British Broadcaster With Murdoch Link Admits to Hacking

Britain’s hacking scandal spilled into television as Sky News, whose parent company is controlled by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, said a reporter had accessed e-mails.

Comments: 122

  1. So a news organization--if you can call any Murdoch entity that--decides for itself that the "public interest" entitles it to break the law in pursuit of a story. By this self-justifying logic, a reporter could break into the home of a public official suspected of corruption to rifle through his/her files.

    That Murdoch and his slimy minions would do this is hardly surprising, but their lack of remorse, or self-awareness, still shocks.

  2. And of course nothing nefarious has been going on within fair and balanced properties in the US.

  3. "Both were accused and convicted of deception."

    Just deception? That's a crime in England? Seems like a very wide net for catching anything that even smells fishy.

  4. It seems (according to Wikipedia) that "deception" as a legal term in the UK is far more specific than the name implies. We would probably just call it fraud in the US. Specifically, Wikipedia lists the following as acts of deception covered under the law:

    *Obtaining property by deception, contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968
    *Obtaining a money transfer by deception, contrary to section 15A of the Theft Act 1968
    *Obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception, contrary to section 16 of the Theft Act 1968
    *Procuring the execution of a valuable security by deception, contrary to section 20(2) of the Theft Act 1968
    *obtaining services by deception, contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1978
    *evasion of liability by deception, contrary to section 2 of the Theft Act 1978

  5. Yeah, I think that would probably be called "theft by deception" on these shores.

  6. Murdoch deserves to loose control of his empire.

    Readers of his "rags" all over the world should replace the paper at the bottom of their bird cages with Murdoch newspapers.

  7. So the Murdochs get to decide what's in the public interest and get to define suspected criminal activities. Using their own standard, the computers at Sky should be hacked.

  8. And the Murdochs can go ahead and charge themselves and go to prision.

  9. Ah! A new legal theory that conservatives will embrace has been born.

    If my corporation thinks it's in the "public interest" for my corporate thugs to commit crimes, my corporation thugs cannot be held criminally liable for their crimes...because the crimes were committed in the "public interest."

    I can see the John Roberts and his Gang of Four embracing this new legal theory.

  10. Hacking the e-mails of people who the Murdochs would like to see convicted of crimes is certainly in the public interest, if by "public" you mean the Murdoch family.

  11. “We stand by these actions as editorially justified and in the public interest. We do not take such decisions lightly or frequently,” he said.

    What complete garbage. He's not talking about a spy revealing national secrets, or a potential terrorist. He's referring to a guy that disappeared--seemilngly after a boatind accident-- and then turned up in Panama.

    It appears that nobody in the Murdoch empire, and least nobody with any power, is capable of distinguishing right from wrong, good from bad, moral from immoral.

    Why again do we allow them such power in the US?

  12. I see. So, they were acting in the public interest when they did this. When they hacked the phones of the dead girl's family. The Fourth Estate, stewards of the public trust, and so forth. I see.

    This is just like when the Supreme Court behaves impartially, nobly holding itself above the political fray. Where our freedoms are protected by intellectual giants of jurisprudence like Scalia and Thomas.

    In both cases, we see the kind of ethical rigor that engenders our trust and respect for these institutions, which augustly serve as our advocates. Heady stuff indeed.

  13. And how goes the U.S. government's investigation into such practices here?

  14. The odds that it is happening here seem pretty high, particularly when you think back on other unethical and abusive shenanigans uncovered that were being used by some affiliated with them here. It seems like just a matter of time until something is uncovered. Makes me curious about that recent fake US Airways spam email sent to people claiming to be confirming a return ticket to Washington DC. I wonder what the origins of that was, and if its design was for hacking. I called US Airways and did not open the link. They confirmed the spam. Often bogus emails are for the purpose of hacking. How many of you got that one?

  15. Time to start taking a closer look at The New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal. What nerve. What we, a private company, did, was OK, because it was "in the public interest". Rupert Murdoch, you do NOT speak for me. Everyone who opposed the sale of The Wall Street Journal and was railed at on business terms now stands vindicated. Murdoch runs a criminal enterprise within his "legitimate businesses". It is racketeering, no less.

