Rupert Murdoch has been running companies for years so that's a stupid statement. He did take his eye off the ball and should have known what was happening. Someone should have bought this to his attention year and years ago.
Running companies for years ... should have the experience to see what was going on
Took his eye off the ball ? :eek: understatement ....
Someone should have bought this to his attention year and years ago...... Pass the buck :rolleyes: sounds just like what Murdoch would/will do..
Running companies for years ... should have the experience to see what was going on
Took his eye off the ball ? :eek: understatement ....
Someone should have bought this to his attention year and years ago...... Pass the buck :rolleyes: sounds just like what Murdoch would/will do..
Actually someone did give a hint that not all was as it should be back in 2003 Her name is Rebekah Brooks and she stated on TV that the NOTW made payments to police officers and appeared to be blissfully unaware that to do so was (and still is) illegal...
Did Rupert put her straight about that? I don't know, but I do know that some years later the very same Ms Brooks had not only been promoted but was bizarrely put in charge of an investigation into misdeeds at the paper that happened under her own leadership :eek:
It's little things like this that make me doubtful that Rupert is just a good businessman who was merely the victim of unscrupulous minions tbh
Funny how certain people on here would rather aim their vitriol at the person who uncovered wrongdoing, rather than the person who presided over it.
.
News International did the same. In February 2010 the Commons Committee on Culture and Media published a report highly critical of the company and phone hacking. Here's how they responded through the pages of the News of the World,
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:
So 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.
paragraph 24 of the Committe report published today. You can read the whole report here,
I love Tom Watson. That aside, if Myler, Crone and Hilton are standing by their word none of them will apologize
I thought Tom Watson was doing a good job until he said to J Murdoch at the select committee "You must be the first Mafia boss in history who didn't know he was running a criminal enterprise."
Silly and childish, but perhaps he was having a bad day.
I still think Watson is doing a decent job, but it's also the case that his ego is part of the equation.
I thought Tom Watson was doing a good job until he said to J Murdoch at the select committee "You must be the first Mafia boss in history who didn't know he was running a criminal enterprise."
Silly and childish, but perhaps he was having a bad day.
I still think Watson is doing a decent job, but it's also the case that his ego is part of the equation.
He'll continue digging no doubt and has indicated this already. However, it seems his chances of getting his ultimate scalps are receding, unless some well hidden trace or evidence is uncovered or disclosed at the possible criminal trials.
Never heard of the Lib Dem MP on the panel , Adrian Sanders who represents Torbay which he won in 1997 by 12 votes , in 2010 he had a majority of over 23,000 .
"U.K. lawmakers called on News Corp. to allow its former criminal defense firm to reveal details on a 2006 internal probe into phone-hacking at the company’s now- defunct News of the World tabloid. "
After the Milly Dowler revelations, I thought news Corporation shouldn't be allowed to own any media in this country. That is still my opinion.
However, the report released today is politicised and lacks credibility. Tom Watson has been immature throughout. I remember the way he questioned James Murdoch. It seemed that he was just trying to draw attention to himself. He shouldn't be allowed to sit on parliamentary select committees again.
News Corporation is an immoral organisation, and Tom Watson is an immoral politician. I have no time for either of them.
Rupert Murdoch has been running companies for years so that's a stupid statement. He did take his eye off the ball and should have known what was happening. Someone should have bought this to his attention year and years ago.
Protecting the reputation of your company is probably one of the most important things people in his position are supposed to do. They are supposed to do this by setting an example and making it clear what behaviours and ethical standards everyone is supposed to abide to.
I recently moved companies and had to go through a series of courses (with multiple choice exams) on business ethics and 'protecting the brand'. These are mandatory for all employees and have to re-taken every three years. The whistle blowing system was also explained in a video presented by the CEO himself.
Now that is how a company should treat this sort of thing.
Was Tom Watson a fit and proper person to be a member of a Select Committee looking into the influence and possible wrongdoing of News International?
He was conducting a campaign against NI, had personal animosity towards Murdoch, was writing a book about Murdoch, and published the book before the Committee announced its findings.
I find it astonishing that such a person is considered impartial and therefore qualified to sit on that particular Parliamentary Committee.
Never heard of the Lib Dem MP on the panel , Adrian Sanders who represents Torbay which he won in 1997 by 12 votes , in 2010 he had a majority of over 23,000 .
Sanders is one of the few Lib Dems who I think will keep his seat in the next election, on most issues he's stuck by what Lib Dem supporters wanted and voted against the government, exception was nhs bill
Was Tom Watson a fit and proper person to be a member of a Select Committee looking into the influence and possible wrongdoing of News International?
He was conducting a campaign against NI, had personal animosity towards Murdoch, was writing a book about Murdoch, and published the book before the Committee announced its findings.
I find it astonishing that such a person is considered impartial and therefore qualified to sit on that Parliamentary Committee.
