tip off

How did James’ entree compare to Rupert’s sizzle?

Today is all about Rupert, but let’s not forget yesterday’s session at the Leveson inquiry, in which the 81-year-old’s son and heir, James Murdoch, was slow-roasted for six hours in London’s High Court. The ramifications from that grilling are still rippling through UK parliament, with at least one beheading so far as Jeremy Hunt adviser Adam Smith resigning just as Rupert took the stand.

Meanwhile, Gordon Brown has hit back at Rupert’s testimony that the then prime minister threatened war on News International after learning that The Sun would not be endorsing him in the run up to the election.

Paul Barry has assessed the testimony of Sun King and son to compare whose testimony is set to create the most problems for News Corp, how their performances stacked up against each other, and ultimately, who revealed the most about the network of British power that News International has plugged into, and influenced, over the past six decades …

Assessing the entree, James Murdoch:

What we learnt from this starter was that the Murdochs are chummier with Britain’s Conservative government than anyone dared imagine. Prime Minister David Cameron now has some awkward questions to answer, and his Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt — who was in charge of adjudicating the Murdochs’ $12.5 billion BSkyB takeover deal — may be forced to resign. (His adviser Adam Smith did so last night just as Rupert was taking the stand.)

In bald and broad terms the charge is that the Murdochs used their raucous tabloid, the Sun, to drive Labour out of office in 2010, in the hope that Cameron’s Conservatives might return a bundle of favours: approve the BSkyB takeover; emasculate Britain’s media regulator, Ofcom; and cut funding to BSkyB’s big rival, the BBC.

The highlight of a day with many highlights was when a watered-down version of this proposition was put to James.

The poor boy looked affronted, and replied in high dudgeon, “That is absolutely not the case. The question of support of an individual newspaper for politicians one way or another is not something that I would ever link to a commercial transaction like this, nor would I expect that political support one way or another ever to translate into a minister behaving in an inappropriate way, ever. I simply wouldn’t do business that way.”

His wife Kathryn, sitting in the public gallery, was even more shocked at the suggestion, interjecting, “Outrageous”.

Surprisingly, neither of these remarks produced a laugh, despite the fact that this is how Rupert has effectively done business for 50 years. He did it with Margaret Thatcher and The Times in 1981 (when the bid was not referred to the Monopolies Commission), he did it with Tony Blair and cross-media laws in 2003 (which were neutered at the last minute on instructions from Downing Street), and he would have done it with BSkyB in July 2011, had it not been for The Guardian’s last-minute revelations about Milly Dowler’s phone being hacked by the News of the World.

Incidentally, it was recently revealed that Thatcher and Murdoch met secretly at Rupert’s request, before The Times deal was approved — something that Rupert has denied for the past three decades.

His son’s denial of any link between the BSkyB deal and the Sun’s support for the Tories was far more quickly buried in an avalanche of contrary evidence.

First, there was the long list of dinners, drinks, breakfasts and lunches at which James Murdoch and David Cameron met privately between 2006 and 2011 to talk about whether the Murdoch papers should support him, and on later occasions, about whether the BSkyB bid would go through.

One of the most significant meetings was a drinks session at the George Club in September 2009, when James told Cameron the Sun would back him for PM. Another was Christmas dinner at Rebekah Brooks’ house in 2010, (not to be confused with Christmas dinner there together in 2009), at which Murdoch agrees he and Cameron discussed the pending BSkyB bid.

Funnily, Cameron has previously all-but-denied having any such discussion at this lunch. Are we beginning to see a pattern here?

In all, Murdoch and Cameron broke bread together 10 times in three years, between January 2008 and December 2010, mostly at each other’s homes, or at the PM’s official country residence, Chequers, or at Brooks’ house in the Cotswolds, near where the Camerons live.

In addition, the PM met Rupert on seven occasions, including tea at Number 10 Downing Street, when the media mogul was asked to come through the back door, and on Rupert’s yacht in the Aegean, when Cameron was flown there on Matthew Freud’s private jet (Freud being Elisabeth Murdoch’s husband).

But even more damaging than this long list of private parleys is a newly revealed cache of emails — supplied to Leveson by News International — detailing discussions between the Murdochs’ lobbyist Frederic Michel and the office of Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who was planning to approve the BSkyB deal.

