & use against people not sympathetic to them or did he just sit in a office alloof to what was going on quite happy with his companys near invincible position, & happy to let minions run his operations without a care in the world?

If it was the chairman of the BBC that had presided over such carryings on , you can bet your bottom dollar that the tory members of the committe would have used the same language & would have been relentless in making their position known. The torys didnt back the report fully because they are still reliant upon Rupert Murdoch & dont want to upset a trusty allie who down the yeras has done so much for them. All they have done is put more pressure on Cameron & give further weight to the notion that Cameron & Osborne scratched Ruperts back & in return for the old boy scratching theirs.

Maybe Watson did have a vendetta , but when you look at the lenghts that NI have gone to , to try & brush it all aside at the beginning , then his vendetta has been warranted.

Was that what this select committee investigation was set up to look into? Was that what they heard evidence about...??

I thought it was supposed to be all about whether witnesses in their previous investigation lied to them... How can the committee judge whether someone who was not even the focus of their investigation is a 'fit' person to run a business?
Mr Jon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 10:32
SheepdogNo1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blackpool on the seafront
Posts: 6,323
Well if they are quite happy to lie through their teeth, be economical with the truth in front of parliamentary select committees , then its quite clear that they are not fit to be runing a company. Certain members did lie, gave answers that tried to shift the blame, acknowledged their lack of knowing what was going on , then surely the only sensible conclusions you can come to is either they are inept or in on the deception & therefore either way not fit to run a major company. The people who where being investigated over lying where people trusted by Murdoch , so where they lying to protect themselves or their boss , who if to be believed had no idea what was going on.

Its Ofcom's remit to decide as to wether they should be in charge of a company with a broadcast license. All Watson etc have done is make it clear on what they've found & what they've been told / not told / lled to about , is that these are practices that are not becoming of a high profile company & therefore the buck stops with the head man ultimatley.

SheepdogNo1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 14:09
mRebel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,245
Regardless of Watson you are left with choice of did Murdoch knowingly preside over a company thats used illegal & illicit methods to garner news & use against people not sympathetic to them or did he just sit in a office alloof to what was going on quite happy with his companys near invincible position, & happy to let minions run his operations without a care in the world?

If it was the chairman of the BBC that had presided over such carryings on , you can bet your bottom dollar that the tory members of the committe would have used the same language & would have been relentless in making their position known. The torys didnt back the report fully because they are still reliant upon Rupert Murdoch & dont want to upset a trusty allie who down the yeras has done so much for them. All they have done is put more pressure on Cameron & give further weight to the notion that Cameron & Osborne scratched Ruperts back & in return for the old boy scratching theirs.

Maybe Watson did have a vendetta , but when you look at the lenghts that NI have gone to , to try & brush it all aside at the beginning , then his vendetta has been warranted.

So would Murdochs papers! These attacks on Tom Watson are missing the point, that he and some other Committee members are expressing their opnion when they say Murdoch isn't fit to run a company, as was Louise Mensch when she said he clearly is.
As to tha t opinion, well Rupert hasn't covered himself in glory, has he!
mRebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 15:49
Sad_BB_Addict
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Essex
Posts: 86,771
"Rupert Murdoch 'not fit' verdict was proposed six weeks before MPs' vote
Labour MP Tom Watson circulated amendment on 20 March but there are conflicting views about when it was discussed"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...-fit-six-weeks
Sad_BB_Addict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 15:50
Sad_BB_Addict
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Essex
Posts: 86,771
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump
@rupertmurdoch is a superb businessman and a world class CEO.He has built a tremendous empire and is certainly "fit" to run his corporation.
Sad_BB_Addict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 16:03
Transient1
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,172
Ah well if J Trump says he Rupert's OK then that is good enough for me.
Transient1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 16:09
sensoria
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,523
http://itsnotclever.wordpress.com/20...or-themselves/

this is my view on it.
sensoria is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 16:18
Tonyface
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,522
I agree with you somewhat, however I think that the only way to change anything is through the Political system.

IMHO ordinary people have far more chance in being able to influence through the Labour Party & perhaps even the SNP, than the elitist Tories.
You only have to look at the way that Tories on here are jumping to the defense of Rupert Murdoch's right to subvert the law and any kind of moral justice. Only too happy to slavishly follow their elitist leadership whilst having virtually zero chance of ever joining or influencing them.

RIP: Milly Dowler.
Tonyface is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2012, 16:19
jmclaugh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 35,340
I find myself agreeing to a very large extent with the final statement and I suspect many others do too.

The announcement today the hacking scandal found Murdoch is “not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company” fits like a glove when aimed at the politicians of all parties sitting in the Houses of Parliament.

Meanwhile they continue to waffle on about stuff most voters would I imagine not give a toss about. The next one up will be HoL reform and yet more public inquiries that seem never to actually deliver anything of any real use such as changing things.
jmclaugh is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:23.