Sep 15, 2011

Mayne: the killer question for James Murdoch

After tipping everyone else overboard, James and Rupert Murdoch are the last two people left to take responsibility for the corruption, criminality, abuse of power and huge multi-year cover-up.

Stephen Mayne — Journalist and Founder

Stephen Mayne

Journalist and Founder

"Power without responsibility" is perhaps the phrase that best sums up the way the Murdoch family have built News Corporation over the years but the game-changing event of the phone-hacking scandal is leading us into uncharted waters. After tipping everyone else overboard, James and Rupert Murdoch are the last two people left to take responsibility for the corruption, criminality, abuse of power and huge multiyear cover-up that has been exposed in Britain. James Murdoch has now been called back to testify again before the UK parliamentary committee and will have little choice but to appear and try to maintain his fig-leaf defence about not being alerted to widespread phone hacking when approving the record £700,000 payment to Gordon Taylor. This occurred in April 2008, four months after James assumed direct responsibility for News of the World. Check out this full timeline of the scandal. The full transcript of what Rupert and James Murdoch told the British politicians at their first outing is also well worth another read. This is the key exchange right at the end of the two-and-a-half hours of evidence:
Tom Watson: James -- sorry, if I may call you James, to differentiate -- when you signed off the Taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the "for Neville" email, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages?
James Murdoch: No, I was not aware of that at the time.
Then legal manager Tom Crone and then News of the World editor Colin Myler have now clearly contradicted that claim, saying they explicitly told James about this email during a 15-minute meeting approving the Taylor settlement. However, James Murdoch has dug in and does have some lines of defence, including that he was never shown the email and that chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck was never mentioned by name. The other key question that James Murdoch will face goes to precisely what he told his father. After all, consider these comments to the committee:
James Murdoch: What I have done, and what the company has tried to do, is take new information, adjust our course, behave with propriety, behave quickly, behave in a humble way with respect to what has happened and with respect to trying to put it right. That is what we are trying to do. It was enormously frustrating. That does not mean that I have any knowledge of anyone intentionally misleading me and the company. I don't, which makes it doubly frustrating. We are where we are. New information emerged through the legitimate due process of a civil trial. The company acted on it as fast as could possibly be expected.
But the whole house of cards comes tumbling down with this:
James Murdoch: Now knowing then what I know now, would I have still directed to negotiate to settle that (Gordon Taylor) case? I would, actually, but I would have coupled it with the other actions that we have taken since the new evidence emerged at the end of September 2010. And that is to immediately go and look at whatever we can find internally around the individuals involved; to immediately contact the police about information that may be of great interest to them; to put in place the process, which took up a little while and we did it in the early part of 2011, around admitting liability to the civil litigants; putting a process in place to get to the bottom of what legitimate allegations there were; apologising unreservedly to the victims of those illegal voicemail intercepts, which were absolutely inexcusable; and having a system of compensation there.
So, James was aware of the new evidence in September 2010. The killer question for the committee to ask James is why he sat back in silence and watched his father say the following at the News Corp AGM on October 15 last year:
Rupert Murdoch: We have very very strict rules. There was an incident more than five years ago. The person who bought a bugged phone conversation was immediately fired and in fact he subsequently went to jail. There has been two parliamentary inquiries, which have found no further evidence or any other thing at all. If anything was to come to light, we challenge people to give us evidence, and no one has been able to. If any evidence comes to light, we will take immediate action like we took before.
James Murdoch knew his father was speaking rubbish. As a News Corp director, heir apparent and the executive with direct responsibility and knowledge why did he allow his father to broadcast this falsehood in front of the entire board and dozens of journalists and investors at the most important public governance meeting the company holds each year? The answer will be most interesting indeed.

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

4 thoughts on “Mayne: the killer question for James Murdoch

  1. Peter White

    Body langage said it all

    A small but important point that most people seem to have overlooked in James Murdoch’s reply to Tom Watson on the ‘for Neville’ email issue (referred to above) and whether James knew its contents: the transcript shows him saying crisply:

    “No, I was not aware of that at the time”….

    But if you watched the performance live you will recall James’ answer commenced, not with a clinical and straight forward ‘No” but:

    ” N n n n no…. ”

    And to anyone with any awareness of body language issues he was clearly being, how shall we say, ‘economical’ with a substance that Fox News and The Australian are legend for also being economical with.

    There were other occasions too when he started scratching the back of his neck before replying to a question that were also tell tale signs of a likely impending economical approach to the facts.

    And others when he professed not to have heard a clearly audible question and stalled for time by asking for it to be repeated.

    Why none of the MPs questioned James about his comments on April 8 this year in the US in response to a question about the hacking issue being a reputational crisis when speaking at the Arthur W Page Society conference on ” Cultivating Reputation in a Complex World” ( reported in Crikey) is a mystery.

    I am referring of course to his smug reply to the question, saying that News Corporation was doing very well and had ” put this problem in a box”.

    Him and his Pa are going to need some very heavy duty packing tape to keep that box intact over the coming months.

  2. Edward James

    Stephen Mayne I have returned as a subscriber to because of your efforts in bygone years before it was sold ! And because I enjoy the opportunity to post my comments which tabloids censor or just flat out block. News Limited or ”limited news”/ NotW depending on your point of view certainly has questions to answer. Sic em Stephen! Edward James.

  3. zut alors

    I’m with Peter White @ 3.22pm on this. Allan Pease could use that parliamentary enquiry footage as a training video for body language students. James M was laid bare.

  4. AR

    I heard the performance live on Newsradio and the blather from Jnr was so clogged with filler words, Unspeek and waffle that I could imagine the body language, no need to see it. The quotes above barely even qualify as english.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details