As Leveson’s leading counsel Robert Jay QC bluntly suggested, Hunt acted as a “cheerleader” for News, and kept James Murdoch fully informed of how the approval process was going.

When Hunt finally agreed to approve the bid on June 30 last year, subject to one last hurdle, Michel texted the minister’s adviser, Adam Smith, to say, “Just showed to Rupert! Great statement by the way”.

An hour later, he followed up with, “Think we are in a good place, no?”

Hunt’s adviser fired back, “Very, yes, Jeremy happy”.

Four days later, The Guardian broke the Milly Dowler story and the deal collapsed.

But the exchanges between News and the minister in January 2011 are even more revealing. On January 24, the day before Hunt made a statement supporting the BSkyB bid, (and two days before the Metropolitan Police announced the establishment of Operation Weeting, the new phone-hacking inquiry) Michel emailed Rupert.

Under the heading, “Confidential JH Statement”, he began, “Managed to get some infos on the plans for tomorrow [although absolutely illegal]”.

Read the rest at The Power Index.

Rupert’s sizzling testimony gave us just a taste:

The real story of Rupert Murdoch’s appearance before the Leveson inquiry in London’s High Court is the old fox is alive and kicking.

Rupert may be 81, but he’s still sharp, funny and a force. And he’s so much smarter and more convincing than any of the sons, daughters or American executives who might replace him.

It’s rare you get an opportunity to see a Murdoch on the rack, and it’s even rarer to see two of the family grilled on consecutive days. But it makes you understand why there’s a succession problem. None of Rupert’s potential heirs are in his class. Certainly not James, who looked stitched up and naïve, and appeared to have swallowed a business dictionary when he hit the stand on Tuesday. And certainly not Lachlan, whose appearances in the witness box over One.Tel coincided with a catastrophic loss of memory.

Rupert doesn’t bother with any of that. He talks like his tabloids — in short, direct sentences — and he leaves you in no doubt about what he’s thinking. “I’m afraid I don’t have much subtlety about me,” he told his interrogator, Robert Jay QC, at one point. “I’m not good at holding my tongue,” he offered at another.

Nor was there much wrong with his recall of key events. Sure, his memory failed when it suited him, but he was able to describe with extraordinary clarity the dates and processes by which his newspapers had backed Britain’s would-be prime ministers over the past 30 years. Typically, these involved him taking the decision; always he was at centre stage.

And centre stage is where the world’s most powerful media mogul is clearly most comfortable, facing his accusers and telling them they’re wrong. There was no squirming for Rupert. He was there to attack.

I take a particularly strong pride in the fact that we have never pushed our commercial interests in our newspapers,” he proclaimed, in one of several big denials on offer.

I’ve never asked a prime minister for anything,” was another mantra he kept repeating.

I don’t know many politicians,” was a third, although perhaps because he only bothers with the ones that really matter …

The proposition Murdoch was asked to deny is that he backs politicians with his newspapers and gets favours in return, such as permission to take over The Times, or pledges from Tony Blair in 1997 that he wouldn’t tighten the cross-media laws (followed by watered-down laws six years later), and most recently, a nod and wink on the BSkyB merger from Cameron’s Conservatives.

Murdoch’s response to all this, as Robert Jay QC led him through a cavalcade of meetings with PMs and decisions that went his way, was to say it was all nonsense: he only ever talked to leaders like Tony Blair about the issues, such as Afghanistan, for example.

I want to say, Mr Jay, that I, in 10 years of his power, never asked Mr Blair for anything. Nor indeed did I receive any favours. If you want to check that, I think you should call him.”

Rupert did offer that Blair had phoned him on his birthday, and we now know the ex-PM is godfather to daughter Grace, which was uncovered when Wendi Deng dropped the bombshell in an interview last year. But despite his self-confessed lack of subtlety and inability to hold his tongue, Rupert had somehow got through an entire decade without asking for the smallest thing.

Naturally, he could not recall Blair promising at a 1997 meeting that he would not tighten media laws, as the PM’s press secretary Alastair Campbell claimed in his diaries.

