Phone hacking scandal deepens

[Peter Lemkin]

Despite the last issue of News of the World being published yesterday, the phone hacking scandal haunting Rupert Murdoch's British tabloid -- and his whole News Corp. empire -- is only getting scarier, with new allegations continuing to surface. Over the weekend, another grain-of-salt-required British gossip rag, The Mirror, came out with one of the most startling revelations yet -- at least for the majority of New Yorkers who may have never read an edition of the News. In addition to kidnap and murder victim Milly Dowling, war veterans and victims of the 7/7 British terrorist attacks, the Mirror reports that journalists from News of the World tried to hack into the phones of 9/11 victims. Cue non-media-obsessed Americans paying attention.


Murdoch arrived in London yesterday to address his staff on the occasion of the embattled paper's end, "But he flew straight into another storm as it was claimed 9/11 victims may have had their mobiles tapped by News of the World reporters," reports the Mirror.

Their claims come from an anonymous former New York cop via another anonymous source who says the officer was contacted by News journalists "who said they would pay him to retrieve the private phone records of the dead," presumably to use the same dirty voicemail tricks they pulled with the royals and other innocent people.

The paper, he claims, was looking for calls to and from victims and their families just before the attacks. British victims were especially prized by the snooping News people, supposedly.

But if the News scandal has reminded us of anything, it's that these papers -- the Mirror included -- probably deserve a skeptical eye every day. There's nothing like a thinly sourced, unsubstantiated 9/11-related accusation to grab some attention, so the Mirror report should be considered with that in mind. This specific accusation has not been reported independently by any other source.

That said, if Murdoch incurs the wrath of the American government in addition to the already-angry Brits, this News Corp. madness becomes something else altogether. :plane:

[jcoscarelli@villagevoice.com / @joecoscarelli]

[Jan Klimkowski]

If true, NI hacking of 9/11 victim and family phones will have the same impact on the other side of the Pond that hacking into the phones of murder victims Milly Dowler and the Soham schoolgirls had in Britain: it will cut through to the mass of ordinary Americans who don't know or care who Rupert Murdoch is or what he owns.

It will cause popular revulsion, shock and fury.

NI will likely no longer be a credible organisation.

If so, it may have to follow a well established corporate tradition: when truly fucked, reinvent and rebrand.

In the best tradition of Union Carbide (after Bhopal), Arthur Andersen (after Enron), Blackwater (after you name it) etc.....

Maybe the new corporate slogan could be: "Naked Propaganda: Don't Believe A Word!"

Pursuing their sex 'n sport formula, maybe their new presenters could be topless female olympians who giggle a lot*.

*Damn - I think Berlusconi's already copyrighted that in Italy...

[Peter Lemkin]

Maybe the new corporate slogan could be: "Naked Propaganda: Don't Believe A Word!"

Pursuing their sex 'n sport formula, maybe their new presenters could be topless female olympians who giggle a lot*.

*Damn - I think Berlusconi's already copyrighted that in Italy...

.....you just made me shudder, with the thought that two Right-Wing Media Reich's [Murdockh & Berlusconni's] that are on the ropes and in need of rebranding might think to become one!.....they do use about the same ...ur...'techniques' on the 'news' and 'journalism'.

I'd remind in light of this scandal, since no one has yet done a great film on Murdoch, to watch by hook or crook - and ASAP - the GREAT, GREAT film of our time on all of this - The War You Don't See, by John Pilger!!!!! Info Here

[Keith Millea]

I've not seen it,but Robert Greenwald has a Documentary called "Outfoxed".

Trailor:

[Peter Lemkin]

Tony Blair accused of trying to silence Rupert Murdoch critic

By Martin Hickman and Cahal Milmo
Monday, 11 July 2011

Tony Blair urged Gordon Brown to persuade the Labour MP who led the campaign to expose the phone-hacking scandal to fall silent, according to a report yesterday.

The Mail on Sunday stated that "well-placed" sources said Mr Blair had sought to encourage Mr Brown to ask his supporter Tom Watson to back off. A "friend of Mr Brown" was quoted as saying: "There is no doubt about it, Tony wanted Gordon to intervene." Mr Watson, who claimed last week that News International had entered "the criminal underworld", was reported to have been told that Rebekah Brooks, News International's chief executive, "will pursue you for the rest of your life".