  16. Don't forget Fox News.

  17. I am not familiar with British law but hacking into telephones here in the U. S. of A. without a court order by the proper authorities is a felony. The Murdoch empire has previously demonstrated their flaunting of the law in Britain. It seems for them " two wrongs make a right".
    I believe it is time for American authorities to launch an intensive investigation into whether they are or have done so here. If so, than perhaps forfeiture of Mr. Murdochs broadcast
    licenses and his American citizenship is in order.

  18. I seriously doubt that Sky -- or any other business controlled by Murdoch -- ever takes the "pubic interest" into consideration. It's only about how much money and power they can amass.

    And he has been successful in influencing politics and government in both the UK and the US. He was successful, for instance, in getting the FCC to partially rescind the "cross-ownership" ban on newspapers and television stations.

  19. You have to wonder when FOX news here in the states is going to get investigated. It seems likely that any news organization owned by the Murdoch’s will have had some of this kind of operation at play. If it was working for them in England, why wouldn't they have used these techniques here?

  20. Not just the news departments, either. Do a search on "Floorgraphics" Murdock hacking

    For that matter, do a search on Murdock, "NDS Group", "satellite television" and hacking to see the latest on that scandal.

    I know, all these events are just a series of "isolated incidents" - but given their volume, they paint a Jackson Pollock-style painting of illegal activity.

    Surely Fox News and the rest of the NewsCorp organization will press for a complete investigation to clear their name - as soon as their news teams return from covering the triumphant arrival of the SS Titanic into New York Harbor, as piloted by Judge Crater while Amelia Earhardt's plane circles overhead...

  21. Fox News is transmitted via satellite to cable systems. There is no direct government role in that and, given our national intention to allow free speech, there is no basis for an investigation of Fox News without evidence of law breaking. Besides, we all know what it is: a propaganda channel for the Republican, right wing point of view.

    As for phone hacking and email interception, I would like to believe, and my personal experience bears this out, that American reporters, even those who work for Fox, are not quite so down and dirty as they are in England. Most of our major newspapers are not tabloid, in either size or orientation. The standards were set by newspapers like the NY Times, the Washington Post, The LA Times, etc., and the major networks and news channels generally aspired to follow in their wake.

    In more than 20 years in and around the news business in Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, DC, and in 10 to 15 countries overseas, I have never heard a reporter or editor propose violating the law to get a story. Aggressive and in your face? Sure. Pushy? You bet. Insensitive at times? Yes. I would be very surprised to find any sort of wide spread practice of hacking, other than at something like the National Enquirer.

  22. Who is there who dares to investigate the 16 years Roger Ailes has ruled Fox News? The answer one. Called "half Don Rickles and half Don Corleone" by former Ailes executive Dan Cooper, called "the most powerful man in the GOP" by Joe Scarborough, this charlatan of a newsman, this treasonous political manipulator, will live in the pantheon of American infamy when, one day, the truth is revealed.

  23. Everyone who buys basic cable with Fox News on it, or who buys satellite television from DirecTV and Dish Network, is paying every month to support Fox News. Channels get subscriber fees passed along from your cable bill. The solution to having a political hack like Ailes running a so called news channel is straight forward: tell your cable company that you will not pay a bill that includes Fox. If a couple a million subs take this stand, he's history.

  24. Don't give up, this house of cards is tumbling. It was a no-brainer that the sense of entitlement of the Murdoch empire would not be confined to just a newspaper. Now it is Sky News TV in Britain. That corruption is surely endemic throughout Murdoch's holdings. Ailes must be starting to shake in his boots. T

  25. The ominous silence of the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic shows how far reaching is the power of the press to intimidate and threaten and how fragile feels the ground on which our human and civil rights rest.
    Their silence is equivalent to collusion in the crime and makes the participants guilty by association.

  26. Hopefully, the Murdoch Empire is under investigation in every country including the U.S. Misinformation, criminal actions, misinformation any means to an end is not informing the public it manipulation to profit or serve the Murdoch Empires points of view. Enough already, eh? H.

