

A report on phone-hacking

Dial M for muddle

Parliament takes aim at the Murdochs, and shoots itself

See article

Readers' comments



The “Soup” gos on. A loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power have besieged the Brooks. The video statement of Mrs. and Mr. Brooks shocked. Being in a position to finically defend themselves unlike many of their victims the disrespect for the British legal system expressed asks questions. The charges pressed are secondary to implications “like a freind of a bank robber staking the lot” away. The public concern of the implication of criminal acts by part of the newspapers is great. Mr. Cameron’s government is morally tarnished with the revelations of Mr. Dick regarding Mr. Green and that of Mr. Hunt. Unlike Fr. Merkel the Chancellor of Germany who sacked her minister Hr. Roettgen for much less Mr. Cameron looks the other way. One could gain the impression this is a “You told me too” scenario which will have a boomerang effect.


With the formal arrest of Rebekah Brooks for conspiracy, it would appear that The Economist may want to consider toning down its support for Murdoch. In retrospect, Parliament's declaration against Murdoch now seems quite tame....


Hey Diddle Diddle there's a hole in the middle. Britain is host for the Olympics this may be over shadowed by a parallel Olympics not that of the paraplegics but that of the poliplagics. In the race to “lynch” Mr. Murdoch the parliament, a number of inquiries, the Lords all making false starts at the line. The opening of Pandora’s Box have exceeded Hesiod's expectation with a combination of “Flood myth”, revenge and more. The “Tower” may even find its old function and in the end advertising is guilty. The immediate problem is what to do with a can of worms


an abysmal piece. Your declaration that the "unfit" conclusion is "absurd" / "counter-productive" lacks reference to the evidence. Think of it the other way round. With the epic failures of corporate governance, and resulting criminality and cover-up, how could the CEO and his son and lieutenant be declared "fit"? or should we wait until they are imprisoned?


Good Grief, this whole Murdoch saga is ridiculous. When he bought the Times I shifted newspapers, I don't have a Sky channel, I don't buy The Sun. I do not live in fear of him, he has no effect on my life.
This whole saga has become hysterical, no-one has been murdered by Murdoch,every time this tale gets reported we hear of attempts to listen to the messages of murdered school girl Milly Dowler. She was missing and not known to be murdered at the time of the hacking and the press was trying to locate her rather than rely on the totally useless UK police force. Originally the story was that they had deleted the voice mails, that was soon dropped.
This poor school girl has been used by the likes of Tom Watson to further his own ends.
Without Murdoch and to a lesser extent Eddie Shah we might not have a wide ranging free press in the UK today, it would have been brought to its knees by the print unions, so for that we should be grateful.
Comments below that the British public does not trust Murdoch are not born out of the circulation numbers.

gw74 in reply to DylanatStrumble

no-one has been murdered by Murdoch but has hacking and the stories it hatched caused any suicides? Max Mosley thinks so: his son. How many more?
You may not live in fear of him but our political class does. and what has that done for our democracy, for the value of your vote?
But his most important crime is far more subtle than that: he has coarsened our society and the political discourse within it. The anger and disrespect we have for each other, our politicians' venality, is partly down to him. He has corrupted us. He is a cancer.
Yes he defeated the print unions, but many evil men have done the odd good thing. This does not diminish their evil.

gw74 in reply to DylanatStrumble


You may not live in fear of him put our political class does. and what has that done for our democracy, for the value of your vote?




I think the public are very clear. The Murdoch press is not to be trusted.It is not just phone hacking
- reme
mbar the SUN and Hillsborough.


Ha! Don't say anything contentious to make sure you get your contentious point said. That's what you're advising? Maybe the Media could follow the same ethos.


The comments expressed to date mostly seem to agree that the Committee got it right; rather than the Economist's somewhat partisan judgement. In any event it is difficult to believe that the Murdochs would have been any less wilfully blind in seeking "a convenient exit" without the "fit person" excuse. Perhaps you too have some wilful bindness.


So in essence the facts about wrong doing are not in dispute, the objection to the severe conclusion is, as one of my mentor's once observed: "it is only a little bit like mass murderer."
The UK has some of the finest journalism in the world and some of the worst. Hopefully the best of it will come out better and the bar will be raised considerably for the rest after some proper house cleaning.

Rockford the 1st

What is happening with the economist? First there are articles attacking a whistle blower at Goldman Sachs for outing a nasty, corrupt, corporate culture that rips off its customers and now one attacking a parliamentary report on outrageous media practices and the Murdochs one of whom it seems knew of said practices. 'Partisan' does not mean its wrong. It looks increasingly like Tories trying to protect a powerful, media supporter. How is defending powerful financial or media institutions when they engage in disturbing, unethical if not outright illegal practices professional journalism? Very Disappointing.


I have always been puzzled by the Economist's support for the Murdochs who are an evil family. I was brought up to believe the Economist to be a bastion of integrity and fairness but it seems that where this family is concerned the Economist has a blind spot. It is most disappointing.


This appears to be especially partisan! Im afraid this article isn't up to the standard i expect from the Economist.


