Tag Archives: Phone Hacking

Murdochs survive, but the fallout is serious

Posted on by

Karen Kissane, London 

Prime Minister David Cameron can now afford to exhale. Rupert and James Murdoch — perhaps not quite so easily.

Mr Cameron now faces a difficult task to build consensus on how best to implement the Leveson principles, given that his deputy, the Opposition and a fair proportion of his own back-bench support the idea of a new press watchdog that is underpinned by law.

Mr Cameron, on the other hand, warns that laws to regulate the press are a danger to freedom of speech. He told the Commons, “In this House, which has been a bulwark of democracy for centuries, we should be very, very careful before crossing that line.”

Whatever political process follows next will be messy and divisive, but Mr Cameron is likely to be relieved that is the worst he has to handle. The Leveson report does not seem to represent a major nightmare for his government (although its 10 kilos and 2000 pages could be consumed in a day only by a wunderkind, so it may contain small landmines that have yet to be discovered).

Here is the good news for Mr Cameron.

Justice Leveson did not savagely criticise former Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt and his handling of the Murdoch bid for satellite broadcaster BSkyB. He merely rapped Mr Hunt over the knuckles for the unwisdom of appointing garrulous adviser Adam Smith, whose over-friendly communications with News International during the Sky bid process sparked headlines earlier this year.

Justice Leveson did not condemn relationships with red-headed media executives, or loans of horses, or in fact any particular encounter between Mr Cameron and a News International chief. Nor did the judge find that any specific policy by Mr Cameron’s government had been unduly influenced by connections with, or fear of, the Murdoch empire.

His condemnation of the undue closeness of politicians with the press was carefully couched in general terms, along the lines of “a pox on all your houses”.

The British police got a relatively clean bill of health, with a finding that there was no evidence of widespread corruption in their dealings with the media.

And several key players in the phone-hacking scandal got only the most glancing of mentions. This will be due to the law of inverse proportion that follows any arrest: the deeper the legal doo-doo in which a person stands, the less likely a judge such as Leveson would be to examine his or her conduct in any detail, for fear of imperilling future trials.

The fallout for Rupert and James Murdoch and their empire might be more serious.

The phone-hacking scandal and the inquiry it sparked have left them personas-non-grata in British politics. From figures all sought to win over — some saw them as makers and breakers of British governments —  they are now men with whom English politicians cannot afford to be publicly associated. In April, Mr Cameron told Commons, “I think we all, on both sides of this house, did a bit too much cosying up to Mr Murdoch.”

The loss of political influence in Britain has been mirrored across the Atlantic by challenges to the family hold on News Corporation in the United States, where institutional investors have been trying to oust Rupert as chairman and his sons James and Lachlan from the board. The rebels have used the phone-hacking scandal, its costs to the company (around $US 244 million) and related inquiries by US authorities to bolster their case.

The criticisms of the Murdochs by Leveson are carefully-phrased attacks on their corporate competence and, in James’s case, on the accuracy of his evidence to the inquiry. They will add fuel to the fire of already-angry institutional investors.

In the wake of the phone-hacking scandal and the Leveson inquiry, Rupert Murdoch has resigned a few roles; his son has moved on from News International; and Rupert’s beloved newspapers are being split into a separate entity, so as not to sully cleaner and more profitable areas of his empire.

But in the end, does any of that that really matter to a man worth an estimated $US9.4 billion?

 First published on theage.com.au

‘What the hell was going on?’: Leveson questions Murdoch’s credibility

Posted on by

The Murdoch-owned company News International seriously failed in corporate governance over phone-hacking and James Murdoch’s account of a key event was less credible than that of an executive who told a different story, the Leveson inquiry has found.

In a 2000-page report on press ethics released overnight, Lord Justice Leveson also said that:

• Rupert Murdoch exercised power over politicians without having to ask for favours directly;

• An independent watchdog should be established by law to regulate newspapers because they had often behaved outrageously and wreaked havoc in innocent lives; and

• Police made poor decisions in not pursuing phone-hacking but were not driven by fear of, or relationships with, News International executives.

Justice Leveson found that News International and its parent company News Corp had failed to investigate evidence that phone-hacking was widespread among journalists at the News of the World.

