Mayne on Leveson: how Robert Jay QC should line up for day 2
For bragging rights, it will be hard for any living lawyer to ever surpass Robert Jay QC. After all, who else could claim to have cross-examined the world’s most powerful man of the past 40 years for about seven hours in front of a television audience exceeding 100 million?
However, Rupert Murdoch’s most effective global critic, biographer Michael Wolff, was none too impressed with Jay’s opening performance at the Leveson inquiry last night, claiming variously that he was “sputtering”, “naive”, “unhelpful”, “petty” and “lame”.
Wolff’s 2008 book, The Man Who Owns The News, remains the most accurate portrait of Murdoch ever produced. However, he sometimes lapses into the easy journalistic world of calling issues as strictly black or white. In complex matters such as a four-hour cross-examination of Rupert’s 44 years of power playing in Britain, there are always shades of grey.
On the flipside, Wolff described Rupert’s performance last night as “riveting, irresistible, heroic and masterful”. Even Piers Akerman, Terry McCrann and Miranda Devine would be embarrassed to write that.
While Wolff has indeed spent 50 hours interviewing Rupert — more time than any other non-News Corp employee — I sense his criticisms of Jay were partly motivated by professional jealousy.
I was jealous too, especially since Jay has now usurped my position as the person who had spent the most time — about three hours — publicly interrogating the patriarch of the world’s most powerful family.
For mine, Jay did well on the slow-burn approach. He didn’t reduce Rupert to tears or force his instant resignation, but he was forensic in getting him on the record about a wide range of key issues.
Despite an avalanche of claims to the contrary — including from politicians such as Paul Keating, spin doctors such as Alistair Campbell and former News International editors such as Andrew Neil — Rupert repeatedly denied the undeniable when it came to his core business of using media power to impose his ideology on democracies while maximising his family’s wealth.
Despite the irony of insisting that he just wants his papers to tell the truth, Rupert failed to do precisely that when it came to the way he stands over politicians and corrupts the democratic process.
Here was a bloke who thumped the table when insisting that he never asked for any favours out of Tony Blair and simultaneously declared he wasn’t subtle, wouldn’t bite his tongue and took personal responsibility for every editorial in The Sun, the biggest selling paper in the English speaking world.
Therefore, Rupert may not have directly asked Blair for a favour while lunching at 10 Downing Street, but he did so far more brazenly and effectively by printing and distributing 3 million copies of his written demands every day of the week.
Rupert told Jay last night that Kelvin McKenzie’s 1992 election day splash in The Sun — “If Kinnock wins today, will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights” — was “absolutely brilliant”.
What more evidence do you need that Rupert openly stands over politicians?
“Do what I say, or cop this,” is the Murdoch way and that is what the British political class will soon call time on.
His minions even hired private investigators to tail every single member of a parliamentary committee which dared criticise this racket.
Despite Wolff’s claim that “Robert Jay has no idea how Rupert runs his business”, I thought he was well across his modus operandi.
However, Jay could always do better and was wise in cutting short day one to free up more time to prepare for a second three-hour burst tonight.
With round two he will have the benefit of seeing the reaction to day one — including denials such as this one issued by Gordon Brown — plus another 19 hours of preparation time and analysis for his team of researchers after Rupert’s opening dump.
In terms of tactical advice, Jay shouldn’t laugh at Rupert’s jokes. Be more assertive, son. Challenge the memory lapses. Suggest the old fellow suffers from convenient amnesia at key moments.
Another trick would be to ask more open-ended questions. This is when Rupert strays into trouble.
For instance, open a discussion about pay-TV piracy by asking Rupert whether he believed NDS ever did anything wrong.
If Rupert falls back into laughable denial mode — “one rogue reporter”, “Fox News is fair and balance”, “I never asked Blair for anything”, etc — then ask him to give a detailed explanation of what role his company had with THOIC.com. This was the piracy website, short for The House of ill Compute, which promoted and sponsored hacking all over the world and was secretly operated and sustained by NDS in England.
Jay did well getting Rupert on the record about things such as The Hitler Diaries, Tony Blair’s lobbying for BSkyB in Italy, The Sunday Times backing Heseltine over Thatcher, David Cameron’s Santorini visit, The Sun’s support of Labour for most of the 1970s and a host of other issues.
