There is mounting evidence that Rupert Murdoch's media empire has been spying on people by hacking into their mobile phones. The story itself comes as no surprise. That's the sort of behaviour we would expect from the low-life at News International.
More worrying is the fact that two people were jailed for these offences in 2007 but they were treated as rogue operators. No-one thought it necessary to investigate the whole organisation to see how widespread these practices were. Three people who sued the News of the World for invading their privacy were paid off on condition that they signed a legal agreement not to speak in public about the case. This private deal implies that Murdoch's company had something to hide. If this really was a one-off action by a rogue journalist, why go to so much trouble? Even this, it seems, was not considered to be enough to warrant an investigation of the newspaper.
The police have been called in to investigate far more trivial issues than this, so how come Murdoch's organisation can get away with invading people's privacy and stealing personal information?
A glance at the celebrity pages and gossip columns offers a clue. Who was at Sun editor Rebekah Wade's wedding earlier this year? Among the guests were Gordon Brown and David Cameron as well as Wade's boss Rupert Murdoch. A few days later and they were back again, at Murdoch's summer party in the Oxo tower, attended by party leaders and frontbench MPs. According to one account I read, which is no longer online, only the 'first division' in each party get invited.
Could it be that, with our most powerful politicians being so close to Murdoch, the police decided that an investigation of News Groups' phone hacking activities would be more trouble than it was worth?
If it is proved that illegal dirty tricks were standard practice the News of the World, then its management should face criminal charges. The politicians and police officers who turned a blind eye should be called to account too.
Our political leaders have been in thrall to Rupert Murdoch for too long. As a result we have a media organisation that seems to be above the law.
Up to a point Lord Copper.
Murdoch waits and then waits some more and then backs the odds on favourite.
His backing then influences the size of the majority but one can argue not the overall result.
As far as I can tell he is completely unprincipled and is only interested in being on the winning side.
Our equally unprincipled politicians are more interested in having Murdoch on their side than principle.
And, I've heard he, Murdoch, is not as nice as he looks.
Posted by: wonderfulforhisagew | 10 July 2009 at 11:15 PM
Citizen Kane lives!
Posted by: Greg Tingey | 11 July 2009 at 08:40 AM
WFHA - I agree, Murdoch has set himself up as kingmaker but he maintains the image of this power by making sure he always backs the winner. You are right that much of this power is a clever illusion but none of our leading politicians has ever dared to call his bluff.
Blair, with his massive majority, could have done so in 1997 but, like his predecessors, he bottled out and went to Murdoch's palace to pay homage, thus setting the tone for the next 12 years.
Given that the next election will be a close contest, Cameron is unlikely to tell Murdoch where to get off either.
Like all bullies, Murdoch only gets away with this stuff because other people let him. Our leaders are too weak-willed to face him down.
Posted by: Steve | 11 July 2009 at 10:57 AM
My God! Someone else finally noticed.
Posted by: Rastaman | 14 July 2009 at 01:55 PM