Phone hacking scandal deepens

[Peter Lemkin]

Yes, but why was the committee today playing such softball with them and not asking the hard questions....even, as you pointed out, the pie that was not a pie incident was constructed to give Murdoch sympathy, not a hard time. This whole thing looks rigged in their favor. :mexican: :rofl:

[Peter Lemkin]

AMY GOODMAN: Rupert Murdoch and his son and chosen successor, James Murdoch, appear before the British Parliament today as the phone-hacking scandal engulfing their media empire continues to grow. On Monday, Sean Hoare, a former reporter who helped blow the whistle on the Murdoch-owned News of the World, was found dead in his home in Britain. Hoare had been the source for a New York Times story tying the phone hacking to former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, who would later become chief of communications for British Prime Minister David Cameron. Coulson was arrested as the scandal broke open earlier this month.

Sean Hoare discussed his allegations against Coulson in an interview last September.

SEAN HOARE: I have stood by Andy and been requested to tap phones, OK, or hack into them and so on. He was well aware that the practice exists. To deny it is a lie, is simply a lie.

AMY GOODMAN: Police say Sean Hoare appears to have died of natural causes, but that hasn't lessened suspicion of foul play. Hoare not only talked about phone hacking, but phone tracking, as wellor as he said, they called it in the newsroom "pinging," where he said News of the World would pay, he believed, police to track individuals' locations. These revelations have made the link between the phone-hacking scandal and police, with allegations of illegal payments for news tips and disclosures of close ties between top police officials and News International executives.

On Monday, John Yates, the third-ranking official at Britain's Metropolitan Police Service, announced his resignation. Two years ago, Yates made the now-infamous decision not to reopen an investigation into the phone hacking.

JOHN YATES: This case has been subject of the most careful investigation by very experienced detectives. It has also been scrutinized in detail by both the CPS and leading counsel. They have carefully examined all the evidence and prepared indictments that they considered appropriate. No additional evidence has come to light since this case has concluded. I therefore consider that no further investigation is required.

AMY GOODMAN: That was John Yates speaking in July 2009. Announcing his resignation Monday, Yates maintained he's innocent of wrongdoing.

JOHN YATES: I simply cannot let thisthe situation continue. It is a matter of great personal frustration that despite my efforts on a number of occasions to explain the true facts surrounding my role in these matters since 2009, there remains confusion about what exactly took place. I have acted with complete integrity, and my conscience is clear. I look forward to the future judge-led inquiry where my role will be examined in a proper and calmer environment and where my actions will be judged on the evidence rather than on innuendo and speculation, as they are at present.

AMY GOODMAN: The Independent Police Complaints Commission is now investigating Yates both for his handling of the phone-hacking case and for allegations he helped the daughter of former News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis get a job with the British police. Yates' resignation comes one day after Britain's top copMetropolitan Police Commissioner, the head of Scotland Yard, Sir Paul Stephensonalso stepped down.

Pressure is also growing on Murdoch across the Atlantic. The FBI has launched a probe into allegations News Corp. employees tried to bribe police and hack into the voicemails of people killed in the 9/11 attacks. On Monday, the families of 9/11 victims asked to meet with the FBI and top Obama administration officials about the hacking allegations. Under U.S. law, News Corp. could face penalties even if the alleged bribery was committed entirely overseas.

The intense scrutiny on News Corp.'s practices is also widening the spotlight on its vast holdings in the U.S. media landscape. News Corp. owns a number of outlets, including Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox News Channel, the National Geographic Channel, HarperCollins, TV Guide, The Weekly Standard, the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, as well as the film studios 20th Century Fox and Fox Searchlight. News Corp.'s dominant standing in the U.S. media received a major boost in the early 1990s when the FCC waived a regulation meant to curb media consolidation.

For more, we're joined in Washington, D.C., by Matt Wood. He is the policy director at the media reform group Free Press.

Matt, welcome to Democracy Now! Let's talk about the Murdoch empire here in the United States.

MATT WOOD: Sure. Thanks, Amy. Great to be here.