All of this after he became a committee member, but you could argue that about a lot of the people on the committee, Whittnigdale has close links to the Murdochs
Debate on it now with Therese Coffey (one of the Cons on the Select Committee), Vincent Graff, media commentator, Scarlett McGuire (former media advisor to Lab)
All of this after he became a committee member, but you could argue that about a lot of the people on the committee, Whittnigdale has close links to the Murdochs
Are you sure the animosity didn't exist before he became a member of the Committee?
Even if not, Watson was patently biased, and how do you explain his writing and publishing a book about Murdoch whilst still on the Committee?
If you are part of a Committee in public life you are supposed to declare an interest or decline to take part when there is an obvious conflict of interest resulting in an inability to make an impartial judgement . Watson did neither yet everyone knew of his animosity towards the Murdochs.
Comments
Running companies for years
Took his eye off the ball ? :eek: understatement ....
Someone should have bought this to his attention year and years ago...... Pass the buck :rolleyes: sounds just like what Murdoch would/will do..
I can't stand Tom Watson either he always looks so smug and will no doubt live off this story for the rest of his life, he makes my skin crawl.
Actually someone did give a hint that not all was as it should be back in 2003
Did Rupert put her straight about that? I don't know, but I do know that some years later the very same Ms Brooks had not only been promoted but was bizarrely put in charge of an investigation into misdeeds at the paper that happened under her own leadership :eek:
It's little things like this that make me doubtful that Rupert is just a good businessman who was merely the victim of unscrupulous minions tbh
Very funny indeed.
News International did the same. In February 2010 the Commons Committee on Culture and Media published a report highly critical of the company and phone hacking. Here's how they responded through the pages of the News of the World,
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:
So 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.
paragraph 24 of the Committe report published today. You can read the whole report here,
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/news-international-and-phone-hacking-report-publication/
it's shocking reading.
Not really. For all Murdoch's faults, it's never an edifying spectacle watching someone sharpening their knife and heading after their pound of flesh.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/52603/news_corporation_statement_on_uks_culture_select_committee_report_into_phone_hacking.html
Solenoid, the Labour party being the biggest in Westminster??
I was trying to get my head round that too. Maybe if you take the other place into account? :rolleyes:
In the parallel universe I seem to be currently inhabiting where minor parties get the most votes in commitees.
I blame the influence of the tabloids myself
I thought Tom Watson was doing a good job until he said to J Murdoch at the select committee "You must be the first Mafia boss in history who didn't know he was running a criminal enterprise."
Silly and childish, but perhaps he was having a bad day.
I still think Watson is doing a decent job, but it's also the case that his ego is part of the equation.
He'll continue digging no doubt and has indicated this already. However, it seems his chances of getting his ultimate scalps are receding, unless some well hidden trace or evidence is uncovered or disclosed at the possible criminal trials.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-01/news-corp-dot-should-waive-law-firm-privilege-lawmakers-say
However, the report released today is politicised and lacks credibility. Tom Watson has been immature throughout. I remember the way he questioned James Murdoch. It seemed that he was just trying to draw attention to himself. He shouldn't be allowed to sit on parliamentary select committees again.
News Corporation is an immoral organisation, and Tom Watson is an immoral politician. I have no time for either of them.
Protecting the reputation of your company is probably one of the most important things people in his position are supposed to do. They are supposed to do this by setting an example and making it clear what behaviours and ethical standards everyone is supposed to abide to.
I recently moved companies and had to go through a series of courses (with multiple choice exams) on business ethics and 'protecting the brand'. These are mandatory for all employees and have to re-taken every three years. The whistle blowing system was also explained in a video presented by the CEO himself.
Now that is how a company should treat this sort of thing.
He was conducting a campaign against NI, had personal animosity towards Murdoch, was writing a book about Murdoch, and published the book before the Committee announced its findings.
I find it astonishing that such a person is considered impartial and therefore qualified to sit on that particular Parliamentary Committee.
Sanders is one of the few Lib Dems who I think will keep his seat in the next election, on most issues he's stuck by what Lib Dem supporters wanted and voted against the government, exception was nhs bill
All of this after he became a committee member, but you could argue that about a lot of the people on the committee, Whittnigdale has close links to the Murdochs
That made me smile.
Debate on it now with Therese Coffey (one of the Cons on the Select Committee), Vincent Graff, media commentator, Scarlett McGuire (former media advisor to Lab)
Are you sure the animosity didn't exist before he became a member of the Committee?
Even if not, Watson was patently biased, and how do you explain his writing and publishing a book about Murdoch whilst still on the Committee?
If you are part of a Committee in public life you are supposed to declare an interest or decline to take part when there is an obvious conflict of interest resulting in an inability to make an impartial judgement . Watson did neither yet everyone knew of his animosity towards the Murdochs.