And he flat-out denied telling Andrew Neil, editor of his Sunday Times from 1984 to 1993, to go easy on Maggie T when she finally lost support, warning him, “We owe Thatcher a lot as a company.”

The story Rupert asked us to believe is that he met Britain’s leaders regularly, wrote nice things to their wives, admired their children, popped in for tea, lunch, dinner or a chat at least a couple of times a year, yet never did anything so base as to mention his commercial interests.

His most remarkable claim was that he never lobbied Thatcher over his 1981 bid for The Times, which she decided not to refer to the Monopolies & Mergers Commission. It was recently revealed that he lunched with her at the PM’s country house, Chequers, at his request, three weeks before the bid was approved.

So what did they talk about? He merely informed her that he was planning to purchase “a great iconic asset”, he claims.

So, had he asked her to wave the bid through? “I have never asked a prime minister for anything”, he repeated.

He gave the same answer in relation to Britain’s current prime minister, David Cameron, who flew to Santorini in the Aegean in 2008 to say g’day to Rupert on his yacht and ask for the mogul’s support. According to Murdoch, the would-be PM trekked all that way, but they never talked about politics. Nor did they when Cameron came to a family party at his daughter Elisabeth’s home in the grounds of Blenheim Palace. And they never, ever, talked about media policy, despite meeting privately on seven occasions between 2008 and 2010.

We may hear more on Rupert’s relations with Cameron tomorrow, when he will be back in the box. And it could be interesting. That huge cache of emails between News International and the office of Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt — about which Rupert’s son James was questioned on Tuesday — suggests others at News were more than happy to do the asking, lobbying and bargaining for him.

Those explosive emails apart, there was no smoking gun, no real hard evidence, and no way of penetrating the mogul’s denials.

Occasionally, there was a small chink in his armour. For example, he denied lobbying Cameron about the BBC, but admitted raising the subject with a whole string of prime ministers, who had not listened to him. But mostly it was his word against the published memoirs of former players in the political game, plus of course the general implausibility of his claim that he never took advantage of the power he possessed.

*Read the rest at The Power Index.

19
  • 1
    Mark from Melbourne
    Posted Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    Im sure Rupert is most adept at leaving his underlings to handle the mucky stuff of asking for favours or issuing threats. The other possible way of looking at it is that he never did ask for favours. He just told them what was expected of them. Quite different.

  • 2
    Suzanne Blake
    Posted Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    I watched a few hours each day and I thought they did OK. No killer blows.

    Rupert said he met with Labor and Conservative PM’s and even flew a Labor one (Blair) to Hayman Island from London to attend a conference with then PM Keating and Opposition Leader Howard.

    He said he backs winners. Backed the Labor opposition in 1997 against Major and they won.

    He is influencial and politicians are always contacting him or his papers with their point of view.

    Same here, pollies send media ‘backgrounders’ and try and influence media and vice versa. Its just business.

    Murdoch said he faces an election every day. People can stop buying his papers and he goes bloke.

    He said he was losing money in China etc

  • 3
    Michael de Angelos
    Posted Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    “I take a particularly strong pride in the fact that we have never pushed our commercial interests in our newspapers,”

    It’s a mere co-incidence that News Ltd Australian publications constantly run tales of Foxtel shows as though they are news stories and likewise in the UK.

    Similarly Howard as PM watered down media cross ownership laws that benefited News Corp.

  • 4
    Frank Campbell
    Posted Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Arrest Murdoch.

  • 5
    zut alors
    Posted Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    It appears that the Murdochs don’t ever discuss business with Britain’s prime ministers - which begs the question, exactly WHAT do they talk about?

    Perhaps these numerous meetings now on record were for the purpose of comparing their stamp collections or possibly seeking each other’s advice on what model car to buy…or debating the best rose-pruning method…or, being persons of means, it’s likely they console each other on how hard it is to find good help these days.

    But never - ever - do they discuss matters relating to business.

  • 6
    michael r james
    Posted Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    There seems a deep confusion or misunderstanding about the way Murdoch operates. I completely believe him when he says he never asks people like Blair for any favours, blatantly or directly. He doesn’t have to. And in all those hours of meetings etc. I am sure they often do just discuss the topics current to the day/era. But in all that it is certain that Murdoch’s views on anything of importance to him comes across crystal clear.