That's an impressive list that you just rattled off, in terms of the number of properties that Mr. Murdoch owns. The one thing that was not on that list was 28 TV station licenses for local TV stations around the country. And that's really the part that the Federal Communications Commission has the most extensive oversight over, thanks to the special bargain that broadcasters have to serve the public interest in return for their use of the public airwaves. So those are the kinds of rules that it'sit's not fair to say that Fox or News Corp. alone has been pushing for their eradication over the last couple decades, but it is fair to say that they've been among the most aggressive lobbyists on that score and succeeded in not only trying to eradicate or reduce those rules, but also to seek waivers of them and obtain those waivers when they can't change the rules that underlie the media ownership limitation you just mentioned.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain exactly how Rupert Murdoch came to own television and newspaper in the same town. In New York, he owns the New York Post, he owns the Wall Street Journal, and he owns Fox.

MATT WOOD: Sure. Well, that's actually a two-part story, at least, although it's probably easier to break it into several components, but for present purposes I'll talk about two, and we can go deeper on either of these.

Murdoch owns TV stations, in the first place, in the United States thanks to a series of steps he took to first buy TV stations in the mid-'80s. And at that time, he was required to become a U.S. citizen, or I should say he became a U.S. citizen himself in an attempt to get around restrictions that the FCC and statute places on foreign ownership of broadcast licenses. So, in 1985 he becomes a U.S. citizen and is allowed to purchase these TV stations that today, as I mentioned, number 28 in 13 of the top 15 markets and that cover basically the entire United States in those large metropolitan markets.

The story becomes a little more complicated with the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban, a piece of regulation that prevents a newspaper from being owned by a television station. And that has been on the books since 1975. Murdoch again sought a waiver and obtained a waiver for those rules in the early '90s, when he both had WNYW, the Fox affiliate in New York, and the New York Post in his holdings. That waiver was later expanded to include a second television station in New York. And he has, to this day, as you mentioned, controlled two TV stations, also the New York Post, a local paper in New York, the Wall Street Journal, several other properties in New York. Obviously, you mentioned Fox News Channel, as well.

And so, it really is a sprawling and multifaceted media empire, controlled in large part thanks to these waivers at the FCC issue not only of foreign ownership requirements, in the first placeand eventually those problems were resolved as Mr. Murdoch and his lawyers worked through the process with the FCC. But it's not just the foreign ownership limitations that were overcome in the first place; it is these newspaper and broadcast cross-ownership bans that they have also worked to, again, eradicate, but when they can't eradicate them, to obtain waivers for those rules that apply only to News Corporation and to its holdings.

AMY GOODMAN: How did Rupert Murdoch get AmericanU.S. citizenship?

MATT WOOD: Well, I'm not an expert on citizenship matters. He applied for citizenship and was naturalized in the mid-'80s. The problem with that was that News Corp. itself was still a foreign corporation headquartered outside the United States. And so, in the mid-'90s, despite the fact that Mr. Murdoch was a U.S. citizen, the FCC had reason to reopen that decision and to basically conclude that the allowance of him buying the TV stations in the first place was not proper, yet they allowed it to continue because of the perceived need for increased competition amongst network television stations, both locally and nationally. And so, despite the fact that in the mid-'90s the FCC revisited that decision and said that Murdoch's personal citizenship was not enough to satisfy the requirement and to eliminate the problem of foreign ownership of broadcast licenses, they, in the '90s, concluded, well, there was a problem here, and News Corp. is not a U.S. corporation, it is in fact foreign-controlled, but they allowed him to continue owning the stations at that point in time. Eventually, that issue became moot because News Corp. moved its headquarters to the United States, but it was only after really two decades of wrangling and citizenship maneuvers to ensure that Mr. Murdoch and then his company were not running afoul of very clear prohibitions in U.S. law on foreign ownership of broadcast properties.

AMY GOODMAN: Matt Wood, can you talk about the larger issue of how the Murdoch empire here fits into, furthers media consolidation and the problems you see with that?

MATT WOOD: Sure. Thank you. I mean, that's really what we're hoping to look at in more detail here. Obviously, the phone-hacking scandal, all the other headlines you reported on this morning, are very newsworthy, and it's something that we have joined in calls for investigation of, along with many other groups here in the United States and representatives in the legislature, senators and representatives alike calling for investigation. Those are serious charges, and those will be investigated in due course, I'm sure. And those could play into the media ownership issue, as well, because there are FCC limitations and character requirements for licensees of television stations. So those could play into an eventual determination of whether or not Fox is fit to hold licenses for broadcast stations. But the larger issues you mentioned are just as important here, and we hope that this helps to shine a spotlight on media consolidation more generally.