We seem to have left and right wing partisanship in the comments section. Basically I believe the narrative is correct and fairly balanced.
The committee report was built upon party differences and a balance tried to be reached. However the chairman of the committee is weak and very susceptable to the "charms" (or threats) of Tom Watson, hence the statement "unfit for an international organization" was inserted with LibDem connivance.
But this statement begs the question "by whose standards?". Certainly not the anyone on the committee as they have never run a successful business, let alone an international business.
Certainly not by the ethical standings of the political parties of which 3 Labour MP's (+2 from other parties) were jailed for corrupt practices; with some of the Labour minister's only escaping the same penalty through parliamentary privilege (ie corruption).
British politics has sunk to a very low level, and the degree of hypocrisy is staggering. Hence the very low turnout for Conservatives and Lib Dems on the now finished local elections.
Interestingly Tom Watson's career as Labour fixer took a rebuff today when his attempt to put his friend into place as Labour Mayor of Birmingham came to nought.
It revealed that the public are only prepared to go so far in inflicting pain on the current government at mid-term; and have no appetite for a Chicago style political mafia regime.


Shocking conclusion from The Economist.

In British democracy the majority rules, not the 'unanimous'. If a law is passed by a parliamentary majority, the minority that disagree with it cannot claim the law is 'worthless' and thus ignore or routinely break it.

The committee should have stood by its majority decision. Alas party politics once again came into play – and I don't lay that error at Tom Watson's door.

J. Wagner

So Murdoch is fit, or unfit -- by whose standards? In the United States he and his son are automatically fit; they act as parts of a corporation which is wealthy. We have a strict morality, that way: if you lift five dollars worth of items from a convenience store as a person, you might face jail; BP murdered 11 people in one day, and hundreds more from pollution, and are fined. Murdoch is thus fit, and no more a rogue than the rest of his cronies. A fine fellow, Mr. Murdoch, and James, and Mr. Cameron.


Of course Murdoch would brand it "partisan" - are you suggesting that if the "fit person" statement had not been included, he would have humbly accepted the report's findings? Perhaps, we could further extrapolate, he'd be tearfully drawing up his resignation whilst renouncing the evils of an untamed press?

Absolute nonsense. Mensch alleging that Labour wanted to find him guilty is a double-edged sword; was it likely that the Tories would turn on an individual currently backing them to the hilt?

The Economist is at it's best when an impartial observer. Sadly, this article falls some way short of what most have come to expect - a bit too "partisan" for my liking, you could say.

David Tuck in reply to guest-isawals

You've missed the point about the fit line, of course Murdoch would always challenge a negative finding but by forcing the line into the report it weakens other people's perception of the report and allows Murdoch more room to spin.

Truly Yours

At least Britain is talking about the criminality of Murdoch's empire. In America, his Fox network's control over the Republican party--favored by all the big media conglomerates--is so complete that virtually nothing is mentioned in the press of the likelihood that he has used the same illegal techniques here to cement his grip on power. Most stories in US outlets, just like this report, studiously avoid mentioning the Murdoch hegemony on this side of the pond.

When crooks run a corporation, the corporation is crooked by definition. U.S. Republican politicians who have sold their souls to this kingmaker should be planning their escapes.

R.Ohrey in reply to Truly Yours

Another paranoid, delusional individual.
Criminality in one small part of the Murdoch empire does not mean the whole empire is 'criminal'; Sky News, Fox News, Wall Street Journal etc..are all fantastic entities that make the world a more informed and better place, therefore let us all be sane rational people and say: Thank You Mr Murdoch!

Sparemethepolitics in reply to R.Ohrey

Have to agree, two things stand put to me:
1. The question on whether or not Rupert Murdoch is fit to run a $33 billion a year company is ridiculous. What do they base their viewpoint on? Are they major shareholders? As someone stated earlier the political parties have had MPs exposed for effectively commiting fraud. Did anyone see the party leaders resign? They might need to consider whether News Corp is fit and proper to run Sky, however how do they compare the previous examples (porn, etc.) with this? I've not seen or heard of any issues with their operations.

2. I still don't see what the point is with Tom Watson's mission to root out the influence of big media in politics. I'd take him seriously if he wanted to remove undue influence in the goverment (ruling parties) yes, however that would mean that ALL undue influence needs to be removed, including Banks, Oil companies,Weapon manufacturers and yes Labour organisations ...


It is perfectly normal for an accused individual to label a damning report/text/assessment as "partisan" when it does not read what he wants. Today, "partisan" actually means "you're wrong because you don't agree with me." If the report consisted of a complete declaration of Mr Murdoch's innocence, do you think it would still be labeled as such?

Furthermore, your argument that Labour was on some sort of media mogul witch hunt is rather weak. I could argue the exact opposite: that the Tories were bent on not finding Mr Murdoch guilty of anything. Ultimately, a parliamentary committee issued a report with a specific finding. To howl that political party representation, as is the case with any parliamentary committee, muddied the veracity of its findings is a bizarre claim indeed.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus 2 hrs 29 mins ago
Keynes and Hayek: Prophets for today
Free exchange 3 hrs 50 mins ago
Democracy in America 3 hrs 19 mins ago
Gay rights in Lebanon: Laws of nature
Pomegranate March 14th, 15:43
Airlines and hotels: Room at the top
Gulliver March 14th, 15:42
Daily chart: Banker’s bloat
Graphic detail March 14th, 13:47


Products & events