Earlier this year, another Labour MP, Chris Bryant, said in a Commons speech that a senior figure allied to Mr Murdoch had warned his friends that speaking out about the scandal would not be forgotten.

[Magda Hassan]

Shareholder Lawsuit: Phone-Hacking Scandal Caused 'Immeasurable Damage To News Corp.'s Goodwill'

July 11, 2011 3:38 pm ET by Joe Strupp
A group of News Corp. shareholders led by Amalgamated Bank has sued the media company claiming several of its business decisions, as well as the recent phone-hacking scandal at News of the World, have adversely affected shareholder interests.
The lawsuit claims, among other things, that "News Corp executives are ... grossly overpaid, ensuring their loyalty to Murdoch and his personal initiatives," later stating that Murdoch is "larding the executive ranks of the Company with his offspring."
Among the lawsuit's complaints: the company's purchase of Elisabeth Murodoch's Shine Group has harmed the shareholder value; the board as it is comprised has numerous conflicts of interest; and the phone-hacking scandal has hurt the company's reputation and investor value.
"In sum, these acts will cause a direct harm to News Corp shareholders by diluting their ability to influence the Company through the exercise of the shareholder franchise because a greater percentage of the Board will be completely beholden to Rupert Murdoch's wishes," the lawsuit, filed Friday, stated in part. "In contemplating, planning, and/or affecting the foregoing conduct, Murdoch and the other Defendants were not acting in good faith toward News Corp shareholders, and breached or will breach their fiduciary duties owed to them. As a result of these actions, News Corp shareholders have been and will be damaged."
The 94-page lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages, a determination that News Corp. board members "breached their fiduciary duties to the Company," and to block the appointment of Elisabeth Murdoch to the News Corp. board, claiming that would also be a violation of fiduciary responsibilities.
"News Corp.'s behavior has become an egregious collection of nepotism and corporate governance failures, with a board completely unwilling to provide even the slightest level of adult supervision," Jay Eisenhofer, co-managing director of Grant & Eisenhofer and co-lead counsel on the lawsuit, said in a statement.
The lawsuit specifically cites the recent phone-hacking scandal as a major element in the dilution of shareholder value, stating:

The egregious conduct triggering this stunning turn of events was not limited to reporters. Former News Of The World employees involved in the phone hacking have indicated that at least two editors-in-chief of the paper were aware of and condoned the hacking in order to obtain news stories that would drive readership.
Rebekah Brooks ("Brooks"), a very close friend of Murdoch and his family who has repeatedly been promoted by Murdoch (most recently to the position of Chief Executive Officer of News International), and Andy Coulson ("Coulson"), a Murdoch political ally and a close friend of Brooks who became an aide to British Prime Minister David Cameron, both were editor-in chief of the paper while the illegal hacking was on-going and have been linked to explicit knowledge of the practice. Coulson, in fact, has been arrested on suspicion of phone hacking and making payments to police and faces criminal indictment for his conduct.
These revelations should not have taken years to uncover and stop. These revelations show a culture run amuck within News Corp and a Board that provides no effective review or oversight.

The suit also cites various business decisions by the News Corp. board of directors as being harmful to investors, including the takeover of Elisabeth Murdoch's Shine Group:

The Transaction made little or no business sense for News Corp, and is far above a price any independent, disinterested third-party would have paid for Shine.
Further, even if the pricing was proper or there was some business justification for News Corp to acquire a start-up, niche television production company, there was no reason for News Corp to acquire Shine specifically, except to enrich the Murdoch family, perpetuate the family's involvement in the senior management of News Corp, and further tighten Murdoch's control over the Company. Nevertheless, the Transaction was rubberstamped by News Corp's Board at Murdoch's urging. That is how Murdoch and the Board have interacted for years.
The Board's acquiescence to Murdoch's desire to benefit his daughter, and the Company' willingness to overlook transgressions on the part of Murdoch protégés is nothing new. Throughout his tenure, Murdoch has treated News Corp like a family candy jar, which he raids whenever his appetite strikes.

The lawsuit, filed in the Court of Chancery of Delaware, is being done on behalf of Amalgamated Bank and several pension funds it represents, according to plaintiff attorneys. The plaintiffs own 835,000 News Corp. shares.
The filing is a continuation of a complaint filed in May that initially targeted News Corp.'s purchase of Shine Group, according to a release from the plaintiffs' attorney.News Corp. declined comment to Media Matters on Monday.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107110018

[Peter Lemkin]

Murdoch and his two top deputies have been 'invited' to submit to questions in British Parliament on Tuesday, I believe it is. If they show [unlikely!], they'd be asked searing questions - but if they don't come [likely, they do not legally have to!], the World will view it almost as an admission of guilt and further guilt, as of yet undisclosed. The noose is tightening...!

