backtop


Print 86 comment(s) - last by ekv.. on Jul 18 at 10:50 PM


Rupert Murdoch's employees are accused by the UK government of hacking into the phones of murder victims, terrorist victims, family members of dead soldiers, politicians, and celebrities.  (Source: AP Photo)

In response to the scandal Mr. Murdoch's son announced that "News of the World" will close, printing its last issue Sunday. The tabloid is the biggest in the UK in terms of circulation, so the news came as a shock to many.  (Source: Bloomberg)

News Corp. owns multiple U.S. publications, including the tabloid "New York Post" and Fox News
News Corp. employees hacked into a variety of peoples' phones, including murdered children

When you get caught hacking into the phone of a murdered child and hinder the investigation, you know you're in deep trouble.  That's the position that embattled international news agency News Corp. find itself in.

News Corp. (
NWS), the brainchild of billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch, has a penchant for controversy; with properties like U.S. news network Fox News.  However, such controversy pales in comparison to allegations brought against News of the World which is published by News International, one of News Corp.'s British holdings.

According to documents released in an ongoing police investigation, News Corp.'s British properties hired veteran hackers to gain access to the voicemail accounts of persons of interest -- including murder victims, terrorism victims, families of dead soldiers, celebrities, and politicians.  The hackers often altered the voicemail contents in an effort to fish for leads.

Just a few days ago the talk centered on whether News International CEO and Murdoch-protégé Rebekah Brooks would resign.  Now that talk has been made a moot point, as Mr. Murdoch has decided that he will discontinue the entire News of the World publication.

The news shocked many, as News of the World is currently London's best-selling tabloid newspaper.  Many in England believe that the paper's articles make or break political candidates.

The news that the paper was dead was delivered by Rupert Murdoch's son, James Murdoch, a senior News Corp. executive.  He comments, "The News of the World is in the business of holding others to account, but it failed when it came to itself."

He revealed that the move would lead to 200 staffers losing their jobs, though they could apply for other News Corp. positions.  He also revealed that the proceeds of this Sunday's final edition would be donated to charity, in an effort to placate the growing firestorm of criticism.

The closure of the embattled publication may not be enough to silence the public outcry; particularly when pressing questions remain.  Questions include whether News of the World staffers broke British law during their actions and whether they shared their findings with other sister publications, such as The Times of London and the tabloid Sun.  If they did, these publications could find themselves subject to similar boycotts as News of the World.

Another compelling question is whether the questionable tactics were isolated to News Corp.'s British operations, or whether they could have been employed at American tabloids such as the New York Post.  Thus far there's no evidence of this, but the topic will certainly be examined as spotlight of scrutiny is cast onto News Corp.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

You Serious?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2011 6:00:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The news shocked many, as News of the World is currently London's best-selling tabloid newspaper. Many in England believe that the paper's articles make or break political candidates.


Ok I don't know about England, but in America tabloids are jokes. Rags that nobody takes seriously. In London they actually affect elections!?




RE: You Serious?
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 6:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In London they actually affect elections!?


It's an established technique

quote:
If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.


You really don't want to know the source. It's not OJ.


RE: You Serious?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: You Serious?
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 7:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's it establish?

Why ask why? The answer was already in front of you.


RE: You Serious?
By BugblatterIII on 7/7/2011 7:12:45 PM , Rating: 2
At least our dimwits read; yours just watch Fox News.


RE: You Serious?
By Bonesdad on 7/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: You Serious?
By Spuke on 7/7/2011 11:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
Since when did we stop saying "zing".


RE: You Serious?
By Bonesdad on 7/8/2011 8:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
since Cars


RE: You Serious?
By yomamafor1 on 7/7/11, Rating: -1
RE: You Serious?
By YashBudini on 7/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: You Serious?
By karielash on 7/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: You Serious?
By YashBudini on 7/9/2011 11:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At least our dimwits read;

You got downrated twice for this, while R77 gets to generalize that Brits practice bestiality.

quote:
I mean how many stories about some hoser getting drunk and screwing a moose can you take before you start to get bored?

