March has been another busy month for Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation as they are under increased pressure to alter their controversial reputation in British and European media. It all started on the 29th February when Rupert's son, James resigned as Chairman of News Corp's British conglomerate News International after he failed to deal with the phone hacking caused by one of the organisation's press in an efficient manner. The Leveson Inquiry certainly didn't help maintain his position. This resignation means he can now concentrate on messing up News Corporation.
In addition, on the 8th March, it was announced that the Press Complaints Commission is to close after 21 years and is to be replaced by another self-regulating party once the Leveson Inquiry concludes. The PCC, as it is known for short, failed to regulate the British press efficiently and didn't handle the phone hacking scandal at all so that decision was fair and hopefully Lord Leveson holding this inquiry of press standards can source a suitable replacement.
This leads me onto the events of yesterday. Rupert Murdoch has caused a bit of a stir when he got involved in the debate of British political parties handling of donations. Last weekend, The Sunday Times (a Murdoch-owned paper) hired investigative journalists exposing former Conservative co-treasurer Peter Cruddas. He admitted to be one of the donors to pay around £250,000-a-year's worth of "premier league" donations in order to gain access to the Prime Minister and, if lucky, have dinner with him. Obviously that would cause some controversy and it was a news revelled by the Labour party who wanted an independent inquiry about the issue, although it is worth mentioning that they may not necessarily be innocent themselves.
Prime Minister David Cameron wasn't happy by Cruddas' actions branding the move "totally unacceptable". Cruddas therefore resigned as a member of the Tory party and an internal enquiry is to take place. Meanwhile, Cameron has published a list of his party's largest donors of 2010 and 2011 and in fact, Cruddas was right - there were people who paid a considerable amount annually just to try and socialise with the PM. I don't want to get too much into this debacle as the donations row isn't the purpose of this blog post however, I feel it is not essential to know who turned up to Cameron's house for tea but it is in the public interest to know how much influence they have had in policy making, especially after the recent Budget showed there are more reasons to weep rather than being jubilant in the sun.
Back to Murdoch's point, he wrote on his Twitter account with regards to the donations, "Of course there must be a full independent inquiry on both sides. In great detail, and with consequences. Trust must be established." Does he have a point? Did one of his papers do the right thing and reveal such headline which caused widespread debate? Is it just me or Murdoch's papers are the only ones who privately investigate the juiciest headlines? News of the World have investigated big stories when they were a paper. Remember the Pakistan cricket team were humiliated? Three players later were declared guilty in 2010 after being exposed to spot fixing during an earlier England game. Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir were given heavy bans for their wrongdoing but yet again, it was a Murdoch paper which released the story and got everyone else talking. News of the World also got hold of the Sarah, Duchess of York secretly when she admitted in wanting to gain access to her ex-husband Prince Andrew by a great sum of cash. Again, it was a Murdoch paper which published this huge headline.
This may all sound good. Revealing stories which the public never expected, surely nothing wrong with that? But I feel this sort of journalism shows a major warning to Murdoch. Although he may be right in the sense that there must be an independent inquiry for both Labour and Conservatives but with The Sunday Times hiring private detectives to get the story in a similar manner to News of the World, I can see a negative trend in publishing stories which were unethically sourced. Perhaps The Sunday Times will not be abolished like News of the World but I have not heard of other papers going through the direction of hiring private detectives. It can potentially get them into deep trouble, especially if a new PCC-style regulatory system would be put in force. New regulation system, different rules.
However, I don't want to delve too much into the print side of Murdoch's Empire. In fact, the broadcasting side are in trouble. BSkyB have been exposed in a mini scandal of itself. News Corporation and pay-TV was the main topic in the latest BBC Panorama episode. Last night, it was suggested that one of News Corp's companies, British based NDS Group allegedly hacked into confidential data of ITV which enabled Sky to be ahead of the game with regards to going digital. ITV Digital was launched in 1998 as a rival to Sky TV but due to lack of resources, in 2002, they went into administration meaning Sky would turn out triumphant. Now, it has been said the way Sky approached their digital campaign was illegal and unjustifiable. This comes at bad timing for News Corp and BSkyB who are currently going through a "fit and proper" test initiated by Ofcom which will suggest if Murdoch is suitable to keep, or maybe increase his 39 percent stake at BSkyB. If he and his organisation fail this test, it could cripple Murdoch's powers in Britain. His four decades of hard work with Sky could be thrown away and forgotten due to losing a major case like this.
Of course, Sky isn't new to court cases, as I have discovered when writing up my dissertation on Rupert Murdoch and sports coverage in the British media. Sky won those with ease but digital hacking is different cattle of fish. With the phone hacking scandal, the investigators of the 2010s are approaching News Corporation differently compared to those of the 1990s. Murdoch has been warned but I'd like to argue if Rupert is actually the guilty one?