    The emails reveal an outrageous compliance of top politicians and ministers on matters of great public importance. But if anything it implicates the politicians negligence of their duties to serve the public, rather than Murdoch’s breaking of any laws. He is after all just doing what any commercial titan does or would do if given the opportunity. The real question is, is there any illegal conspiracy going down? Or is it just idiot politicians looking out for their own partisan position (which in many cases is simply in agreement with Murdoch, eg. as it was with Thatcher, no conspiracy needed) or an eye to political and perhaps post-politics careers.

    Personally I never expect to find some smoking gun (email) in which a Murdoch flunky makes outright threats unless some particular action is taken. If all these enquiries are hoping for that — as in Murdoch’s testimony — they are fools and will not be rewarded.

    The UK has already revealed more than enough actual criminality, including direct corruption of police, that they could doubtless enforce those provisions of “fit and proper” person to run a large segment of media. I have little confidence they intend to. Murdoch may get a bloody nose but he still seems set to walk away. The Brits and Australians have always been in thrall to Murdoch so I see little really changing despite these circuses. Maybe the American justice system will be more robust and impartial?

  • 7
    michael r james
    Posted Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    On the issue of Murdoch’s takeover of The Times and The Sunday Times (quite independent newspapers that happened to be joined into one organization when the Canadian Thompsons bought both; ie. TST is and has never been the Sunday edition of The Times, say in the way the New York Sunday Times is the weekend edition of the NYT.).

    The facts are that then current management were running the Times into the ground, and could see no way out. At the time they decided to sell out, The Times had ceased publishing for one year due to the battle with the unions. No one wanted to sell to Murdoch but as usual the British ruling class types involved totally underestimated him. He was the only potential buyer who presented a plausible, credible scheme for survival of the paper (note The Sunday Times was a money-printing operation with the lions share of class A, B readers thus the lions share of the best advertisers). In the end the only other possible buyer was….. Robert Maxwell! (who a few years later would disappear off his yacht in the med after perpetrating the world’s biggest commercial fraud to that date). And Maxwell did not impress anyone with a serious plan to rescue the paper, and his reputation amongst the monied class and City types was never respected (his moniker was the Bouncing Czech).

    So in the end the sellers and the board and the committees had seen that Murdoch was the only realistic option. The only thing that then could have prevented Murdoch’s purchase (for a song it has to be said, one of his great deals) was the issue of market share. It was that which was ruled by Thatcher. It may have been a politically partisan decision but I seriously doubt there was any threat by Murdoch or his minions to Thatcher or any Tory. It was already clear that Murdoch was a great supporter of Thatcher’s love of Hayekian free-markets. It was simply a meeting of like-minds.

    So, Murdoch did save The Times, and then the entire British newspaper publishing industry, with his bold move to Wapping to bypass the unions with their antiquated absurdist practices (among the worst things that drove The Times into bankruptcy). Even Murdoch-haters will admit that. I had read the Sunday Times for two decades (not the last decade) and, notwithstanding a few boobs (notably the nonsense about AIDS not being due to a virus) it remained a great newspaper. Indeed Andrew Neil was editor for much of that period and if he subsequently became one to pour ordure on his old boss, he will hardly claim the paper was anything but independent and crusading under his editorship.
    Murdoch largely left it alone because it made a lot of money.

    None of this is to forgive Murdoch his manipulation of politicians and abuse of his press power. But let’s get the facts straight. I fear the British, including Robert Jay and assorted politicians, are a bit confused and it is compromising their prosecution of him and News.

  • 8
    Mal White
    Posted Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    I remember Fox News in America often giving the neocons in the Bush Administration a lot of airplay to make the argument for war in Iraq.
    Considering how little evidence there turned out to be for “weapons of mass destruction” it seems incredible that they were successful and that the war took place at all.

    It is unfortunate that it is beyond the Leveson inquiry to investigate the wider influence of the Murdoch empire.

  • 9
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    The Coincidental Mogul” - he never asked a PM for a favour, his paper’s don’t influence voters - and hacking was the work of a rogue operator.