Add to that the number of times he objects to ad hominem attacks. </facepalm>

Please realize such antics are in the minority for the most part, regarding the double standards, the petty comments, and the personal pursuit of animals.

Oh course the only way to be desensitized to such issues is with repeated exposure, so do ask yourself who found this funny?


RE: You Serious?
By BugblatterIII on 7/10/2011 8:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but to be fair I did insult the dimwits of an entire nation by suggesting that they watch Fox News. Clearly I lost the dimwit vote.


RE: You Serious?
By BugblatterIII on 7/12/2011 6:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
Oh wow; I've gone from 5 down to 2 and those who said I should be a six got rated down to -1! Must've hit a nerve!


RE: You Serious?
By YashBudini on 7/12/2011 11:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the painful truth nerve.


RE: You Serious?
By seamonkey79 on 7/7/2011 6:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
They're not the same as American tabloids... in that almost everyone there reads them and actually thinks they're something more than a gossip paper, as opposed to the relatively small group of Americans that read them, and only the extremes of that group think they're much more than gossip or made up junk.


RE: You Serious?
By dark matter on 7/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: You Serious?
By Dr of crap on 7/8/2011 9:03:47 AM , Rating: 2
So why waste your time and why read them at all?????

Just something there to laugh at when I check out - and that's all.

OH, by the way -
did you hear about the alien baby from J lo??


RE: You Serious?
By karielash on 7/8/2011 5:55:33 PM , Rating: 1

Mostly for the tits!!!


RE: You Serious?
By messyunkempt on 7/9/2011 3:57:19 PM , Rating: 1
Definately, its the only page i ever read. And i worked for them for 3 years, until a couple of months ago.


RE: You Serious?
By messyunkempt on 7/9/2011 4:02:06 PM , Rating: 1
The sun/news of the world that is, i didn't work for the tits. Although they did work for me.


RE: You Serious?
By RealTheXev on 7/8/2011 8:31:38 PM , Rating: 1
Worked in Bush II's favor? :P


RE: You Serious?
By adl on 7/7/2011 10:04:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Ok I don't know about England, but in America tabloids are jokes. Rags that nobody takes seriously. In London they actually affect elections!?


just so you know, tabloid (and broadsheet, and berliner) refers to the actual physical size of the paper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid

there is an implication that tabloids generally cater to the least common denominator, and are extremely sensationalist, but the degree of sensationalism isn't a well defined property.

of course, not having actually read the news of the world (or any american or english tabloid for that matter), i cannot comment on the impact they have in a social context.


RE: You Serious?
By Fritzr on 7/8/2011 3:13:35 AM , Rating: 3
In addition to being the name of a particular format, tabloid is the common designation for a newspaper that offers sensational and in many cases fake news. The 'tabloid news' label has even been applied to other media such as Fox Network News. This category is not new, an earlier label is "yellow journalism" which was spawned by William Randolph Hearst's newspapers.

They can influence elections as was shown by the recent revelations of US politician's having affairs. The greatest effect is when the story is picked up by mainstream news outlets. In the UK where the Daily Sun and similar rags are the print equivalent of Fox News, they can, with a large readership, swing the vote.

The tabloids can also start wars. By reporting events in the "proper" manner and adding editorials recommending the "proper" response, William Randolph Hearst is in large part responsible for the Spanish-American War. In modern times news outlets still sway public opinion with selective reporting, creative story writing and editorials written to sell a particular agenda.

We aren't talking about the National Enquirer, these papers are more like the New York Post that was named in this article...many people believe it is a legitimate newspaper.


RE: You Serious?
By Samus on 7/8/2011 12:26:09 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ok I don't know about England, but in America tabloids are jokes.


I guess you don't know the average American very well. There are actually people who view The Daily Show and The Glen Beck Show as legitimate sources of news.

The problem with modern journalism is the same problem with modern politics. Ethically, nobody in either field actually does the job they are hired/elected to do.


