91 killed in Norway shooting, bomb attack
Svein Gustav Wilhelmsen/AFP/Getty Images
Norway massacre claims at least 92
Media Reacts to News That Norwegian Terror Suspect Isn't Muslim
Media Reacts to News That Norwegian Terror Suspect Isn't Muslim
Ujala Sehgal
Yesterday's first reports on the massacre in Norway suggested that there was a link between the horrific attacks, which left 92 dead at latest reports, and Muslim extremists. Only later was the news released that the suspect taken by police, Anders Behring Breivik, was apparently a conservative, right-wing Christian with strong anti-Muslim and anti-immigration beliefs. Many in the media were left reeling over the fact that others were so quick to report and comment that Muslims were involved, before there was clear evidence. Rupert Murdoch's newspaper The Sun had as a headline on the front page, "Al Qaeda Massacre: Norway's 9/11." The Wall Street Journal posted an editorial on the bombings that begins with references to Islam. It starts:
When cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad appeared in a Danish newspaper in the fall of 2005 and sparked a full-blown jihadist campaign against Denmark, then-Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen responded with a telling remark. "We Danes feel like we have been placed in a scene in the wrong movie," he told the German newsweekly Der Spiegel."
Joe Weisenthal, deputy editor of Business Insider, tweeted: "It is pretty bewildering that the first 3 paragraphs of this WSJ editorial on Norway are about Al-Qaeda/Islam." And Eric Umansky, a senior editor at ProPublica tweeted: "You can almost see the tracked changes in this WSJ editorial blaming Islamists for Norway attacks."
The most controversial piece, however, seems to be an editorial at The Washington Post by "Right Turn" columnist Jennifer Rubin, who quoted the Weekly Standard that:
We don’t know if al Qaeda was directly responsible for today’s events, but in all likelihood the attack was launched by part of the jihadist hydra. Prominent jihadists have already claimed online that the attack is payback for Norway’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan.
She added, in her own analysis, that:
Moreover, there is a specific jihadist connection here: “Just nine days ago, Norwegian authorities filed charges against Mullah Krekar, an infamous al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist who, with help from Osama bin Laden, founded Ansar al Islam – a branch of al Qaeda in northern Iraq – in late 2001.”
This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists.
The editorial remains up on the Post, "sixteen hours after its claims were shown to be false and hysterical, it's still there, with no correction or apology," according to James Fallows at The Atlantic. Fallows responded to Rubin's piece, in a blog post titled, "The Washington Post Owes the World an Apology for this Item," writing that:
No, this is a sobering reminder for those who think it's too tedious to reserve judgment about horrifying events rather than instantly turning them into talking points for pre-conceived views. On a per capita basis, Norway lost twice as many people today as the U.S. did on 9/11. Imagine the political repercussions through the world if double-9/11-scale damage had been done by an al-Qaeda offshoot. The unbelievably sweeping damage is there in either case.
Ta-Nehisi Coates, in another Comment at The Atlantic, echoed Fallow's comments on Rubin's piece:
As for this case, my golden rule is that as terrible as it is to be wrong, it many times more terrible to pretend that wrong is right. As of this wring, Rubin has issued no correction in any form. That is shameful.
Glenn Greenwald took issue not merely with Rubin's editorial, but also with a statement by Prsident Obama that suggested, in Greenwald's interpretation, that an international terrorist group was responsible, and the New York Times coverage, which attempted "to pin some form of blame, even ultimate blame, on Muslim radicals." Greenwald writes:
Al Qaeda is always to blame, even when it isn't, even when it's allegedly the work of a Nordic, Muslim-hating, right-wing European nationalist... we've seen repeatedly: that Terrorism has no objective meaning and, at least in American political discourse, has come functionally to mean: violence committed by Muslims whom the West dislikes, no matter the cause or the target. Indeed, in many (though not all) media circles, discussion of the Oslo attack quickly morphed from this is Terrorism (when it was believed Muslims did it) to no, this isn't Terrorism, just extremism (once it became likely that Muslims didn't).
Furthermore, Greenwald took to Twitter to point out another turnaround, this time by John Podhoretz, who wrote a post for Commentary Magazine yesterday where he said that the attacks "have stirred in me a kind of rage I haven’t felt this viscerally since the days after 9/11... If we respond with dispassion, we are ceding to them part of the animating force that makes us human." Then, Greenwald noted, Podhoretz seemed to dramatically shift his tone, by tweeting: "Brevik appears to be precisely whom the left wanted Jared Loughner to be."
In an op-ed at Jadaliyya, Shiva Balaghi calls the events a "Tragic Day for Norway; Shameful Day for Journalism." He summarizes his own view of the reports:
I read a story in the New York Times that squarely pointed to jihadi groups angered at the war in Afghanistan...The Financial Times was no better. From the start, it reported allegations of Islamic terrorism, continuing with this view well into its evening reporting by which time an arrest had already been made in the case... Judy Woodruff’s interview with a Norwegian journalist that aired on PBS’s Newshour followed a similar scenario.
In this 24/7 news cycle driven even more mad by terror experts who conduct research using google and tweet a mile a minute, journalists should exercise caution... Perhaps today the neo-Nazis in Europe count Muslims among the problems that drive their madness. But to a large degree, these right wing extremist views shaped twentieth century Europe.
Additionally, Ibrahim Hewitt writes an editoral at Al-Jazeera, where he observes that once media outlets noted that the suspect was not Muslim, they disassociated connections between the suspect's beliefs and his alleged violent actions.
...the perpetrator was a "blond, blue-eyed Norwegian" with "political traits towards the right, and anti-Muslim views." Not surprisingly, the man's intentions were neither linked to these "traits," nor to his postings on "websites with Christian fundamentalist tendencies." Any influence "remains to be seen"; echoes of Oklahoma 1995. Interestingly, this criminal is described by one unnamed Norwegian official as a "madman."
...Anyone who claims therefore, that the perpetrator's "right-wing traits" and "anti-Muslim views," or even links with "Christian fundamentalist" websites are irrelevant is trying to draw a veil over the unacceptable truths of such "traits" and expecting us to believe that right-wing ideology is incapable of prompting someone towards such criminality. Of course, that idea is nonsensical. Right-wing ideology was behind the Holocaust; it has been behind most anti-Semitism and other racism around the world; the notion of Europe's and Europeans' racial superiority - giving cultural credibility to the far-right - gave rise to the slave trade and the scramble for Africa leading to untold atrocities against "the Other"; ditto in the Middle and Far East.
Rupert it is time to take time to smell the roses in Australia with your beautiful wife
Mr Wijat explains in his new book
The Australian Media Conspiracy
Sub title:
Mr Wijat v
Rupert Murdoch, News Corp and others
£100 billion damages claim in the High Court of Justice Chancery Division)
Mr Wijat said in an exclusive interview with NEWS OF THE WORLD that he does not want sue Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation for £100 billion in damages for masterminding over the last twenty years " ...a commercial conspiracy with industrial espionage.. police corruption at the highest level ... legal, police, business and other intimidation.."... to make sure Mr Wijat does not have the backing and resources to launch his Australian Weekend News Newspaper Masthead in competition against News Corporation's stranglehold of the Australian print media through News Corporation's 70% ownership and control print media in Australia which makes News Corp over £100 billion a year in profits which all get sent out of Australia to the USA to help finance News Corp's development of the USA Media. It has been News Corp's over massive profits from its Australian newspapers ( over 150) that has been the cash cow to expand News Corp into the massive global media organisation it is today with a turnover of around $32 billion and a net profit of around $2.5 billion.