  27. If the great "power" of the news media were the most significant threat to our human and civil rights, the world would be in great shape. I see no reason for American political or media people to condemn what it happening in the UK. Its their affair, except for the fact that Murdoch holds broadcast licenses in this country by having himself declared an American citizen almost overnight years ago. In the fullness of time, and as supporting evidence arises, I would be pleased to see an FCC inquiry into whether Murdoch meets the minimum American standards for holding broadcast licenses. It is very rare for a license to be pulled back, but it does happen.

  28. May we count on you Mr. Murdoch to make a rather substantial contribution to the Bradley Manning and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks legal defense fund then?

    Other folks who have acted in the "Public Interest"!

  29. Anyone today that believes their email is private is delusional.

    delusion : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; (

  30. So, may we count on you to take no offense all of yours and your family's and associate's Email is hacked?

  31. It is in the public interest to prosecute News Corp. employees who broke the law.

  32. You have to wonder what they would have to do to get arrested. (he asked shaking his head)


    Aimlow Joe was here.

  33. How is this different than the NY Times or other outlet publishing content that Wikileaks obtained from hackers? There is a tinge of hypocritical thinking here.

  34. You have conveniently forgotten that Bradley Manning is in jail and Julian Assange is very close to being in jail. NYT and other outlets have published the content that has already been spilled over. So where did you find "a tinge of hypocritical thinking"?

  35. Notice the justification given for hacking these people's e-mail accounts is that they were 'suspected' of engaging in criminal activity, and it was 'in the public interest' to do so. So, without a warrant or any sort of judicial oversight, BSkyB took it upon itself to engage in this activity. It could be called vigilantism but for the fact that it was not even done in the public interest, but undoubtedly for profit, pure and simple.

  36. Murdoch has been getting away from unethical and illegal business conducts for many years. When are the prosecutors going to send a message that enough is enough? It is time that he stops playing the "know nothing" boss role.

    It is time that the UK and American judicial systems introducing the legal doctrine of Respondeat Superior to Murdochs and forfeit his illegal profits as well.

  37. When will the News Corporation be indicted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? As the events in the U.K. make clear, Rupert Murdoch is the Tony Soprano of journalism, and Fox News is more of a deceitful bully than Tony ever was.

  38. Maybe a proceeding concerning Fox's broadcast licenses might be in order as well? Can an entity convicted under the FCPA hold a broadcast license in the US?

    I can't even begin to imagine the amount of sub-rosa pressure the Justice Department is getting from Murdoch's Congressional minions to slow down any investigation under the FCPA.

  39. One can only hope that this will bring Rupert Murdoch to have another "most humble day of my life."

  40. How humble might he be if he were sitting in a jail cell? One can dream!

  41. In prision with his criminal son.

  42. Drip . . . drip . . . drip . . .

    There is no such defense of "in the public interest" for a criminal act. Why not go to the police with your suspicions? That would have been in the public interest.

    Let's look at the life cycle to date of this unending scandal. Murdoch's initial response to embarrassing revelations started with stonewalling and bullying the accusers of wrongdoing. Then there was a "rogue reporter" defense. This was followed by a huge payout with a "silence clause" for hacking the phone of a football administrator, being caught red-handed hacking his phone.

    Then the scandal was blown open with the murdered Milly Dowler sickening revelations. They attempted to lance the boil by shuttering the News of the World. Now it has spread to other N.I. titles and now to the satellite TV network 40% owned by Murdoch's N.I.

    They have attempted to expunge their sins by running an internal inquiry by their "Standards Committee" reviewing millions of e-mails and other documents and marching their staff like lambs to the slaughter. Calls have begun to investigate anti-competitive practices when establishing their satellite TV businesses in Australia and the UK, which are now monopolies. Journalists, company executives, corrupt police and even the prime ministers disgraced spokesperson have been arrested. Leveson and three police investigations continue.

    Everything that we have witnessed to date suggests that we ain't seen nothin' yet!

    Drip . . . drip . . . drip . . .

  43. I'm a US based victim of News Corp, waiting for the chance to tell my story. Can't get anyone to listen. Will keep trying.

