Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Police Charge News of the World Editor Over Voicemail Hacking

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the figuring-out-where-the-line-is-drawn dept.

Crime 131

New submitter HarryatRock writes with news that former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks and five others have been charged by police for their involvement in intercepting voicemail messages left for a murdered girl. From the article: "She is charged with conspiring with her 49-year-old husband, personal assistant Cheryl Carter, chauffeur Paul Edwards, security man Daryl Jorsling, and News International head of security Mr Hanna to "conceal material" from police between 6 and 19 July. In a second charge Mrs Brooks and Ms Carter are accused of conspiring to remove seven boxes of material from the News International archive between 6 and 9 July. In a third charge, Mr and Mrs Brooks, Mr Hanna, Mr Edwards and Mr Jorsling are accused of conspiring to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from police officers between 15 and 19 July."

cancel ×

131 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just another reason... (5, Insightful)

ToiletBomber (2269914) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010081)

...to avoid anything related to Fox News like the plague

Re:Just another reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40010295)

So why do they still have a broadcast license?

Re:Just another reason... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40010377)

Ofcom are still working on the answer to that very question. It's becoming increasingly difficult for anyone to describe Mr. Murdoch as "fit and proper".

Re:Just another reason... (4, Informative)

colfer (619105) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010677)

In the U.S., providing news is no longer required to maintain an FCC TV license, and neither is providing unbiased news. There is still a minimal educational requirement, but it's nothing compared to the 1970s, when outside business groups would try to capture station's FCC licenses by citing strict FCC public service requirements. Those were also the days of the Fairness Doctrine.

Some low-rent broadcast stations claim to fulfill the current minimal Educational/Instructional standards by showing Edgemont, a teen drama imported from Canada! You can read about it here, the requirement is called E/I: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgemont_(TV_series) [wikipedia.org] In fact, Fox Family used to use Edgemont for this!

The station here that shows Edgemont (at noon, when its intended audience is not even home), fills much of the rest of its daytime schedule with infomercials, which would have been impossible under 1970s rules. An FCC license has gone from a license to print money to a license to shill trinkets.

Re:Just another reason... (1)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012709)

Since when it is a crime to conceal information from police?

Re:Just another reason... (-1, Troll)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010363)

Of course you're trolling, but what does the downfall of a gutter-level tabloid have to do with the legitimate news operation at Fox News?

Re:Just another reason... (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010453)

Of course you're trolling, but what does Rupert Murdoch's gutter-level right-wing editorial service called Fox News have to do with a legitimate news operation?

Re:Just another reason... (1, Insightful)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010883)

I suppose Fox News does look pretty right wing when compared to NBC's (and the rest of the press') handling of George Zimmerman. Or the WaPo splashing an unverifiable Mitt Romney high school story on their front page, while refusing to press for President Obama's college records. Or CBS' fake George Bush National Guard memos. And so on and so on.

Would it be better for the Country if only one political point of view was held accountable by the corporate media?

There is a reason Fox News regularly kills the other news networks viewership numbers combined.

Re:Just another reason... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40010917)

Because lots of morons watch FOX News?

Re:Just another reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011117)

You are a moron and so is anyone that watches Fox

Re:Just another reason... (2, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011387)

"I suppose Fox News does look pretty right wing when compared to NBC's (and the rest of the press') handling of George Zimmerman. Or the WaPo splashing an unverifiable Mitt Romney high school story on their front page, while refusing to press for President Obama's college records. Or CBS' fake George Bush National Guard memos. And so on and so on."

Fox is demonstrably more biased than any of those other other stations. Only a liar would say otherwise.

Re:Just another reason... (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011609)

I don't think so. MSNBC is just as biased as Fox and CNN is pretty close, at least when it comes to web sites. I don't watch any of those actual channels so it might be different there.

Re:Just another reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011849)

When facts don't align to your worldview it's bias. Gotcha.