Every time Mr Wijat tried to launch is a serious way his Australian Weekend News newspaper Australia wide since the 1990's, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and their all powerful multi billion dollar global media empire run under their flagship News Corporation and their control of the media, journalists, editors, police, business, government, politicians, courts, the legal fraternity, security firms, real estate agents, valuers, banks, finance industry, private investigators and the general public who believe what is written in the Murdoch/News Corp publication in Australia have been their to tap phones, emails, create fear and distrust, create financial problems, steal computer software, threaten with their unlimited resources to destroy through the court system, have banks cancel approved loans, make sure banks and other financiers do not approve loans, destroy financial assets, have financial supports falsely arrest on false charges... anything to make sure Mr Wijat is not able to launch in a serious way his Australian Weekend News newspaper masthead to take on Rupert and James Murdoch complete stranglehold on the Australia Print media which make over $100 million a year profit for their News Corporation.
Mr Wijat has tried ringing Rupert to discuss an amicable solution and has left countless messages for Rupert to ring or email Mr Wijat...but no response whatsoever...so Mr Wijat says he is forced to issue a High Court Action for £100 billion in damages next week if he does not hear from Rupert.
Mr Wijat can be contacted at
mrwijat@NOTW.bz
or
mrwijat@gmail.com
Mr Wijat says ...".. Jullia Gillard, the Prime Minster of Australia, is right when she says that a police, judicial and political inquiries should be started to look at the way Rupert and James Murdoch and their News Corporation have gained control of 70% of the print media in Australia and how they use that control.."
Video of Julia Gillard Speaking out on the Murdochs and News Corporations'
Influence in the media in Australia
Julia Gillard -
Julia Eileen Gillard (/ˈɡɪlɑrd/,born 29 September 1961) is the 27th and current Prime Minister of Australia, in office since June 2010.
Gillard was elected at the 1998 federal election to the House of Representatives seat of Lalor, Victoria for the Australian Labor Party. Following the 2001 federal election, Gillard was elected to the shadow cabinet with the portfolios of Population and Immigration. The Reconciliation and Indigenous Affairs and the Health portfolios were added in 2003. In December 2006, Kevin Ruddwas elected Labor leader and Leader of the Opposition, with Gillard as deputy leader.
Gillard became the Deputy Prime Minister upon Labor's victory in the 2007 federal election, also serving as Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. On 24 June 2010, after Rudd lost the support of his party and stood aside, Gillard became federal leader of the Australian Labor Party and thus the Prime Minister, the first female holder of the office.
The 2010 federal election saw the incumbent Gillard Labor government elected to a second term over the Coalition opposition, led by Tony Abbott, and formed a minority government with support of an Australian Greens MP and three independent MPs.
News Corp Shareholders and the rest of the world investment community think it is time for Rupert Murdoch to retire in Australia on a very private beach side acreage property the Murdochs have their eyes on...
NEWS OF THE WORLD's exclusive secret video of
Deep Underground Military Bases (DUMB) in the United States of America..
which are only available for the rich and powerful, corporate business and political elite.. when thongs get tough on plant earth...
for the rest of Americans it is FEMA CAMPS for them....
They did not want the masses to see this video...
The masses are not meant to know about D U M B's in the USA
and all over the world at secret locations that have been built...
Wife of Rupert Murdoch defends her man from Pie Thrower
Pressure grows on News Corp to strip Murdoch of chairman's role
By Stephen Foley in New York 21st July 2011
Religious groups on both sides of the Atlantic are putting pressure on News Corp to make big governance changes to improve ethics at the tainted company, including stripping Rupert Murdoch of his role as chairman.
In the UK, the Church of England is demanding a new ethics policy to ensure that the "reprehensible" conduct by some News of the World journalists cannot happen again, while in the US, an investment manager for Catholic groups plans to assail Mr Murdoch at the next News Corp shareholder meeting with a vote on splitting the roles of chairman and chief executive.
Their efforts come at a vulnerable moment for Mr Murdoch and his grip over the company he built into one of the world's largest media empires, as even large mainstream shareholders are calling for corporate governance changes. The company's independent non-executive directors have retained an outside law firm to advise them on their responsibilities in dealing with the hacking scandal and its aftermath, a move which campaigners believe could set in train significant changes.
The non-executives are believed to be considering elevating Chase Carey, the respected chief operating officer, to the post of chief executive, leaving Mr Murdoch as executive chairman.
But Christian Brothers Investment Services, which manages $4bn for 1,000 Catholic institutions worldwide, has demanded News Corp allow a "floor resolution" at the next shareholder meeting in October to vote on stripping Mr Murdoch of the chairmanship of the board.
"So many concerns have come to light because of the hacking scandal," the organisation's assistant director of socially responsible investing, Julie Tanner, told The Independent. "It is costing investors a lot in terms of jobs, the reputation of the company, its market position and billions of dollars in enterprise value. There is a lack of oversight at the company and obviously immediate corporate governance changes are needed to restore public trust."
The introduction of an independent non-executive chairman over Mr Murdoch's head would reflect best practice in corporate governance and bring in "an extra layer of checks and balances" to rectify oversight failures that have gone right to the top, Ms Tanner said.
In the UK, the Church of England has increased its pressure on News Corp. It has £3.8m invested in the US-listed company, and has threatened to sell the stake. The chairman of its Ethical Investment Advisory Group, wrote to the company two weeks ago and the church said yesterday: "Although recent developments at News Corp have started to address some of the issues, the EIAG continues to have serious concerns. Clearly the company has a great deal to do, over time, to demonstrate that it has learned and acted upon the lessons of this scandal."
News Corp shares rose again yesterday, after the rating agency Fitch said it saw no reason to downgrade the group's bonds. "Currently, there is no evidence to indicate that the activities... at News of the World have occurred at News Corp's other businesses," it said. "Fitch does not see risk to the company's brand that would result in large, protracted advertising losses."
The directors with Murdoch's fate in their hands...
Jose Maria Aznar
Nothing demonstrated Rupert Murdoch's proximity to political power more clearly than his ability to lure the former conservative Spanish prime minister to sit on his corporate board in 2006.
Peter Barnes
The Australian executive spent much of his career in the wine and tobacco industry at Philip Morris, and retired to spend more time with his vineyard and non-executive directorships such as chairing the glove and condom firm Ansell.
Natalie Bancroft
The 31-year-old opera singer and journalism graduate was the one representative of the Bancroft family invited to join the News Corp board when it bought the clan's newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, in 2007.
Kenneth Cowley
As a former executive running a major subsidiary of News Corp until 1997, and since he has also been onthe board for 32 years, Mr Cowley would not be considered an independent director under UK rules.
Viet Dinh
The man who wrote much of the Patriot Act for the Bush administration after the 9/11 terrorist attacks has become the non-executive point-man for News Corp's internal investigation into hacking.
Sir Roderick Eddington
Knighted for "services to civil aviation", theformer Australian chief executive of British Airways is News Corp's most senior independent director and would lead any revolt against Mr Murdoch.