  44. the difference between the murdoch empire and wikileaks is that wikileaks is upfront about what they're doing (hacking) and why (expose gov't secrets they believe ought to be public).

    on the other hand, the murdoch empire uses illegal techniques to obtain information for the purpose of making money and consolidating power. they hack the voicemail of celebrities, dead children, public officials, and apparently private email. they bribe and threaten law enforcement and use their power to coerce those who ought to be protecting the public.

    i'm not defending wikileaks, but there is a big difference between both their actions and their motivation. there is absolutely NO justification for murdoch newspapers or tv broadcasters to engage in illegal conduct directed at private citizens -- none. using their logic, they can break into your private home to get a story, as long as it's a good one.

  45. Wikileaks never hacked into anything.

  46. I think the time has come to hack into the email accounts of the Murdocks. Anyone listening at Annoymous?

  47. I wonder whether it was someone in the Murdoch empire who hacked into the e-mails of the climate scientists at the Univ. of East Anglia and along the way into those of their colleagues at Penn State? Much was made of the contents of those e-mails but not a whisper about investigating who might have committed that crime, which without a doubt was political.

  48. What an absolutely corrupt organization News Corporation is. Rupert Murdoch has no scruples whatsoever.

    But it really is not surprising. Murdoch is the undisputed king of tabloid news in the whole world. And we all know what tabloid news is - - gutter news.

  49. Rupert Murdoch should be working tirelessly to free Bradley Manning, who says he broke the law to serve a greater good. And while he's there, donate a billion pounds to Anonymous so it can continue break the law for the greater good. What's good for the goose is even better for the old, gray Gander.

  50. If it's all "lies and libels" from enemies, as Rupert claims on Twitter, then he should sue. But he won't, because truth is an absolute defense.

  51. Where there's a drip...drip...drip, there's sure to be flood to follow. The Murdochs may not have directly authorized the hacking, but by encouraging the results, they surely encouraged the methods. Time for the Murdochs to go.

  52. In the "Public Interest"?

    Oh I see: If I'm a British subject, want to give a generous donation to a charity, and choose to rob the Royal Mail to obtain the money, Sky News will print an editorial praising my selfless action?

  53. I seriously doubt there's a line of demarcation between the behavior demonstrated by Sky News and news outlets owned and operated by Rupert Murdoch here in the U.S.

    It is a widespread problem within his company's AND companies culture which has been demonstarted in some form across the board. There's no doubt that Fox News, the NY Post, and the WSJ go by the same dog whistled bylaws quiestly mandated throughout the Murdoch empire. Decipt, cheating and doing anything neccesary to push their agenda.

  54. No ethics, no soul and no humanity is what I believe characterizes these criminals and haters who shill for today's G.O.P. They use the shield of a free press to perpetrate their frauds and depredations. Fox is more an ongoing criminal organization than a reliable source of news.

  55. I get it. So they can be "fair and balanced"

  56. In the public interest? Baloney!

    "A journalist for the network was authorized to access the e-mail of individuals suspected of criminal activity.” Suspected!

    Really? Even if the individual was charged with the a crime, they are innocent until proven guilty.

    I now hope the proper authorities will issue the authorization for the authorizer to be incarcerated for a long period of time.


  57. The excuse of a business entity invading someone's privacy in the name of the public interest is stupefying.

    Legal counsel, family or a good friend should have Rupert turn off his Twitter account. That he would deign to use such a plebeian, flippant mechanism to address the charges enhances the ludicrousness.

  58. I am shocked, SHOCKED.

  59. “We stand by these actions as editorially justified and in the public interest,” Mr. Ryley said. “We do not take such decisions lightly or frequently.”

    This comment is as bad as Zimmerman killing Martin because he looked suspicious.

    Put them in jail.

  60. So if someone were to castrate this guy and claim that it was in the public interest, that would be okay?

  61. Regarding this family, as we say on Passover, "Dayenu"!

  62. Ya just can't beat "friendly" competition at the expense of personal freedoms, can you?

  63. So Sky News is not covering the "news," it is the "news." Hah, hah.

  64. @John Schaffer, Houston : I'm offended by Yahoo and Google, et al, scanning and data mining every email message that passes through their servers. I'm offended by media and marketing companies taking personal information from communication devices and reselling it without permission. I'm offended by the gross attack on privacy in our society. Just because I am offended doesn't mean it isn't so.