  • 10
    AR
    Posted Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    … and they all lived happily ever after..”

  • 11
    Edward James
    Posted Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    I have to tell you Gordon. We have to support a change of government. Edward James writes my rates here on the Central Coast in NSW are used to influence News Limited work product!

  • 12
    Damotron
    Posted Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    It’s been five years since I bought a News Limited paper, try it and liberate yourself from the opinion shaping techniques they use. There’s plenty of online news (including Crikey) plus TV guides, crosswords and sport. If you crack you can always read a paper at a coffee shop, let the barista get your money. I think the Murdock’s have enough money.

  • 13
    Edward James
    Posted Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

    Lets trust moderators dont restrict our right to freedom of expression. Edward James

  • 14
    Andybob
    Posted Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    I do blame one or two people for that… someone took charge of a cover up we were victim to and I regret that.”
    Rupert Murdoch

    Basil Fawlty: [to Polly] Oh, I see, it’s my fault, is it? Oh, of course, there I was, thinking it was your fault because you had been left in charge, or Manuel’s fault for not waking you, and all the time it was MY fault. Oh, it’s so obvious now. I’ve seen the light! Well, I must be punished then, mustn’t I?

    spanking himself

    Basil Fawlty: You’re a naughty boy, Fawlty!”

  • 15
    Liamj
    Posted Friday, 27 April 2012 at 7:00 am | Permalink

    Arresting the Murochs now might be a little precipitous, leave ‘em free and see where they run. I look forward to the coming News Corp royal commission, can we use the Privy Council to make it international?

    Like the one into Vic Police corruption i expect it will be delayed a decade (Ted knows how to make a deal), giving plenty of time for the web to shred Ruperts business model (pay for the Herald Sun or the Australian?! ha ha ha ha..).

  • 16
    Stephen
    Posted Friday, 27 April 2012 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    Back at home, would the ABC genius who commissioned those excruciating Boyer Lectures from Rupert please stand up, so we can deliver our rotten tomatoes?

  • 17
    Son of foro
    Posted Friday, 27 April 2012 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    “I’ve never asked a prime minister for anything,” was another mantra he kept repeating.

    Rupert doesn’t have to ask.

  • 18
    WB Sydney
    Posted Friday, 27 April 2012 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think I could be more disappointed with a Paul Barry article than I am now. Not for his broad sweep against Murdoch, that is a given and we all know there is plenty of evidence of how James Murdoch in his gross incompetence and lack of focus allowed the enterprise to become endangered and how Rupert Murdoch in his somewhat blind (and misplaced) faith in the abilities of his children have led to it. No, it is because of the mistakes in the little things - like the ‘evidence’ – where he is unprofessional. And I mean the Times takeover and it is as if he didn’t listen to the evidence at all or even worse, chose to ignore it to further the narrative. Surely that couldn’t be the case.

    It was quite clear from the evidence that there was an exception to referring that purchase to the Monopolies Commission and that was on the basis of two things: one that each paper had to be in danger of collapsing and that it was urgent to seal the deal. Thomsons was the driver for urgency, not Murdoch, and in October 1980 announced that unless sold by early 1981 the Times would be closed. News was the preferred bidder and Murdoch demanded the ability to renegotiate on price if delays led to increased losses. It was quite clear that with even the unions on side, a referral would still have left Murdoch the only real candidate but that Thomsons wanted urgent action and obviously could have used the losses to close the Times before a decision was reached. Therefore there is no right to call this a ‘most remarkable claim’ by Murdoch.

    Look at the evidence Paul. The evidence.

  • 19
    Schnappi
    Posted Friday, 27 April 2012 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    Why is murdochs open support of abbott and blatant biased comments not news from the telegraph and news.ltd in particular with obvious bias for regime change, going unchallenged,obviously will not be by other murdoch media ,seems the age and smh are doing the same thing through the likes of grattan.

    Seems the oz people no longer care about fair play presumed innocent.

    Steve lewis was first to break the godwin gretch utegate affair,and got egg all over his face,now guess who broke the ashby gaygate first and will not stop abusing slipper ,even though the vouchers have been presented.

    Slippper might just have the last laugh as he is a lawyer and barrister.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...