Andrew Knight
After being chairman of News Corp's UK newspapers arm, News International, in the Nineties, the former journalist has spent the last decade in non-executive roles in the finance industry.
John Thornton
The former co-chief operating officer of Goldman Sachs now sits on the boards of some of the world's most powerful companies, including the banking giant HSBC in the UK, and the car maker Ford in the US.
Thomas Perkins
The 79-year-old veteran of Silicon Valley's venture capital industry came strongly out in favour of Mr Murdoch continuing in his current roles. The octogenarian is a "genius", Mr Perkins said.
http://79.125.111.126/focus/mwidget?lpage&rid=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fbusiness%2Fcomment%2Fdavid-prosser-investors-look-forw
Julie Burchill: The day Rebekah's fortune was told
In the Eighties when I was young and Godless, I penned a frankly filthy, and filthily frank, book called Ambition which went to the top of the paperback novel charts and made me a packet. It concerned the antics of one Susan Street, a young woman who was "almost clever and almost beautiful" and was determined to become the most powerful broad in Fleet Street. In the course of fulfilling this desire, Susan was not only prepared to sell her soul, but to slip it a Rophynol and bend it over the nearest sideboard in order to have it taken roughly from behind by any passing potentate, should this help her advance up the greasy pole.
Once again, surveying the shambles at News International, I have wondered at my ability to get it wrong. My heroine oohed, ahhed and orgied through a series of increasingly lurid encounters with Brazilian hookers, New York lesbian sadists and even, if I remember rightly, a demonically-possessed, sexually-obsessed electric toothbrush in order to win the top job from her ancient and corrupt boss, one Tobias Pope. But it has been a striking feature of the current revelations, however murky, that no "three-in-a-bed hells" or even "naked romping" took place between the flame-haired counter-jumper and her powerful patron. On the contrary, both appear to be the very model of devoted partners to their respective spouses. Spoilsports!
Julie Burchill: The day Rebekah's fortune was told
21st July 2011
In the Eighties when I was young and Godless, I penned a frankly filthy, and filthily frank, book called Ambition which went to the top of the paperback novel charts and made me a packet. It concerned the antics of one Susan Street, a young woman who was "almost clever and almost beautiful" and was determined to become the most powerful broad in Fleet Street. In the course of fulfilling this desire, Susan was not only prepared to sell her soul, but to slip it a Rophynol and bend it over the nearest sideboard in order to have it taken roughly from behind by any passing potentate, should this help her advance up the greasy pole.
Once again, surveying the shambles at News International, I have wondered at my ability to get it wrong. My heroine oohed, ahhed and orgied through a series of increasingly lurid encounters with Brazilian hookers, New York lesbian sadists and even, if I remember rightly, a demonically-possessed, sexually-obsessed electric toothbrush in order to win the top job from her ancient and corrupt boss, one Tobias Pope. But it has been a striking feature of the current revelations, however murky, that no "three-in-a-bed hells" or even "naked romping" took place between the flame-haired counter-jumper and her powerful patron. On the contrary, both appear to be the very model of devoted partners to their respective spouses. Spoilsports!
Mention of the Chipping Norton Set seemed promising at first – "sets" are usually "fast", and sound a great deal like "sex" anyway. Mrs Brooks husband was an old Etonian racehorse trainer, nicknamed both "Looks" and "Champagne Charlie", who appeared to have squired a number of glamorous exes of famous men, from princes to sporting heroes – so far, so Jilly Cooper. But once membership was known to have included the ickily-uxorious David Cameron and that ocean-going anaphrodisiac Jeremy Clarkson, all bets were off.
Murdoch's happy possession of a sexy Chinese wife caused the heart to yearn hopefully for some sort of shenanigans, but the chances she might be a heartless, inscrutable minx were scuppered by her rather lovely though dismayingly loyal defence of her old man from the joker with the shaving foam. Murdoch has a son who seeks to walk in his giant footsteps, as did my monstrous Pope, but whereas Pope Jnr is a sexy Jewish swashbuckler with genitalia resembling "a cosh wrapped in velvet", Murdoch Jnr looks more like a gutless Gissing bit-player caught with his hand in the petty cash.
And as far as Rebekah herself, she is far cuter, cleverer and more fascinating than my really rather repulsive heroine. We were briefly friends in the Nineties and my fondest memory is of the day she visited me in Brighton, when after a lush lunch we and her friend Jane Moore decided to visit a fortune-teller. When we got there I bottled out on religious grounds, but Bex marched in – and ten minutes later out again, her face almost as red as her lovely hair. The fortune-teller had only gone and told her that although she thought she was a career girl, she had a rich and successful man who worshipped her (she was married to Ross Kemp at the time) and that was where her best bet lay.
Jane and I fell about with laughter at this as Rebekah fumed, though we couldn't decide whether or not he actually knew who she was. But the gypsy's warning came too late for my quiet, kind friend, while I escaped to the coast, out of harm's way, wondering at how things turn out. Stranger than fiction – too true.
Cheap gin and sex would be better for us than water
"Calm down, dear." It wasn't long ago that Ravey Davey got into shtup with the sisters for saying that, but when you consider the "pampering" culture which women have embraced freely over the past decade, you could see why he was confused about the subsequent scoldings. Isn't the whole spa culture about persistently telling ourselves to calm down, while paying handsomely for the privilege?
The girly spa stay has replaced the dirty weekend as the dream mini-break of many women. In oversize white towelling gowns, clutching bottles of water as though they were tiny, transparent life-support machines, we prowled the hushed, lemongrass-scented hotels of this far from fragrant land like smelly ghosts for many a restless year, paying through the nose for unguents that actually have no way of seeping through the skin and blowing our hard-earned cash on scented candles while Rome – and Greece, and Ireland – burned.
But now that mainlining bottled water and green tea 24/7 have been proven to be useless and £10 face creams regularly outperform £100 pots, we will hopefully start finding more sensible, fun and proven ways to calm ourselves down/comfort ourselves in these cash-strapped times, such as drinking cheap gin and having lots of sex. It worked for generations of British women, and there's no reason why it couldn't work for us.
Easy to be nice if you've enjoyed privilege
I was sorry to see the back of The Apprentice, and even sorrier to see Nice Tom win. People can afford to be nice when they're privileged. The back stories of the female finalists, on the other hand spoke of real deprivation, yet they were ceaselessly mocked for being so full-on ambitious. But when your mother doesn't speak English and you grew up without a bathroom (as Susan did) or you took an after-school job so that you could pay for your own school dinners rather than accept free ones (as Natasha did), ambition is often the only thing that prevents you from giving up and going under.
I find it endlessly fascinating, and not a little pitiable, that educated liberals cannot find even a little understanding for the poor of their own country, while practically wetting themselves with compassion when it comes to foreign aid. For these right-on Smuggies, charity may not begin at home, but contempt certainly does.
Like Julie Burchill on The Independent on Facebook for updates
'Murky practices' revealed, says Nick Clegg
PA 21st July 2011
The phone-hacking scandal has uncovered "murky practices and dodgy
relationships" at the heart of Britain's establishment, Deputy Prime
Minister Nick Clegg said today.
Mr Clegg said that the judge-led inquiry into the hacking allegations provided
a once-in-a-generation opportunity to clean up the media, politics and the
police, by legislation if necessary. Politicians must be ready to accept
Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations and act on them, he said.
