Post by Teddy Bear on May 2, 2012 21:44:51 GMT
To understand the BBC agenda here, first read this short article from The Telegraph today.
2 more newspapers that I've seen also identify this rift.
The Spectator - MPs squabble over their own phone hacking report
The Daily Mail - A partisan report that demeans Parliament
The BBC are naturally delighted to keep as their first and major story on every News programme the announcement that Murdoch, (the person that stops them from having more propaganda power than they already have), is unfit to run News Corporation. In this first article they haven't amended the headline or the content at all, simply added this 'fact' right at the bottom
BBC in full ATTACK mode. You can feel their disappointment at the likely import of very last paragraph.
In another of their articles today, you can see that the implication is that the only reason Conservatives are refusing to brand Murdoch as unfit is because there's something wrong with them. Note 'it is the Conservatives who refuse to endorse the report', as if it should be. Hardly wording for a supposed fair and impartial broadcaster to be using. It is the Labour MP's who are pushing this agenda, and lying that it was discussed and agreed, when it wasn't.
It is the BBC that is unfit to be a national broadcaster.
Who is lying over the decision to target Rupert Murdoch as unfit to run News Corp?
Someone isn’t telling the truth. The split verdict on Rupert Murdoch from the Culture, Media and Sport select committee was triggered by the insistence of the Labour contingent – led by Tom Watson – that Murdoch be branded “not a fit person” to run a major international company. Louise Mensch, one of the Tory members of the committee, said on BBC’s Newsnight last night that the Watson amendment had not at any point been debated by the committee. There was nothing mealy-mouthed about her claim: “In all the time the select committee discussed the phone hacking report, never in even one discussion did we discuss, not even for a minute, whether or not Rupert Murdoch was a fit person to run News Corporation. That was literally never discussed, even one time, in any discussion.” That’s pretty categoric.
This morning Paul Farrelly, one of the Labour MPs on the committee who seems to be acting as Watson’s spokesman, was closely questioned on this very point by the Today programme’s Sarah Montague. It took seven attempts by the tenacious Montague to get a straight answer out of Farrelly but finally he said “certainly it did”. So, Montague went on, Louise Mensch is “categorically wrong” and so is Damian Collins, a fellow Tory on the committee, who says the same thing? “They are wrong,” said Farrelly.
There’s no wiggle room on either side here. Either Mensch and Collins are telling the truth, or Farrelly is. All MPs are “honourable members” and are expected to tell the truth. Someone isn’t being honourable here
Someone isn’t telling the truth. The split verdict on Rupert Murdoch from the Culture, Media and Sport select committee was triggered by the insistence of the Labour contingent – led by Tom Watson – that Murdoch be branded “not a fit person” to run a major international company. Louise Mensch, one of the Tory members of the committee, said on BBC’s Newsnight last night that the Watson amendment had not at any point been debated by the committee. There was nothing mealy-mouthed about her claim: “In all the time the select committee discussed the phone hacking report, never in even one discussion did we discuss, not even for a minute, whether or not Rupert Murdoch was a fit person to run News Corporation. That was literally never discussed, even one time, in any discussion.” That’s pretty categoric.
This morning Paul Farrelly, one of the Labour MPs on the committee who seems to be acting as Watson’s spokesman, was closely questioned on this very point by the Today programme’s Sarah Montague. It took seven attempts by the tenacious Montague to get a straight answer out of Farrelly but finally he said “certainly it did”. So, Montague went on, Louise Mensch is “categorically wrong” and so is Damian Collins, a fellow Tory on the committee, who says the same thing? “They are wrong,” said Farrelly.
There’s no wiggle room on either side here. Either Mensch and Collins are telling the truth, or Farrelly is. All MPs are “honourable members” and are expected to tell the truth. Someone isn’t being honourable here
2 more newspapers that I've seen also identify this rift.
The Spectator - MPs squabble over their own phone hacking report
The Daily Mail - A partisan report that demeans Parliament
The BBC are naturally delighted to keep as their first and major story on every News programme the announcement that Murdoch, (the person that stops them from having more propaganda power than they already have), is unfit to run News Corporation. In this first article they haven't amended the headline or the content at all, simply added this 'fact' right at the bottom
Murdoch 'not fit' to run News Corp
The committee itself does not have the power to impose sanctions
It is worth quoting in full:
"If at all relevant times, Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindess to what was going on in his companies and publications.
"This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International.
We conclude therefore that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company".
That description of Mr Murdoch by the British parliament as "not a fit person" is likely to have significant consequences.
It will force the board of News Corporation to review whether the 81 year-old, who created one of the most powerful media groups the world has ever seen, should remain as its executive chairman.
It will give ammunition to those News Corporation shareholders who would like to loosen the hold over the company of the Murdoch dynasty.
It will push Ofcom, the media regulator, closer to the conclusion that British Sky Broadcasting is not fit and proper to hold a broadcasting licence, for as long as News Corporation owns 39% of BSkyB.