We see at least two problems with media consolidation, and we could probably list several more. But again, at a high level, media consolidation and massive concentration in the hands of a single owner allows for that single media spokesperson, that single voice, to control the political debate in ways that probably weren't imagined 10 or 20 years ago, before Mr. Murdoch became so expert at it. So we have politicians not just beholden to a company based on campaign contributionsthat can be the case sometimesbut really beholden to them because of the need for positive coverage and the fact that the newspapers, the television stations, the cable news channel, all the news properties put together can have so much sway over the election and on the policy debates occurring here in Washington, D.C., and around the country after that.

I think a second point to mention here is that massive consolidation and concentration of media properties eliminates independent voices, like The Guardian, for instance, in the United Kingdom, which brought to light a lot of these charges in the first place, like programs that in the United States might have been able to bring charges to light or shine a brighter spotlight on media concentration in the past, if it were not for the fact that the media is so concentrated to begin with and really doesn't do a terribly good job of reporting on itself and on the aspects of media concentration and consolidation that drown out independent voices and prevent people from talking about these very important policy issues. So we think that it both affects thea lack of diversity of viewpoints on the air and a lack of diversity of viewpoints in government and can contribute to an unwillingness to investigate these kinds of practices that we're seeing come to light now.

AMY GOODMAN: Matt Wood, what about the issue of newscasters having responsibilities to cover the issues? A lot of people, of course, have been noting that Fox has not been covering itself. The news during the day, they will mention, you know, some of the facts, but when it comes to the evening shows, there is a noticeable lack of coverage. What is the significance of that, if any?

MATT WOOD: Well, it's significant, but I'm not sure that there's regulation that should be designed to overcome that. You're sort of referring to the Fairness Doctrine, which is a doctrine that the FCC abolished back in the '80s and actually just recently took off the books officially. That was an obligation that was placed on broadcasters, and broadcasters alone. And again, that's because of the special relationship that broadcasters have with the Federal Communications Commission. They are licensed to use the public airwaves and so have a special duty to serve the public interest and serve the communities that they're licensed to serve. That's something that Free Press is not calling for the revival of at this point. It's something that is very controversial because of the First Amendment implications.

Really, Fox News, when it comes to the cable channel, would never have been subject to that regulation in the first place, although some people have called for reviving it and extending it. That's not something that we see as a solution. We think the solution is better media ownership rules to prevent massive consolidation, to increase the number of voices out there. It's long been said that the cure for a lack of the coverage of issues is more voices and more speech, and we think that these media ownership rules we were discussing a moment ago are just absolutely critical to ensuring that there are multiple viewpoints on the air, but whether it's on broadcast or cable platforms, and also to ensure that there are independent voices and investigative journalists out there talking about these issues. So if Fox News doesn't want to cover itself, that's understandable, perhaps. The solution should be more and better journalism from other outlets and from other investigative reporters and other sources that can report on Fox and report on Mr. Murdoch and his doings.

AMY GOODMAN: Matt Wood, I want to thank you for being with us, policy director at Free Press, which you can find online at freepress.net. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. At 10:00at 9:30, after the Democracy Now! broadcast, online at democracynow.org we will be broadcasting the parliamentary hearings, where James Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch, and as well as Rebekah Brooks, will be testifying. You can go to democracynow.org. We'll be back in a minute.

[Peter Lemkin]

News International 'deliberately' blocked investigation

All-party home affairs committee report into phone hacking to be published in time for David Cameron's statement

Vikram Dodd
The Guardian, Wednesday 20 July 2011

Rupert Murdoch's News International company has been found by a parliamentary committee to have "deliberately" tried to block a Scotland Yard criminal investigation into phone hacking at the News of the World.

The report from MPs on the all-party home affairs committee will be released on Wednesday morning and its publication has been moved forward in time for today's statement by prime minister David Cameron on the scandal.

The report's central finding comes a day after Rupert and James Murdoch testified before the culture, media and sport committee. The home affairs committee report marks an official damning judgment on News International's actions.

