For decades, the News of the World had a catchphrase for any of its numerous stories about vice dens, wife swapping, etc — the reporter, after attending incognito, and describing the scene in the mixture of puritanism and prurience, would then intone: “I made my excuses and departed.”
Well, now, the scandal sheet has made its excuses and departed. The sudden closure of the paper by News International, News Corporation’s UK subsidiary, with the loss of two hundred jobs, is a stunning testament to something your correspondent remarked on yesterday — the Murdoch organisation’s capacity to engender an hashashim-like loyalty in its subordinates, and then kill them off without a second thought. Tonight, News Corp employees all over the world are thinking of their mortgages, and feeling their necks.
What could have gone on in the HQ to make such a radical decision so suddenly? By the middle of the week, it was clear that key major advertisers were pulling their ads, and one newsagency chain had said that it would not take the paper.
My guess would be that W H Smith, the UK’s major newsagency chain, was about to do the same — it is not averse to boycotting single editions of magazines and the like it finds offensive. The paper could have weathered an ad boycott, especially if it lowered rates to get them to come back — News of the World has, or had, after all, an incredible 8 to 10 million readers a week, or one in five UK adults. But if Smith’s, and especially many of the corner stores, it distributes to, were no longer running the paper people would drift to other titles quite easily.
Indeed, this may be one reason for the Murdoch organisation’s sudden act — to get some good out of bad by winding up a stand-alone title, and extending the weekday Sun, also sitting at a healthy 3 million daily sales — into Sunday. Roll the readers over, and save money on economies of scale. What looks like an admission of shame — the News of the World beyond redemption — becomes a great way to rationalise.
Nevertheless, the strategy is not without its risks. There are now 200 angry ex-News of the World staffers no longer bound by confidentiality clauses. Some will be rehired, but many — especially old stagers — will be at a loose end and with bills to pay. They will have stories to tell, but I presume that the strategy now is to say that the whole paper was the bad apple in the Murdoch organisation barrel, and what can you expect?
That involves some very fancy footwork, given Rebekah Brooks, when she was NotW editor, told a parliamentary subcommittee that the paper occasionally paid police for information — before she was shushed by then editor Andy Coulson, sitting beside her.
That, as your correspondent noted several months ago, was the true smoking gun. But, also as your correspondent noted, the Murdoch organisation runs on Stalinist management principles, and thus presumes that it can rewrite the public record to reflect its current priorities.
The Murdoch organisation is not the only group to be discredited by this. The Metropolitan Police, which at one stage said the hacking scandal involved only eight people, now has 11,000 pages of evidence. It’s now requested a new inquiry into the matter be supervised by a non-police body — aware its credibility is so tarnished it requires an external body to verify its diligence.
These new stages of the inquiry will go in two major directions. Were ordinary citizens afflicted by tragedy — murdered children, dead service people — hacked en masse? And were ministers of the government also targeted? If the latter is the case, then the Watergate analogy will become exact — quite a lot of people will be going to jail.
The first of them may be Coulson, who is apparently due to be arrested today. He has two worries — whether Brooks’ admissions has established criminal activities on his part, and secondly whether he perjured himself at the trial of Tommy Sheridan last year.
Sheridan was the leader of the Scottish Socialist Party, credited with destroying Thatcher’s poll tax, and being part of an SSP that once commanded six seats in Scotland’s parliament. He was also a fan of swingers’ clubs, where he made his excuses and stayed.
He was shopped to the NotW by an ex-lover (and sometime News journo), and fearful of the backlash by conservative Scottish supporters convinced party members to lie on his behalf. Suing the paper for libel, he gained a huge payout.
The SSP then split down the middle and ex-members told of the perjury. Sheridan got four years prison last year on the perjury charge — after defending himself during the trial and putting Coulson on the witness stand, and throwing a few hacking questions his way.
That looked quixotic at the time. It now appears that Tommy may have provided one last service to the progressive forces by jamming Coulson up, and making him lie on the stand. Police are now following that line up too. If true, it would be a measure of the imperial hubris that Murdoch encourages — perjuring yourself at a perjury trial.
The survival of Brooks through all this has been cause for much speculation, with everyone going on about how close she is to Rupe. Well, maybe. But Murdoch senior has never been afraid to dump people of decades’ service down a lift shaft, and no-one is indispensable for their talents alone. Their knowledge may be a different thing.
