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

145679

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 87,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    "Martin Hickman: If Murdoch thought the worst was over, he was wrong "
    Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/martin-hickman-if-murdoch-thought-the-worst-was-over-he-was-wrong-7704399.html

    "Sketch: Rupert Murdoch hacked down by the Freewheelin' Tom Watson"
    Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9239312/Sketch-Rupert-Murdoch-hacked-down-by-the-Freewheelin-Tom-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/commentisfree/2012/may/01/rupert-murdoch-failing-fitness-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/article-2137671/Phone-hacking-scandal-Rupert-Murdoch-fit-person-run-global-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/317644/Rupert-Murdoch-turned-blind-eye-to-phone-hacking-says-devastating-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/news/local-national/uk/murdoch-hits-back-at-commons-report-16152832.html
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 87,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    "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/fresh-legal-headaches-news-corp-following-parliament-report-lawyers-argue-38081
  • TonyfaceTonyface Posts: 1,602
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    menadarva wrote: »
    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.
  • JillyJilly Posts: 20,455
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tonyface wrote: »
    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?
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    "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? :D:D
  • Transient1Transient1 Posts: 1,185
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • LysandarLysandar Posts: 1,240
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tonyface wrote: »
    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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. :)
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Lysandar wrote: »
    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.
  • divingbboydivingbboy Posts: 14,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Majlis wrote: »
    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.
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    divingbboy wrote: »
    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.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,400
    Forum Member
    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.

    :)
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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?
  • Mr JonMr Jon Posts: 535
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,400
    Forum Member
    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.

    :)
  • mRebelmRebel Posts: 24,882
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 87,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    "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/may/02/rupert-murdoch-not-fit-six-weeks
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 87,224
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • Transient1Transient1 Posts: 1,185
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ah well if J Trump says he Rupert's OK then that is good enough for me. :)
  • TonyfaceTonyface Posts: 1,602
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    sensoria wrote: »

    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.
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    sensoria wrote: »

    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. :yawn:
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tonyface wrote: »
    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.

    LOL - i just love the Labour Party supporters - if you dont agree with Tom Watson's grandstanding then you automatically support Murdoch breaking the Law.

    What a bizarre world some posters live in. :D:D
Sign In or Register to comment.