RE: You Serious?
By Dr of crap on 7/8/2011 9:07:29 AM , Rating: 3
Thank you!

I'm glad they are others that see what a sham our elected officals are! AND what a sad state our political system is in!

And what a GOOD idea it was to let corporations give money to politicians. Making a bad thing even worse!

Never listen to any political comment.
It not interesting in the least!


RE: You Serious?
By Smilin on 7/8/2011 3:10:48 PM , Rating: 3
The Daily Show rocks and actually does a good job delivering the news that it chooses to make fun of.

If you know their viewership very well though you'll know that none of them consider it to be a news show at all. It's just comedy and the fact they can accidentally do a journalists job better than the journalist is really sad.

Beck on the other hand... I actually know people who consider him a very trustworthy source of factual information.


RE: You Serious?
By mars2k on 7/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: You Serious?
By YashBudini on 7/9/11, Rating: 0
By qdemn7 on 7/7/2011 5:51:51 PM , Rating: 4
I despise the man, his politics and his tactics.




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/7/2011 6:06:47 PM , Rating: 3
My question is did he personally authorize these hacks, or were they truly the acts of "rogue" reporters?


By qdemn7 on 7/7/2011 6:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt we'll ever truly know. Sort of like asking if Nixon really "knew" or authorized Watergate.

I imagine Murdoch didn't give direct instructions, rather oblique ones, so nothing could ever be proven against him. He could always says it was "overzealous employees and he knew nothing."


By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 6:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
It won't matter because he's trying to sweep it all under the rug, his own personal version of the Chappaquiddick solution.

And what's with the other British Channels talking about catastrophic job losses. 200 jobs, big deal.


By bwrl on 7/7/2011 11:14:06 PM , Rating: 4
Don't be an idiot


By ekv on 7/18/2011 10:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
says the pot to the kettle


By Justin Time on 7/7/2011 7:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
No, he is not trying to sweep it all under the rug - that is not an option, as this is now too big a deal for anyone to back away from - the investigation and any subsequent charges will happen regardless.

This is simply a pragmatic business decision - NOTW will have no advertising revenue, because no one in their right mind will want to be associated with them. Therefore, cut the losses now, shut it down, and then let the authorities do their worst.


By bupkus on 7/8/2011 1:07:53 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
This is simply a pragmatic business decision - NOTW will have no advertising revenue, because no one in their right mind will want to be associated with them. Therefore, cut the losses now, shut it down, and then let the authorities do their worst.

My bet is Murdock will simply open another tabloid under a different name.


By CZroe on 7/7/2011 6:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
Ugh.

Seriously?

Ugh.


By Uncle on 7/8/2011 9:32:24 PM , Rating: 2
The three monkeys come to play here. I do not hear-see-or say anything.If I do I will disavow all knowledge or if I was in the USA I plead the Fifth.


By MechanicalTechie on 7/7/2011 7:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, his lack of ethics has lead to the rise of Fox, infotainment and questionable journalism. Much easier to peddle smut and appeal to the stupid majority than to actually report on important matters. It is the ugly direction of today’s media, dumbing down content in order to reduce expectation... and you know what it’s the stupid general public that laps it up. But hey it’s cool to follow celebrities and fashion, who cares about the real issues, if you’re up with popular culture


By Uncle on 7/8/2011 9:39:25 PM , Rating: 3
Its a sad day in Canada, he has started a copy of Fox here, I'm hoping its a specialty channel that you have to pay extra for. I'm ok, I canceled my cable two years ago. Saw the writing on the wall and just couldn't take it any more. Cable keeps the drug companies in the money, more anti depressants get sold.


By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2011 1:23:56 AM , Rating: 3
Might bring something fresh and exciting to your Canadian news. I mean how many stories about some hoser getting drunk and screwing a moose can you take before you start to get bored?


By YashBudini on 7/9/2011 2:14:44 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I mean how many stories about some hoser getting drunk and screwing a moose can you take before you start to get bored?


Did O'Reilly forget to to tell you they all live in igloos?



