As the UK phone-tapping scandal envelops News Corporation — an imbroglio deftly summarised by Guy Rundle yesterday in Crikey — there’s one highly conspicuous missing element: any kind of public utterance by the company’s proprietor and conscience-in-chief, Rupert Murdoch, about the editorial practice of paying private investigators to illegally hack into the mobile phone voicemails of public figures.
Not once has Murdoch disowned the practice.
Not once has he stated that it is an appalling way to do journalism.
Not once has he promised to hunt down and sack the journalists in his organisation who paid six-figure retainers to spivs who illicitly hacked into the voicemails of prominent British politicians and celebrities.
Not once has he vowed to reassure shareholders he will cleanse his company of such repugnant behavior.
Not once has he claimed News Corp is an ethical organisation that regards illegal acquisition of information as an abomination to be weeded out.
Sometimes silence says so much more than any words can ever say.
Well said.
The slimy b_stard will never change.
Why would the scumbag open his mouth and confirm he’s a liar?
How the owner of FoxNews could be believed on anything is one of the worlds greatest mystery!
Remember The Australian, the thing that used to be a newspaper before it was toilet paper!
If you look up bullshit in the dictionary you now get a picture of Rupert and it isn’t a bear or my dog!
He wasn’t named the Dirty Digger for nothing.
“Not once has he claimed News Corp is an ethical organisation that regards illegal acquisition of information as an abomination to be weeded out.”
There is no denying that Rupert is a pretty despicable character, but I think you have gone too far with the above passage. What is a dedicated exposer of malfeasance in high places supposed to do when the lawmakers have made it illegal for such exposure to take place? It is my belief that there is sometimes a considerable difference between what is legal and what is ethical. The fact that ethical behaviour cannot be as neatly defined as legal behaviour should merely make moral people think carefully before breaking the law.
In fairness, I doubt that anyone seriously suspects Mr Murdoch of possessing morals, but let us not place the law on too high a pedestal.
Regards
I think “Papa ‘doch” is “above the snow-line” – who needs morals when you’ve got that much power wealth and influence? Governments come to him for blessing.
Look what he’s done to our political system – in failing to question, heaven knows how many, Howard practices, his empire, with it’s market share virtually legitimised such “politics” – next generation and Labor tries the same things, they’re all over them like a plague of blow-flies on road kill – because with all that negative publicity, from all that market share, influencing perception, that’s what they are!