The most bizarre aspect of James Murdoch’s appearance before the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee was that this was the chairman of a company that had, by his own admission, misled the committee and hired private detectives to follow one of the committee’s MPs, and yet no repercussions of any kind will arise from that behaviour.
Murdoch put the blame for the private detective, who followed Tom Watson, phonehacking victims’ lawyers and, it seems, half of Who’s Who, on the apparently very heavy shoulders of Tom Crone, erstwhile chief lawyer for News International and, shall we say, a disputant with Murdoch over who knew what, when and how about the scale of phone-hacking inside News of the World.
Watson’s revelation (“bombshell”©) about his conversation with “For Neville” Thurlbeck, in which, apparently, Thurlbeck said that Crone had told him in 2008 that Murdoch had been shown the “For Neville” email, suggests at the very least that if Crone is now lying about Murdoch’s awareness of the extent of phone-hacking back then, then he was clever and foresightful enough to establish a trail of corroborating evidence three years in advance.
Murdoch had barely left the the committee room in Portcullis House before Crone issued a statement repeating that he’d told Murdoch about the “damning email,” as per Thurlbeck’s alleged statement to Watson. Murdoch had earlier accused Crone, and former NOTW editor Colin Myler, of misleading the committee, and suggested Crone had gone beyond his financially-delegated authority in negotiating a settlement with Gordon Taylor. In Murdoch’s eyes, it seems, Crone could do no right — but never let Murdoch into what was going on.
Get Crikey FREE to your inbox every weekday morning with the Crikey Worm.

This, at least, is a departure from the usual corporate strategy when dealing with major scandals. The template, to which James and Rupert Murdoch rigorously adhered at their earlier appearance, is to deny all direct knowledge, apportion all blame to subordinates, but accept a kind of moral responsibility for the company’s failings, and contritely promise that “processes are being reviewed” and “systems are being set up” to ensure it “never happens again.” Ideally, relevant documents are destroyed and relevant subordinates are sent packing with a nice lump sum to keep them quiet. Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton fall into the latter category.
But the prospect of a criminal conviction or even gaol time can play merry hell with such a strategy. It screws with people’s incentives. Suddenly the most faithful and longstanding employees can turn on their companies. Documents start reappearing and memories radically improve. Judging by the poor recollections regularly on display in court cases involving corporate malfeasance, it’s frankly amazing any business is ever transacted in the private sector, so apparently beset by rampant amnesia is it. But the prospect of a criminal conviction seems to have remarkable curative powers for foggy memories. Murdoch thus finds himself contradicted by two former executives now at open war with their former employer, and they are now backed by a third former ex-employee who corroborates their essential claim.
Meantime back at the hearing, Tom Watson had gone over the top with a comparison of News International to the mafia, a silly comparison not because of the lack of parallels between some of the methods of News International and those of organised crime (parallels that have been drawn by others, like Michael Wolff, before), but because of the essentially pointless nature of accusation, which looked like a very plain bid for a news bulletin grab.
The problem isn’t so much News International or News Corporation’s similarity to organised crime, as its similarity to any large corporation. This is the way they function to evade responsibility, and why the issue of wilful blindness — which came up again last night — is so central to not just the phone-hacking scandal but to the accountability of large corporations in general. It generates a clear form of moral hazard in encouraging lower level executives to take risks that, if they don’t come off, have no repercussions for the company itself.
This is why the reach for “corporate personhood” is so potentially disturbing. It would extend to corporations many of the rights of humans — such as a right to privacy and the right to participate in a democratic political process — without the basic requirement for personal responsibility. The company that sicced a private detective onto the lawyers of its victims, MPs investigating it and anyone else it thought it could make a buck from continues to operate without any repercussions. It’s a profound evasion of responsibility, and one central to modern corporate “governance”.
Leave a comment
Waldron, Crone, Myler, Mulcaire, Craig, the whole workforce at NotW (except “our Miss Brooks” of course) etc etc etc?
Where would “Limited News” be if some earlier “Godfather” hadn’t created “the patsy”? “Taking responsibility” themselves?
Surely, with their experience, watching (from their front row seat at that “dog fight” they were part of) how “their system operates”, why wouldn’t anyone (with enough brains to get promoted that high up the greasy pole), working in “the bowels of Murdor”, be taking out a little “umbrella insurance – just in case”? For one of those “golden shower” sort of days, they’d have seen being played out on “the general public” – for which they were probably partly responsible themselves?
This is the sort of “corporate governance” from the “organisation” our government was going to trust to run “Network Australia” – what, like “Shelob’s network”?
Brings to mind the sign from the Occupy Wall Street people” I’ll believe a a corpoartion is a person when Texas executes one”.
While politicians who want to be seen doing something to defend their constituents rights and entitlements are doing the questioning in another place. I spend much of my time considering how little separates the ways of the worlds elected corporate entities / Federal, State and Local Governments from those of Corporations like the Murdock family have controlled for around a hundred years, or Orica another corporation in the news. Two and a half pages in my Butterworths Australian Legal Dictionary allow me to understand just how much wriggle room NotW and Murdock Corporations actually have. Corporations and the idea of a so called “good corporate entity” was born because of a need to work around, not with existing laws. They exist as legal tools to be exploited by politicians and captains of industry alike. Corporate Veil; a description of the principle of the limited liability of individual members of a company. No doubt there is a big difference in legal precedent between Australian and Britain. I enjoy reading my Crikey subscription because it links me to news places where main stream wont go, it publishes our comments permitting a published conversation on current news and the very ordinary work product of those at the top in positions of misplaced trust. Edward James
The “Body Corporate” was initiated for the very purpose of operating outside the guidlines of sovereign & constitutional law, by this means it has always had the upper hand over government regulation which has always been playing a game of catch up to the constant changing chameleon like activities of these rogue institutions.
Now that most of the general population have caught on to the way these institutions pervert any level playing field, they have evolved the game even further by their next phase “Free Trade” of course it is not free & indeed nation & people pay a heavy price as there are no longer tarriffs to protect the nations interest. In fact countries can suffer an embargo against them as these companies & international vested interests deem this as a “Barrier to Free Trade” in which they are penalised if they fail to comply. Under “not so free trade” these crooks can pursue their illegal goals much faster whilst putting pressure on foreign
governments.
Its a bit like saying if you dont let us steal your possessions you are in breach of our new laws which identifies you as the policeman trying to stop our thief!!
Here are some major reasons behind these criminal institutions:-
1. Corporates have many subsidiaries & parent companies in which they launder
legal & illegal money.
2. Vast financial resources can flow in & out of their operations which can give
them the ability to monopolise more regulated competition & also manipulate
stock markets & evade their tax committments.
3. The real financial backers can forever remain anonymous & free of
accountability as the board governs the operation whilst a CEO can be flown
in from left field who’s main purpose is to be nothing other than a “Scape Goat”
fired when caught flouting the system. He/She are paid hansomely for their
services & begin a new career at another corporate outpost. How often do you
see the Board or Ceo receive a custodial sentence?????
The huge salaries they receive is nothing more than “shut up money” they can
also be prosecuted for speaking about the activities or individuals of that
company after their departure.
4. If a corporate is caught in a scandal it can outflow all capital then declare itself
bankrupt, “it would take a team of uncorruptable auditors and vast resources a
million years to get to the botttom of a money trail”
When you add to this a global media network that employ tactis of engaging 150 spys to follow & dig up dirt on politicians for the purpose of black mailing or exposing them if they do not yield to the wants of big business. This is just the ultimate perversion of any just or fair society, which is more reflective of a facist state than a democratic one!!!
I wonder how many political parties or individuals are willing to stand up to this kind of pressure & risk their careers & somtimes their lives on behalf of an apathetic public that does not back them up?????