By omnicronx on 7/10/2011 5:00:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Might bring something fresh and exciting to your Canadian news.
Sorry, fear mongering is not the norm in Canada, as such we have better nothing to report.

I also love how Americans can't even bother to make up their own Canadian stereotypes and must rely on popular stateside Canadian comedians for all of their material..

Its like every single joke you guys come up with was ripped right out of a John Candy movie..

(best part is most you guys are completely oblivious to the fact most of the jokes are making fun of your own perceptions)


By YashBudini on 7/10/2011 6:23:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sorry, fear mongering is not the norm in Canada

But it s the norm of the ignorant, and well exploited, to the point it's now an art form.


Sources?
By MrTeal on 7/7/2011 5:39:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Just a few days ago the talk centered on whether News International CEO and Murdoch-protégé Rebekah Brooks would resign. Now that talk has been made a moot point, as Mr. Murdoch has decided that he will discontinue the entire News International publication.


News International isn't a publication, it's a company. News of the World is the publication. News International has subsidiaries Times Newspapers and News Group Newspapers, which publishes The Sun and News of the World. Only News of the World is shutting down.

10 seconds checking Wikipedia would have shown this.




RE: Sources?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 7/7/2011 5:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
The error has been corrected.


RE: Sources?
By GulWestfale on 7/7/2011 5:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
and next week, mr. 'i know what ethics are, i read it in a book once' murdoch will announce the launch of a new paper, with all the same staff occupying the same building; and it will be called "news from the world."


RE: Sources?
By TheJian on 7/7/2011 9:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
So what you're saying is he's a good businessman. LOL. Smart at the least. I don't like bill gates, or his tactics, but you can't argue with the skill he has at killing the competition, even breaking all laws to do it. He's the only monopoly to stay one even after being convicted. WOW. Years ago they would have been broken up into an apps/entertainment/OS companies. Which would have broken the monopoly power. Instead he paid off the states (less than 24mil per state since they were all going bankrupt they'd take anything) and remain a monopoly. Good business. (but a bad man who cheated his way to the top).


RE: Sources?
By xyzCoder on 7/7/2011 10:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
Based on the comments from readers on the NYTimes, it seems Newscorp already owns another overlapping rag anyway (The Sun), and how peeps just expect that this other property will simply be expanded to a 7-day publication like NoTW was/is (currently it is 6, I guess).

In any case, I think Murdoch may have made a mistake in reacting so strongly so quickly, insofar that it actually makes this into a much bigger news item and admission on his part - something that is harder for Faux News to ignore, for example. Considering the likely over-saturation of the tabloid space in London, his flashy (yet relatively cheap) move may work against him in a larger sense: who on earth can stand behind NewsCorp / Fox News / etc., even in the face of stuff like this?

(At the same time, the rest of the mainstream media is as lame as ever: the only ones reporting on it are the ones who are set up as opponents of right-wing 'news', and their coverage is laughable. Over the decades, I have tried everything I could find (NYTimes, WSJ, The Economist, Foreign Policy magazine, massive etc.) - all of them are simply playing a manipulative tune, especially when/where it matters most.)


RE: Sources?
By Aloonatic on 7/8/2011 1:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
The sun is a Mon to Sat paper, the News of the World was effectively "The Sunday Sun", in all but name.

Interestingly, thesundaysun.co.uk was registered on the 5th July. thesundaysun.com was still available for any speculators out there.

Also, a lot of people who buy The Sun do so because it has a very good sports section. The rest is ignored by many, and is mostly celebrity nonsense with some biased political reporting, depending on who they want to influence, and most people in the UK know it.


RE: Sources?
By Fritzr on 7/8/2011 3:28:41 AM , Rating: 2
That should be "...ignore most of the rest." ... the page 3 girl is a very popular feature :P

The Daily Sun is the origin of that term :D


RE: Sources?
By Helbore on 7/8/2011 7:03:04 AM , Rating: 3
This is exactly what I assumed would happen. Murdoch already owns The Sun, so will simply extend its coverage to fill the gap left by News of the World.