I have been looking into Murdoch and his role at News Corporation over the last 18 months or so and I have noticed a trend that most, if not all of his problems today seems to be in the United Kingdom. He never really has been into trouble in the United States, China or Australia about his publications bearing in mind he owns a significant amount of media outlets in those countries, particularly in Australia. Certainly, his press and broadcasters like Fox are deemed too right-wing but politics in that sense shouldn't be looked at as a valid criticism. You can choose what channels to watch, and so on. Let's put it this way, the phone hacking scandal is little known in the US even though Murdoch is an American citizen.
But why does Britain hate him? Is it all James Murdoch's fault? You can say that with recent years that he has been an unorganised and unprofessional Chairman of News International but let's bear in mind that he was part of BSkyB from 2003, five years after Sky went digital so he cannot be blamed for everything. But with James being the supposed heir-apparent to Rupert once he leaves his role as News Corp Chairman, one can wonder if the future of the press and Fox/BSkyB is to go haywire. On the whole, he lacks the crucial leadership skills. People at News Corp can only hope Rupert is immortal.
The recent hacking case is all confusing, one can admit however, it shows that for the last 14 years-or-so, the relationship between Murdoch and Britain has not been the best. I'm sure Rupert would have loved Margaret Thatcher to still be the Prime Minister as they were great friends, hence why Sky went ahead to be launched before BSB (British Satellite Broadcasting) during her premiership. Murdoch does have problems with the current Conservative government and I fear that Cameron might do something completely radical to kick Rupert out. I'm sure you would wish the same but we must remember that he owns a considerable amount of media outlets in Britain and if he leaves the UK for good, both press standards and newspaper circulations could be at an all time low. In later years, we could be saying the same about Richard Desmond who owns Channel Five and The Daily Express. Media moguls are what they are. We're not kicking out Simon Cowell for judging people on popular television programmes yet we still watch his shows. We still read Murdoch's papers consistently and over ten million people are subscribed to Sky. He's not going to walk away that easily after being in the heart of the UK media since 1968.
This is not a blog post to rave about Murdoch's legacy but people in Britain must consider that the British are probably the only ones who have a problem with him - unless we're the only ones who see the dark side of Murdoch. Of course, some Americans don't like him. His acquisition of Dow Jones raised a few eye-brows but people there and in Australia enjoy the content of his papers without thinking too much of what happens behind-the-scenes. To those Americans or Australians, if I am wrong in suggesting that Murdoch isn't hated as much as he is in Britain, then let me know.
Enjoyed reading this blog post, like "John Saleh Price blogging" on Facebook, follow me on Twitter @johnsalehprice or add me on Google+ (John Saleh Price).
In addition, on the 8th March, it was announced that the Press Complaints Commission is to close after 21 years and is to be replaced by another self-regulating party once the Leveson Inquiry concludes. The PCC, as it is known for short, failed to regulate the British press efficiently and didn't handle the phone hacking scandal at all so that decision was fair and hopefully Lord Leveson holding this inquiry of press standards can source a suitable replacement.
This leads me onto the events of yesterday. Rupert Murdoch has caused a bit of a stir when he got involved in the debate of British political parties handling of donations. Last weekend, The Sunday Times (a Murdoch-owned paper) hired investigative journalists exposing former Conservative co-treasurer Peter Cruddas. He admitted to be one of the donors to pay around £250,000-a-year's worth of "premier league" donations in order to gain access to the Prime Minister and, if lucky, have dinner with him. Obviously that would cause some controversy and it was a news revelled by the Labour party who wanted an independent inquiry about the issue, although it is worth mentioning that they may not necessarily be innocent themselves.
Prime Minister David Cameron wasn't happy by Cruddas' actions branding the move "totally unacceptable". Cruddas therefore resigned as a member of the Tory party and an internal enquiry is to take place. Meanwhile, Cameron has published a list of his party's largest donors of 2010 and 2011 and in fact, Cruddas was right - there were people who paid a considerable amount annually just to try and socialise with the PM. I don't want to get too much into this debacle as the donations row isn't the purpose of this blog post however, I feel it is not essential to know who turned up to Cameron's house for tea but it is in the public interest to know how much influence they have had in policy making, especially after the recent Budget showed there are more reasons to weep rather than being jubilant in the sun.
Back to Murdoch's point, he wrote on his Twitter account with regards to the donations, "Of course there must be a full independent inquiry on both sides. In great detail, and with consequences. Trust must be established." Does he have a point? Did one of his papers do the right thing and reveal such headline which caused widespread debate? Is it just me or Murdoch's papers are the only ones who privately investigate the juiciest headlines? News of the World have investigated big stories when they were a paper. Remember the Pakistan cricket team were humiliated? Three players later were declared guilty in 2010 after being exposed to spot fixing during an earlier England game. Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir were given heavy bans for their wrongdoing but yet again, it was a Murdoch paper which released the story and got everyone else talking. News of the World also got hold of the Sarah, Duchess of York secretly when she admitted in wanting to gain access to her ex-husband Prince Andrew by a great sum of cash. Again, it was a Murdoch paper which published this huge headline.