“There was serious failure of governance within the News of the World. Given criminal investigation and what are now the impending prosecutions, it is simply not possible to go further at this stage,” he said.

“What can be said is that there was a failure on the part of the management at the News of the World to drill down into the facts to answer the myriad of questions that could have been asked and which could be encompassed by the all-embracing question … ‘What the hell was going on?’”

The way the company clung to the line that hacking had been confined to “one rogue reporter”, in the face of outside investigations and doubts by its own senior executives, was “extraordinary” and said a great deal about the paper’s approach to ethics, the report said.

Justice Leveson found that evidence was unclear as to what NI’s then-executive chairman, James Murdoch, knew of hacking allegations.

Mr Murdoch had been sent an email chain in which a hacking victim alleged that illegal practices were “rife within the organisation”. Mr Murdoch told the inquiry he had not read all the email chain and was unaware of this claim.

Justice Leveson concluded: “James Murdoch replied to the email within two minutes of receiving it. The speed and content of his reply appear to support his claim not to have focused on the key allegation.”

Mr Murdoch had also said he was never shown or told the significance of a different email, headed “for Neville”, that was also evidence that hacking was more widespread. In contrast, News International’s then-legal chief, Tom Crone, told the inquiry the significance of this email had been made clear to James Murdoch at a meeting on June 10, 2008.

Justice Leveson said he concluded “that Mr Crone’s version of events … should be preferred to that of Mr Murdoch. There are aspects of the account of Mr Murdoch that cause me some concern: in particular, it is surprising if the gist [of a lawyer’s opinion that there was evidence hacking was widespread] was not communicated to him. Furthermore, [editor Colin] Myler and Mr Crone had no reason or motive to conceal relevant facts, as borne out by [Mr Myler] sending James Murdoch the [earlier] chain of emails containing the ‘bad news’.”

Rupert Murdoch had told the inquiry that senior management at News International covered up the truth: “[We were] all misinformed and shielded from anything that was going on there … there’s no question in my mind that maybe even the editor, but certainly beyond that, someone took charge of a cover-up that we were victim to.”

Justice Leveson said if there had been such a cover-up, “then the accountability and governance systems at News International would have to be considered to have broken down in an extremely serious respect. If James Murdoch was not the victim of an internal cover-up, then the same criticism can be made of him as of Mr Myler and Mr Crone in respect of the failure to take action”.

Justice Leveson also criticised Rupert Murdoch and News International’s parent company, News Corporation: “Although there is no evidence from which I could safely infer that Rupert Murdoch was aware of a wider problem, it does not appear that he followed up (or arranged for his son to follow up) on the brief [he said he had given] Mr Myler ‘to find out what the hell was going on’…

“If News Corporation management, and in particular Rupert Murdoch, were aware of these allegations, it is obvious that action should have been taken to investigate them. If News Corporation were not aware of the allegations, which … have cost the corporation many hundreds of millions of pounds, then there would appear to have been a significant failure in corporate governance.”

The report also criticised politicians’ close relationships with publishers including Rupert Murdoch. It said his denials that he had ever made express deals with any prime minister “were not the end of the story”.

It concluded that politicians, just like Mr Murdoch’s editors, tacitly understood “the basic ground-rules” of dealing with him: “Politicians knew that the prize was personal and political support in his mass-circulation newspapers …. [They] were well aware that ‘taking on’ Mr Murdoch would be likely to lead to a rupture in support, a metaphorical declaration of war on his titles, with the inevitable backlash that would follow.”

But the report said Mr Murdoch’s influence was more about what did not happen than about what did. Examination of policies did not reveal any that showed politicians compromised to favour Mr Murdoch’s interests directly, “but no government addressed the issue of press regulation, nor of concentration of ownership”.

Justice Leveson found that politicians had spent too much time cultivating relationships with the press and had failed to be transparent and accountable to the public over it. While he did not suggest any “deals” contrary to the public interest had been made, he said,  “potential threats and promises hang in the air”.

He also found that two generations of failure to deal with press misconduct was due to “the press and the politicians [having] formed too close a relationship”.

Prime Minister David Cameron rejected the report’s central recommendation for legislation to set up an independent body to regulate the press. He warned this would result in undue limits on freedom of speech.