It's all a joke anyway. Most of the people who will now lose their jobs will be people who had nothing to do with the phone hacking - whilst parasites like Rebekah "I may have been the editor, but had no idea I was authorising cheques to pay for illegal phone hackings" Brooks keep their high-paying jobs and laugh as the little people take the fall for them.

This is nothing more than a PR excercise to make it look like Murdoch is outraged and is taking proactive steps to remedy the situation, when in fact he is just laughing at the gullible public who will fall for his crap.


RE: Sources?
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 6:47:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The error has been corrected.

Whew! Bat Boy can rest easy now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_Boy_(character)


What's the problem?
By wordsworm on 7/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: What's the problem?
By BZDTemp on 7/8/2011 8:27:10 AM , Rating: 3
Are you kidding. Have you even read what the whole thing is about.

Are you seriously okay with reporters listening in on private conversations not to mention deleting peoples voice mails?

And if you're okay with some random people doing shit like that then where do you draw the line?

Take the case where the people for the newspaper deleted voice messages on a missing teenagers account. The newspaper did so because they wanted more messages to be left so they had something to write about. The result was the police and parents got to thinking the girl might be alive since messages was being deleted. Imagine it one of your loved ones missing.

The newspaper has been exposed as doing phone hacking and the like for almost a decade - it's simply a way of doing business for them. Besides it's not like the newspaper is being shut down it is the owner that is closing it to try and save face plus the paper has lost most of it's advertisers.


RE: What's the problem?
By wordsworm on 7/8/2011 11:07:19 AM , Rating: 2
I did say they went too far. I also said that police go too far. Why hold the media to higher standard than the police, was my question. Is that easy enough for you to understand?


RE: What's the problem?
By BZDTemp on 7/9/2011 4:28:13 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I'm sorry but apart from that question you also made this statement:

quote:
It's not a good reason to shut down an entire company over issues with a few overzealous reporters and/or managers.


It may be you were on about police and the media but it looked to me like you ended up answering that question yourself. Essentially making it to be that what the Newspaper did was not so bad.

Since this page is about "News of the World" and I know nothing about the Police thing you mentioned I followed you up on the statement about media.


RE: What's the problem?
By wordsworm on 7/9/2011 7:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
I was saying that it's no worse than what police do. Investigative journalists are supposed to push the boundaries in order to discover the truth behind things. It's sad when people get hurt. Maybe a few of the journalists should lose their licenses. That's as far as I think it ought to go.

A newspaper is just a body of individuals. Not all of the individuals participated in the acts that are up for debate. Why punish an entire organization, hundreds of people, for the acts of a few? As I said before, it would be like shutting down a police department because one officer went too far.


RE: What's the problem?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2011 9:43:14 PM , Rating: 3
*froths at mouth* Because uhhh Murdock is rich!! And Fox sucks!! And ummm we don't like them bla bla bla rabble rabble rabble!!!


RE: What's the problem?
By YashBudini on 7/9/2011 10:39:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why punish an entire organization, hundreds of people, for the acts of a few?

Nobody forced him to close it, it was his calculated decision, a simplistic way of stating R77 is once again fiercy battling windmills. That's what happens when you don't have a leg to stand on.

As mantioned earlier, traditional paper sales are down all over. Those that advertised in this paper will now simply advertise in his other papers. Add to that the other papers will probably show a slight increase in circulation, if not more, so they could in fact charge more for advertising, the basis of the business.

quote:
Not all of the individuals participated in the acts that are up for debate. Why punish an entire organization, hundreds of people, for the acts of a few?

What? They don't have conspiracy laws over there?
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/conspiracy....


RE: What's the problem?
By YashBudini on 7/9/2011 11:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
@Wordsworm

Ever hear of vicarious liability?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability_(...


So
By FITCamaro on 7/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: So
By TheJian on 7/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: So
By MechanicalTechie on 7/8/2011 1:39:35 AM , Rating: 2
Wow and people like you get to vote... that scares me!!


