Rupert Murdoch always felt like an outsider. Now he could become one
The News Corp head could yet be called by Congress to explain himself.
By Nicholas Wapshott Published 25 April 2012
From his office in News Corp’s headquarters on Sixth Avenue, New York, Rupert Murdoch might have imagined his appearance before the Leveson inquiry and that of his son James would draw a line under the scandal that has dogged him for more than a year. Not much chance of that. As the champion of the dirtiest tricks in Fleet Street, he must surely know that once a bull’s eye has been pinned on a target’s back, it stays there.
There was no reprieve for Gordon Brown after the Sun’s devastating headline, “Squatter, 59, holed up in No 10”. There was no mercy for Neil Kinnock once Kelvin Mackenzie teased, “If Kinnock wins today, will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights”. Now the fickle British public have smelt blood, they will chase the Australian they never came to love like hounds baying after a bloodied fox.
The sense of glee at watching him wriggle in Lord Leveson’s dock is palpable among his political opponents, his commercial competitors, the victims of his smears – even the loyal readers of his comics. But Murdoch is plainly not prepared to suffer alone. Cameron must sense that the price for setting Leveson’s dogs on him last July and for driving James out of the country to twiddle his thumbs in New York will be high. Come the next election and Cameron can expect to reap Murdoch’s whirlwind.
Aussie rules
The old man continues to protest his affection for the country that has shunned him. He tweets his love of the landscape and his fondness for the people. But in 140 characters or less, Murdoch unplugged also betrays a bitter outcast who thinks he has been sorely misunderstood, the victim of social snobbery and of jealousy from his business rivals.
When he was at Oxford, something nasty must have happened in the woodshed, because he has persistently articulated a long-held disdain for the “old toffs and right-wingers” he encountered there. The resentment seems to have stemmed first from his father’s failure to convince the British First World War high command they had, through nepotistic incompetence, ordered brave Aussie farm boys to their deaths at Gallipoli.
Newly arrived in 1968, with the News of the World in his back pocket, he griped when London society didn’t drop everything and have him and his wife Anna round to dinner.
Buying the Sun cheap from the Mirror Group boss Hugh Cudlipp the following year was perhaps his greatest coup. It proved a showpiece for his tabloid brilliance and demonstrated the commercial nous he would use to found Fox News in 1996, spotting a gap in the market on the right that begged to be filled. Still the “old toffs” did not rate him. He enjoyed a moment of Schadenfreude when he acquired their house journal, the Times, which came free with the lucrative Sunday Times.
Buying the Times titles needed the help of the government to avoid being referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and he stitched up a sweetheart deal with Margaret Thatcher that ensured the purchase would sail through. Getting governments to fall in with his business plans is the key to his modus operandi – and his ultimate fall from grace. It was on show at Leveson, where emails from Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s office boasted of the Cameron government’s complicity in Murdoch’s plan to buy the 64 per cent of BSkyB he didn’t already own.
He claimed on Twitter he never asked to see “old toff” Cameron, but he surreptitiously visited No 10 nonetheless. “I was asked would I please come in through the back door,” he told the Commons select committee in July last year, as if he had no idea of his toxicity. The visits were arranged by Matthew Freud, the son-in-law he does not rate, who told the Prime Minister that Murdoch wanted to see him and vice versa. James confessed to Leveson he had met Cameron and others, including Brown and Blair, more than 20 times.
For the past 40 years, Murdoch’s hacks have kept tabs on those who stand in their master’s way and when they failed to unearth enough dirt, private eyes with even fewer scruples were hired. Personal foibles, sexual peccadilloes and family secrets were gathered for the day an uncooperative MP or cocky celebrity showed insufficient respect. For those such as Tom Watson MP, who dared question Murdoch’s methods, it was whispered in Gordon Brown’s ear that he was a wrong ’un. For others, such as Mark Lewis, who headed the legal campaign to gain redress for Murdoch’s victims, there was snooping around his private life and Murdoch’s private eyes training cameras on his wife and teenage daughters.
Now the contagion has spread across the Atlantic. Lewis has taken the fight to New York, where victims such as Hugh Grant and Cherie Blair are lining up to cash in on News Corp’s intrusions into their private lives. And if the courts hear of interception of phone messages on American soil, Murdoch must get ready to explain to Congress in person what he knew about the widespread criminality that took place on his watch.
Son wot won it?
Murdoch’s claim to the Commons committee that he blamed the phone-hacking on “people that I trusted to run it, and then maybe the people they trusted” came as a surprise to editors who have worked closely with him. While he claimed to be too busy to pay attention to what was going on under his nose, everyone at Wapping knows it is Murdoch himself who calls the shots, from the political line to the hiring and firing of staff.
Murdoch told the Commons how he got into the newspaper business. “I was brought up by a father who was not rich but who was a great journalist,” he said. “And he, just before he died, bought a small paper, specifically in his will saying that he was giving me the chance to do good.” It makes you wonder whether, in the darkest hours of the night, Murdoch genuinely believes Sir Keith, a well-connected old boy if ever there was one, would think his son had done good.