  65. We need a special prosecutor with the diligence of Inspector Javert, the scruples of Ken Starr, the legal intelligence of Patrick Fitzgerald and the sympathy of Antonin Scalia, to go after the Murdochs, Ailes and Faux.


  66. Well, less sure about Ken Starr's 'scruples.'

  67. Beautifully said, sir. Would that Murdoch's be exposed fully and sent to prison where this awful group of people belong? What a wonderful world.

  68. Patrick Fitzgerald...wasn't he the one who decided not to go further than Scooter Libbey in the outing of CIA agent Valarie Plame?
    And, then, almost totally lost the first Blago case because he threw the kitchen sink into the charges.
    Fitzgerald is the most overrated US Attorney in the country.

  69. It is too easy to hack a telephone. When you buy a phone there is a code number that you can listen to your voice mail messages if out of the house. You just call the your phone number and when the voice mail picks up,put in your code and then listen to your voicemail. The companies that manufacter the phones use the same code for all their phone products. Read your phone instruction book on how to chage your code. It would be easy to access a phone by making a list of all the phone manufacturers codes, and call a persons number, and go through the codes until one connects. Very low tech.

  70. Thank you for sharing this with us. Everyone really needed to know how to do this.

  71. When is this moving to Fox News? Isn't there enough foul play to assume it crossed the pond?

  72. It crossed the pond long ago. Ask Governor Christie

  73. US Justice Dept. needs to act on foreign criminals statute. Murdoch deserves to lose Fox, Wall Street Journal and the NY Post. Get on it FBI.

  74. What public interest is served when news media engage in illegal activity. Did the public have a burning interest in knowing the basis behind a deception charge? Hacking the emails of a supected pedophile and his wife would lead to a dismissal of charges if carried out in the US. How does that serve justice. It sounds like the basis for both hacks was to satisfy a purient interest in gossip. Dispicable behavior!

  75. “We stand by these actions as editorially justified and in the public interest”?

    Didn't Nixon try that line of "reasoning" to justify Watergate?

  76. When does Murdoch's fitness to have broadcast licenses begin to be questioned? How many more shoes have to drop?

  77. With respect to Mr. Ryley comment “We stand by these actions as editorially justified and in the public interest,” you need to realize that when a former News Corp reporter was asked during testimony to define "the public interest , he said "whatever the public is interested in".

  78. Golly gee! Somehow I thought hacking into someone's mail, postal or email or telephonic, was illegal unless a judge granted a subpoena or am I wrong?
    Whats the story with these low lifers at News Corp BSB? I suggest the US Govt cancel Rupert's little franchise after charging him and sonnyboy with criminal cartel activity.

  79. One case involved a man named Darwin who was accused of "Deception"
    Imagine that! What's in a name!

  80. The emails were encrypted. That makes it doubly a crime.

  81. So they make the laws and then enforce them?

  82. I think we need to be a little less strident here.

    In a well known and often discussed case about 15 years ago, a Florida couple, the Martins, themselves Democratic activists, illegally taped a cell phone conversation (this was the days of analog cell phones) involving several members of the Republican leadership, including Newt Gingrich and John Boehner. The couple provided a copy of the tape to a Democratic congressman, and the tape found its way to the New York Times, which promptly published a story based on it.

    Now, the Times did nothing illegal. Though the Times surely knew the tape was illegally obtained (the Martins were ultimately prosecuted and fined), the paper and its employees did not do the eavesdropping themselves, nor did they directly solicit illegal activity. The courts, including I think the Supreme Court, have held that publishing material whose origins may well have been illegal, is not itself a crime. Indeed, that's what the press is, many feel, supposed to do. But it's also fair to say that by publishing this fruit of the tainted tree (to borrow a phrase from criminal law) the Times and other media may well have encouraged future lawbreaking.

    This is a complex issue, without easy answers, and with many shades of gray. But I think it's fair to say that a little less vituperation may be appropriate, at least in this case.

  83. Just as Linda Tripp taped Monica Lewinsky and brought a sitting U.S. President to impeachment. And THAT was both illegal, and entrapment.

    And the Republicans led by New Gingrich pounced.