RE: So
By cactusdog on 7/8/2011 2:05:26 AM , Rating: 1
Haha, That was a joke right?......about people tuning into fox news for facts?


RE: So
By FITCamaro on 7/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: So
By DaveSylvia on 7/8/2011 1:12:30 PM , Rating: 1
From what I've seen, Fox News is very biased, frequently pointing to moderates and labeling them as liberals.

However, I would also say that CNN, MSNBC, and NBC are just as biased if not more so in the opposite direction, labeling anyone who is moderate or even mildly conservative as an extremely right-wing lunatic.

I prefer to view all the sources I have time for, including Fox News and other media outlets, and then along with my own research, form my own opinion and analysis.


RE: So
By Fritzr on 7/8/2011 3:45:16 AM , Rating: 2
Just in case you are actually serious...

The most effective lies are the ones that contain nothing but truth. Carefully selected snippets properly presented allow you to lie without saying anything 'untrue'.

The classic example is the question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Another common example is "Without any warning John shot him dead" ... omitted information ... victim had just finished killing 15 people and was reloading when he was shot.
Without the extra info John is just a cold blooded killer :)

Also note the statement in the article about "investigators" altering voice mails. Was this erasure of items that the "investigator" preferred no one hear or possibly editing to make sure that the voice mail supported the story? Inquiring minds want to know :D


RE: So
By Smilin on 7/8/2011 3:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The people have realized this and flock to fox/News of the world etc. Fox has all the top shows for a reason. Not because america is stupid. Rather I believe they're getting a LOT smarter and no longer believe the crap they hear on cnn/msnbc etc.


Kids will flock to McDonalds before vegetables. You're basically the intellectual equivalent of a 300lb 6 year old.

The sad part is that you're so awash in propaganda that you can no longer make the tiniest leap of logic to understand that popularity is not the same as quality (and did you think your readers were so stupid not to call you on it?).

Nor are you able to make the other tiny leap to understand that people hacking phones of terror victims might actually be immoral rather than champions of truth and facts.

You need a Foxnews diet, fatty.


RE: So
By YashBudini on 7/8/2011 3:26:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm sure you'd say the owners of CNN, MSNBC, and NBC are penchants for controversy too.


Here we go again, the immature 2 wrongs justifies another argument.

quote:
CNN calls people wanting less government in their lives terrorists and you don't blink an eye.

Because when you have yet another temper tantrum about CNN or MSBNC nobody disagrees with you. You're arguing and nobody's disagreeing, it's ridiculous.

And they never claimed to be fair & balanced. That's what makes them a target for ridicule, the sheer magnitude of the hypocrisy.

Muslim countries as of late aren't up in arms about government that much, it has more to do with plain old hunger. Other equally oppressive be well fed countries aren't having problems. As long as thery were fed they didn't give a rat's ass what their country's government did. I could offer examples, but your kind only sees what they told by the RNC, CPAC, and Flock News.


Money before morals for Murdoch
By cactusdog on 7/7/2011 8:17:35 PM , Rating: 1
So Murdoch is shutting down the paper for moral reasons? To put a stop to this phone hacking? What a load of crap. If it is as widespread as reported the management would know about it, and Murdoch wouldnt shut it down if it was making him money.

I think he wanted to shut down the paper, everybody knows newspapers are dying, much of the advertising is going online. This is just an excuse to shut it down so he doesnt cop any flack from employees,unions and the public.

He already owns the competing paper, so this makes his job easy to shut down the paper, and merge his assets into one newspaper. Theres enough advertising dollars to keep one paper going for another few years.

He probably "leaked" the story himself. He comes out looking squeaky clean and the media is reporting on on "dodgy journalists" instead of "dodgy paper owner"

Murdoch wouldnt give a crap about the phone hacking if it meant getting news first and making more revenue. He wanted the paper closed.




By YashBudini on 7/8/2011 12:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So Murdoch is shutting down the paper for moral reasons?

In plain business english it's called damage control.


By Aloonatic on 7/8/2011 2:59:05 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt that he leaked this himself, that would be just plain stupid.