Nicholas Wapshott is a former senior editor of the Times. His book “Keynes Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics”, is published by W W Norton (£18.99).
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


15 comments
Murdoch, he suggests, was miffed in 1968 when the cream of London society offered nothing in terms of hospitality, even though most Australians learn that that is exactly what DOES happen in London. Warmth, like the sun, is in short supply. But it hardly needs this blogger to speak on Murdoch's behalf, when he can well do that himself. It is worth pointing out , however, that if you are looking at a Jack the Ripper parallel for a newspaper owner in London, there are and have been a far more morally and ethically shady bunch to choose from than Rupert. http://www.squidoo.com/best-chainsaws-reviews
Oh dear. I expected more of the New Statesman.Wapshott sneers at the thought that the High Command's nepotistc incompetance ordered Aussie farm boys to their deaths at Gallipoli, which was, after, pretty much what happened. Murdoch, he suggests, was miffed in 1968 when the cream of London society offered nothing in terms of hospitality, even though most Australians learn that that is exactly what DOES happen in London. Warmth, like the sun, is in short supply. But it hardly needs this blogger to speak on Murdoch's behalf, when he can well do that himself. It is worth pointing out , however, that if you are looking at a Jack the Ripper parallel for a newspaper owner in London, there are and have been a far more morally and ethically shady bunch to choose from than Rupert.As to the suggestion that Murdoch hacks have for the last fourty years kept tabs on those who stood in their master's way, wouldn't it be better to wonder exactly WHY RM has apparently been getting away with this for so long?
Oh dear. I expected more of the New Statesman.Wapshott sneers at the thought that the High Command's nepotistc incompetance ordered Aussie farm boys to their deaths at Gallipoli, which was, after, pretty much what happened. Murdoch, he suggests, was miffed in 1968 when the cream of London society offered nothing in terms of hospitality, even though most Australians learn that that is exactly what DOES happen in London. Warmth, like the sun, is in short supply. But it hardly needs this blogger to speak on Murdoch's behalf, when he can well do that himself. It is worth pointing out , however, that if you are looking at a Jack the Ripper parallel for a newspaper owner in London, there are and have been a far more morally and ethically shady bunch to choose from than Rupert.As to the suggestion that Murdoch hacks have for the last fourty years kept tabs on those who stood in their master's way, wouldn't it be better to wonder exactly WHY RM has apparently been getting away with this for so long?
An extension of this analysis into Rupert's having become an American would have been valuable. (as well as acknowledging that he is in not in fact an Australian, anymore)
The irony of watching Rupert squirm in the dock the same week we Australians celebrate Anzac Day (25 April) - he's no heir to Keith's Gallipoli legacy.
King of the feral media?
Will the US scupper the plan?
Thinks he has power?
Right wing, backward man?
Alex the snake and Jeremy.
Are offered as a sop.
How vaccous the people.
At the bottom - the top?
You know Murdoch may never have ordered/ sanctioned/ organised phone hacking and the rest of the covert activities his titles have become besmirched with. But then Hitler never actually ordered the murder of a single jew and neither did Himmler but they created the ethos in which those who did the actual dirty work knew they would be rewarded and protected. Thats how despots work. Don't get your hands dirty let others do it for you and deny you were ever aware of what was going on in the sh*t hole you had created.
You know Murdoch may never have ordered/ sanctioned/ organised phone hacking and the rest of the covert activities his titles have become besmirched with. But then Hitler never actually ordered the murder of a single jew and neither did Himmler but they created the ethos in which those who did the actual dirty work knew they would be rewarded and protected. Thats how despots work. Don't get your hands dirty let others do it for you and deny you were ever aware of what was going on in the sh*t hole you had created.
You know Murdoch may never have ordered/ sanctioned/ organised phone hacking and the rest of the covert activities his titles have become besmirched with. But then Hitler never actually ordered the murder of a single jew and neither did Himmler but they created the ethos in which those who did the actual dirty work knew they would be rewarded and protected. Thats how despots work. Don't get your hands dirty let others do it for you and deny you were ever aware of what was going on in the sh*t hole you had created.
The fact that a nasty piece of work like Murdoch has been able to put out the nasty newspapers and television that he has done for the last 40 odd years, gives us an excellent opportunity to consider what is wrong with this society. What sort of justice system has consistently turned a blind eye? What travesty of democracy has been operating? What sick joke of an education system has produced people who willingly consume the stuff? It will take generations to repair the damage this man has done and I don't see any real sign of a serious start being made on the job. If a court decides that Thatcher is too demented to stand trial for her corrupt assistance in his acquisition of the Times, then fair enough, but a court should certainly be publicly considering the question. That would be a start.
First of all, there are other stories in the world other than Murdochgate.
Second, if he is called before Congress, the corporate MSM will ignore the previous sentence.