Update - apparently they WILL show.....will be quite a scene! :dancingman:

[Jan Klimkowski]

The top cops were before Parliament today.

Scotland Yard Asst Commissioner John Yates' performance was described the committee chair as "unconvincing".

Which is a generous interpretation.

Met officer John Yates's evidence on phone-hacking inquiry 'unconvincing'

Sue Akers, officer in charge of current investigation, admits police have contacted only 170 of 3,870 suspected victims

Hélène Mulholland, Alan Travis and Vikram Dodd guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 July 2011 14.47 BST

The Scotland Yard officer who oversaw the review of phone hacking has been accused of giving "unconvincing" evidence to a committee of MPs reviewing the police investigation.

Assistant commissioner John Yates insisted he has no intention of quitting over the affair, despite admitting that it had been "damaging" to the reputation of the police.

Scotland Yard officers carrying out the phone-hacking inquiry, known as Operation Weeting, are examining 11,000 pages of material containing nearly 4,000 names of possible hacking victims. But Yates conceded he had not seen the 11,000 pages and did not know what was in them.

Later in the session, Sue Akers, the Met's deputy assistant commissioner in charge of the current investigation, admitted that her officers had so far contacted only 170 of the 3,870 suspected hacking victims whose details were found in notes seized from Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator who was jailed in 2007.

The gruelling session began with a stern warning from Keith Vaz, chair of the home affairs select committee, that witnesses who give false evidence and "persistently mislead a committee may be considered guilty of contempt of the House of Commons".

Yates strongly denied allegations in the New York Times that he was put under pressure not to investigate phone hacking at the News of the World because of fears that the Sunday tabloid would publish details about his personal life.

"I categorically state that was not the case to each and every one of you. I think it's despicable, I think it's cowardly," he told the MPs.

Yates said he had "never, ever, ever" received payment from journalists for information but admitted it was "highly probable" that some of his officers did.

Despite a session that ran over by 20 minutes following a volley of tough questions from MPs, Vaz concluded that Yates's evidence had been "unconvincing" and that he may be called back.

Yates appeared before MPs as Britain's biggest police force attempted to salvage its reputation after it emerged it missed numerous allegedly criminal acts of phone hacking by the News of the World, and that some of its officers allegedly sold information to the paper, which facilitated the hacking of the royal family.

Yates, who became involved in 2009 as the assistant commissioner in charge of specialist operations, acknowledged in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph that his decision not to reopen an investigation in 2009 was "pretty crap".

Appearing before MPs, he expressed regret for errors that had been made, but blamed the failure to reopen the investigation on the News of the World's failure to co-operate at the time.

He admitted he did not take fresh legal advice when reviewing the evidence in 2009, and said he had not conducted a review of the original investigation conducted in 2006, but had merely tried to establish whether action was needed in light of revelations made in a Guardian article in 2009. He said the conclusion at the time was that there was no new evidence the police were not previously aware of.

Asked by Vaz if he had considered his position, Yates told him: "If you are suggesting that I should resign for what News of the World has done, I think that is probably unfair."

Pressed again later on whether he thought he would keep his job, Yates insisted this was "not a resignation matter".

In a brief opening statement, he did however tell the committee: "Had I known then what I know now, I would have made different decisions."

He said the Sunday Telegraph article fairly reflected his views on the matter, and he admitted "more could have been done" on his part when he took up the baton.

"I can assure you all that I have never lied and all the information that I've provided to this committee has been given in good faith," he said.

"It is a matter of great concern that, for whatever reason, the News of the World appears to have failed to co-operate in the way that we now know they should have with the relevant police inquiries up until January of this year.

"They have only recently supplied information and evidence that would clearly have had a significant impact on the decisions that I took in 2009 had it been provided to us."

Yates said he was asked to see if there was anything in the Guardian article that merited further investigation. He had just a day to do this.

He conceded in hindsight it was "a poor decision". "But we didn't have the information we should have done."

Yates also admitted he had attended social events with News International executives, but stressed that no investigation was going on at the time.