The Deputy Prime Minister's comments came as Prime Minister David Cameron was
under renewed pressure over his contacts with senior executives at News
Corporation, after aides confirmed he had discussed the company's bid to
take over BSkyB with them.
Downing Street said Mr Cameron could not rule out that BSkyB was mentioned
during the Prime Minister's meetings with News Corp figures, including
chairman Rupert Murdoch and former News International chief executive
Rebekah Brooks, but insisted that none of his conversations were "inappropriate".
Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt - who had responsibility for making the final
decision on the bid, which has now been dropped - told MPs last night: "The
discussions the Prime Minister had on the BSkyB deal were irrelevant.
"They were irrelevant because the person who had the responsibility...
the person who was making this decision was myself."
At a Whitehall press conference today, Mr Clegg said: "I think that we
now have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to really clean up the murky
practices and dodgy relationships which have taken root at the very heart of
the British establishment between the press, politicians and the police.
"That is what we now need to get on and do. That's what the independent
judge-led inquiry will allow us to do. We must act on any recommendations
from that inquiry quickly, if necessary through legislation as well."
Mr Clegg said the hacking scandal, and allegations that police officers were
paid by the press for information, had "shaken" faith in the
police and brought public opinion of politicians to an even lower level.
Mr Clegg said Liberal Democrats had been raising concerns about phone-hacking
even before the general election, and he was the first person in Government
to demand a judge-led inquiry into the allegations.
And the Liberal Democrat leader confirmed that he had raised questions at the
time of the creation of the coalition about Mr Cameron's decision to bring
former News of the World editor Andy Coulson into the heart of the
Government as Downing Street director of communications.
He stressed that the decision to appoint Mr Coulson was the Prime Minister's
alone.
Asked whether he had challenged Mr Coulson's appointment, Mr Clegg said: "Of
course there were constant conversations - particularly in the early stages
of the Government - about how the Government was going to be formed, who was
going to be appointed, who was going to be employed and so on.
"I asked questions about some of the decisions about who was being
brought into government who had been active in opposition."
He added: "It was (Mr Cameron's) decision and he has been very frank and
candid about the fact that he takes responsibility for it. In the same way
that I take responsibility for appointments in my team, he takes
responsibility for appointments to his team."
Liberal Democrats have not been implicated in the recent furore over
politicians' relations with the press, but Mr Clegg has struggled to
capitalise on this in the polls.
Today he sought to establish a distinctive position for his party, saying: "I
don't think anyone should be surprised that the Liberal Democrats and
Conservatives come at this issue from completely different directions.
"We were the only party in opposition to call for an inquiry into the
phone-hacking allegations, even before the election.
"Going back further than that, we were the only party to campaign for new
pluralism rules in the media. The Liberal Democrats have had a particularly
unique role in raising issues which were ignored by the other parties for
years and years, most notably by the last Labour government.
"I was the first person in Government to say it had to be a judge-led
inquiry. I was the first person in Government to say that Rupert Murdoch
needed to reconsider his bid.
"I was the first person in Government to say we needed to cover not just
the police and press but politicians as well.
"On each and every one of these counts, I pushed that case and thankfully
we have now got the right kind of inquiry, which I think will go a long,
long way to cleaning up what was a very, very unhealthy state of affairs."
He added: "I passionately believe in open, transparent balanced
government where people are not in each other's pockets, and that is what I
think we now have an opportunity to achieve over the next few months and
years, and that is an opportunity I hope we will seize."
Shadow chancellor Ed Balls said Mr Cameron had made "a catastrophic error
of judgment" by discussing the details of the BSkyB bid with News Corp
executives at a time when it was being discussed by his Government.
Mr Balls said it was "fine" for ministers to meet newspaper editors
and proprietors to discuss the state of the nation and their Government's
policies.
But he told Sky News: "That is a completely different issue from
Government ministers who have a power to influence commercial decisions
talking directly to executives who stand to benefit from those commercial
decisions.
"What happened yesterday was that the Prime Minister evaded and evaded
all day and in the end Jeremy Hunt had to admit the Prime Minister had
discussed the details of the BSkyB bid."
Mr Balls said the Prime Minister should make clear whether the BSkyB bid was
discussed at a private lunch he had with Ms Brooks and News Corp deputy
chief operating officer James Murdoch around Christmas.
"If that was what was being discussed on Christmas Day or Boxing Day in
Oxfordshire, the Prime Minister should set this out clearly," said Mr
Balls.
"It's fine to meet editors and it's fine to meet proprietors, though you
have to be careful," he said. "But you shouldn't be discussing
commercially sensitive issues with executives while decisions are being
made.
"If the Prime Minister didn't do that, he should make it clear. And if he
did do that, he has got some very serious questions to answer."
Yesterday, Business Secretary Vince Cable claimed he had been "vindicated"
in adopting a tough stance on News Corp's bid to take over BSkyB.
He said: "Clearly my judgments were vindicated.
"I think more important last autumn, when the takeover bid could easily
have gone through, I stopped it happening, I referred it to the regulators."
Mr Clegg said today that history had "borne out" Mr Cable's
reservations, which he first aired unwittingly to undercover reporters.
The Deputy Prime Minister said: "I don't think this is a time for anyone
to start seeking retrospectively to claim credit one way or the other.
"Vince made his reservations about the BSkyB deal spectacularly clear -
if in unorthodox circumstances - and to that extent, yes, Vince's
reservations on the nature of the deal have been borne out by events.
"But, frankly, the events that have taken place since Vince made those
comments are quite different from anything Vince or I could have predicted
at the time."
Mr Clegg called for a revamped press industry with a new regulatory body to
replace the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).
"I want a media landscape which is free," said Mr Clegg, adding: "I
don't want an out-of-control press to undermine the integrity of a free
press."
But he claimed he did not want "politicians making up the rules and I
don't want politicians to start predicting how the media should be
configured in the future".
Mr Clegg went on: "The PCC can't carry on in its present form - it is
judge and jury.
"You've got this ludicrous situation where the committee which is
actually responsible for supervising the code of conduct by which editors
should be judged is populated only by editors, chaired by the editor of the
Daily Mail (Paul Dacre).
"We have got to have independent regulation - independent of Government
(and) independent of the press - able to adjudicate and able to impose
sanctions as well."
Speaking at an event in Birmingham organised by the Birmingham Mail newspaper,
Labour leader Ed Miliband said the hacking scandal underlined the need for
social responsibility.
He said: "One of the things that has struck me about the last couple of weeks
is that we talk a lot in our society about the responsibilities of the
powerless - people without power, people on benefits and others - and it's
important they show responsibility.
"But the reason why people have been so shaken by recent events is they have
shown such irresponsibility among the powerful in our society."
He added: "In order to restore trust - and this is why it's important we get
the truth in all respects - we've got to make sure once and for all we
ensure the kind of events we have seen don't happen again.
"We also have to... ask ourselves more widely what it says about us as a
country.
"Why did these things happen? Why did it get to a stage where it was thought
it was OK to listen to (and) delete the voicemail messages on Milly Dowler's
phone?
"That requires us to look into our soul as a country and say 'What standards
do we want set?'
"That is an issue for all of us."
Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator jailed in the phone-hacking scandal,
said today he will not speak out about his involvement in the phone hacking
scandal until the police inquiry is completed.