This may all sound good. Revealing stories which the public never expected, surely nothing wrong with that? But I feel this sort of journalism shows a major warning to Murdoch. Although he may be right in the sense that there must be an independent inquiry for both Labour and Conservatives but with The Sunday Times hiring private detectives to get the story in a similar manner to News of the World, I can see a negative trend in publishing stories which were unethically sourced. Perhaps The Sunday Times will not be abolished like News of the World but I have not heard of other papers going through the direction of hiring private detectives. It can potentially get them into deep trouble, especially if a new PCC-style regulatory system would be put in force. New regulation system, different rules.
However, I don't want to delve too much into the print side of Murdoch's Empire. In fact, the broadcasting side are in trouble. BSkyB have been exposed in a mini scandal of itself. News Corporation and pay-TV was the main topic in the latest BBC Panorama episode. Last night, it was suggested that one of News Corp's companies, British based NDS Group allegedly hacked into confidential data of ITV which enabled Sky to be ahead of the game with regards to going digital. ITV Digital was launched in 1998 as a rival to Sky TV but due to lack of resources, in 2002, they went into administration meaning Sky would turn out triumphant. Now, it has been said the way Sky approached their digital campaign was illegal and unjustifiable. This comes at bad timing for News Corp and BSkyB who are currently going through a "fit and proper" test initiated by Ofcom which will suggest if Murdoch is suitable to keep, or maybe increase his 39 percent stake at BSkyB. If he and his organisation fail this test, it could cripple Murdoch's powers in Britain. His four decades of hard work with Sky could be thrown away and forgotten due to losing a major case like this.
Of course, Sky isn't new to court cases, as I have discovered when writing up my dissertation on Rupert Murdoch and sports coverage in the British media. Sky won those with ease but digital hacking is different cattle of fish. With the phone hacking scandal, the investigators of the 2010s are approaching News Corporation differently compared to those of the 1990s. Murdoch has been warned but I'd like to argue if Rupert is actually the guilty one?
I have been looking into Murdoch and his role at News Corporation over the last 18 months or so and I have noticed a trend that most, if not all of his problems today seems to be in the United Kingdom. He never really has been into trouble in the United States, China or Australia about his publications bearing in mind he owns a significant amount of media outlets in those countries, particularly in Australia. Certainly, his press and broadcasters like Fox are deemed too right-wing but politics in that sense shouldn't be looked at as a valid criticism. You can choose what channels to watch, and so on. Let's put it this way, the phone hacking scandal is little known in the US even though Murdoch is an American citizen.
But why does Britain hate him? Is it all James Murdoch's fault? You can say that with recent years that he has been an unorganised and unprofessional Chairman of News International but let's bear in mind that he was part of BSkyB from 2003, five years after Sky went digital so he cannot be blamed for everything. But with James being the supposed heir-apparent to Rupert once he leaves his role as News Corp Chairman, one can wonder if the future of the press and Fox/BSkyB is to go haywire. On the whole, he lacks the crucial leadership skills. People at News Corp can only hope Rupert is immortal.
The recent hacking case is all confusing, one can admit however, it shows that for the last 14 years-or-so, the relationship between Murdoch and Britain has not been the best. I'm sure Rupert would have loved Margaret Thatcher to still be the Prime Minister as they were great friends, hence why Sky went ahead to be launched before BSB (British Satellite Broadcasting) during her premiership. Murdoch does have problems with the current Conservative government and I fear that Cameron might do something completely radical to kick Rupert out. I'm sure you would wish the same but we must remember that he owns a considerable amount of media outlets in Britain and if he leaves the UK for good, both press standards and newspaper circulations could be at an all time low. In later years, we could be saying the same about Richard Desmond who owns Channel Five and The Daily Express. Media moguls are what they are. We're not kicking out Simon Cowell for judging people on popular television programmes yet we still watch his shows. We still read Murdoch's papers consistently and over ten million people are subscribed to Sky. He's not going to walk away that easily after being in the heart of the UK media since 1968.
This is not a blog post to rave about Murdoch's legacy but people in Britain must consider that the British are probably the only ones who have a problem with him - unless we're the only ones who see the dark side of Murdoch. Of course, some Americans don't like him. His acquisition of Dow Jones raised a few eye-brows but people there and in Australia enjoy the content of his papers without thinking too much of what happens behind-the-scenes. To those Americans or Australians, if I am wrong in suggesting that Murdoch isn't hated as much as he is in Britain, then let me know.
Enjoyed reading this blog post, like "John Saleh Price blogging" on Facebook, follow me on Twitter @johnsalehprice or add me on Google+ (John Saleh Price).
Comments
Post a Comment