Re:Just another reason... (4, Informative)

nomadic (141991) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012085)

The head of Fox's news division (who for decades was a political operative for the Republican Party) assigned the first cousin of the Republican candidate to call the winner for each state during the 2000 election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Prescott_Ellis [wikipedia.org]

A Fox News producer was caught on tape trying to whip up the crowd for Glenn Beck's "9/12" demonstration. Fox then ran full-page advertisements in the newspaper asking why the other cable news networks weren't covering such an important event (using, for some bizarre reason, a video still from CNN, which was covering the event). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzWC0GX38Mk [youtube.com]

In 1996 Fox anchor Tony Snow endorsed Bob Dole for President. In 2000 Snow then went to purportedly cover the 2000 Republican convention as a journalist, then gave a speech to a Republican youth group when asked. Snow later went to the White House to become Bush's press secretary. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067 [fair.org]

You do not see comparable levels of bias with MSNBC. You just don't.

Re:Just another reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40012361)

You do not see comparable levels of bias with MSNBC. You just don't.

MS owns MSNBC. How can that not be biased? Hint: how much Linux coverage do you read on MSNBC as compared to the BBC, which recently had a feature on the latest Ubuntu release.

Re:Just another reason... (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012869)

That doesn't prove Fox News is MORE biased, only that they are. How do you quantify which is more biased? Obviously your opinion carries more weight for you, and mine for me.

I'll see your John Prescott Ellis, Heidi Noonan, and Tony Snow, with Al Sharpton [wikipedia.org] , and Kieth Olberman and Chris Matthews [thedailybeast.com] and raise you Dave Weigel [huffingtonpost.com] of Journolist [politico.com] fame, Susan Roegen [youtube.com] , and George Stephanopoulos [wikipedia.org] .

To me the issue isn't whether bias exists. It does. To me the issue is whether the United States is a better place if both political points of view and parties are held accountable by the corporate media. My answer is yes, it is. But I don't drink any particular Party's cool-aid, YMMV.

Re:Just another reason... (1, Troll)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 2 years ago | (#40013551)

Arguing about bias is a distraction. The real problem with FOX isn't actually bias; it is lying.

Re:Just another reason... (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012529)

Fox is demonstrably more biased than any of those other other stations. Only a liar would say otherwise.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I love the Interwebs! But you said demonstrably more biased, then accused anyone not sharing your opinion of lying. By all means, please demonstrate how Fox is more biased than say, MSNBC. You might even convince me. I would be more receptive to your arguments, however, if you hadn't described voicing an alternate opinion as lying. Opinions can be wrong, but they can't be lies.

Re:Just another reason... (1)

nbauman (624611) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012721)

I don't watch Fox News enough to critique it, but (if you want facts) Murdoch clearly turned the Wall Street Journal from a respected, objective news source into a propaganda vehicle:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/edward_m_kennedy/index.html?inline=nyt-per [nytimes.com]

Re:Just another reason... (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 2 years ago | (#40013489)

I'm not sure what Ted Kennedy has to do with the Wall Street Journal being accused of propaganda by the New York Times? (pot>kettle=You're all black)

Many /. mods seem to censor dissenting opinions to the "Fox News is Evil meme", in the name of tolerance and open mindedness I'm sure, so I'm going to stop wasting my time here on this topic.

Don't forget to vote!

Re:Just another reason... (1)

nbauman (624611) | more than 2 years ago | (#40013599)

pot>kettle=You're all black

A common fallacy.

Barbara Stanwyck: "We're both rotten!"

Fred MacMurray: "Yeah - only you're a little more rotten."

http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult [truth-out.org]

The important thing about that story is that the WSJ has a documented history of objectivity and impartiality in its news pages. That's why everybody in power used to read them.

Murdoch and his editors changed several stories to favor the conservative side. That kind of favoritism is unprecedented in the WSJ.

The Republicans are different. They're tearing the country apart. News Corp. played a big destructive role.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html [washingtonpost.com]

Re:Just another reason... (4, Insightful)

nbauman (624611) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012705)

This is not a debate where there is some merit to both sides. News Corp. is right-wing propaganda. They're not just a right-wing version of NBC, CBS and the Washington Post.