But he also said the status quo was unacceptable and that the British press would have a limited amount of time to set up an appropriate watchdog.

Opposition Leader Ed Miliband backed the Leveson proposals for new laws and so did deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

Justice Leveson also recommended legal protection for freedom of the press; increased damages for people who win media cases over wrongs such as libel or invasion of privacy; a system to protect media plurality; and rules to encourage politicians to reveal meetings with editors and publishers.

First published on theage.com.au

UK coalition divided over tougher press regulation

Posted on by

LONDON: The British Prime Minister, David Cameron, faces a potential breach in the ruling coalition over the findings of the Leveson inquiry, with all three main parties split over any recommendations for press regulation.

Mr Cameron’s office received six advance copies of the “hefty” report on Wednesday and was due to convene a coalition meeting on Thursday morning to try to thrash out a joint response with his Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg.

But Mr Clegg also approached the Speaker of the House of Commons to ask that he be permitted to make a statement separate to Mr Cameron’s.

Politicians of all parties are divided over whether freedom of the press should prevail over the need to constrain the worst excesses of Britain’s rabid tabloids, such as the phone-hacking scandal that led to the Leveson inquiry 16 months ago. The public overwhelmingly wants laws to keep papers in line, with a poll on Tuesday reporting that 79 per cent wanted an independent press regulator established by law.

Only 9 per cent supported the idea of newspapers setting up their own body to deal with complaints and decide sanctions if journalists broke agreed codes of conduct.

The associate director of the lobby group Hacked Off, Evan Harris, said of the poll: “The results hardly vary whether voters read The Guardian or The Daily Mail, and are held as strongly by Conservative swing voters as by Labour voters.”

But that same day, 86 MPs, including 76 Tories, wrote to The Guardian opposing statutory regulation, warning that “state licensing is inimical to any idea of press freedom”. That contrasted with a letter earlier this month from 44 different Conservative MPs, who demanded statutory regulation.

Mr Cameron was believed to be considering a free vote in Parliament, given the widely differing views.

The actor and phone-hacking target Hugh Grant said victims did not want statutory regulation but independent regulation “underpinned by statute, which is a very different beast”.

“What people are campaigning for is an end to newspapers being able to regulate themselves, marking their own homework,” Grant said.

The London mayor, Boris Johnson, said any kind of state regulation was “preposterous”.

“The British media is one of the glories of our country. They keep politicians’ feet very firmly held to the fire, which is absolutely right,” he said.

Tom Mockridge, the chief executive of News International, the Murdoch-owned company whose paper News of the World was killed off as a result of its phone-hacking, said he backed tougher press regulation but warned the government not to “cross the Rubicon”.

“The people who argue for state regulation are saying they are going to trust the politicians in this country for another 300 years not to exploit that. That’s a trust too far,” Mr Mockridge said.

Lord Justice Brian Leveson was asked to look at the ethics, culture and practices of the press, and its relationships with the public, police and politicians. This followed newspaper revelations of widespread phone-hacking, including the hacking of the voicemail of a murdered schoolgirl, Milly Dowler, and questions as to why police repeatedly failed to investigate the practice.

The 184 witnesses included the former culture secretary Jeremy Hunt, Rupert Murdoch and his son James, and the former News International executive Rebekah Brooks.

First published in The Age.