'Savage criticism'
Nor is that the only one of the MPs' conclusions which will shake News Corporation, and its British subsidiary, News International, owner of the Sun tabloid and of the News of the World prior to its closure.
Mr Murdoch's right hand man for decades, Les Hinton, is deemed to have misled the committee in 2009 by "not telling the truth" about substantial payments to Clive Goodman - the News of the World's former royal reporter who was jailed for phone hacking- and how he authorised those payments.
Mr Hinton is also ruled to have "misled" the committee about the extent of his knowledge that phone hacking extended beyond Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire (the private detective who carried out the hacking on behalf of jounalists).
He is, say MPs, "complicit in the cover-up at News International".
As expected, the MPs are savage in their criticism of the former News of the World editor, Colin Myler, and of Tom Crone, the former legal manager of News International's newspapers, for misleading them about what they knew about phone hacking and for failing to pursue alleged hackers.Murdoch 'not a fit boss', say MPs
But more damaging for News Corporation is that MPs say that senior executives, such as Rupert Murdoch's son James, should have seen that the company's official view, that there was a single rogue hacker, was not sustainable.
The MPs say: "if there was a 'don't ask, don't tell' culture at News International, the whole affair demonstrates huge failings of corporate governance at the company and its parent, News Corporation".
The committee says that News International "wished to buy silence" by settling legal actions with victims of hacking that included confidentiality clauses.
And News International executives are accused of exaggerating the thoroughness of reviews of hacking carried out in 2006 and 2007.
As for those deemed to have misled the committee, Mr Hinton, Mr Crone and Mr Myler, the MPs say it is for the Commons to decide whether they are guilty of contempt.
UPDATE 11:42
I forgot to mention one very important conclusion, that the News of the World and News International also misled MPs as corporate entities.
The MPs say these institutions "exhibited wilful blindness", for which Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch should "ultimately be prepared to take responsibility".
UPDATE 12:02
The report's verdict that Rupert Murdoch is not fit to run a big international public company was not supported by four Tory MPs on the committee. The disclosure that the vote on this divided along party lines may lessen its force.
In particular, News Corporation's board may well view the verdict as a political judgement, rather than a dispassionate one.
The committee itself does not have the power to impose sanctions
It is worth quoting in full:
"If at all relevant times, Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindess to what was going on in his companies and publications.
"This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International.
We conclude therefore that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company".
That description of Mr Murdoch by the British parliament as "not a fit person" is likely to have significant consequences.
It will force the board of News Corporation to review whether the 81 year-old, who created one of the most powerful media groups the world has ever seen, should remain as its executive chairman.
It will give ammunition to those News Corporation shareholders who would like to loosen the hold over the company of the Murdoch dynasty.
It will push Ofcom, the media regulator, closer to the conclusion that British Sky Broadcasting is not fit and proper to hold a broadcasting licence, for as long as News Corporation owns 39% of BSkyB.
'Savage criticism'
Nor is that the only one of the MPs' conclusions which will shake News Corporation, and its British subsidiary, News International, owner of the Sun tabloid and of the News of the World prior to its closure.
Mr Murdoch's right hand man for decades, Les Hinton, is deemed to have misled the committee in 2009 by "not telling the truth" about substantial payments to Clive Goodman - the News of the World's former royal reporter who was jailed for phone hacking- and how he authorised those payments.
Mr Hinton is also ruled to have "misled" the committee about the extent of his knowledge that phone hacking extended beyond Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire (the private detective who carried out the hacking on behalf of jounalists).
He is, say MPs, "complicit in the cover-up at News International".
As expected, the MPs are savage in their criticism of the former News of the World editor, Colin Myler, and of Tom Crone, the former legal manager of News International's newspapers, for misleading them about what they knew about phone hacking and for failing to pursue alleged hackers.Murdoch 'not a fit boss', say MPs
But more damaging for News Corporation is that MPs say that senior executives, such as Rupert Murdoch's son James, should have seen that the company's official view, that there was a single rogue hacker, was not sustainable.
The MPs say: "if there was a 'don't ask, don't tell' culture at News International, the whole affair demonstrates huge failings of corporate governance at the company and its parent, News Corporation".
The committee says that News International "wished to buy silence" by settling legal actions with victims of hacking that included confidentiality clauses.
And News International executives are accused of exaggerating the thoroughness of reviews of hacking carried out in 2006 and 2007.
As for those deemed to have misled the committee, Mr Hinton, Mr Crone and Mr Myler, the MPs say it is for the Commons to decide whether they are guilty of contempt.
UPDATE 11:42
I forgot to mention one very important conclusion, that the News of the World and News International also misled MPs as corporate entities.
The MPs say these institutions "exhibited wilful blindness", for which Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch should "ultimately be prepared to take responsibility".
UPDATE 12:02
The report's verdict that Rupert Murdoch is not fit to run a big international public company was not supported by four Tory MPs on the committee. The disclosure that the vote on this divided along party lines may lessen its force.
In particular, News Corporation's board may well view the verdict as a political judgement, rather than a dispassionate one.
BBC in full ATTACK mode. You can feel their disappointment at the likely import of very last paragraph.
In another of their articles today, you can see that the implication is that the only reason Conservatives are refusing to brand Murdoch as unfit is because there's something wrong with them. Note 'it is the Conservatives who refuse to endorse the report', as if it should be. Hardly wording for a supposed fair and impartial broadcaster to be using. It is the Labour MP's who are pushing this agenda, and lying that it was discussed and agreed, when it wasn't.
News Corp 'has full confidence in Rupert Murdoch'
Mr Murdoch has come under fire from the Commons media committee this week
In a statement, the board of directors said it supported Mr Murdoch to continue "to lead News Corporation into the future as its chairman and CEO".
On Tuesday, a government media committee in the UK concluded that Mr Murdoch was "not a fit person" to run a major international business.
But the News Corp board said Mr Murdoch had "demonstrated resolve" to address mistakes at the company.
News Corp had previously said that some of the comments in the report were "unjustified and highly partisan".
Since the committee's report came out in the UK, Labour and Lib Dem MPs have urged the media regulator Ofcom to hasten its review into whether BSkyB, 39%-owned by News Corp, is "fit and proper" to hold a licence, given News Corp's stake.
But the BBC understands that Ofcom will not be "rushed into a knee-jerk reaction".
In a statement earlier, BSkyB said it remained a "fit and proper" holder of a broadcasting licence.
Announcing its results for the first quarter of 2012, the satellite broadcaster said it was engaging with Ofcom on its assessment.
It pointed to a "positive contribution to UK audiences, employment and the broader economy, as well as its strong record of regulatory compliance and high standards of governance".
Calls for US action
The culture and media committee's report into phone hacking at the News of the World, published by News International - itself owned by News Corp - came after numerous hearings.
Journalists and managers at the now-defunct paper, as well as police and lawyers for hacking victims, were questioned.
The report concluded that Mr Murdoch exhibited "wilful blindness" to what was going on, and that both Rupert and James Murdoch "should ultimately be prepared to take responsibility".
However, the committee was split on that conclusion, leading Conservative members who branded it "partisan" to refuse to endorse the report.
Nevertheless the case has led to calls for action against Rupert Murdoch in the US, where News Corporation is headquartered.
The activist group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) has asked the broadcasting regulator, the Federal Communications Commission, to revoke the 27 Fox broadcasting licences that News Corp holds in the US.
Crew said the House of Commons report "makes clear that both Rupert and James Murdoch were complicit in New Corp's illegal activities".
"If the Murdochs don't meet the British standards of character test, it is hard to see how they can meet the American standard," said Melanie Sloan from Crew.
Mr Murdoch has come under fire from the Commons media committee this week
In a statement, the board of directors said it supported Mr Murdoch to continue "to lead News Corporation into the future as its chairman and CEO".
On Tuesday, a government media committee in the UK concluded that Mr Murdoch was "not a fit person" to run a major international business.
But the News Corp board said Mr Murdoch had "demonstrated resolve" to address mistakes at the company.
News Corp had previously said that some of the comments in the report were "unjustified and highly partisan".
Since the committee's report came out in the UK, Labour and Lib Dem MPs have urged the media regulator Ofcom to hasten its review into whether BSkyB, 39%-owned by News Corp, is "fit and proper" to hold a licence, given News Corp's stake.
But the BBC understands that Ofcom will not be "rushed into a knee-jerk reaction".
In a statement earlier, BSkyB said it remained a "fit and proper" holder of a broadcasting licence.
Announcing its results for the first quarter of 2012, the satellite broadcaster said it was engaging with Ofcom on its assessment.
It pointed to a "positive contribution to UK audiences, employment and the broader economy, as well as its strong record of regulatory compliance and high standards of governance".
Calls for US action
The culture and media committee's report into phone hacking at the News of the World, published by News International - itself owned by News Corp - came after numerous hearings.
Journalists and managers at the now-defunct paper, as well as police and lawyers for hacking victims, were questioned.
The report concluded that Mr Murdoch exhibited "wilful blindness" to what was going on, and that both Rupert and James Murdoch "should ultimately be prepared to take responsibility".
However, the committee was split on that conclusion, leading Conservative members who branded it "partisan" to refuse to endorse the report.
Nevertheless the case has led to calls for action against Rupert Murdoch in the US, where News Corporation is headquartered.
The activist group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) has asked the broadcasting regulator, the Federal Communications Commission, to revoke the 27 Fox broadcasting licences that News Corp holds in the US.
Crew said the House of Commons report "makes clear that both Rupert and James Murdoch were complicit in New Corp's illegal activities".
"If the Murdochs don't meet the British standards of character test, it is hard to see how they can meet the American standard," said Melanie Sloan from Crew.
It is the BBC that is unfit to be a national broadcaster.