Brooks herself may have had her phone hacked. But it may also be that other members of News International — up to Murdoch himself — were also hacked. Who would have done that? Who would have the information gained from those taps? Was Brooks very, very close to one member of the Murdoch family throughout that time?
The story will roll on and on — but not in NotW. The paper survived for a 168 years but it couldn’t survive Murdoch. It was a trash paper in the end — but it always was, the paper about whom George Orwell wrote Decline of the English Murder.
Nevertheless it was part of the texture of British life, which is little more than its traditions, and it’s sad to see it go in this manner. And beyond that, the real worry is that Murdoch will now begin consolidating his UK Sunday titles — especially the Sunday Times, the only decent and pluralist paper in his global stable. No excuses, there’s not much left.
Brooks is *current* board level staff.
If she goes, nobody at any level of News Ltd governance worldwide can feel safe, and they will jump before being pushed.
So Rupe had to keep her, because otherwise he’s admitting that the corporate culture ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP was a conga line of suck-holes to his profit motive.
Anyone remember News Ltd ‘it wasn’t us, we didn’t do it’ and the Melbourne Football Cheats? Oh no, there is nobody in Australian News Ltd management who would EVER do anything un-ethical. No no.
My arse.
-G
The magnificent paradox is the News of the World saga qualifies as sensational and utterly scandalous – normally this would be perfect fodder to be reported/fabricated/circulated by News International… but it won’t be publishing the best dirt (its very own!) available in years.
The stories of MPs consorting with transvestites or Warnie’s record-breaking texting sessions et al pale by comparison. Delicious.
Guy- You say:
“…the Murdoch organisation runs on Stalinist management principles, and thus presumes that it can rewrite the public record to reflect its current priorities.”
I agree, but it is much more than just “Stalinist”- it is “Corporatist” writ large. As Wikipedia puts it:
“Corporatism is based theoretically upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body.”
As such, the Murdochs assigned guilt to the NotW itself – as though it were an organic body- and “punished” it with “death”. Under Corporatist logic, as the NotW itself is the responsible (organic) body, then the employees -including all staff from the CEO to the hacking hacks- are not responsible under the tort law of respondeat superior, where a superior is held liable for the actions of a subordinate, and the subordinate may escape liability. This was the infamous “Nuremberg defense”- summarised as “befehl ist befehl”- “orders are orders”.
So the Murdochs, who seem to ride god-like above the corporeal/corporate world, issue an edict that the corporation NotW must die. But to what end? Murdoch/Zeus is ready for The Sun on Sunday to spring, like Athena, fully formed from his head- another faux-corporation that may inherit all of NotW’s functions (and readership) but not its (now vanished) corporate responsibilities.
Surely, out of this tragedy/farce should come a demi-god, at least, like Hercules to slay the Lernaean Hydra of NewsCorp and clean the Augean stables of global media.
But, alas, as Hercules was the son of Zeus, this is highly unlikely. It is more likely that he will be assigned to fetch the golden apples of the Hesperides, a labour which, in its present guise, looks like Murdoch’s imminent acquisition of BSkyB.
Mens sana in corpore sano, indeed!
GGM, you only have to read the statement issued by News Corp in Australia today – its so high up on the moral ground, I’m sure they all have oxygen deprivation.
So much schadenfruede around about this at the moment – its fabulous!!! Can’t wait for the next exciting instalment. Love the footage of various Murdoch execs being descended upon by the media pack and either requesting their privacy be observed or refusing to answer questions – how the worm has turned!
GGM – couldn’t agree more.
How is it possible that such inept board members get paid truck loads when apparently they don’t have a clue what is going on? Is it me or does the NotW and Melbourne Storm have a bit of déjà vu about it?
I thought under the Corps Law in Australia that directors were expected to (in the words of ASIC)
“ask questions of management when documentation presented to you is not readily comprehensible or, by reason of your past knowledge and experience, questions arise as to the veracity of the decision you are asked to take. This point includes your duty as a director to make further enquiries when appropriate so that you are able to come to an independent views on matters and not merely act as a rubber stamp on decisions that have wider ramifications.”
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s189. See also Daniels v Anderson (1995) NSWLR 438
Apparently not.