    Yes. Let's be a little less strident here.

  84. Complex for you , but maybe not as you have no problem presenting something that would only be called false equivalency in an attempt to soften the blow to your post. Or are you suggesting that we consider the article as an abstract event with no connection to the incontestable character of Murdoch behavior around the globe.

    Strident trident, have you no familiarity with the garbage quality of Murdoch's so called journalistic endeavors?

    That Fox was not laughed off the air long ago is a concern for all Americans who value the distinction between outright deliberate misrepresentation and fact driven information.

    How many shades of grey are you willing to permit an ongoing criminal enterprise?

    The real issue here is how long will it take the weasels who know the facts to spill the beans? No doubt until they have seen how many nails are going to be used to nail their hides to the wall.

    Meanwhile the morally and intellectually bankrupt Murdochs walk free pretending to not notice the smell of their megalomaniacal manipulation of the public trust, and their debasement of the free democratic press that is dazed and confused enough without them adding to the crises of trust in our news media.

    Obviously quite a few people not directly implicated also have the whole story so lets get it over with. These people deserve whatever they get. How's that for strident.

  85. Maybe they can hack the email of an AMerican Hating company in Charleston SC called The Beach Co. These guys hate US Flags, Vets, our Country and the men and women who fight for our freedoms. Check out this story about their disrespect to our troops and our flag.

  86. jr - suggest you contact Nick Davies at the Guardian or the journalists reporting on this imbroglio at the New York Times.

    Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

  87. Got to Nick Davies, said it would be a distraction from him covering hacking in UK. Also met Ed Pilkington in nyc, listened for a few minutes then refused to view direct evidence. Doesn't matter if its true, said its a question of investigative resources needed to confirm story.

    Also have corresponded with several at NY Times - some went further than others but not one would grant me ten minutes requested to consider evidence.

    Others too, at least one absolutely understood and believed it, and still declined to break it. Once it breaks, I think it will go, but no one seems willing to go first.

    I don't get it, I really don't get it. They can't not be interested, but they aren't. Will keep trying, know I'm right...

  88. Murdoch must have thought he was in America when he approved this crime. Shut them down.

  89. Murdoch being arrested and thrown in jail would be in the public's interest.

  90. For the Public Good???

    Look what Murdoch did to America. It seems everyone is ready to fight each other after being incited by the right wing gun toting holier than thou crowd pumped up by his media empire.

    This stoiry just doesn't shock me. The bigger story is his political manipulations.

  91. The UK no longer want Rupert and family, Australians won't have him, the USA is waking up to him. Let us hope they go the the 'land of Il repute' - North Korea..

  92. Sounds exactly right to me.

  93. James Murdoch and his father clearly have no shame. Not only are these people shameless but they're so completely deluded that they actually think they can turn this around to their benefit. "We stand by these actions as editorially justified and in the public interest,” John Ryley, head of Sky News said. “We do not take such decisions lightly or frequently.”

    Please. The Murdoch's and their organization have absolutely ZERO CREDIBILITY!

    ..and everyone knows it.

  94. Every time I read about Murdock, his clan and his entities (like Fox Cable News), I want to take a bath! I thought it was wrong to let him in the US but don't know what country would find him acceptable. What a legacy he will have. His grandchildren will probably want to change their name.

  95. Deport Rupert with prejudice....return the News to being "The News" rather than propaganda for rich people....

    Designer News designed especially to keep America reel stoopid aka Ruperts News....

  96. Man o' man! - sorry to say it, but a lot of folks here are just not getting it. The "doing it in the public interest" remark, with subtext "even if it be illegal" is not a defense, it is a shot across the decks to GOVERNMENTS (plural).

    Murdoch (and we are ONLY talking Rupert here) plays a bigger (higher level) game than most of us are capable of thinking, he thinks Governments where we think companies, he thinks presidents where we think bookkeepers etc.

    His son falling on the sword, first at NI, now at Sky can simply be likened to Saturn devouring his own son. ALL that matters to Murdoch, is Murdoch and his own sense of value, he sees only what he wishes to see in the mirror.

    The time is coming when US interests are going to be OPENLY under investigation, he knows what will turn up, more of the same...