It finds the company "deliberately" tried to "thwart" the 2005-6 Metropolitan police investigation into phone hacking carried out by the News of the World.

The police investigation came at a time when Andy Coulson was editor. Coulson went in to be chosen by Cameron to be his director of communications, before resigning.

The full report will be published Wednesday morning. Among its findings are:

Police failed to examine a vast amount of material that could have identified others involved in the phone hacking conspiracy and victims.

John Yates made a "serious misjudgement" in deciding in July 2009 that the Met's criminal investigation should not be reopened. He resigned on Monday.

The new phone hacking investigation should receive more money, from government if necessary, so it can contact potential victims more speedily. A fraction have been contacted so far.

The Information Commissioner should be given new powers to deal with phone hacking and blagging.

The central conclusion about NI's hampering of the police investigation comes after the home affairs committee heard evidence from senior Met officers who were involved in the case that News International obstructed justice.

Last week the man who oversaw the first Metropolitan police investigation into phone hacking, Peter Clarke, damned News International: "If at any time News International had offered some meaningful co-operation instead of prevarication and what we now know to be lies, we would not be here today."

The first police inquiry led to the conviction in January 2007 of one journalist, Clive Goodman, and the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire.

But subsequent developments, and the handing over of documents by News International, are alleged to show the practice of phone hacking was much more widespread than the company ever admitted. NI claimed for years it was the work of one rogue reporter, a defence the company has now abandoned, at least in part because of a Guardian investigation, which eventually led to the Met to reopen their inquiry.

The committee heard on Tuesday that "blindingly obvious" evidence of corrupt payments to police officers was found by the former director of public prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, when he inspected News of the World emails. Lord Macdonald said that when he inspected the messages from NI, it took him between "three to five minutes" to decide that the material had to be passed to police.

The emails and other material has been in the possession of NI or their lawyers for years.

MacDonald said: "The material I saw was so blindingly obvious that trying to argue that it should not be given to the police would have been a hard task. It was evidence of serious criminal offences."

Ed Llewellyn, David Cameron's chief of staff, was also dragged into the phone-hacking scandal on Tuesday when two of the country's most senior police officers revealed he had urged them not to brief the prime minister on developments.

Llewellyn sought to stop information about the scandal being passed on to the prime minister in September, just days after the New York Times ran an article which claimed Coulson had been aware of the use of the illegal practice when he edited the News of the World.

Former Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson who resigned on Sunday and former assistant commissioner John Yates who followed on Monday told the House of Commons home affairs select committee that they believed Llewellyn was keen to avoid "compromising" the prime minister.

Yates told the committee he was offering to discuss only police protocol not operational matters.

Committee Chair Right Hon Keith Vaz MP said:
"There has been a catalogue of failures by the Metropolitan Police, and deliberate attempts by News International to thwart the various investigations. Police and prosecutors have been arguing over the interpretation of the law.

"The new inquiry requires additional resources and if these are not forthcoming, it will take years to inform all the potential victims. The victims of hacking should have come first and I am shocked that this has not happened."

[Peter Lemkin]

repeat post deleted.

[Keith Millea]

The first headline I read is,"Murdock attacked at hearing".Great work Jonnie Fucking Marbles......

Published on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 by The Guardian/UK

Why I Foam-Pied Rupert Murdoch


Some people might think my action played into Murdoch's hands, but I did it for all the people who couldn't

by Jonnie Marbles


First things first: I don't hate octogenarians. I don't have a vendetta against anyone over 80 who likes to begrudgingly give evidence to parliamentary committees. Nor am I in the habit of attacking media moguls on international television. Yesterday was, hopefully, a one off.


The moment Jonnie Marbles attempted to hit Rupert Murdoch in the face with a foam pie. (Photograph: PA)

If you're of sound mind, you might quite reasonably ask what possessed me to smuggle a shaving-foam pie into Portcullis House and throw it at (though, alas, not into) the face of one of the world's richest and most powerful men. I didn't do it because I wanted more Twitter followers. Simply put, I did it for all the people who couldn't.