Hacking trial will keep PM’s judgment in spotlight

Posted on by

LONDON

The leadership of the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, will be rocked by the phone hacking scandal right into next year now that his friend Rebekah Brooks and his former media adviser Andy Coulson have been charged and face trial.
The pair face possible jail terms on charges they conspired to hack the phones of more than 600 people, and their trials next year may reveal new emails or evidence relating to dealings with Mr Cameron, who is up for election in 2015.
Mr Cameron has faced serious questions about his judgment in hiring Mr Coulson, who was appointed to Downing Street after resigning from News of the World over phone hacking.
Mr Cameron has also been criticised for his friendship with Mrs Brooks, a former chief executive of News International.
A lecturer in politics and media at Nottingham Trent University, Matthew Ashton, told the Herald last night: “The criminal charges make things potentially very difficult for Cameron. Obviously they are innocent until proven guilty but, in terms of public perception and media perception, this is going to hang over them and over him for up to the next two years.
“It calls into question again his judgment in being such close personal friends of Brooks and employing Coulson. There will be more questions asked about Coulson’s vetting.”
Mr Coulson, who like Mrs Brooks strongly denies all charges, has said he knew nothing of phone hacking but resigned because the practice took place on his watch.
Dr Ashton said the charges will force Mr Cameron to distance himself further from them.
“I’m sure if they could be erased from official photos without anyone noticing they would be,” he said. It would further strain Mr Cameron’s relationship with the Murdoch empire before an election, he said.
After Rupert Murdoch and his son James appeared before a committee of MPs inquiring into the phone-hacking allegations, coverage in The Times and The Sun gave Mr Cameron “a rougher ride”, Dr Ashton said.
Mrs Brooks and Mr Coulson are among eight people formerly employed by News of the World who are charged with 19 counts of conspiracy over phone hacking. Their targets allegedly included Labour cabinet ministers and celebrities.
Mr Coulson faces five counts of conspiring to unlawfully intercept communications, including the voicemail of a murdered schoolgirl, Milly Dowler. Mrs Brooks faces three similar counts.
Dr Ashton said the Prime Minister’s links with News International, revealed in the Leveson inquiry into the media, have also reinforced a view the Conservative Party looks after “its friends” rather than the people.
The Barclays banking scandal and the phone-hacking revelations have intertwined to create “a feeling that in what is supposed to be a meritocracy, the very top people in the country are out only for themselves and their friends and the fact that in the Leveson inquiry text messages between Mr Cameron and Mrs Brooks were revealed … did help create that mood about an old boys’ network in smoke-filled rooms”.First published in The Age.

Ex-Murdoch chief in court

Posted on by

SHE has tamed that wild mane of red hair. The former chief executive of News International, Rebekah Brooks, yesterday appeared in a London court over charges of perverting the course of justice — with newly reshaped princess-style tresses.
The court was told that Brooks, who faces three counts of conspiring to hide evidence from the Metropolitan Police, would probably learn by the end of August whether she would also face new charges arising from Operation Weeting, the police investigation into phone hacking.
Brooks faces three charges of having conspired to pervert the course of justice by hiding material from the Metropolitan Police Service.
Her barrister, Hugo Keith, QC, said that prosecutors had been passed more Operation Weeting files relating to 11 journalists. “No one is sure whether it will result in charges one way or another,” he said.
He said any further charges would have an impact on this trial and asked that prosecutors say by the end of August whether Brooks could expect more counts. Mr Justice Fulford declined to make an order but said he encouraged the prosecution to do this if possible.
Brooks, who resigned as chief executive of News International last July, is also a former editor of The Sun and the now-defunct News of the World.
She and her husband sat in the dock with four other defendants: Cheryl Carter, Brooks’ former personal assistant; Paul Edwards, Brooks’ former chauffeur; Mark Hanna, the head of security at News International; and Daryl Jorsling, who was a security consultant for Brooks provided by News International. Brooks, 44, is charged on count one that between July 6 and July 19, 2011 she conspired with Charles Brooks, Hanna, Edwards, Jorsling and persons unknown to conceal material from Metropolitan police officers.
On count two she is charged with Carter of conspiring between July 6 and July 9, 2011 to permanently remove seven boxes of material from the archive of News International.
In the third count Brooks is charged with her husband, Hanna, Edwards and Jorsling and persons unknown of conspiring between July 15 and 19 July 19, 2011 to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from Metropolitan officers. The other five defendants face one charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice each.
Charlie Brooks faces a charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice with his wife.
All six defendants will face court again on September 26 for a plea and case management hearing. No trial date was set.

First published in The Age.

