In front of a British government panel today, Rupert Murdoch denied that he tried to wield political influence or use his media holdings to further the business interests of News Corp.

“I take particular pride in the fact that we’ve never pushed our commercial interests in our newspapers,” Murdoch said at the media ethics inquiry brought on by the phone-hacking scandal at News of the World last year.

He was responding to questions about contacts between News Corp. and government officials in connection with the company’s attempted $12 billion takeover of BSkyB, Britain’s top satellite TV network.

But email messages released Tuesday indicate that News Corp. executives at least considered dispatching top editors of The Wall Street Journal Europe and The Times of London, both News Corp. holdings, to advocate the BSkyB deal.

The newly released emails, totaling 163 pages, were exchanged among News Corp. chief lobbyist Frédéric Michel, company officials and government aides. Several refer to Lord Matthew Oakeshott, a member of Parliament whom News Corp. perceived as key to influencing Vince Cable, the government minister who had the authority in the fall of 2010 to approve the BSkyB deal.

News Corp. execs were worried that Oakeshott wouldn’t be receptive to their overtures. In one email to James Murdoch’s aide, Matthew Anderson, and Rebekah Brooks, chief executive at News International, Michel described Oakeshott as “a difficult character [who] hates lobbying (and doesn’t like our empire either2026).”

So Michel, the lobbyist, suggested that they arrange a meeting between Oakeshott and James Harding, editor in chief of The Times. From the email, dated Oct. 12, 2010

On Oct. 18, Michel wrote that Oakeshott would also be “VERY receptive” to a message from Patience Wheatcroft, then the editor of The Wall Street Journal Europe.

That November, Wheatcroft left The Journal after she was named to the House of Lords as a member of the Conservative party, by Prime Minister David Cameron.

It is not clear whether Harding and Wheatcroft were actually asked to lobby Oakeshott.  A spokeswoman for Harding said that “there was never a meeting between James Harding and Lord Oakeshott,” but did not say whether News Corp. officials had asked Harding to have such a meeting. Wheatcroft did not respond to our requests for comment, nor did Oakeshott.

A News Corp. spokesman declined to comment on any of the emails.

Apart from raising questions about Rupert Murdoch’s claim that there was no use of his media holdings to further his company’s interests, the emails document a more general strategy to turn media coverage of the deal in favor of News Corp. in order to give political cover to the minister, Vince Cable, who could approve the deal.

Cable was removed from the bid approval process after he was recorded by journalists saying he had “declared war” on Murdoch. Cable was replaced by Jeremy Hunt, with whom News Corp. appears to have had more luck 2014 the emails point to close communication between Hunt’s aide and News Corp. about how best to push approval of the BSkyB buyout.

Hunt said Wednesday that he “didn’t know the volume of those communications or the tone” of the interactions between his aide and News Corp. The Guardian also reported Wednesday that in 2009 Hunt was at News Corp. headquarters in New York during the company’s meetings on whether to launch the bid.

News Corp. threw the support of its British newspapers behind Cameron’s Conservative party in the 2010 elections, shortly before the BSkyB bid was announced. Cameron has maintained that he had had no “inappropriate conversations” with Murdoch about the deal.

Competing news organizations and others had opposed the deal because they said it would further concentrate the media power of Murdoch, who controls 40 percent of Britain’s newspaper circulation. The bid was eventually put on hold when news of phone-hacking by Murdoch papers broke last summer and engulfed the company in scandal.

by Cora Currier ProPublica, April 25, 2012, 3:16 p.m.

Image Courtesy of   david_shankbone

The article News Corp. Exec Considered Enlisting Newspaper Editors in Lobbying Effort appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

For nearly 3 hours, the emergency parliament hearing grilled Rupert and James Murdoch on News International’s role in the phone-hacking scandal Tuesday at Westminster, London. The hearing was an important part of what ex-Labour leader Lord Kinnock called a “real assessment of press ownership in the UK.”