However, there are many other topics worth visiting, including the most notorious unsolved hacking yarn of all when Rupert ran audio and transcripts of Charles and Camilla’s private telephone conversations in 1993.
Michael Wolff is right that Jay should ask Rupert about the political connections of his family and friends.
For instance, Terry McCrann once told me that Andrew Knight was Rupert’s key link to Thatcher. Seeing as the former editor of The Economist and chief executive of The Daily Telegraph is still a News Corp director and chair of the remuneration committee at the age of 72, it would be worth exploring this link.
Finally, it is worth making the point that every country that has a media dominated by someone as ethically challenged as Rupert Murdoch should put him in the box for a two-day grilling under oath.
If Rupert wants to remain kingmaker in chief in the US and Australia, these grovelling politicians which he clearly has such little respect for should follow the lead of David Cameron and set up a decent inquiry into abuses of media power.
Imagine having Paul Keating, Bob Hawke, Kerry Stokes, John Howard, James Packer, Kevin Rudd, Rupert Murdoch, Ken Cowley, John Hartigan, Rupert Murdoch and John B Fairfax discussing power at work in Australia, under oath.
Once Robert Jay QC is finished at Leveson, Julia Gillard should give him a call.
*Stephen Mayne is News Corp monitor at the Australian Shareholders’ Association and a former News Ltd journalist who has questioned Rupert Murdoch at 10 shareholder meetings since 1999. He can be reached on Stephen@maynereport.com or on twitter @maynereport.










@STEPHEN MAYNE & @PAUL BARRY
You two should step back and have a look at nonsense you both utter whenever your God, Murdoch is the subject.
It is clear that you both, as do all journalists big & small, revere, fear, admire & yearn for the attention of the King of Kings.
It’s so bloody hilarious observing you preen, dance, squeal with emotion whenever Rupe is the topic.
But what is really sad is reading in between your lines the unbridled yearning for his attention and of course a job, all in the context of your knowledge that neither of you ever were, is or will be good enough to get a guernsey from News Ltd.
I thought Robert Jay QC was timid and not organised. Had his hand in front of his face. Most unprofessional
@SB: Which didn’t show in the transcript. I really can’t be bothered spending the extra time involved watching this in real time, when I can skim the transcript in a few minutes. Also you miss out on all the mannerisms…
This is the reason behind NewsCorp’s constant attacks on the Aussie government. Misdirection from the crimes at the top. The more governments around the world inquire into this, the harder for Rupert to go around putting out brush-fires.
The Judge is not that good either, seems weak.
I am very unimpressed with the QC however. I would not pay his bill.
Very disorganised and the hand over the mouth is very off putting
“Rupert told Jay last night that Kelvin McKenzie’s 1992 election day splash in The Sun — “If Kinnock wins today, will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights” — was “absolutely brilliant”. What more evidence do you need that Rupert openly stands over politicians?”
How does this constitute a ‘standover’? A standover is exploiting your position to gain an advantage. It involves making a threat to another person/party in order to extort a favour. He’s not extorting anything from the Tories/Major - he’s the one doing them a favour with this front page. And he’s not extorting from Labour/Kinnock - he’s just criticising them. In answer to your question “what more evidence…”, well, you’d need evidence that Murdoch had asked favours of Labour/Kinnock prior to this front page, which then weren’t granted.
Without that, all you’ve got Stephen is evidence of a newspaper editorialising against a politician, as newspapers have done for several hundred years. And that’s putting aside the question of Murdoch’s involvement in the front page itself: is it really that surprising that The Sun editorialised against Labour when the newspaper’s editor Kelvin McKenzie was a lifelong Conservative, and whose mum was Press Chief for the Tories? I’d suggest not.
Good grief, I find myself agreeing with SB, but most of all with Wolff. To be sure I have only watched the extracts selected by other news media but I kept thinking, is this bloke the best they can manage? Perhaps I have spent too much time watching Law & Order (including the UK version is which vastly inferior) but top barristers do not continuously hold their hand half over their face, or rest it on their chin and look down at the floor and lean on the railing/chair and generally come across as a disorganized small town solicitor with rambling unfocussed questions, indeed barely questions but mere suggestions or musings of imagined behaviour or wishes of the interlocutor!