It's not difficult to find reasons to dislike Rupert Murdoch. His reach is one of the most insidious and toxic forces in global politics today. The phone-hacking scandal, despicable though it is, barely scratches the surface of the damage done by News International. It is a media empire built on deceit and bile, that trades vitriol for debate and thinks nothing of greasing the wheels of power until they turn in its favour. What's more, no matter what the grievances he wreaks on those he has never met, his power and money keep him forever safely out of their reach.

Yes it's true that Murdoch's power is waning. But it's also true that he will never face real justice. Yesterday's select committee hearing was a farce before the foam ever left my fingers: a toothless panel confronting men too slippery to be caught between their gums.

I was filled with hope as Tom Watson questioned Murdoch Sr relentlessly with the passion and vigour we might expect to be the norm when our elected representatives face down the perpetrators of a modern Watergate. For a few bright moments I thought I might see justice done, keep the pie in my bag and spare myself a night in jail. Those moments were short lived: as committee member after committee member feebly prodded around the issues and Murdoch Jr began to dominate, I knew I was going to have to make a massive tit of myself.

To be honest, I had not expected to get so far, but parliamentary security, with its machine-gun toting cops and scatter X-rays, is apparently no match for a man with some shaving-foam covered plates in his bag. Then, once inside the committee room, I was helped along by some unwelcome luck. I had always intended to wait until the end of the hearings anyway before I launched my circus crusade, and as the penultimate speaker finished several people made their way out, leaving me a clear path to Murdoch. It was a horrible feeling: I had a plan, a pie and no excuses left.

I had intended to unleash a wave of polemic as I made my move. As it turned out, the whole thing was far too weird for me to string two thoughts together, particularly as Murdoch's wife rose from the chair to prevent and avenge her husband's humiliation. As it went, I'm glad I was even able to make the accurate understatement that he was a "naughty billionaire".

As I languished predictably in a prison cell later that evening, I contemplated whether people would understand why I'd done it. I knew it was a tall order: a surreal act aimed at exposing a surreal process was never going to be an easy sell. I worried, too, that my clowning would detract from the scandal, or provide sympathy for Murdoch.

Believe it or not, I even worried about Rupert Murdoch's feelings. You see, I really don't hate 80-year-olds and, at the end of the day, Rupert Murdoch is just an old man. Maybe what I was trying to do was remind everyone of that that he is not all powerful, he's not Sauron or Beelzebub, just a human being, like the rest of us, but one who has got far too big for his boots.

© 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/20-3

Jonnie Marbles is a comedian and activist who campaigns on a variety of social issues

[Peter Lemkin]

The first headline I read is,"Murdock attacked at hearing".Great work Jonnie Fucking Marbles......


Some people might think my action played into Murdoch's hands,

Yeah, Johnny, I think it played right into Murdoch's hands, and was also perhaps an advertisement for yourself. Go away....far, far away.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Cameron opined in Parliament:

"On the decision to hire him, I believe I have answered every question about this. It was my decision. I take responsibility. People will, of course, make judgments about it.

"Of course I regret [it] and I am extremely sorry about the furore it has caused.

"With 20:20 hindsight and all that has followed I would not have offered him the job and I expect that he wouldn't have taken it.

"But you don't make decisions in hindsight; you make them in the present. You live and you learn and believe you me, I have learnt."

Complete rubbish.

Cameron hired Coulson first as Tory Party Propaganda Chief, then as Government Propaganda Chief, precisely because of his specific skillset: Coulson's ability to deliver by hook or by crook.

Cameron also hired Coulson because of his intimate relationship with the Murdoch empire.

If Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton are Murdoch consigliere, then Andy Coulson was a made man.

A couple of weeks ago, the Murdoch empire declared that Andy Coulson was no longer a made man: it was OK to hit him again.

This was both a cynical act to distance themselves from the evidence about Coulson's alleged knowledge of criminal and corrupt acts by NOTW, and a signal to Cameron that his boy was no longer their boy.