The only people who defend News Corp. are right-wing wackos who don't know the difference between truth and propaganda.

They're not like other American news organizations. Murdoch orders his editors to distort the news to advance his political goals.

Fox News made "Fair and balanced" a cynical joke. It's like cigarette companies advertising that their cigarettes are healthy and doctors recommend them.

The worst thing Murdoch did is destroy the Wall Street Journal, which used to be the best newspaper in the world, respected by left and right:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html [nytimes.com]
Under Murdoch, Tilting Rightward at The Journal
By DAVID CARR
December 13, 2009

A little over a year ago, Robert Thomson, The Journal’s top editor, picked Gerard Baker, a columnist for The Times of London, as his deputy managing editor. Mr. Baker is a former Washington bureau chief of The Financial Times with a great deal of expertise in the Beltway. The two men came of age in the more partisan milieu of British journalism.

According to several former members of the Washington bureau and two current ones, the two men have had a big impact on the paper’s Washington coverage, adopting a more conservative tone, and editing and headlining articles to reflect a chronic skepticism of the current administration. And given that the paper’s circulation continues to grow, albeit helped along by some discounts, there’s nothing to suggest that The Journal’s readers don’t approve.

Mr. Baker, a neoconservative columnist of acute political views, has been especially active in managing coverage in Washington, creating significant grumbling, if not resistance, from the staff there. Reporters say the coverage of the Obama administration is reflexively critical, the health care debate is generally framed in terms of costs rather than benefits — “health care reform” is a generally forbidden phrase — and global warming skeptics have gotten a steady ride. (Of course, objectivity is in the eyes of the reader.)

The pro-business, antigovernment shift in the news pages has broken into plain view in the last year. On Aug. 12, a fairly straight down the middle front page article on President Obama’s management style ended up with the provocative headline, “A President as Micromanager: How Much Detail Is Enough?” The original article included a contrast between President Jimmy Carter’s tendency to go deep in the weeds of every issue with President George W. Bush’s predilection for minimal involvement, according to someone who saw the draft. By the time the article ran, it included only the swipe at Mr. Carter.

On Aug. 27, a fairly straightforward obituary about Ted Kennedy for the Web site was subjected to a little political re-education on the way to the front page. A new paragraph was added quoting Rush Limbaugh deriding what he called all of the “slobbering media coverage,” and he also accused the recently deceased senator of being the kind of politician who “uses the government to take money from people who work and gives it to people who don’t work.”

On Oct. 31, an article on the front of the B section about estate taxes at the state level used the phrase “death tax” six times, but there were no quotation marks around it. A month later, the newspaper’s Style & Substance blog suggested that the adoption of such a loaded political term was probably not a good idea: “Because opponents of estate taxes have long referred to them as death taxes, the term should be avoided in news stories.”

Re:Just another reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40013389)

you do realize that it's all propaganda right? all of it...

Re:Just another reason... (5, Insightful)

Tarsir (1175373) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012207)

There is a reason Fox News regularly kills the other news networks viewership numbers combined.

This is because Fox News regularly throws journalistic integrity to the wind in pursuit of ratings.

Re:Just another reason... (1)

nbauman (624611) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012835)

Barbara Stanwyck: “We’re both rotten!”

Fred MacMurray: “Yeah — only you’re a little more rotten.”

— “Double Indemnity” (1944)

http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult [truth-out.org]

Re:Just another reason... (1)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011273)

Of course you're trolling, but what does Rupert Murdoch's gutter-level right-wing editorial service called Fox News have to do with a legitimate news operation?

Fox News is a large and diverse organization which pretty easily defies your shallow stereotyping. There are some editorial commentators who are pretty far out there (exactly like you find on other large cable networks), and some who are more grounded and evenhanded (exactly like you find on other large networks). The actual news side of the organization (non-editorial) is a lot more professional and objective than many people give them credit for. In fact, I think much of the flak they get is simply because many of them are willing to touch subjects that left-leaning journalists would prefer to (in effect) censor and avoid discussing. I think that the diversity Fox News brings to news in the USA is a net positive effect, despite the misdeeds they are occasionally guilty of (again, just like other major networks; nobody is perfect).