I have read three Murdoch bios, including Wolff’s which is the most informative, and there is no doubt that Rupert was being absolutely honest when thumping the table to insist he never asks Blair (or any leader) blatantly for direct favours. It is not his way. Mayne can claim that his papers do it for him. Sure, but that was not the question, or suggestion, put by Jay. I would guess Wolff was particularly scathing of Jay because I strongly suspect Jay has not read Wolff — and personally, I would say it was obligatory prep work. Not doing that background research comes across as gross negligence IMO.
Murdoch and his organization get what they want from governments because of implied threats, followed up by hard-hitting action if necessary. Threats that everyone knows he is more than capable of delivering in devastating manner. None of the politicans, either side of the political divide ever wish to incur his displeasure. But Jay seems to believe (I hope Stephen Mayne doesn’t) that it is furtive wheeling and dealing between the pollies and Rupert cooking up sinister schemes of world domination. It isn’t anything as dumb or direct like that and to chase it, no matter how many hours of interrogation are used, will be ultimately pointless. Indeed I am beginning to wonder if the whole British circus of parliamentary committees and now Leveson is really just a smokescreen for a smack on the wrist and ultimately BAU.
Just like in Australia, with the world’s most outrageous dominance of the press — over double the share of what he has in the UK — is treated as a fait accompli, and (wringing hands) we poor things can do nothing about it. Well actually it is worse, as the approval of Foxtel’s takeover of Austar shows, we allow it get even more dominant across all media.
@JONATHONOAKE Posted Thursday, 26 April 2012 at 2:41 pm
I largely agree with your post. But that does not mean I don’t think News Ltd gets off the hook. There is clear evidence of illegality over sustained periods. Then there is the joke of “fair and balanced”. Not just in editorial (which we are constantly told is an proprietors/editor’s right; I’m not so sure it is any natural right) but across the entire newspaper as we get in The Australian. It represents a distortion of “news” and substitution for opinion (even in self-proclaimed news stories which is simply unforgivable and should be subject to regulation). It represents a clear undemocratic distortion of a newspapers license (rather than false notion of “rights”) to use untrammeled commercial power and quasi-monopoly power to achieve a end that favours the commercial entity at the expense of the public. In our pathetic case, not even an Australian entity but a non-citizen running a company based in the US!
However, as my post that is in moderation notes, your points shows why Robert Jay and much of the public enquiries seem rather curiously missing the point and important issues. I remain pessimistic about this UK farce and suspect the Murdochs will walk away with most of what they want (they don’t give a damn about getting a bloody nose in public; they simply don’t care about what anyone else thinks).
I bet Rupert couldn’t believe his good luck, being so nicely interrogated by Robert Jay
Murdoch - “Speak obliquely and carry a big paper”?
Stephen as a News Corp shareholder I would imagine you are quite concerned that Rupert never discussed matters of commercial benefit to the company when meeting with powerful politicians. Will you be raising such negligence as a factor disqualifying him as a director at the next AGM ?
As for Jay’s form? The “batting order of evidence”? It’s early in the game, there’s still two days to go, isn’t there?
The lengthening time between question and answer (to consider how he wanted to answer what was proffered - re follow-up questions?)? The “jibbering Rupert” that popped out now and then - to deflect attention? And all without spooking The Sun King - who sells “political image protection”?
Does “enough rope” snap to mind?
That’s not to mention the growing stream of contradictions being elicited - and noted?
Is this video going to be nominated for a Razzie - what a ham?
Today :- “The police” (which the company had compromised in it’s “system of payment”) said all they could find was one rogue operator involved in hacking? That was “enough to satisfy” the curiosity of the company - which, at the same time, was paying all the other hackers?
“Media ethics”?
Mosely/blackmail/a High Court Judge’s finding - not worth raising with “the boss”?
If The Guardian hadn’t gone after their hacking, it would have eventually come out, somewhere else - with all those “investigative journalists around”?
Where? At Limited News? Employed doing what at that time? “Hacking”?
Did Steve Hewlett (on The Drum) say they’d “retained” a serving (“bendy”?) copper on 80,000 quid a year - to keep them “informed”?