    The "doing something in the public interest" defense is no such thing, it is simply the Murdoch way of saying... "Look Mr Pres., Congress et al, if you want to make trouble for me, you better KNOW I can make BIG TROUBLE for you"

    It was a threat.

  97. I wouldn't give a plugged nickel for anything Murdoch had anything to do with. I subscribe to the WSJ and it just cut out with no explanation and no notice, about 2/3 of the people that post there.

    Exactly like when they fired "The Judge" from his program. He was there one day and the show was ended the next day; no explanation or one word was said about why his show was shut down!

    I have never seen a company act like that.

    The Fox News TV news has completely changed their content and believe it or not is more liberal now. Again not one word was said about any changes.

  98. “We stand by these actions as editorially justified and in the public interest,” the head of Sky News, John Ryley, said in a statement. “We do not take such decisions lightly or frequently.”

    In other words " the end justifies the means"

  99. When one company amasses too much control over a nation's public discourse, democracy suffers and corruption spreads. It's clear that Murdoch and his News Corp. colleagues believed that their tremendous media power placed them above the law.

    The journalistic quality of the WSJ has declined precipitously since the sale to Murdoch, as articles got shorter, more simple-minded, and tainted. The wall between news and editorial cracked, then broke.

    FOX News, with its editorial banner masquerading as news, and its outright and deliberate misinformation, has proved deeply detrimental to American political culture. It may prove to be ultimately destructive. We can derive differing opinions, but everything gets corrupted when we can't operate from the same knowledge base. These ethical lapses (phone tapping, bribery) are part of that same pattern.

  100. The human race will best be served when Murdoch and Ailes shake their earthly coils.

  101. We live in a time where the ends justifies the means and the law has become irrelevant.

  102. This declaration is truly hypocritical, as the accused has decided that their actions were in the best interests of the public, as their defense.

    Wouldn't it be proper for the public to decide what is in their best interests rather that the defendant in an increasingly clear presentation of appalling journalism and jingoism which is under a legal microscope in several countries today.

    Murdoch's son's departure also seems to remarkably coincidental with the heat being turned up in the UK and elsewhere. Is this fortuitous or an attempted escape from the investigation underway?

    "When the going gets tough, the tough get going" perhaps.....

  103. I think they should open up all of their email, in the public interest.

  104. Surprise...surprise.....
    I unblocked FIX on the cable box today specifically to see if they ever going to mention the story.No chance in hell.....they never heard or know about is not news worthy to does not meet their "high" standard of national interest!!!!!. However, get this, for more than 2 hours, they talked-among themselves-about "important" issues like: why the Supremes MUST struck down the whole,not parts, "ObamaCare" law? Other important issue was Obama lack of support for Israel and his "refusal" to attack Iran.
    They live in a world of their own making, in denial. They know,sooner or later, the whole sham shop will be shutdown.
    I wonder what all these hacks are going to do to earn a living then?

  105. can anybody in my government explain to me the justification of allowimg this crew to purchase the ''wall st. journal'"?

  106. And even now surely people at the FCC should be concerned when it has been revealed that Murdoch has issued explicit directives to his WSJ executives to "destroy" the NYT. The journalistic quality of the WSJ has declined precipitously since the sale to Murdoch, as articles got shorter, more simple-minded, and tainted. The wall between news and editorial cracked, then broke.

    And it´s clear that the Murdoch owned "fair and balanced" FOX news hasn´t been a stellar reponsible custodian of a TV news service in the publics interest either, with its editorial banner masquerading as news, and its outright and deliberate misinformation. It´s unrelenting extremely biased assault on the Obama presidency is proving deeply detrimental to American political culture. It may prove to be ultimately destructive.

  107. Poor Mr Murdoch... "Seems very competitor and enemy piling on with lies and libels."

  108. Has Murdoch's unethical leadership impacted the WSJ and Fox News? Do these Murdoch outlets cover his scandals? What do their readers/viewers think about the scandals?

  109. We hacked, we hacked, but only to protect you. It doesn't survive any test of credibility and merely confesses to immoral and perhaps illegal activity. Time we turned our attention to the Murdoch empires' activities in the US. The leopard will not have changed its spots merely by crossing the Atlantic.