Re:Just another reason... (1)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011423)

Hmmm, it's an Australian gutter press organisation reporting "news" to the lardarses of America; LAOA as they shall henceforth be named, and generally of the made up or Daily Wail variety of phobic nature, and you're defending them.

I think that the diversity Fox News brings to news in the USA is a net positive effect, despite the misdeeds they are occasionally guilty of (again, just like other major networks; nobody is perfect).

Seriously?

Re:Just another reason... (1)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011647)

Instead of just saying "seriously", why don't you provide a counterexample? In this context, that would be an example of a Fox News misdeed of which other networks are never guilty. Note that we're excluding the Fox commentary and editorial people, and just talking about the formal news reporting.

Go for it. (Or am I calling your bluff?)

Re:Just another reason... (1)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011753)

You take this Fox crap hook, line & sinker then? This is the sort of news you trust & rely on?

Seriously?

Re:Just another reason... (2)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011809)

Your assumptions serve you poorly. I actually don't regularly listen to or watch Fox News, or any of the other large news networks.

But you didn't answer the question. Why don't you give an example? Are you unable to?

Note to self: (2)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011819)

Do not reply to people on th'internet who think Fox news is "news".

Re:Just another reason... (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011665)

Seriously?
 
I think so. The rest of the media, CNN, NBC, ABC, Washington Post, NYT, are so far up the ass of the Democratic party that they might as well be called it's propaganda wing. It is a positive thing that there is a different view aired on at least one news TV channel (in addition to WSJ and radio of course).

Re:Just another reason... (1, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011395)

Is there any evidence that Fox News has participated in the phone hacking? If none, then isn't the OP simply a dishonest smear ("just another reason to avoid anything related to Fox News like the plague")? It is unfortunate to see Slashdot moderators basing their mod points on their political views alone. Apparently I missed the announcement that it was time for "2 minutes hate"?

Re:Just another reason... (2)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010467)

Same media empire, different speakerphones.

Re:Just another reason... (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010681)

Because there's growing concern that the phone hacking was not limited just to that newspaper, and was used by several N.I. operations, including some in the States, which puts Fox right in the headlights.

Re:Just another reason... (2)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011157)

OK, I can certainly agree to be concerned about that, and hope that any criminal leads are followed up on. Haven't seen any actual evidence though, so OP's Fox-bashing remains unjustified (correct me if I'm wrong).

Re:Just another reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40010853)

Since when was Fox News anything other than gutter-level TV?

Re:Just another reason... (1)

RenderSeven (938535) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010989)

Since when was TV News anything other than gutter-level TV?

FTFY

Re:Just another reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011131)

You seem to be misinformed, they aren't dealing in news as that would require them to tell the truth - they are "merely" dealing in "entertainment" which gives them much freer reins. Unless ofc you are to suggest they lied in court.

Re:Just another reason... (1)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011623)

Since some people may have thought I was trolling*, let me explain what I meant:

1. The OP said "Just another reason to avoid anything related to Fox News like the plague". However, I haven't read any actual evidence that Fox News personnel were involved in the phone hacking. So the OP's statement was at minimum a non sequitur, and appears to furthermore be merely a specimen of irrelevant Fox News bashing. It's fair to say that he/she was trolling.

2. When I said "the legitimate news operation at Fox News", I excluded the editorial segments of the organization such as Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, (formerly) Glenn Beck, etc. Most of the complaints I've heard about Fox News simply don't apply to the formal news operation. And all the legitimate criticisms I've heard about the formal news operation are also true of other large networks like CNN, CBS, ABC, etc. Nobody's perfect.