Brooks will find out soon about further phone-hacking charges

Posted on by

LONDON

She has finally tamed that wild mane of red hair. The former chief executive of News International, Rebekah Brooks, yesterday appeared in a London court over charges of perverting the course of justice – wearing her trademark Christian Louboutin spike heels, a slinky black designer dress and newly reshaped princess-style tresses.
The court was told that Brooks, who faces three counts of conspiring to hide evidence from the Metropolitan Police, would probably learn by the end of August whether she would also face new charges arising from Operation Weeting, the police investigation into phone hacking.
Her barrister, Hugo Keith, QC, said that prosecutors had been passed more Operation Weeting files relating to 11 journalists: ‘‘No one is sure whether it will result in charges one way or another.’’ He said any further charges would have an impact on this trial and asked that prosecutors say by the end of August whether Brooks could expect more counts.
Mr Justice Fulford declined to make an order but said he strongly encouraged the prosecution to do this if possible.
Mr Keith had also given the judge a file of press clippings that he said contained evidence of websites and blogs with offensive commentary that could prejudice Brooks’ right to a fair trial: ‘‘I don’t make any application today but I do wish to put down a very gentle marker as to the responsibility of everybody as to the strictures of the Contempt of Court Act.’’ Brooks, who resigned as chief executive of News International last July, is also a former editor of the tabloid Sun and the nowdefunct News of the World.
At times she glanced across the courtroom and studied the reporters taking notes on her case.
She and her husband, Charlie, sat in the glass-caged dock with four other defendants. They are Cheryl Carter, Mrs Brooks’s former personal assistant; Paul Edwards, Mrs Brooks’s former chauffeur; Mark Hanna, the head of security at News International; and Daryl Jorsling, who was a security consultant for Mrs Brooks provided by News International.
Mr Jorsling’s lawyer told the court he had lost his licence to work in the security industry because of the charges and that he could soon lose his home.
James Sturman, QC, said there was no prima facie case against Mr Jorsling and that there would be amove to dismiss the charges.
He asked the judge ‘‘to consider whether it’s in the public interest to render this defendant homeless over the next three months’’.
The judge asked the prosecution to re-examine the case against Mr Jorsling. The prosecutor, Andrew Edis, QC, said they would but that the decision to charge ‘‘had already received very careful consideration and I wouldn’t like anyone to think that it hadn’t’’.
Mrs Brooks, 44, is charged on count one that between July 6 and July 19 last year she conspired with her husband, Mr Hanna, Mr Edwards,Mr Jorsling and persons unknown to conceal material from officers of the Metropolitan Police. On count two she is charged with Ms Carter between July 6 and July 9 last year of conspiring to permanently remove seven boxes of material from the archive of News International.
In the third count Mrs Brooks is charged with her husband, Mr Hanna, Mr Edwards and Mr Jorsling and persons unknown of conspiring together between July 15 and July 19 last year to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from officers of the Metropolitan Police. The other five defendants face one charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice each.
Mr Brooks faces a single charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice with his wife.
All six defendants will face court again on September 26 for a plea and case management hearing. No trial date was set.First published in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Better to befriend Murdoch than to confront him: Blair

Posted on by

LONDON

MEDIA magnate Rupert Murdoch was not an ”Identikit right-wing person” or a ”sort of tribal Tory”, former prime minister Tony Blair told the Leveson inquiry in London last night.”There are bits of him that are more anti-establishment, sort of meritocratic, I would say,” Mr Blair said.

He said he never felt under pressure to help with the commercial interests of the Murdochs or any other media proprietors.

”We decided more stuff against Murdoch interests than in favour of it. Did that mean they changed their support for me? No, it didn’t, in fact. Even though there were things they really didn’t like.”

Mr Blair testified he made a strategic decision not to take on the British media over their excesses when he became prime minister but instead ”assuaged and persuaded” them because the Labour Party had just spent 18 years in opposition.

He said of that time: ”You certainly [did] fear the power being directed at you”, particularly the papers that would wage campaigns against politicians not just in their opinion pages but through the slanting of news stories.

He flew to Hayman Island to address News Corp executives in 1995 as part of a Labour strategy to gain a hearing with newspapers that had savaged previous leaders Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock.

It emerged in 2010 that he formed a close-enough relationship with Mr Murdoch to become godfather of one of the media tycoon’s children.

Asked whether he got too close to News International, he said he became closer to Mr Murdoch once he left office and that was the point at which he became godfather to one of the media tycoon’s children. “The relationship became a lot easier and better ? I would never have become godfather to one of the children [while I was in office].”

He noted three phone calls with Mr Murdoch in the run-up to the Iraq war in March 2003, totalling no more than 45 minutes, in which he ”probably” asked about the positions of the US and Australia. ”But no, I wouldn’t have been asking him about press coverage.”