  110. Why have they not charged News Corp under the foreign corrupt practices act yet?

  111. So media companies can commit illegal acts in the name of what they declare to be the public interest?

    How arrogant! The US and the UK have laws against vigilantism. We have the police to contact for a reason.

  112. The best thing that coud happen to Murdoch is a Romney presidency, and by november it could happen none to soon.

  113. We're getting all these stories about the nefarious goings on of the Mudoch group abroad. Surely they're up to the same things in the US. What about a story in the NYT talking about how much of the US media Murdoch controls seen in the light of what's going on in the UK. After all the group is just a vast propaganda machine in the US. Is everyone afraid to write about them in the US?

  114. It would be better for the British public to operate under the assumption that the Murdoch influence in communication is pure evil. That is the standard.

    Exceptions? Yes, but not many.

  115. This will be a test of the integrity of the Justice Department and Eric Holder. While the perpetrators of the financial meltdown were rescued and and now use taxpayer dollars to lobby Congress to eliminate regulation does not bode well for integrity. No it will be hard to prosecute the arm of the "conservative" party, the voice of the "tea party" the ministry of propaganda of the Republican Party.
    We will be treated to the most vicious vitriol if Holder prosecutes Murdoch and News Corp. How can the Obama Administration stand up to this powerhouse of media manipulation?

  116. I cannot believe the arrogance of John Ryley....where does he get off deciding what "is in the public interest?" I hope I Iive to see the day the entire Murdoch empire crashes and burns.....especially the Faux News Channel. What then will the zombies on the right do?

  117. In the old days, before we could excuse anything, this would be crime. If the TV station thought they had a piece of evidence in about a criminal act they should have contacted the police to pursue this.
    Unfortunately, the only contact between the News Corp and the police is a cozy financial relationship sometimes referred to as a bribe. The question now is squarekly before us here in the USA. Does Fox News also do this? I hope someone is trying to find this out.

  118. I'm for tar and feathers, something good and old-fashioned. Nothing like TRADITIONAL VALUES.

  119. Whit all the corruption coursed by Murdoch’s British news media, how is it possible that the same Murdoch’s operations in the US are not investigated? Fox News has long been known to be pure propaganda and misinformation, and there is not even a mention of government investigating, what surely must be mass corruptions. Could it be that Murdoch is paying off the justice department, just like Bush paid off the Supreme Court, to be selected President?

  120. It was quite revealing how Murdoch´s own "fair and balance" FOX news is quite unrevealing about the so-called Murdoch scandal. Mealymouthed O´Reilly (The No Spin Zone) poo-poohed the Murdoch matter in Britain dismissing it as "much ado about nothing", a "press battle" not affecting "average folk". He completely ignored the corruption and wide-spread hacking allegations involved. Even the comments of a guest News Corp reporter citing the fact that murder and terroist victims had been hacked, and that police and high govt officials were implicated as complicitous were countered by a lame "it´s no big deal" rebuttal.

    Indeed, rather than delving into substance, O´Reilly launched into a ranting diatribe against NYT´s "vicious vicious" reporting on the issue, how it was all tainted by "liberal ideology". He called it dismissively a "witch hunt", and claimed none of these things affected Murdoch operations in america. Not even the fact that the newly appointed publisher of the Murdoch-owned WSJ had mysteriously resigned allegedly because of his links with the owner was mentioned.

    It was classic FOX news reporting a la Murdoch ... rude, excessive, unreliable, and blatantly dishonest, no question.

  121. Rupert Murdoch's motivation isn't for the public good as he suggests, it's to put the few coins his rags cost into his pocket from yours.
    Simply not buying anything he sells will devastate his worldwide empire in short measure, and the sooner the better.

  122. Ethical Journalism is rapidly disappearing. Sensationalism and the public appetite for junk creates a feeding frenzy. There are some news agencies that will dig deep into the muck to satisfy their hungry audiences. How low can they stoop? Neil Postman’s book, “Amusing Ourselves to Death”, written over 25 years ago, deeply resonates. Good public discourse is on the decline. What is most disturbing are the misinformation and lies that are being spoon fed to those who follow blindly like sheep's.