3. I was legitimately calling out an unsubstantiated and irrelevant attack on Fox News by the OP, and I've noticed that nobody has provided any substantiation yet. It is just assumed by the (teenaged?) moderators of this thread that Fox News is just evil by definition, and whatever bad thing you say about them is automatically true. Anybody who even questions that (like myself) is presumed to be trolling. This is a pretty silly attitude to take.

* But more likely, some people simply moderated my post based on perceiving me to hold a different political view from them. Classy!

Re:Just another reason... (1)

slowLearner (2498468) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012435)

This is the reason why FOX news should not be trusted, http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/ [projectcensored.org]
specifically

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

(my emphasis) So really should you trust ANY news from this media empire?
other info on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wilson_(reporter) [wikipedia.org]

Re:Just another reason... (2)

colfer (619105) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010489)

The WSJ is covering this pretty well, but Fox TV news is not, from what I've read and read about.

Insert (0, Redundant)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010083)

[Insert random "I hate Rupert Murdoch/Fox News/Conservatives/SKY News" comment here]

Re:Insert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40010125)

You were 2 comments too late.

Re:Insert (2)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010195)

But he made up for it in thoroughness.

Re:Insert (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010167)

That a statement or type of statement is predictable or obvious doesn't make it less valid.

Re:Insert (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010667)

As a matter of fact, it does. The same people who bash Fox News and Rupert Murdoch are the ones swooning over [insert random liberal nutbag here], with little pictures of them surrounded by a heart. There's no difference between the two, except for their political beliefs. It's not about phone hacking, or "distorting" the truth, its about which political party you like more. That's why raging Liberals watch MSNBC, because Jeffrey Immelt is a raging liberal. Conservatives watch Fox News, because Murdoch is a conservative. CNN, I have no idea what they believe, but Ted Turner is just weird.

Re:Insert (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010985)

There's no difference between the two, except for their political beliefs.

So care to tell me which liberal canceled Firefly?

Re:Insert (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011793)

And Alcatraz and Terra Nova.....

Touche'

Re:Insert (1)

Falconhell (1289630) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012049)

Well they were no great loss any way.

Re:Insert (5, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011025)

There's no difference between the two, except for their political beliefs.

You seem to have overlooked that this is a criminal case. Rebekah Brookes hasn't been tried yet so we can't say she personally is guilty yet. But the fact that a murdered girl and thousands of others had their phones hacked by the right-wing News International organisation isn't in question, it's established fact.

Re:Insert (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011855)

Is that the best you can do? NBC edited the Zimmerman tape to incite racial tensions. ABC claimed the surveillance tape of Zimmerman showed no injuries, but a forensics guy was able to show the blood running down the back of his head. How many Treyvon Martin-inspired beatings have there been in the U.S. since their fake journalism?

EVERY news organization lies to make money. Yet the only one getting attention on /. is the conservative one. The ABC story never even made it to /. , just like any story proving global warming as a farce never makes it to the front page. Hello 1984.

Re:Insert (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012047)

Who said anything about lying? It's well beyond lying. News International are a criminal organisation. The best I can do? What, news organisations being criminal isn't enough for you?

Truth is you'll give anything right-wing a free pass.

Re:Insert (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012547)

Who said anything about lying? It's well beyond lying. News International are a criminal organisation. The best I can do? What, news organisations being criminal isn't enough for you?

I'd say the numerous assaults and beatings in which the perpetrators said something about "doing it for Treyvon" is enough. The media hyped the issue, turned it into a racial issue (white hispanic?! Seriously?) You want to blame Rupert Murdoch for what one of his subsidiary companies do, when there is no proof that Murdoch knew anything about? So do we blame Obama for everything stupid that the Federal government does? Do you blame Obama for the Soldier that killed 16 Afghanistan civilians? After all, Obama is his boss. No, because of the inherent media bias, your bias on the issue.

Truth is you'll give anything right-wing a free pass.

Wrong. I just apply the same standard to media, I don't care what their views are. Truth is you'll give anything left-wign a free pass.

Re:Insert (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 2 years ago | (#40013501)

And the reporter who presented that story got fired.

Re:Insert (-1, Flamebait)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011471)

OK: "I hate brown brogue shoes"

random (oh how I hate the misuse of that word) enough for you, you twat?

Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. (4, Interesting)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010131)

"She is charged with conspiring with her 49-year-old husband, personal assistant Cheryl Carter, chauffeur Paul Edwards, security man Daryl Jorsling, and News International head of security Mr Hanna to "conceal material" from police between 6 and 19 July. In a second charge Mrs Brooks and Ms Carter are accused of conspiring to remove seven boxes of material from the News International archive between 6 and 9 July. In a third charge, Mr and Mrs Brooks, Mr Hanna, Mr Edwards and Mr Jorsling are accused of conspiring to conceal documents, computers and other electronic equipment from police officers between 15 and 19 July."

For all the people that are being charged, the Murdochs seem quite absent, but anyone without their surname seems to be fair game.

Hopefully someone turns on the Murdochs instead of taking the sword for the family.

Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. (3, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010223)

Hopefully someone turns on the Murdochs instead of taking the sword for the family.

Never happen. When you're the 1%, the 99% take the sword.

Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40010341)

When you're the 1%, the 99% take the sword.

And in this case, when you're in the .01%, 99% of the 1% are fair game too.

Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. (4, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010367)

Remember that the Murdochs are several degrees removed from all of these charges. Now they may be evil masterminds and they may eventually be charged with one or more crimes, but for the moment the police are having to work their way up through the ranks.

I suspect that for anything substantial to stick it's going to take more than one or two NOTW employees pointing at the Murdochs and saying "they made me do it".

Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. (2)

Vanders (110092) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010479)

There's still the emails that James Murdoch hilariously claims to have never seen [bbc.co.uk] , despite him having been an executive director and a group lawyer having CC'd him. Obviously reading an email from your lawyer is something an executive director would just never do.

Rupert Murdoch on the other hand is apparently slipping into senility and is therefore exhibiting periods of forgetfulness and general confusion, the poor man.

Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. (3, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010701)

James Murdoch is most certainly not far removed, and I think it's pretty likely he will be charged soon enough.

Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. (3, Interesting)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011565)

James Murdoch is a clueless fuckwit, did you not watch him @ Levenson, he is a prime example of MBA crass, pathetic "appearance over substance" uselessness. He struggled to put a coherent sentence together, claimed anything contentious wasn't "front of mind" (WTF? walking or breathing isn't front of mind but you still manage do it) better stop there.

Unfortunately most large corporations are led by twats like this, does MS, HP or Nokia not spring to mind?

Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. (1)

nbauman (624611) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012781)

He is a manager, and he involves himself deeply in his properties (like the Wall Street Journal). He's responsible for knowing what's going on. I expect him (and his editors) to be saying, "We're really getting these great scoops. I wonder how we're doing it?"

How can a newspaper editor not know that her reporters are illegally hacking phones?

Editors (and their lawyers) have to know where the information is coming from, for many reasons. They can get sued for libel. Their reporters could be making it up.

Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010431)

I very much doubt the Murdoch's actually committed any of these crimes themselves. They may or may not have ordered people to do it, although I find that unlikely. Much more likely, they simply ordered people to find the information "any way they can" (or other euphemism). You don't generally get to be as rich and powerful as the Murdoch's by being able to be easily associated with criminal activity, after all.

Re:Lots are falling on swords to keep Murdoch in. (3, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010723)

James Murdoch was most definitely informed of what was happening, and though suddenly he's started suffering selective amnesia, clearly authorized payouts to keep the hacking scandal suppressed. In Britain, as in most civilized places, when confronted with evidence of a crime, you are not allowed to just buy off victims and not pick up the phone and let the authorities know.

I'm Shocked (2)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010145)

This almost seems like justice is being served. What's the catch?

Re:I'm Shocked (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010171)

No indictment for any Murdoch.

Re:I'm Shocked (3, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010253)

The Murdochs knew what was going on so made sure they were well protected. It will be hard to meet the burden of proof and get them convicted.

Re:I'm Shocked (2)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011485)

See my signature.

Re:I'm Shocked (1)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011853)

Wanna bet?
Over here in jolly old Britland; company directors are jointly & severally responsible under law.

Re:I'm Shocked (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010183)

This almost seems like justice is being served. What's the catch?

The Murdoch family gets away with it, scott-free.

Re:I'm Shocked (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010303)

She's rich and white and stuff - good laywers, and she's pregnant. Also, she probably has stuff on everyone. She's not going to prison.

Re:I'm Shocked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40010795)

She'll give "birth" to three dragons...

Re:I'm Shocked (2)

mrbester (200927) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011329)

There was a rumour that she knew she'd eventually face charges so she got pregnant in order to help her case, as rich pregnant women with connections to the Prime Minister don't go to jail. She claimed her body clock was "ticking" and such scurrilous accusations denigrated the fine reputation of the UK press.

Lest it be forgot, she was editor of the News of the World, a paper that even fish balked at being wrapped in.

Re:I'm Shocked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40010361)

Although the "Enhanced CRB Check" means that being charged is turning into Extrajudicial Punishment Lite for regular folk, justice is only served when the woman is found guilty and enjoys the same sentence as oh, you know, other guys with similar convictions [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:I'm Shocked (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010421)

There isn't really one.

Now matter how much certain people in and around the government might want to try and protect the Murdochs and their business interests, it's basically impossible for them to do so at the moment without committing political suicide; even the slightest suspicion of support is probably enough to stop you getting re-elected.

Silly working class girl (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40010217)

if she were an upper class twit like Piers Paul Hugh Montefiore O'Brien Morgan she could be working with the excellent CNN.

Charged with perverting the course of justice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40010329)

Now wait a minute.
I thought it's no longer acceptable to charge anyone with perversion these days.
Doesn't she have a right to her own personal perversion? Who can say she wasn't born a natural justice pervert?

Mainstream media (1)

barv (1382797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010439)

Print media is shrinking fast as newspaper readers instead search the www and advertising moves to Google.

Are we witnessing a suicidal counterattack by non Murdoch media in an attempt to divert attention away from their own transgressions.

I get the feeling that Rebecca's real crime was to promote the David Cameron brand.

Re:Mainstream media (4, Interesting)

colfer (619105) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010959)

The Guardian took the lead, quite alone, and has nothing like the "transgressions" of the tabloid press to answer. Obviously this is not where you're going with your comment, but what is more interesting to me is the difference in press freedom between the US and the UK. The Leveson hearings I could not imagine happening in the US Congress. A whole line of questions to Brooks were about the political influence of newspapers. The transgressions of the print media in the UK are worse than in the US, but so is the threat of regulation. I'm sure the Guardian and it supporters are indeed worried about suicidal danger. The Independent does not sound to happy about all this, from what little I have read. But the Murdoch press in the UK is a lot more powerful and vindictive than Fox/WSJ in the US. They really did meet and threaten top party leaders.

"Charge ... Over Voicemail Hacking" (4, Informative)

DeathToBill (601486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010553)

"Involvement in intercepting voicemail messages."

Accuracy has never been very important to /., has it?

They were charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by withholding evidence from police. There is no charge that they were involved in voicemail hacking (though of course there are plenty of allegations that they were).

UK media cannot report it all (4, Interesting)

colfer (619105) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010781)

Non-UK sources provide additional details not allowed in the UK media, due to pre-trial laws. The Guardian broke this story, but now scrupulously points out it is limited in what it can report. Comparing to the NYT, the omitted facts seem to be the strange episode of the discarded briefcase in the parking garage. Brooks's husband was caught red-handed when he tried to reclaim it after someone found it in a dumpster.

Anyone know what else the UK press must omit?

It's the coverup (5, Insightful)

residents_parking (1026556) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010961)

It is the attempted coverup they are being charged for, not the crime of phone hacking. That's what "perverting the course of justice" means here in the UK. It's a common law offence that usually carries a prison sentence, which can be up to life.

Re:It's the coverup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011401)

It is the attempted coverup they are being charged for, not the crime of phone hacking. That's what "perverting the course of justice" means here in the UK. It's a common law offence that usually carries a prison sentence, which can be up to life.

Depending who u are and how good your barrister is (and judge not)!

If it was a "common man" with no "influence" then you would ahve been banged up long ago !

Re:It's the coverup (1)

kiite (1700846) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011749)

It is the attempted coverup they are being charged for, not the crime of phone hacking.

Right, because all they did, AFAIK, is spoof caller-ID information to gain access to the voicemail without a password, and IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL at the time. So the police are charging whomever they can with whatever they can to make the public happy.

All Murdoch had to do was say, "Yeah, we did what we could, within the confines of the law, to get the story," and the whole thing would have blown over in a couple of days. Instead, companies crumble and lives are ruined for something that was in poor taste, but was, largely, a big misconception.

Re:It's the coverup (1)

iainr (43602) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012661)

Right, because all they did, AFAIK, is spoof caller-ID information to gain access to the voicemail without a password, and IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL at the time. .

The "This wasn't illegal at the time" comment has been made a number of times but surely gaining access to voicemail, whether by caller-ID spoofing or guessing passwords is going to be illegal under the computer misuse act which predates RIPA by a decade.

Re:It's the coverup (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011847)

As Nixon pointed out, "it's not the crime, it's the coverup". Ironic that he gave Roger Ailes one of his first jobs in DC. Roger Ailes of NewsCorp...

As a hacker.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011023)

I really wish the media would stop referring to this as "hacking". It's just listening to the voicemail of people who are too stupid to change the default password, isn't it?

Re:As a hacker.... (1)

wavedeform (561378) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011359)

I really wish the media would stop referring to this as "hacking". It's just listening to the voicemail of people who are too stupid to change the default password, isn't it?

I wish people would stop referring to it as "stealing". It's just taking the stuff of people who are too stupid to lock their doors, isn't it?

Re:As a hacker.... (2)

mrbester (200927) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011371)

It's a more correct use than usual as hacking means "unauthorised access"

The best defence (1)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011093)

"I wasn't aware of anyone doing anything wrong."

Then, when given proof that you should have been: "I didn't read it."

Worked for James Murdoch.

Re:The best defence (1)

mrbester (200927) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011349)

Works even better when you reply *in detail* to something you haven't read.

Call me when she's convicted (1)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011207)

She had to be charged to avoid an outcry. Kind of like the Zimmerman/Martin case on this side of the pond, everyone knows they'll be acquitted but we have to go through the formalities to assuage the blogosphere

Oh the irony (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40011433)

Shes whinning she cant get a fair trial due to all the media attention.

Payback (1)

lucm (889690) | more than 2 years ago | (#40011591)

Not getting caught for a long time does not mean you got away. Ask Kadhafi.

Looks like she was hot once (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40012353)

Subject pretty much sums it up, wonder what she looked like at 30 :)

I see the reduced centensing between the lines (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012723)

A personal assistant and a chauffeur? How much does anyone want to be the personal assistant and chauffeur spend more time in jail?

Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40012759)

This is ironic because it was the NewsOfTheWorld that caught Lord Jeffrey Archer out and caused him to get done for perverting the course of justice which made him end up in prison. This charge is usually worse than actually doing the crime (which I dont think she's technically done before today). (Though really with the Archer 1987 trial the Judge Mr Justice Caulfield seemed to have been biased against the prostitute calling Archer a liar in court probably because the judge didn't like prostitutes).

Special Note To Women: CYA (1)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 2 years ago | (#40012997)

If you are going to do anything even remotely illegal, or you even suspect it might be illegal someplace on this planet, then make SURE you have an iron-clad butt-cover.

Because at the end of the day, male criminals will ALWAYS toss you an anchor, will ALWAYS shove you out of the lifeboat, and will ALWAYS stab you in the side to make sure you limp along and bleed for the sharks.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>