Mr Blair led the Labour Party for 13 years, 10 of them as prime minister. His appearance came at the start of a high-profile week for the Leveson inquiry into the press, which is looking at the relationships between the media and politicians.

Embattled Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt is due to give evidence on Thursday and is likely to be grilled over his handling of the Murdoch bid last year for a complete takeover of satellite broadcaster BSkyB.

First published on theage.com.au

Protester bursts into Leveson courtroom to confront Tony Blair

Posted on by

LONDON

Former British prime minister Tony Blair has denied being too close to Rupert Murdoch, as the Leveson inquiry into media ethics took a dramatic turn overnight. Security guards were forced to intervene at one point during Mr Blair’s evidence, when a protester burst into the courtroom and accused him of being a war criminal.In a moment reminiscent of a cream pie attack on Mr Murdoch before a parliamentary committee last year, David Lawley-Walkin, a freelance documentary film-maker, appeared from behing Lord Leveson’s bench  shouting: “This man should be arrested for war crimes! JP Morgan paid him off for the Iraq war. Three months after we invaded Iraq, he held up the Iraq bank for £20 million. He was then paid $6 million every year, and still is, from JP Morgan, six months after he left office. The man is a war criminal!”

Mr Lawley-Walkin was bundled out of the room by guards, with Lord Justice Leveson ordering an investigation into the security breach. Mr Lawley-Walkin  later told the Guardian he had made his way into the courtroom unchallenged via a back staircase.

“I thought, I’m not going to be able to do this. I nearly gave up, in fact. But when I figured out a way through it was fairly straightforward,” he was quoted as saying, telling the newspaper he had later been handed over to police but had been released without charge.

For his part, Mr Blair said the accusations of payment from JP Morgan were completely untrue: “I’ve never had discussion with them about that [Iraq].”

(Financial services firm JP Morgan Chase was appointed to operate a US-created bank in Iraq to manage billions of dollars in imports and exports from the oil-rich nation).In his evidence, Mr Blair told the inquiry that Rupert Murdoch had not lobbied him over media policy and that there was no “implied deal” between them.

“There was no deal on issues to do with the media with Rupert Murdoch or, indeed, anybody else, either express or implied. And to be fair, he never sought such a thing,” Mr Blair said.

“Was I aware he had certain interests and was I aware the media as a whole had a strong interest in us not legislating on the media? Absolutely.”

Mr Blair said he never felt under any pressure to help with the commercial interests of the Murdochs or any other media proprietors: “We decided more stuff against Murdoch interests than in favour of it. Did that mean they changed their support for me? No, it didn’t, in fact. Even though there were things they really didn’t like.”

Asked whether he got too close to News International, Mr Blair said he became closer to Mr Murdoch after he left office, which is when he became godfather to one of Mr Murdoch’s children.”The relationship became a lot easier and better? I would never have become godfather to one of the children [while I was Prime Minister].”

On whether he got too close to former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks, he said that towards the end of his time in office he needed all the friends he could get but “to put it bluntly, the decision-maker was not Rebekah Brooks ?. It was Rupert Murdoch, for sure”.Mr Blair acknowledged that he sent Mrs Brooks a message of sympathy after she was forced to resign over the phone-hacking scandal last year: “I am somebody who doesn’t believe in being a fair-weather friend and certainly I said I was sorry for what happened to her.”Mr Blair had earlier confirmed to the inquiry that he had three phone calls with Mr Murdoch in the run-up to the Iraq war in March 2003.Mr Blair had initiated one of the calls: “I would have been wanting to explain what we were doing. I think I had similar calls with the Observer and the Telegraph?”Probably I would have been asking him what the situation was in the US and Australia, which were part of the coalition [of countries willing to join the US intervention in Iraq]. But no, I wouldn’t have asked him about press coverage.”Mr Blair denied a claim from a former aide that Mr Murdoch had been “the 24th member” of his cabinet and denied that Mr Murdoch had been promised he would be informed any impending policy changes in some areas. The former prime minister also attacked the British press, which he had once called a “feral beast”, over the way some elements of it had waged “a personal vendetta” against his wife, Cherie. He said she had contacted lawyers more than 30 times over articles that had been written about her.”I thought and I do think that the attacks on her and my children were unnecessary and wrong. I just don’t think it is part of the political debate? What I think is wrong is where sections of the media? [have] powerful people say, ‘Right, we are going to go for that person.’”And then what happens is they go for you? it’s full-on, full-frontal. That’s not journalism. In my view, it’s an abuse of power.”Lord Justice Leveson gave an insight into what he might recommend at the end of the inquiry into press practices. He told Mr Blair there needed to be a stronger press complaints system that was fast, effective and cheap for victims to access. He also thought that editors considering an expose on an individual could seek the advice of a panel on whether to notify the subject of the story before publication. Editors could be free to ignore any advice to notify, but if they did, they might risk exemplary damages in any subsequent court case, Justice Leveson said.

First published on smh.com.au

Media inquiry told of lobbyist’s dealings with top minister over TV bid

Posted on by

LONDON

A lobbyist for News Corp exchanged 191 phone calls, 158 emails and 800 texts with the office of the British Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, during the company’s bid for the satellite broadcaster BSkyB, the Leveson inquiry heard last night.
But News’s head of communications, Fred Michel, said he could not assess whether Mr Hunt had been supportive of the bid at the time.
He said that although he never met Mr Hunt during the bid process, he had exchanged a small number of text messages with him. “Nothing inappropriate never [sic] took place,” he said.
Mr Hunt’s job is under threat following revelations at previous hearings of the Leveson inquiry into media ethics that Mr Michel wrote 164 pages of emails to his boss, James Murdoch, which seemed to suggest Mr Hunt was secretly on-side with the £8 billion Murdoch bid. Mr Hunt, who is also Media Minister, was meant to be impartially overseeing the bid process.
Labour has accused the minister of being a “cheerleader” for the Murdochs’ now abandoned bid and have called for Mr Hunt to resign over the affair.
The lawyer assisting the inquiry, Robert Jay, QC, asked Mr Michel about an email he wrote in November 2010 telling Mr Murdoch that Mr Hunt had to pull out of a planned meeting to discuss the bid with Mr Murdoch because it would undermine the minister’s quasi-judicial responsibility to be impartial.
The email said: “Jeremy is very frustrated about it, but the permanent secretary has now become involved.”
Mr Michel told the inquiry there was “frustration on both sides” that the meeting could not take place and that he wanted to arrange for Mr Murdoch and Mr Hunt to speak over the phone to “apologise to each other”.
Last month Mr Hunt’s special adviser, Adam Smith, resigned over the email revelations. Mr Smith – who was due to give evidence overnight – said that in his communications with Mr Michel he had acted without Mr Hunt’s authorisation and he had allowed the impression to be created of too close a relationship between News Corp and the Department for Media.
Mr Smith said at the time: “I do not recognise all of what Fred Michel said, but nonetheless I appreciate that my activities at times went too far and have, taken together, created the perception that News Corporation had too close a relationship with the department, contrary to the clear requirements set out by Jeremy Hunt and the permanent secretary that this needed to be a fair and scrupulous process.”
Mr Michel told the inquiry he did not exaggerate in his emails in order to make himself look better to his employer: “I don’t need to puff myself up.”
He said he might have written some emails with a view to improving morale at News over the bid but that this happened on only a few occasions.

First published in the Sydney Morning Herald.

James Murdoch ‘furious’ over plans to block BSkyB takeover bid, Leveson inquiry told

Posted on by

LONDON< The Conservative minister overseeing the Murdoch bid to take over satellite broadcaster BSkyB warned the Prime Minister that James Murdoch was furious over the government’s handling of it and “if we block it, our media sector will suffer for years”, the Leveson inquiry heard last night.Secretary of state and minister for media Jeremy Hunt wrote a memo to Prime Minister David Cameron in November 2010 in which he said it would be wrong to “cave in” to objections that the takeover would give one media outlet too much power. He warned that James Murdoch was “pretty furious” that another minister, Liberal Democrat Vince Cable, had referred the bid to media regulator Ofcom for scrutiny. “He doesn’t think he will get a fair hearing from Ofcom,” Mr Hunt wrote. “I am privately concerned about this because News Corp are very litigious and we could end up in the wrong place in terms of media policy. Essentially, what James Murdoch wants to do is repeat what his father did with the move to Wapping [where he broke union strangle-holds on newspapers to introduce new technology] and create the world’s first multi-platform operator, available from paper to web to TV to iPhone to iPad. Isn’t this what all media companies have to do ultimately? And, if so, we must be very careful that any attempt to block it is done on plurality grounds and not as a result of lobbying by competitors.” Then Mr Hunt appeared to throw his backing behind the controversial £8 billion bid, writing, “The UK has the chance to lead the way on this as we did in the 80s with the Wapping move, but if we block it, our media sector will suffer for years. In the end, I am sure, sensible controls can be put into any merger to ensure plurality, but I think it would be totally wrong to cave into the [BBC and Guardian] line that this represents a substantial change of control given that we all know Sky is controlled by News Corp now anyway.” News Corp owns 39 per cent of Sky. The company abandoned the full-takeover bid last year following public outrage over the phone-hacking scandal at its now-defunct paper, the News of the World. Mr Hunt was meant to be impartially overseeing the takeover proposal. He had a ‘quasi-judicial’ role to be objective, which Lord Justice Leveson last night said meant not speaking to the parties in any way that was not “open and transparent to everyone”. Mr Hunt’s job is under threat following earlier revelations that a lobbyist for News Corporation, Fred Michel, wrote 164 pages of emails to James Murdoch that seemed to suggest Mr Hunt was secretly on-side with the £8 billion Murdoch bid. Last night the inquiry revealed that Mr Michel had also exchanged 191 phone calls, 158 emails and more than 1000 texts with Mr Hunt’s office during the process. But Mr Michel, head of communications for News Corp in the UK, said he could not assess whether Mr Hunt had been supportive of the bid. He said he had not met Mr Hunt during that time but had exchanged several text messages with him. “Nothing inappropriate never [sic] took place,” he said. One message he sent in March 2010 congratulated Mr Hunt on his performance in the House of Commons that day. Mr Hunt sent the French-born Mr Michel a text reply saying, “Merci! Large drink tonight.” In one email Mr Michel wrote that Mr Hunt believed a new NewsCorp proposal over the bid would mean “it’s almost game over for the opposition” and that “he said we would get there in the end and he shared our objectives”. The minister did not want to the process to go to the Competition Commission as “Jeremy Hunt believes this would kill the deal”, Mr Michel wrote in another email. But Mr Hunt also wanted to “build some political cover with the process”, an email said: “He wants us to take the heat with him in the next two weeks.” Labour has accused the minister of being a “cheerleader” for the Murdochs’ now-abandoned bid and called for Mr Hunt to resign over the affair but Mr Cameron is standing by him. Lawyer Robert Jay, QC, asked Mr Michel about how he had received preview information from Mr Hunt’s special adviser, Adam Smith, on a statement on the BSkyB bid the minister was to make to Parliament the next day. Mr Michel said he was surprised that Mr Smith sent him information about the statement before it was made to parliament. Mr Michel had written to Mr Murdoch of this, “Managed to get some information on the plans for tomorrow although absolutely illegal”. Asked what he meant by “absolutely illegal”, Mr Michel told the inquiry, “it was a very bad joke which shouldn’t have been made. I think it was out of my surprise to get a briefing on the contents of the statement.” Mr Jay challenged Mr Michel on an email in which Mr Michel claimed that Mr Hunt and the Prime Minister’s office wanted guidance from News International on how they should position themselves over the phone-hacking scandal. Mr Jay said Mr Smith strongly denied asking for this. Mr Michel replied, “I can completely vouch for the fact that we discussed those issues with Adam.” But he said “‘guide’ might be too strong a word, probably, but there was an offer from me to brief the departments on the on-going issues of News International and it was something that was welcomed at the time”. Last month Mr Smith resigned over the email revelations. He said that in his many communications with Mr Michel he had acted without Mr Hunt’s authorization and he had allowed the impression to be created of too close a relationship between News Corp and the Department for Media. Questioned at the inquiry last night, Mr Smith said he had had a close working relationship with Mr Hunt. But he denied the minister was close to the Murdochs or their companies: “He did not have that much of a relationship with either of the Murdochs or the chief executive of News International… he was not close to News Corp.” He also denied that Mr Hunt had been a “cheerleader” for News Corp’s BSkyB bid. First published in The Age.