The headline to this article is misleading too. He hasn't been forced to close The News of the World.

He chose to.

Why? The BSkyB (Sky TV) buyout is the main reason that most people are sighting. Newspapers are old, and not all that profitable. TV is worth a lot more. Murdoch owns a big share of Sky already, but wants to buy it outright. It's already caused controversy, due to the amount of influence to would give Murdoch over the Media in the UK.

The rules have recently changed, and how the seniior managers of corporations who want to do what Murdoch is trying to do with the Sky buy out have to pass a "fit and proper" persons test. A little vague, but while Rebekah Brooks who is a senior member of Murdoch's staff now, is in place, they might struggle. She was the editor at the time when the Milly Dowler phone hack happened, which is what really tipped this phone hacking story from scandal to public outrage.

It's odd that Rebekah (yes, her name really is spelt like that) is being kept on. She offered to resign, but it was not accepted. It'll be interesting to find out just why she has been kept on.

It's sad. Lots of people have lost their job. They really have sacked the wrong red top*.

Murdoch could easily have carried on with the NotW and just sacked the senior managers and editors who were in charge at the time of these hacks, but they've chosen to sack everyone at the paper apart from the editor who was in charge.

The Sun on Sunday, or The Sunday Sun will almost certainly appear in a month or too though, so hopefully these people will get their jobs back.

*Red Top being a sensation tablod, like The Sun (The week day and Saturady version of the NoTW), The Mirror or TNotW, and of course, Rebekah Brooks is a read head, in case you didn't know.


BSkyB
By themaster08 on 7/8/2011 2:38:10 AM , Rating: 2
Hopefully this is a huge setback for Murdoch taking over BSkyB.

His agenda should not have any more influence upon our news.




RE: BSkyB
By Smilin on 7/8/2011 3:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're still screwed there man, sorry. Your politicians will beat their chests for good show then when the furor dies down Murdoch will be running BSkyB.


All new Sun on Sunday...
By BugblatterIII on 7/7/2011 7:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
What's the betting those 200 'losing their jobs' get re-hired for a new Sunday publication?




The Modfather
By smilingcrow on 7/8/2011 2:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
At last, something to bring a smile to the face of grumpy old Paul Weller!




The closeure is a strategic move
By BZDTemp on 7/8/2011 5:02:37 AM , Rating: 2
First of all there are signs indicating one of Murdoch's other "news" paper companies is gearing to fill the gap and secondly it's a way to try and look like they are sorry for their actions.

Closing is simply a diversion to try and stop the people from wondering, how the other media companies in the Murdoch portfolio go about their business.




dsgsdg
By nvnvlai3535 on 7/9/2011 8:34:53 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.ifancyshop.com

I tide fashion Good-looking, not expensive Free transport




By Landiepete on 7/11/2011 2:04:52 AM , Rating: 2
Is there ANYONE in here that believes that they're really going to close down a goldmine with an endlessly renewable supply ?
DUH...




fdsa
By tangtangtan on 7/11/2011 10:06:43 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.benzlogo.com/

I tide fashion Good-looking, not expensive Free transport




This is not irony
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 6:30:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The News of the World is in the business of holding others to account, but it failed when it came to itself.

This is the very essence of all extremism and why both parties fail, as do bankers, and other professional groups on a routine basis. There's no self policing, which of course is all the more impossible when you have Murdoch at the very top.

Question for the Brits:
What took you so long?

More irony: The police need to conclude the investigation of the girls death first, before say, they need to be investigated for leaking information. Apparently nobody across the pond saw the end of "Se7en" where John Doe remarks about how easy it was to buy information from fellow officers. Yeah, it's fiction, but still something to think about.




gsdafasd
By babanbang on 7/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: gsdafasd
By YashBudini on 7/9/2011 11:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
Really Jason, when will this ridiculous spam end?

You wrote about the NOTW, no need to immitate it as well.


"If you mod me down, I will become more insightful than you can possibly imagine." -- Slashdot














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki