The Cellar - Murdoch Meltdown

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Murdoch Meltdown (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=25490)

She's apparently utterly charming in person. Except whren she's being a ball-breaking, bullying bitch of course.

I don't know, and can't be arsed going through the whole thread, but have I told you guys about her Harry Potter project?

It was her pet project apparently, whne she was editor of the NoTW in 2001. One of the journalists had a remarkable resemblance to Harry Potter. So, Brooks decided to make him the paper's Harry Potter correspondent. He had to change his name by deed poll to Harry Potter and dress as a wizard at press conferences and public engagement. From The Telegraph in 2002:

(Rebecca Wade is now Rebecca Brooks)

Quote:

His breaking point came on the afternoon of September 11, when he was summoned to the office of the editor Rebekah Wade and rebuked for not being "in character". Begley, then 29, was told to appear in full Potter regalia at the next day's news conference. He parted ways with the paper a few weeks later and is now considering legal action against his former employers. (His initial claim was turned down because he had been on staff for only six months.)

Begley's account was this week dismissed by Stuart Kuttner, the tabloid's managing editor, as "deeply flawed". In a letter to this paper, he said that his former reporter was a "fantasist" and Ms Wade had "made no request" for Begley to "parade as Harry Potter".

And now? As if by magic - a tape recording of conversations between Begley and senior NoW executives has suddenly "apparated" at Telegraph Towers. . .

The rest of the article is here, with the transcripts and stuff:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ret-tapes.html

And here's the followup piece from this week.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...oes-viral.html

Is it true that they're going to rename London ... Hackensack?

An interesting development. Turns out if the top man shovels shit downwards, the people below don't always quietly lap up the shit:

Quote:

Evidence on phone hacking given to MPs by News International chairman James Murdoch has been called into question by two former executives at the firm.

Mr Murdoch told the culture committee he had not been "aware" of an email suggesting the practice went wider than a "rogue" News of the World reporter.

But ex-NoW editor Colin Myler and ex-NI legal manager Tom Crone have now said they "did inform" him of the email.

Mr Murdoch later said he "stands by his testimony" to the committee on Tuesday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14242763

Quote:

At the committee hearing on Tuesday, Labour's Tom Watson asked Mr Murdoch: "When you signed off the Taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the full Neville (Thurlbeck) email, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages?"

Mr Murdoch replied: "No, I was not aware of that at the time".

He went on: "There was every reason to settle the case, given the likelihood of losing the case and given the damages - we had received counsel - that would be levied."

In their statement issued on Thursday Mr Myler and Crone said: "Just by way of clarification relating to Tuesday's CMS select committee hearing, we would like to point out that James Murdoch's recollection of what he was told when agreeing to settle the Gordon Taylor litigation was mistaken.

"In fact, we did inform him of the 'for Neville' email which had been produced to us by Gordon Taylor's lawyers."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14245922

And now:

Quote:

David Cameron says James Murdoch "clearly" needs to answer questions in Parliament after his evidence on phone hacking was challenged.

Labour MP Tom Watson has asked police to investigate after Mr Murdoch's evidence to MPs was disputed by two ex-News of the World executives.

Is the parliamentary hearing under oath? As in, lying constitutes perjury?

[/sniff of blood]

I don't think it is. But if it is proved then there is a strong possibility it will be seen as evidence of a previous attempt to pervert the course of justice:

Labour MP Tom Watson (one of the few to try and take the issue on whilst the rest of the political clases were still cosying up and one of the committee members who questioned the Murdochs this week) speaking to the BBC:

Quote:

"If [Colin Myler and Tom Crone's] statement is accurate it shows James Murdoch had knowledge that others were involved in hacking as early as 2008, it shows he failed to act to discipline staff or initiate an internal investigation, which undermines Rupert Murdoch's evidence to our committee that the company had a zero tolerance to wrongdoing."

The MP added: "More importantly, it shows he not only failed to report a crime to the police but because there was a confidentiality clause involved in the settlement it means that he bought the silence of [chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association] Gordon Taylor and that could mean he is facing investigation for perverting the course of justice."

All I have to say is that I agree with Jon Stewart here: "England is awesome!"

I LOVE the way the Brits are handling this. I LOVE the way you sling it and then others stand up and go "HEREHERE!" and all that shit. Very bloody entertaining good shit.

eta: if I was Wendy Murdoch and had to crawl into bed with that bloodhound-faced old man I'd slit my wrists.

Yeah, I saw that Daily Show :p

Gotta say it's a fuck of a long time since I actually felt some pride in parliament.

That debate would have been a whole heap more impressive had the party leaderships on both sides not spent the last 30 years cosying up to the Murdoch press. Though, I suppose the fact that anybody who took them on had their political careers destroyed by them explains why so few successful politicians have clean hands in this area.

Many of the backbench MPs who spoke up are backbenchers, rather than frontliners, partly because they took on the Murdochs and lost.

last night, Newsnight revealed evidence they'd obtained suggesting that the lawyer acting for Milly Dowler's family has been 'under surveillance' by News of the World. When it was put to him he referred the matter to the police but also spoke on Newsnight:

I really hope this plays outside the UK. It's from the BBC News site so hopefully it isn't region locked.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14244007

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 745763)

Is the parliamentary hearing under oath? As in, lying constitutes perjury?

[/sniff of blood]

Here.

Charlie Brooker has been pretty funny about the affair:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rupert-murdoch

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 745760)

She's apparently utterly charming in person. Except whren she's being a ball-breaking, bullying bitch of course.

Yea, that is why she is successful at running companies. Go figure.

She's a Chinese Hilary Clinton!

She's not Chinese...

Was talking about Rebecca Brooks, the former editor of NoTW and an executive of News International. Not Wendy, Murdoch's wife.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 746045)

She's not Chinese...

Was talking about Rebecca Brooks, the former editor of NoTW and an executive of News International. Not Wendy, Murdoch's wife.

That'll teach me to read the damn posts, won't it? ;)

Rebecca Brooks doesn't look charming. She looks like a ball=breaker from waaaaay back.

I suppose most women in positions of real power are ball-breakers.

What I find slightly frustrating about someone like Brooks is that she made it in a very male world, and then used that to perpetuate a famously misogynistic workplace and publication. She actively encouraged journalists to refer to women in tabloid guy speak. As one former employee recalls:

Quote:

Attitudes towards women - never thought of as particularly enlightened at The Sun, a paper still famous for its topless page 3 models - did not improve under Brooks, Taggart said.

''We were regularly encouraged to refer to women with misogynistic names like 'tarts', 'slappers' or 'hookers' in our copy if there was conceivably any question mark over their sexual proclivities,'' he said.

''We were expected to childishly objectify women. So blonde-haired women were described as 'beauties' and generously chested women 'looked swell'. ''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/underlin...#ixzz1Svl5Fxlz