[Peter Lemkin]

The Wall Street Journal - a News Corporation outlet - is again engaging in aggressive damage control for the Murdoch empire by attacking Wikileaks. WL Central addresses the mendacity.
It appears that the Wall Street Journal - which publishes from News Corp's Celanese Building headquarters in New York city - is suing for the title of "Murdoch's Bulldog." Thinly veiled and deceptive attempts to control the message on the escalating News of the World scandal have been issuing from the once-respected news outlet. And the tactic seems to be diversionary. The second article in two days to defend News Corp by attacking Wikileaks was published today, penned by Bret Stephens.
Trevor Timm has already written here at WL Central about yesterday's clumsy WSJ editorial, which alleged hypocrisy at the Guardian, in that it criticized News of the World while publishing material from Wikileaks. Today's article belaboured the same spurious argument even further, as the air of desperation at News Corp intensified in advance of the Murdoch hearing today. Keen to deny his motives preemptively, Stephens notes:
It's probably inevitable that this column will be read in some quarters as shilling for Rupert Murdoch. Not at all: I have nothing but contempt for the hack journalism practiced by some of the Murdoch titles.
But the entire thrust of his argument undermines this claim. Stephens is either exceptionally ignorant of the facts on which his article touches, or he is very clearly shilling for Rupert Murdoch. These are the only two possible explanations for the deceitfulness on evidence here.
How Damage Control Is Done
The article is a collection of timeworn rhetorical swindles. Stephens' basic argument is a tu quoque fallacy: he attempts to distract attention from criminal activity in News Corp ranks by arguing that the rest of the press is just as deceitful. Even if this were true, it would be nothing more than a distraction from what is, without a doubt, a scandal very worthy of scrutiny.
To substantiate his argument-by-hypocrisy, Stephens raises a false equivalence between, on the one hand, Wikileaks' facilitation of conscientious whistleblowing by corporate and government employees and, on the other hand, criminal interception of private voicemail messages by powerful news organizations.
This false equivalence is only sustainable by lying outright, or by passing on the lies of others. There is simply no comparison between these two activities. To support his case, Stephens therefore marshals various demonstrable falsehoods about Wikileaks. The usual suspects make their appearance - the same old zombie lies, already discredited countless times.
Straightforward Falsehoods
Consider Stephens' initial claims of false equivalence:
In both cases, secret information, initially obtained by illegal means, was disseminated publicly by news organizations that believed the value of the information superseded the letter of the law, as well as the personal interests of those whom it would most directly affect.
There is little doubt that News of the World was engaged in mass criminality, at this point. But it is false to assert that Wikileaks obtained its information by illegal means. It is probably true to say that, when whistleblowers leak evidence of wrongdoing from centres of state and corporate power, they do so in violation of the law. This is often what necessitates the confidentiality of sources in the exposure of such activity. But it is misleading to claim that in passively receiving such information, Wikileaks violates any law.
Wikileaks has, to date, successfully defended all legal challenges to its activities. And if Wikileaks does not obtain its information by illegal means, it is all the more deceitful to claim that the news organizations who publish information from Wikileaks - a list of organizations which includes the Wall Street Journal - are thereby obtaining information by illegal means. It is perfectly consistent with normal press freedoms to be in receipt of classified information. While this has been challenged by states hungry for more secrecy, the courts have thus far protected the practice.
Stephens next relies on the myth that Wikileaks has caused demonstrable harm:
In both cases, a dreadful human toll has been exacted: The British parents of murdered 13-year-old Milly Dowler, led to the false hope that their child might be alive because some of her voice mails were deleted after her abduction; Afghan citizens, fearful of Taliban reprisals after being exposed by WikiLeaks as U.S. informants.
It is worth noting in passing that the phrase "a dreadful human toll" conjures images more of mass graves than fearful informants. But the central falsehood here - that the lives of Afghan informants were substantially endangered - has been discredited multiple times as a piece of straightforward US government spin. To date, Wikileaks does not have "blood on its hands," as has been so often cited. Furthermore, the controversy over the endangerment of Afghan lives rests on the allegation that Wikileaks was careless about harm minimization in its release of the Afghanistan War Logs. This too is a piece of government spin, calculated to conceal the US government's own negligence in helping with harm minimization.
Stephens, however, presumes damage on the part of Wikileaks, and quotes obediently from official government statements, presumably relying on trust that a faction which has a clear vested interest in seeing Wikileaks discredited would not fabricate harm to this end:
Seen in this light, the damage caused by WikiLeaks almost certainly exceeded what was done by News of the World, precisely because Mr. Assange and his media enablers were targeting biggerif often more vulnerablegame. The Obama administration went so far as to insist last year that WikiLeaks "[placed] at risk the lives of countless innocent individualsfrom journalists to human rights activists to soldiers." Shouldn't there be some accountability, or at least soul-searching, about this, too??
Elsewhere, Stephens raises another zombie lie from its umpteenth grave. Yesterday, it became known to the world, through the Zimbabwean press, that a treason investigation into Morgan Tzvangirai had collapsed. Wikileaks was blamed in January when journalists at the Guardian failed to redact some of Tzvangirai's comments from a published cable, which were then seized upon by Robert Mugabe's faction in the Zimbabwean government. Ironically, the most strident criticism of Wikileaks issued from the pages of the Guardian itself, although, after a week of criticism, the paper published a retraction, and recognized that it bore the responsibility. The falsehood that it was Wikileaks, and not the Guardian, which was responsible, was nevertheless invulnerable to the facts, and propogated freely elsewhere, as it has clearly done in Stephens' piece:
Was it in the higher public interest to know, as we learned from WikiLeaks, that Zimbabwe's prime minister and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai was privately urging U.S. diplomats to hold firm on sanctions even as he was saying the opposite in public? No. Did the public want to know about it? No. What did this particular WikiLeak achieve? Nothing, except to put Mr. Tsvangirai at material risk of being charged with treason and hanged.
When these words were published it was already common knowledge that Tzvangirai is no longer to be prosecuted. While critics of Wikileaks, like Stephens, are happy to wax righteous about the endangerment of Tzvangirai's life, the discovery that he is no longer in any danger will likely be a substantial disappointment to them. Distortion though it was to blame Wikileaks for someone else's negligence - it was the closest thing to a point they had. It is for this reason that Tzvangirai's vindication is likely to be ignored by dissimulators like Stephens.
Mentioning Rape
In his attempt to tamp down controversy over the worst abuses of the tabloid press, Stephens scruples little from its tactics, indulging in a brief diversion through Assange's ongoing legal trouble - which has nothing to do with anything here - to throw in a specious association between public interest journalism and the word "rape."
You can see the attraction of this argumentparticularly if, like Mr. Assange, you are trying to fight extradition to Sweden on pending rape charges that you consider unworthy of public notice.
The voluminous reservations that are to be had with the investigation in question are well documented, at WL Central and elsewhere. And in fact, it is to his credit that Assange has endured relentless scrutiny of this case so that the irregularities here can be exposed. Those have been - sadly - very worthy of public notice. But put this aside; Stephens isn't just being partial here. He is lying, whether intentionally or carelessly. In order for this not to be a casual libel, Stephens would have had to say that Assange is "trying to fight extradition to Sweden for questioning in connection with rape allegations." Doubtless, the mere mention of sex offences in this context - completely irrelevant though they are - would still have had the desired effect. But fidelity to the facts would not appear to be a priority for the Wall Street Journal, which just happens to share a building with Rupert Murdoch.
Failing to Understand Journalism
The crux of Stephens' false equivalence is an apparently formidable ignorance of the difference between personal privacy and state/corporate secrecy - an ignorance that is doubly repugnant in someone who claims to be a journalist. Taking issue with stringent criticism of Murdoch's News Corp by the rest of the press, he accuses them of "a piece of rhetorical legerdemain that masks a raw assertion of privilege." There is no difference between Wikileaks and phone-hacking, he tells us, except for the self-righteous prejudice of journalistic do-gooders:
The easy answer is that the news revealed by WikiLeaks was in the public interest, whereas what was disclosed by News of the World was merely of interest to the public. By this reckoning, if it's a great matter of state, and especially if it's a government secret, it's fair game. Not so if it's just so much tittle-tattle about essentially private affairs.
As Julian Assange told media partner Bivol, "I believe in the right to communicate and the inviolability of history, privacy for the weak and transparency for the powerful." It is a basic jurisprudential principle of civic democracy that the private individual must be protected from the abuses of arbitrary power. There are rigorous legal restraints on the exercise of state power to ensure that the necessary evil of strong government does not become harmful to the people it is supposed to serve. The concept of privacy is one such restraint, as is the concept of due process. When powerful organizations are able to breach the secrecy of private individuals, they are given an almost total power over them, and there is nothing to prevent them from committing injustices.
Likewise, when powerful organizations and individuals are given the right to pervasive secrecy, they can shield abuses, and commit unaccountable injustices against private individuals. This is why there is a need for public interest whistleblowing, and it is why a press that focuses on the wrongdoing of the powerful is a crucial asset of a just society.
If Stephens had a proper grasp of the principles behind public interest journalism he would realize that News of the World - a hitherto unaccountable organization exploiting vulnerable individuals - is exactly the sort of entity Wikileaks would insist could beneficially become more transparent. By criticizing voicemail interception, publications like The Guardian are acting entirely consistently with the principles that led them to publish stories by Wikileaks.
There is therefore no moral equivalence between News of the World and Wikileaks. Instead, two different analogies are worth bearing in mind. A similarity between Wikileaks' public interest motives and those of The Guardian in the tireless exposure of News of the World. And that between News of the World and a U.S. government which availed of the prerogative of state secrecy to lie and dissemble, mislead its public, spy and violate civil liberties on the domestic front, and commit acts of state terrorism and the crimes of aggression abroad.
If Bret Stephens was a journalist, all of this would be clear to him. But he cannot be that. To appropriate the term 'journalist' as one who engages in clamorous apologism for state and corporate criminality, and for the abuse of the vulnerable, is to offend against the language we speak. His attacks on Wikileaks are merely the incidental symptoms of a general malady: the inversion of the function of the press by corporate monopolies and incestuous loyalties. At best, Stephens has negligently misstated the facts. At worst, he is a liar for hire. And either way, it is abundantly clear which payroll he is on.