He released a short statement through his solicitor after News International
announced it had stopped paying his legal fees.
The statement said: "As I made clear yesterday, because of the ongoing police
inquiry and the possibility of further criminal proceedings, I cannot speak
further at present.
"I am advised that this will remain the position until after the conclusion of
the police inquiry."
Andrew Grice: Why Tories don't want the hacking inquiry to drag on
21st July 2011
"It's time to move on from phone hacking to the
real issues that concern the public." That was the line Conservative
whips gave the party's MPs yesterday. Privately, some Tory MPs fear it
will be hard to "move on". The hacking scandal is so big that it has the
capacity to fill the summer vacuum. "We need a game-changer – I just
hope Gaddafi goes soon," one Tory minister quipped. The parliamentary
recess, which starts today, may deprive Ed Miliband of some of the
opportunities he has exploited well recently. But speeches can be made
and press conferences held outside the Commons.
One danger for David Cameron is that the processes currently unfolding – the
10 separate inquiries and investigations into criminality at the News of the
World under Andy Coulson – will rumble on for years, disrupting normal
business and the party's capacity to fight elections.
The first big electoral test will be the battle to be London Mayor next May, a
rematch between Boris Johnson and his predecessor Ken Livingstone. Both the
Tories and Labour will be desperate to win because the capital is a crucial
general election battleground.
Mr Johnson's initial dismissal of the hacking allegations as "codswallop"
may return to haunt him. He will fast-track the appointment of a successor
to Sir Paul Stephenson, the outgoing Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and
will distance himself from Mr Cameron when he needs to.
While the economy, the NHS and the state of public services after the cuts
will be the main issues at the 2015 general election, hacking could easily
make waves until then. As the inquiries take evidence and report, the issue
will remain in the headlines.
Although Lord Justice Leveson will produce his first report on the media in a
year, he will not make real progress on the second stage on phone hacking
until after the prosecutions and court cases arising from the current police
investigation. That could easily take two or three years.
Tracking down potential victims of hacking could also take the police years
and more hor- rific cases could emerge.
The fear in some Tory minds is that, because he appointed Andy Coulson, the
former News of the World editor, Mr Cameron has the most to lose.
Cameron extends remit of media inquiry to take in BBC
The terms of reference for the hacking inquiry were widened yesterday to
include the BBC, other broadcasters and social networking media.
David Cameron announced the expansion as he unveiled the members of the panel
that will examine media practices.
The inquiry will look at the phone-hacking scandal specifically, but also at
broader issues involving politics, the media and the police. The panel
members were named as:
Lord Leveson
Chair. Best known as the barrister who prosecuted the serial killer Rosemary
West. Also chairs the Sentencing Council, which draws up guidelines for
courts.
Shami Chakrabarti
As director of the civil liberties pressure group Liberty she has strong views
on press freedom and the intrusive state.
Sir Paul Scott-Lee
The former chief constable of the West Midlands has not dined with Rebekah
Brooks so far as we know.
David Currie
The economist and Labour life peer was founding chairman of Ofcom in 2002.
Elinor Goodman
Political correspondent of Channel 4 when the channel launched in 1982, and
political editor for two decades.
George Jones
Long-serving political editor of The Daily Telegraph. Colleagues have joked
that the panel's report will be "by George Jones – with extra reporting
by Lord Leveson".
Sir David Bell
Former chair of the Financial Times and head of the Media Standards Trust
until his appointment to the panel yesterday.
Like Andrew Grice on The Independent on Facebook for updates
Olympic newspaper deal ended
By Damian Spellman 21st July 2011
News International's media partnership deal with British athletes preparing
for next summer's London Olympics has ended as a result of the News of the
World's demise.
The group had entered into a contract with Team 2012 which gave it exclusive
access to competitors ahead of the Games, but the closure of the paper at
the centre of phone-hacking allegations means that cannot be fulfilled.
As a result, the deal is under review with a range of alternatives under
consideration.
A statement from Team 2012 said: "The Team 2012 joint venture, including Visa
as its presenting partner, has had a contract with the News International
Group as its official media partner.
"As a result of the closure of News of the World, the contract can no longer
be fulfilled as originally envisaged.
"All parties in the joint venture remain totally committed to Team 2012 and
are working to make sure that we continue to give the 1,200-plus athletes
from Team 2012 Visa the best chance of achieving success by competing for
Team GB and Paralympics GB at London 2012.
"To help drive national support for Team 2012, we are now exploring media
partnerships across a range of channels."
Under the agreement, the Sun, The Times and the Sunday Times would have been
able to use the title "Official Newspaper of Team 2012".
Steve Richards: Cameron's immaturity lies exposed
21st July 2011
His errors in this affair are part of a pattern of policy making. They are not fatal but they damage him
The Murdochs fly out and David Cameron flies back from his trip to
South Africa that he wisely did not cancel. The spotlight moves from
once-powerful non-elected media executives to the elected Prime Minister
who is not as powerful as he can seem.
There are five issues that relate directly to Cameron in this long-running
drama, his appointment of Andy Coulson, his extensive contacts with News
International, the activities of his chief of staff Ed Llewellyn, his role
in the BSkyB deal that almost came to spectacular fruition and his response
to the firestorm of the last three weeks, the first crisis in which he,
rather than Nick Clegg, has been the centre of attention. How damaging are
each of the issues and is there more to come?
On Coulson, Cameron has opted for candour. He could do little else. The Prime Minister could hardly deny there was no issue when his former senior adviser had been arrested. I respect Cameron for insisting that Coulson is innocent until proven guilty and understand why he has found it difficult to establish distance from a close colleague. Leaders are human. He has been expansive about his personal responsibility in the appointment and the almighty apology, in a form yet to be specified, that he will give if Coulson is found guilty. The association damages Cameron permanently, as it roots him so vividly in the old, dying era of subservience to a media empire and raises questions about judgement. But the steps of this particular Cameron/Coulson dance are familiar and will not change until the final legal verdict on his former press secretary.
Cameron's many meetings with News International executives are not especially surprising. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were equally assiduous. Not for the first time, the attack of the current Labour leadership is stifled by the precedent set by New Labour. The precedents mean there is limited space for any effective Labour attack about Cameron's excessive meetings with Rebekah Brooks and others.
Such gatherings will diminish. In one of many revealing exchanges yesterday, one MP reminded Cameron of Murdoch's semi-joke on Tuesday that he wished prime ministers would "leave me alone". Cameron almost whispered in response that Murdoch and others would be left alone from now on. He sounded relieved. The severing of links is a big change in itself.
Cameron addressed convincingly questions about the intervention of his head of staff Ed Llewelyn who, in an email asked the then Assistant Commissioner John Yates, not to discuss the hacking investigation during a prime ministerial meeting. In another easily-missed aside, Cameron argued that Llewelyn was guiding the police towards not acting improperly. In terms of the PM's future this is a non-story going nowhere. But in contrast to Cameron's expansive answers on Coulson, the number of meetings with media executives, his relations with the police, he was strikingly evasive about his discussions on the BSkyB deal. The evasiveness is much more significant precisely because he had been painstakingly transparent on all other issues. It was deliberate. He had a formulaic answer about having no "inappropriate" conversations but refused to explain what "appropriate" exchanges had taken place. Instead he cited Brooks' response on Tuesday in which she said there were no discussions that could not have taken place in front of the committee.
