Phone-hacking: the US reaction
How the papers in America have reacted to the scandal engulfing Rupert Murdoch's News International.
By Samira Shackle Published 12 July 2011 10:07
New York Times
This newspaper carried out a lengthy investigation into phone-hacking at the News of the World in September 2010. Today, Don Van Natta Jr and Ravi Somaiya allege that police officers had their phones hacked. These claims are particularly interesting on the day that police officers face a committee of MPs:
Shortly after Scotland Yard began its initial criminal inquiry of phone hacking by The News of the World in 2006, five senior police investigators discovered that their own cellphone messages had been targeted by the tabloid and had most likely been listened to.
The disclosure, based on interviews with current and former officials, raises the question of whether senior investigators feared that if they aggressively investigated, the News of the World would punish them with splashy articles about their private lives. Some of their secrets, tabloid-ready, eventually emerged in other news outlets.
Washington Post
Erik Wemple derides claims that the scandal will cause Murdoch's empire to crumble. Discussing News Corporation's annual report, he says:
One lesson from the report: Britain cannot threaten News Corp. It can harrumph; it can preach; it can launch "inquiries"; but it is too much of a little rancho to puncture News Corp...
As Murdoch himself boasts, 2010 was a good year for News Corp. Among the few dark corners of the document is this: "For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, the U.K. newspapers' revenues decreased 2% as compared to fiscal 2009, primarily due to lower circulation revenues..."
So here's a scenario: The British public outcry about News of the World, the Sun and the Times forces the company to bail on those properties all together. Good! News Corp. dumps money-losing/marginally profitable newspapers. At the same time, it retains its state-of-the-art British presses, printing the titles of any outfit that wants to distribute newsprint.
Boston Globe
Cassandra Vinograd speculates about the possible fall out of these UK-based allegations on Murdoch's US operations:
Legal analysts said yesterday it is possible Murdoch's US companies might face legal actions because of the shady practices at the News of the World. In the United States, Murdoch owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post, among other holdings.
They said Murdoch's News Corp. might be liable to criminal prosecution under the 1977 Corrupt Foreign Practices Act, a broad act designed to prosecute executives who bribe foreign officials in exchange for large contracts.
Los Angeles Times
Joe Flint wonders whether the same practices took place in the US:
So far, the fallout from the News of the World debacle has been mostly limited to Britain. However, as the coverage continues to intensify around the globe, it is giving new ammunition to critics of Murdoch and News Corp. in the United States.
"It is becoming increasingly clear this scandal was not perpetrated by a few rogue reporters, but was systematically orchestrated at the highest levels of News Corp.," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which has called for a congressional investigation of News Corp. "If Mr. Murdoch's employees can be so brazen as to target the British prime minister, then it is not unreasonable to believe they also might hack into the voice mails of American politicians and citizens."
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists

















7 comments
Is Erik Wemple unaware of BskyB?
The bid has been referred to the commission on grounds of plurality. It must be clear that the notion of plurality that the commission is using is one that reflects the current media marketplace. It is clear- and widely acknowledged in the public domain- that newspapers aren’t as significant as they once were in terms of public reach or influence. The broadcasting and network technologies that News International/News Corps is bidding for not only represent a much more significant chunk of revenue- they reach a very, very significantly higher amount of people than the papers did. If possible, parliament and the public should seek to have absolute clarity on the definition of plurality that the commission are using. It should be clear it reflects the marketplace as it stands today and not any previous definition which may no longer be fit for purpose.
Fox hunting is a 'blood-sport', yes?
Yoicks!
"The buck stops here"
Senior executives of corporations are held responsible for the operations of those corporations. If their corporations break the law and otherwise act in an unethical manner, then there are two explanations; either they knew what was going on and condoned it and are therefore responsible for what occurred or they did not know what was going on and are therefore incompetent.
with the sums of money in the phone hacking scandal, it is difficult to imagine that the Murdocks were unaware of what was happening. OK, those sums were small compared to the revenues of, for example, Fox News, (Faux News!) but were significant enough to have stood out like a sore thumb in any competent accounting procedure.
Compliant or incompetent; it's your choice, Rupert and James.
James Murdoch is likely to be questioned at the very least as to why he authorised payments to keep people quiet, and may even be arrested and charged for it.
Then we have Rebekah Brooks who is so close to Rupert Murdoch that he considers her to be family. If evidence proves that she knew about phone hacking, bribary of police and even used her position to effectively blackmail people then that will surely implicate Rupert Murdoch at some level considering how close she is to him.
Murdoch is going to find it increasingly difficult to stay as chairman of News Corp and keep running it as if it's his own private company when in actual fact it's a public company with lots of different shareholders.
I doubt the Murdoch empire will crumble over this, although perhaps in the UK. There might be a few battered in the US along the way but they will survive they are too deep in with the GOP. As for faux news, it will survive. One thing for sure Faux news do not need to do is to hack anyones mobile phones to spout the untruths and misinformation they do 24/7. They just make it up as they go along.
“Then we have Rebekah Brooks who is so close to Rupert Murdoch that he considers her to be family. If evidence proves that she knew about phone hacking, bribary of police and even used her position to effectively blackmail people then that will surely implicate Rupert Murdoch at some level considering how close she is to him.”
She did know about phone hacking, bribery of police and used her position to effectively blackmail people. For example:
Mr. Watson said: I want to inform the House of further evidence that Rebekah Brooks knew about the unlawful tactics of News of the World as early as 2002, despite all her denials yesterday. Rebekah Brooks was present at a meeting with Scotland Yard when police officers pursuing a murder investigation provided her with evidence that her newspaper was interfering with the pursuit of justice. …
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/latest-updates-on-british-ph...?
Post new comment