"I have been absolutely open about that, but the investigation was not open at that time. It was closed ... so I have not been in contact during a live investigation under my oversight, no I haven't."

He was ridiculed by Labour's Steve McCabe, who told him he was not the "dogged, determined sleuth" the MPs were expecting.

Yates had earlier received the backing of the home secretary, Theresa May, who said she had confidence in him and that he was doing a "very good job" as the Metropolitan police's assistant commissioner in charge of counter-terrorism.

Speaking before Yates gave evidence to MPs, May said: "John Yates is in charge of counter-terrorism. He is doing a very good job in that role. I have confidence in John Yates."

She also told a Home Office press briefing that she took any suggestion of corruption in the police very seriously. She had spoken to Sir Paul Stephenson, the Met commissioner, as soon as the allegations emerged last week to satisfy herself that they were being dealt with properly, she said.

"Any officer who is involved in corruption or illegal activity of any sort in any way should be identified and dealt with according to the law," May said.

MPs also heard from Lord Blair, the former Met chief, who said his home and mobile phones were found on lists obtained by detectives investigating phone hacking at the News of the World. Blair, who stood down as Met police commissioner in late 2008, made the revelation as he gave evidence on the separate issue of the police response to antisocial behaviour.

But he said he had "no evidence" that this phone had been hacked.

Blair told the committee: "What I am aware of is that my mobile and home telephone numbers were within the files that have been examined. I have no evidence and nor, as far I am aware, does Operation Weeting have any evidence to suggest that those phones were hacked."

The former police officer also said an earlier inquiry into phone hacking by the tabloid paper while he was head of Scotland Yard was "not a major issue at the time".

"Never during my period of office, which ended in 2008, did it become a major issue," he said

[Jan Klimkowski]

Former top rozzer Andy Hayman, who led one of the pathetic police investigations, faced even more direct questions from the parliamentary committee:

Andy Hayman, the officer in charge of the original investigation into phone hacking, told MPs that that operation now looks "very lame" but rejected suggestions that he was in the "back pocket" of News International as "unfounded".

Hayman, who served as assistant commissioner for specialist operations at the Metropolitan police during the first investigation in 2006, gave a combative performance in front of the committee as he faced accusations of coming across as "dogdy geezer".

Hayman, who became a columnist for the Times, owned by News International, two months after retiring from the Met police, also rejected claims made in the New York Times that he made a deal with NI because they held damaging information on his personal life.

Confronted with an article he wrote for the Times in 2009 in which he claimed he "left no stone unturned" in the original investigation, Hayman told MPs his detectives were "the best team that I ever had".

But Hayman said he had had "no involvement at all" in the decision not to trawl through the 11,000 documents.

He added: "At the time everything possible that they were able to do, given the resources and the parameters they set, was done and I stand by that and Peter [Clarke, the former deputy assistant commissioner] has as well.

"What we look like now, it's very lame … I think we've had more time to do it, more revelations have come out, the News of the World have given us material that we didn't have at the time."

Giving evidence earlier, Clarke said he had not trawled the 11,000 pages of material because he could not justify the resources that would have been needed.

The documents were seized by police after the arrest of the News of the World's then royal reporter Clive Goodman and Mulcaire, but Clarke and his senior colleagues decided against an "exhaustive analysis" of the documents, he told the committee.

"In the wider context of counter-terrorist operations that posed an immediate threat to the British public, when set against the criminal course of conduct that involved gross breaches of privacy but no apparent threat of physical harm to the public, I could not justify the huge expenditure of resources this would entail over an inevitably protracted period," he said.

Source.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Meanwhile, via Zero Hedge:

Over The Past 4 Years News Corp Generated $10.4 Billion In Profits And Received $4.8 Billion In "Taxes" From The IRS

Call it the gift that keeps on giving (if one is a corporation that is): the US Tax system, so effective at extracting income tax from America's working class, is just as "effective" at redistributing said income tax at the corporate level.

Case in point: News Corp, which after generating $10.4 billion in profits over the past 4 years, and which would have been expected to pay the IRS $3.6 billion at the statutory corporate tax rate, instead received $4.6 billion back from Uncle Sam.

Bottom line: Murdoch's corporation had a cash paid tax rate of -46% between 2007 and 2010. The culrpit: two little somethings called Deferred Tax Assets and Net Operating Loss Carry-forwards.