From these cryptic responses we need to decode, a need that is in itself illuminating. It is clear the BSkyB deal was discussed when Cameron met NI executives. Cameron recognises this is embarrassing or he would have been more specific. The similarity of the formulaic responses of Brooks on Tuesday and Cameron yesterday to this point suggest it is even possible there were discussions between both sides on how to handle it, although this could not have happened given the explosive nature of any contact in the current climate.
Brooks's neatly imprecise answer gives her the space to have made any point to Cameron in relation to the bid. Cameron had "appropriate" discussions, but offered no definition of the term, so he could have said quite a lot too. This part of the story is not over. Cameron is a sharp reader of the rhythms of politics. He knows this could land him in trouble or else he would have stuck with the strategy of transparent candour applied on other fronts.
Cameron has received most criticism, not least from other Conservatives, for his response to the crisis over the last fortnight. On the whole that is unfair. He was stuck with his decision to appoint Coulson, a decision from which there is no escape. It cannot be unmade. When he realised how big this had become he moved fast, so fast that when he met Ed Miliband last week to discuss the terms of the judicial inquiry he agreed to every suggestion made by the Labour leader. Some of his responses have been puny in their desperation such as the unfounded onslaught on Miliband's adviser Tom Baldwin, disgracefully implying equivalence with Coulson, but he has kept afloat in the storm.
The crisis will not bring Cameron down and should not do so. Nonetheless there are always reasons why events erupt around a Prime Minister. The deepest reason is that Cameron and George Osborne are not yet fully formed political leaders. They acquired power at a relatively young age and with no previous ministerial experience. Their political strategy is still derivative rather than fresh and authentic. In this case they wanted an Alastair Campbell to get them close to the tabloids in the same way they could not in the end resist a return to economic policies that led Margaret Thatcher to landslide election victories. Even this week Cameron's entourage seemed to be partly performing on the basis of Tony Blair in a crisis. When Boris Johnson appeared to be unhelpful they briefed "Boris is Boris" in the same way that Blair used to declare with a resigned smile "Peter is Peter". It does not feel wholly original.
Cameron and Osborne are the equivalent of a talented young footballers picked to play in a World Cup Final. They acquired power, New Labour style, in their party (did they consult colleagues widely about the appointment of Coulson?) and implement power in government New Labour style (did Cameron consult widely about the wisdom of meeting NI executives as the BSkyB deal loomed?).
To make sense of the Blair leadership it is important to appreciate that he had no previous ministerial experience. Cameron is a young Prime Minister in a much more epic context, a hung parliament and a deep economic crisis. His errors in this affair are part of a pattern in policy making. They are not fatal, but damage him. He has risen to the top very quickly and he must hope that in the new architecture that will emerge from recent crises he will have no choice but to grow into a very big, authentic leader or risk being swept away by events.
Like Steve Richards on The Independent on Facebook for updates
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-a-question-of-judgement-2317653.html
Leading article: A question of judgement
Fresh from his latest mistimed visit to Africa, the Prime Minister yesterday tried to answer the myriad questions that had exploded on to the political agenda in his absence. He dealt with the police by elaborating on the measures announced by the Home Secretary. He dealt with the media by announcing a broadening of Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry beyond newspapers. The Murdochs' withdrawal of the bid for BSkyB partially drew the sting of questions relating to contacts he might or might not have had with News Corp on the subject. But on the killer question – the recruitment as his media adviser of Andy Coulson – even the Murdoch tactics of apology were not, and could not be, enough.
Not that Mr Cameron truly apologised. In a disturbingly Blairite non-apology, the Prime Minister said "sorry" for the furore, while reserving the right to apologise for the actual appointment, if and when Mr Coulson was shown to have lied. He also admitted that, with hindsight, "I would not have offered him the job and I expect that he would not have taken it". The trouble is that he did offer him the job, and Mr Coulson did take it. And however well Mr Coulson executed his duties at No 10, it is what happened when he edited the News of the World that will define him – and the quality of Mr Cameron's judgement.
Andy Coulson is destined to cast a shadow over the rest of Mr Cameron's term in office. The wheels of justice, as the deliberations of inquiries, turn exceedingly slowly. Even if Mr Coulson is never charged with a crime, the Leveson inquiry and the police investigations guarantee that his name will return time and again to the headlines, and the Prime Minister can do nothing to wrestle himself free. His preoccupation with public relations helped to make Mr Cameron who he is; from now on, it will burden, if not break, his premiership.
GETTY IMAGES
Rupert Murdoch is driven to the airport yesterday after his three-hour grilling
How the answers given to MPs have simply raised more questions
Testimonies from the Murdochs and Brooks on Tuesday still leave key gaps in the story
By Martin Hickman and Cahal Milmo 21st July 2011
1. The 2007 internal report
Paul Farrelly MP "James Murdoch, can you tell us about the file of emails, the so-called internal report that was discovered, allegedly — we read in the pages of The Sunday Times — in the offices of Harbottle & Lewis. Can you tell us a bit more about when that was discovered, when you first came to know about it and what is in it?"
James Murdoch "I first came to know about that earlier this year, in 2011."
Farrelly "Can you be more precise?"
James Murdoch "It would have been in the spring time. I do not remember the exact date when I was told about it."
Farrelly "Before April?"
James Murdoch "April or May."
Why the exchange matters The report allegedly contained emails showing evidence of criminality, including payments to police. Mr Murdoch's answer means NI may have withheld this evidence from Operation Weeting for up to three months.
2. The 2010 DCMS report
Philip Davies MP "When our report was published, when you [Rebekah Brooks] were chief executive of News International... we found the evidence from News International was wholly unsatisfactory. We referred to the collective amnesia in our report, and felt it was inconceivable Clive Goodman was a rogue reporter. When you were chief executive of News International, at the time the report was published, did you read it?"
Rebekah Brooks "Yes, I did. I'm not saying I read every word, but I read a large majority of it. I particularly read the criticisms addressed to the company, and I can only hope that, from the evidence you have heard from us today, you know that we have really stepped up our investigation. Rupert and James Murdoch have been here today, being very open and very honest with you... I hope you think that when we saw the civil disclosure in December 2010 we acted swiftly and promptly to deal with it... I am not saying we have not made mistakes, but the Metropolitan Police have repeatedly said, as you heard last week – or the Home Affairs Committee heard – that there was no need for a further criminal investigation. So I think everyone involved in 2007 would say now that mistakes were made. But I hope you feel we have responded appropriately and responsibly since we saw the information in 2010."
Why the exchange matters News International executives only reviewed the internal report lodged with the lawyers Harbottle & Lewis in "Easter" 2011. Then they waited up to three months before passing the information to police (see No 1, above).
3. Neville Thurlbeck
Tom Watson MP "In 2008, why did you not dismiss News of the World chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck, following the Mosley case?"
Rupert Murdoch "I'd never heard of him."
Why the exchange matters This is an extraordinary claim. Mr Thurlbeck was the chief reporter of the News of the World, Mr Murdoch's best-selling paper, and had delivered a succession of front-page stories. Max Mosley's court victory in 2008 – in which the judge suggested Mr Thurlbeck was an unreliable witness – was prominently reported.
4. Payments to police
Tom Watson "Can I take you back to 2003? Are you aware that in March of that year, Rebekah Brooks gave evidence to this Committee admitting paying police?"
Rupert Murdoch "I am now aware of that. I was not aware at the time. I am also aware that she amended that considerably, very quickly afterwards."
Watson "I think that she amended it seven or eight years afterwards."
Rupert Murdoch "Oh, I'm sorry."
Watson "Did you or anyone else at your organisation investigate this at the time?"
Rupert Murdoch "No."
Watson "Can you explain why?"
Rupert Murdoch "I didn't know of it, I'm sorry. This is not an excuse. Maybe it is an explanation of my laxity. The News of the World is less than 1 per cent of our company. I employ 53,000 people around the world who are proud and great and ethical and distinguished people. Perhaps I am spread watching and appointing people whom I trust to run those divisions."
Why the exchange matters News International appears to have been unconcerned the editor of its second-bestselling newspaper, The Sun, had apparently admitted bribing police. (In 2011, Ms Brooks clarified the remarks made in 2003, saying she had been speaking about the industry in general and knew of no such payments.)
Ian Burrell: So was Rupert putting on the pregnant pauses?
Rupert Murdoch for several years now has been losing cognitive function
The evidence is there online: Rupert Murdoch's faltering and bemused appearance at Westminster on Tuesday was not merely an example of his unusual conversational style, nor a deliberate act intended to win sympathy from a global audience.
The lost figure who struggled to answer, and sometimes to hear, the words of his questioners this week, shocked some investors in his company, News Corp.
- A comparison of interviews available online demonstrates how time has caught up with News Corp's founder and undermines suggestions by Murdoch loyalists yesterday that hesitation before answers is a long-standing Rupert trait.
"Those long pauses are a Murdoch characteristic which goes back a long time," claimed Trevor Kavanagh, one of the most senior figures on The Sun. "Those who portray him as a doddery old man are very far from the truth. He's an old man, there is no disguising that, but... he has a razor-sharp mind."
But when the media mogul was interviewed in 2003 by Jeff Randall, then the BBC Business Editor, he displayed a very different fluency.
Asked by Randall to compare the British economy to those in Europe and America, Murdoch offered lucid economic analysis. "I believe that if America can keep a growth rate of 4 or 5 per cent a year for four or five years, it's going to leave Europe even further behind. But that, again, comes to how is Brussels going to behave? What's going to happen with this new Constitution? What central powers will come in? How it will affect this economy. I'm one of those who think there are great dangers ahead."
Murdoch's biographer, Michael Wolff, was dismissive of ideas that the halting responses were an attempt to draw sympathy by a man determined to show his humility.
"This is the way that Rupert is. Within News Corp they try to tell you 'Oh, he's just thinking. Oh, he's just concentrating.' I have watched this up close and he literally departs this space for the moment. He can't focus on a conversation and he can't hear," he said, adding that there was an "Emperor's New Clothes" situation at News Corp.
"Everybody walks around that building in New York and that company worldwide and pretends that everything is fine. There is... this incredible denial about what's in front of your face: that Rupert Murdoch for several years now has been losing cognitive function."
Even those close to Murdoch for many years acknowledge the change. "Some people thought he was hamming up and deliberately appearing old and frail to win the sympathy vote. Others thought it was part of his general demeanour. I disagree," said one admirer.
"I thought he looked old and confused and slow. There are moments of intense lucidity but then he drifts away. I just think it's simply the ageing process. Had I been a professional investor I would not have been impressed with that performance."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-coulson-was-not-given-toplevel-background-checks-2317928.html
Andy Coulson was not given top-level background checks
By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor 21st July 2011
Andy Coulson underwent only mid-level security vetting as David Cameron's communications chief at Downing Street.
That spared him the requirement of undergoing much more comprehensive and rigorous checks on his background. Had he been put through the higher level of security vetting there would have been detailed background checks on his finances and intensive interviews designed to find out if anything in his past might embarrass the Government.
His predecessors, Alastair Campbell and David Hill, who were Tony Blair's communications chiefs, and Michael Ellam, who was Gordon Brown's, all underwent the higher-level vetting. Mr Coulson's lower-grade clearance surprised some Whitehall insiders, who said that without a higher level of clearance he would have been barred from knowing much of the information that people like Mr Campbell would have regarded as essential to their jobs.
But the Cabinet Office said his job was different from Mr Campbell's and did not require him to attend events such as Cobra sessions and Cabinet meetings.
Crucially, Mr Coulson did not have the authority to order civil servants about, whereas Mr Campbell did.
Mr Cameron told the Commons yesterday that Mr Coulson had undergone "basic level" vetting and that he would not have been privy to the Government's most secret information. He added: "It was all done in the proper way, he was subject to the special advisers' code of conduct."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/key-news-corp-shareholder-backs-murdoch-2317929.html
Key News Corp shareholder backs Murdoch
By Lewis Smith
The Saudi billionaire who played a key role in Rebekah Brooks' departure from News International has voiced his full support for Rupert and James Murdoch.
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal issued a statement to say he remained confident that News Corp will continue to be a valuable long-term investment.
It was the Saudi's intervention in calling for Ms Brooks "to go" as News International chief executive that was seen as instrumental in her decision to resign and Rupert Murdoch's willingness to accept her resignation.
Prince Alwaleed has a 7 per cent stake in News Corp and is seen as an important ally of the Murdoch family. Last year News Corp spent $70m (£43m) on a stake in the Prince's Rotana media company.
Referring to the appearance of both men in front of a Commons committee on Tuesday, Prince Alwaleed said: "Rupert Murdoch and his son, James, answered all questions posed by (members of Parliament) with full honesty and integrity."
And he made it clear that he remained confident in News Corp as a business led by the Murdochs. He said: "I continue to see News Corp as a valuable and long-term investment and remain both supportive and confident in the leadership of Rupert and James Murdoch."
Ian Burrell: So was Rupert putting on the pregnant pauses?
Rupert Murdoch for several years now has been losing cognitive function
21st July 2011
The evidence is there online: Rupert Murdoch's faltering and bemused appearance at Westminster on Tuesday was not merely an example of his unusual conversational style, nor a deliberate act intended to win sympathy from a global audience.
The lost figure who struggled to answer, and sometimes to hear, the words of his questioners this week, shocked some investors in his company, News Corp.
A comparison of interviews available online demonstrates how time has caught up with News Corp's founder and undermines suggestions by Murdoch loyalists yesterday that hesitation before answers is a long-standing Rupert trait.
"Those long pauses are a Murdoch characteristic which goes back a long time," claimed Trevor Kavanagh, one of the most senior figures on The Sun. "Those who portray him as a doddery old man are very far from the truth. He's an old man, there is no disguising that, but... he has a razor-sharp mind."
But when the media mogul was interviewed in 2003 by Jeff Randall, then the BBC Business Editor, he displayed a very different fluency.
Asked by Randall to compare the British economy to those in Europe and America, Murdoch offered lucid economic analysis. "I believe that if America can keep a growth rate of 4 or 5 per cent a year for four or five years, it's going to leave Europe even further behind. But that, again, comes to how is Brussels going to behave? What's going to happen with this new Constitution? What central powers will come in? How it will affect this economy. I'm one of those who think there are great dangers ahead."
Murdoch's biographer, Michael Wolff, was dismissive of ideas that the halting responses were an attempt to draw sympathy by a man determined to show his humility.
"This is the way that Rupert is. Within News Corp they try to tell you 'Oh, he's just thinking. Oh, he's just concentrating.' I have watched this up close and he literally departs this space for the moment. He can't focus on a conversation and he can't hear," he said, adding that there was an "Emperor's New Clothes" situation at News Corp.
"Everybody walks around that building in New York and that company worldwide and pretends that everything is fine. There is... this incredible denial about what's in front of your face: that Rupert Murdoch for several years now has been losing cognitive function."
Even those close to Murdoch for many years acknowledge the change. "Some people thought he was hamming up and deliberately appearing old and frail to win the sympathy vote. Others thought it was part of his general demeanour. I disagree," said one admirer.
"I thought he looked old and confused and slow. There are moments of intense lucidity but then he drifts away. I just think it's simply the ageing process. Had I been a professional investor I would not have been impressed with that performance."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/pm-calls-for-foreign-police-to-take-top-jobs-2317927.html
PM calls for foreign police to take top jobs
By Lewis Smith 21st July 2011
David Cameron has suggested that foreign police chiefs could be brought in to help drive out corruption and complacency.
Mr Cameron said the rule that now bars senior officers from abroad from being allowed to take up senior posts in the British forces could be dropped.
"At the moment the police system is too closed," he told MPs. "There are too few, and arguably too similar, candidates for the top jobs. I want to see radical proposals for how we can open up our police force and bring in fresh leadership."
The comments were made as confidence in the police fell amid concerns they had failed to investigate hacking allegations properly, were too close to media organisations, and that they sold information to journalists.
What did PM tell Murdoch about the BSkyB takeover?
Cameron admits he may have discussed controversial deal
By Andrew Grice and Oliver Wright
21st Jul y 2011
From The Independant- United Kingdom
David Cameron and Andy Coulson at The Millies, an event for military heroes, in 2009
David Cameron admitted that he may have discussed
the bid by News Corp for full control of BSkyB during his 27 meetings
with Murdoch executives since last year's election. Downing Street had
previously insisted that the £8bn takeover was not mentioned.
Mr Cameron also came under pressure to explain
why he failed to review Andy Coulson's position as No 10's director of
communications last September when The New York Times alleged that
hacking was widespread while he was editor of the News of the World. The
same report led to Scotland Yard ending the PR role of Neil Wallis, Mr
Coulson's friend and deputy at the NOTW. Both Mr Coulson and Mr Wallis
have recently been arrested by police investigating hacking.
Last
night Cameron aides offered the surprise disclosure that Mr Wallis had
"probably" visited Mr Coulson in Downing Street since last year's
election, although they insisted that any informal advice to Mr Coulson
took place before the election.
Senior Palace officials also believe Mr Cameron's
office was "aware" of their misgivings about him ever hiring Mr Coulson
in the first place, The Independent understands, following the jailing of a reporter and a private detective for hacking into the phones of royal aides.
During
a Commons statement, the Prime Minister was asked on nine occasions
whether he had discussed the now-aborted News Corp bid for BSkyB. He
replied that he had not had any inappropriate conversations about the
takeover. Later, aides suggested Mr Cameron may have been lobbied by
Murdoch executives but would have merely told them the decision was a
matter for Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary.
Last
night Mr Hunt appeared to confirm that the issue did arise during the
Prime Minister's meetings. He told MPs the discussions were "irrelevant
because the person making this decision was myself". Labour described Mr
Cameron as "slippery" and urged him to publish full details of any
talks with Murdoch executives about the bid. "Until he does so there
will continue to be serious questions about his judgement," said Ivan
Lewis, the shadow Culture Secretary.
However, Mr
Cameron settled Tory nerves by taking a tougher line on Mr Coulson. He
told the Commons he was "extremely sorry" for the furore and that "with
hindsight" he would never have recruited him. "You live and you learn –
and believe me, I have learnt." He said Mr Coulson should face "severe"
criminal charges if it turned out that assurances he gave that he knew
nothing about phone hacking were lies. "If it turns out I have been lied
to, that would be a moment for a profound apology, and in that event I
can tell you I will not fall short," he said. He insisted that Mr
Coulson should be seen as "innocent until proven guilty".
The
Prime Minister dismissed Labour's attacks over the scandal as
"conspiracy theories" and "political point-scoring". Despite private
fears among Tory MPs about his links to Mr Coulson, they rallied
strongly behind him when he addressed their weekly meeting last night.
He told the 1922 Committee his actions on hacking had been "decisive,
frank and transparent" and the issue was not raised when backbenchers
asked him questions.
Ed Miliband seized on
Downing Street's plea to Scotland Yard not to brief Mr Cameron on
hacking last September after The New York Times article appeared: "The
Prime Minister was caught in a tragic conflict of loyalty between the
standards of integrity that people should expect of him and his staff
and his personal allegiance to Mr Coulson. He made the wrong choice."
The
Labour leader suggested Mr Cameron's "conflict of interest" led to Sir
Paul Stephenson's resignation as the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on
Sunday after it emerged that the force had hired Mr Wallis as an
adviser.
He said: "Sir Paul Stephenson was
trapped between a Home Secretary angry about not being told about the
hiring of Mr Wallis and Sir Paul's belief, in his own words, that doing
so would have compromised the Prime Minister."
In
the Commons, Mr Cameron agreed to examine allegations that an unnamed
senior government official was subjected to "disgraceful and illegal"
phone hacking and hostile media briefing while Mr Coulson worked in
Downing Street. He said he would look "closely" at the claims by the
former Labour minister Nick Raynsford and refer them to Sir Gus
O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary.
Mr Raynsford
had asked: "Will the Prime Minister confirm that, a year ago, during the
period when Mr Coulson was director of communications, the Cabinet
Secretary was alerted to evidence of illegal phone hacking, covert
surveillance and hostile media briefing directed against a senior
official in the government service? What action, if any, was taken to
investigate what appears to have been disgraceful and illegal conduct
close to the heart of government?"
The key exchanges
Ben Bradshaw In the Prime Minister's conversations with the Murdochs [and] Mrs Brooks, was there ever any mention of the BSkyB bid?
PM
Perhaps [Mr Bradshaw] will now be transparent, as he was culture
secretary, about all of the contacts he has had with News International
over many years.
John Cryer
The Prime Minister said that he had commissioned a company to do a
basic background check on Coulson. I am asking for the name of the
company.
PM We did hire a company to do a basic background check.
Jack Straw When the Prime Minister read of the investigation in The New York Times last year, what did he do?
PM
There was no information in that article that would lead me to change
my mind, but if it turns out that [Coulson] knew about hacking, it will
be subject to criminal prosecutions.
Nick Raynsford
Will the Prime Minister confirm that, during the period when Mr Coulson
was director of communications, the Cabinet Secretary was alerted to
evidence of illegal phone hacking? What action was taken to investigate?
PM In the period that Andy Coulson worked at No 10 there was no complaint about the way he did his job.
Related articles from the Independant UK
To preserve these artilces in the public interest copies of the articles can be found further down this page or at on
www.newsoftheworld/IndependantMurdochNews
NEWS OF THE WORLD www.NOTW.bz 
YouTube hours before attacks