The Commons culture, media and sport committee was responsible for the questioning and were prepared to dig deep into the cooperate procedures of the media empire that lead to such gross neglect of basic codes of journalism. Mr. Murdoch started out by saying “this is the most humble day of my life,” but kept his answers otherwise elusive as the hearing went on.

Several crucial questions came up — among them the issue of the top administration’s knowledge of the illegal activity, their financial track record, their vigilance in regard to accountability as well as the oversight of News of the World. Mr. Murdoch seemed frail and as the hearing went on, irritated by the detail and persistence of the committee member’s questions. James Murdoch on the other hand were quick to try explaining the actions and responses of the company in the longest phrases possible, insisting on finishing his trail of thought and elaborate on his father’s brief responses.

Key issues were pointed out during the process. Overall, Mr. Murdoch claimed he did not believe mistakes were made during the handling of the issue. He acknowledged that terrible wrongdoings were carried out and that mistakes were made in the course of the events but that the handling that followed was done with the best of intentions. He also made a point of saying that the News of the World was less than 1% of his company and that he employs people on trust to run his divisions.

Mr. Murdoch also emphasized that the UK greatly benefits from having a competitive press and a transparent society. On the question of public interest and the ethical concerns of investigative techniques, James Murdoch added that breaking the law is a serious matter that should be held accountable. On the question on whether NoW should not have been aware that phone-hacking is a crime, James Murdoch simply stated that he believed the company acted quickly once the problem was discovered.

The atmosphere at the hearing was tense. The Murdochs did their best not to incriminate themselves despite the fact that the nature of the committee was strictly in the interest of the public’s curiosity — in contrast to a court of law, the MPs was trying to extract new information about the circumstances of the allegations for their future report.

Mr. Murdoch reiterated on several occasions that not he nor his son had any part in the illegalities but it was clear that James had been aware of the payments to the police. The real question was the depth of his knowledge

Interestingly enough, Mr. Murdoch opened with an apology despite being denied an opening statement by the chair at the beginning. It is of course not without importance, as Iain Watson of the BBC News noted, that he needed to be summoned by the MPs and did not volunteer to give evidence. The initial apology was even further undermined by the fact that the Murdochs admit they were still financing Glen Mulcaire, the demon hacker who brought them down, making their apologies utterly insincere.

Finally, it seemed preposterous that a man known for his legendary grasp of his empire was painstakingly uninformed when having to answer questions about News of the World. Both men’s lack of knowledge of the paper’s basic structure was absurd and considering that most of the police bribery and phone tapping took place between 2002 and 2009, it is quite unimaginable that the top management were left clueless on the illegal procedures for obtaining news content. Why were questions not asked?

The hearing of Rupert and James Murdoch was conducted respectfully by the committee, albeit a few notes of sarcasm aimed at the duo’s cartoonish ignorance. The BBC’s political editor Nick Robinson blogged from inside the room: “It is hard to equate the man sitting a few feet away from me with the global media mogul feared by political leaders throughout my adult lifetime.” Public responses had also been carried out in a peaceful order with a row of protesters holding up signs shortly before the Murdochs addressed the committee. Peace was only broken for one dramatic moment when a man from the audience suddenly stood up and attempted to throw a paper plate of shaving foam in the face of Rupert Murdoch. The attempt was mostly thwarted – particularly by Mrs. Murdoch who rushed to direct the ‘pie’ at the assailant himself.

The result was ambiguous. MPs from the committee told BBC reporters that they believed the meeting had been ‘a good day’ for parliament and for democracy but so many questions remained unanswered. Murdoch played the part of victim of betrayal very well while his son, eager to make sure he didn’t come off as all-knowing, staled the session the best he could with his negations and tentative descriptions. Will the truth about Rupert Murdoch’s full involvement in the scandal ever see the light of day? Not without tangible evidence. And considering the tight-lipped inner circle of the Murdoch empire, such evidence seem only a fairy godmother away from a fairytale.

Image Courtesy of  http://www.flickr.com/photos/2story/

The article Rupert Murdoch, A Surreal Insight into the Media Empire appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The article Rupert Murdoch Attacked at Parliament Hearing appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.