[Magda Hassan]

Wikileaks exposes criminal acts by the state (and corporations) in the public interest and for no profit. Murdoch spies on private citizens to mine their private life for product for his sleazy rags which he sells to make a profit suitable to keep a billionaire and a stable of parasites in the comfort to which he and they have become accustomed to. He also uses some of the information mined from some as leverage to black mail and personally advance his own agenda which is far from the interests of the majority of society.

[Anthony Thorne]

Sean Hoare, departed whistleblower, was found dead Monday morning after friends became anxious that they hadn't seen him for a few days. Circa the same timeframe, (and easy to miss, as a commenter on a busy Guardian blog posted the link), the following incident occurred 'less than two minutes drive' from Hoare's premises on the Saturday, two days before the Monday, and quite possibly on the day that he died:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-14178114

Three men flee scene of fatal crash in Hertfordshire

Three young men who fled the scene of a fatal road crash in Hertfordshire are wanted for questioning by police.

The crash took place at 1320 BST on Saturday on the A41 Tylers Way in Watford.

The men walked away from a silver Audi which was in collision with a white van.

Police believe the men, all wearing jeans, walked up the hard shoulder of the A41 towards the A411 Elstree Road, near The Fisheries pub.

Officers believe one of them sustained an injury in the crash.

Insp Andy Piper of Hertfordshire Police said: "We are also appealing to anyone who may have seen these three young men moving away from the scene, possibly in a hurry.

"If you are one of those three, then we would urge you to get in touch."

....

Posting the above on the Xymphora blog drew the following response:

"Too much of a coincidence - the murderers of Sean Hoare were in a hurry to get away (it is easier to fake a suicide with an alleged drug addict than it is with someone like, say, David Kelly). It reminds me of the CIA's attempted extraction of Raymond Allen Davis from Pakistan. The CIA boobs were in such a hurry, and so full of their omnipotence, that they managed to run over and kill a bystander. The combination of testosterone and extremely low IQ and unlimited state power leads inevitably to these kind of snafus."

A Silver Audi is a nice looking vehicle - most owners wouldn't be so quick to abandon it at the scene. This last link is for amusement but I think it makes its point - the Silver Audi is the car of choice for the characters in the UK drama SPOOKS.

http://www.spooksforum.co.uk/archive/ind...905-5.html

Things I Learned From Watching Spooks - "That you could cross London faster in a Silver Audi with no emergency lights, than a fully-marked police car with bells and whistles!"

Says it all really. I'm sure an unmarked vehicle comes in handy when you're in a big, big hurry.