Murdoch - unfit to have any role in the UK media

[Freakbro]

Well, that would only make any kind of sense if Newscorp was a ponzi scheme...

Straw man, you asked "how can any individual be unfit to run a company that he created, turns a huge profit, is fantastically successful, and who owns most of the damned thing?"

I pointed out how and that was just one example. I never said that Newscorp was, or needed to be, a ponzi scheme for it's execs to not be fit and proper to run it....

Actually they can't just dismantle it if they were so inclined as they so learned with Microsoft.

The FBI investigation going on could make what is happening to Murdoch over here look like a mild reprimand (Which is probably all it will be )

News Corp. executives are at risk of being found criminally or civilly liable for phone hacking that originated in Britain under the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and they are at risk under federal wire-tapping and state privacy laws if it is found that U.S. citizens such as Sept. 11 victims were targeted

 

[Castiel]

Personally, no, I don't think he did. However that does not relieve him of his corporate responsibility..

Then you have to prove that he is guilty of absconding from that corporate responsibility, taking into consideration that the activities of subsidiaries to which he did not make direct, personal decisions for are not part of his specific responsibilities on a personal level.....Newscorp is a shareholder of News International and to a lesser extent BSKYB....with regard to News International and the phone hacking the responsibility for corporate governance and responsibilty lies with the CEO of News International at the time of the hacking charges....Rebekka Brooks.

I am not sure they can, but the furore regarding this issue is likely to make shareholders sit up and take notice.

Precisely, it is only the owners (shareholders) of a company that can oust it's chairman etc.....Neither the Govt or OFCOM can remove Rupert Murdoch.

 

[RomanNose]

Isn't it anti-competitive to let them have sky? Why can't the laws that prohibit monopolies be used in this case?
The reason why I don't want Murdoch taking sky is that they already have too much power.

 

[Dave M]

Why is it anti-competitive?

 

[Castiel]

Straw man, you asked "how can any individual be unfit to run a company that he created, turns a huge profit, is fantastically successful, and who owns most of the damned thing?"

I pointed out how and that was just one example. I never said that Newscorp was, or needed to be, a ponzi scheme for it's execs to not be fit and proper to run it....

You pointed to an illegal operation that was acting as an investment company as comparative to News Corp.....it is not even an example, as the company was a front for an illegal ponzu scheme and so it was shut down and it's owner jailed.

THAT is the strawman, not my pointing out that the example you gave is bogus.

The FBI investigation going on could make what is happening to Murdoch over here look like a mild reprimand (Which is probably all it will be )

The FBI are investigating a subsidary of Newscorp, not Newscorp itself....it will be the execs of that subsidary that would be charged directly rather than Rupert Murdoch himself, in any event it would have to be proven that Rupert Murdoch was personally involved in the decisions that led up to any lawbreaking....something that there is no evidence of. All that would happen to Newscorp as the owners is they would be potentially liable for millions of dollars worth of fines.....

The only Murdoch who could conceivably charged with anything on a personal level under US law is James Murdoch as he was Chairman of News International and then only if Duncan Larcombe is found guilty of a criminal offense that complies with FCPA....why do you think James Murdoch stepped down, and is likely to step down from Newscorp also, because in doing so he limits the options of the FBI to prosecute him or Newscorp.

Remember that the very same MP group who said he was unfit also did not censure either Rupert Murdoch or James Murdoch formally, which indicates this is a politically driven rather than a legally enforcable ruling.

 

[Freakbro]

Then you have to prove that he is guilty of absconding from that corporate responsibility, taking into consideration that the activities of subsidiaries to which he did not make direct, personal decisions for are not part of his specific responsibilities on a personal level.....Newscorp is a shareholder of News International and to a lesser extent BSKYB....with regard to News International and the phone hacking the responsibility for corporate governance and responsibilty lies with the CEO of News International at the time of the hacking charges....Rebekka Brooks.

Well, actually don't you only have to prove beyond reasonable doubt...

And there really can't be much reasonable doubt left that Rupert and James Murdoch knew what practices were going on..

Precisely, it is only the owners (shareholders) of a company that can oust it's chairman etc.....Neither the Govt or OFCOM can remove Rupert Murdoch.

Maybe not directly, but through their actions they could easily influence the actions of shareholders. ie: remove the Murdochs licences to be a broadcaster.

 

[Castiel]

Isn't it anti-competitive to let them have sky? Why can't the laws that prohibit monopolies be used in this case?
The reason why I don't want Murdoch taking sky is that they already have too much power.

It is not anti-competitive because Newscorp only own 39% of BSKYB. They don't run it, they are the major shareholder.

 

[Castiel]

Well, actually don't you only have to prove beyond reasonable doubt...

And there really can't be much reasonable doubt left that Rupert and James Murdoch knew what practices were going on..

Even if they can prove that, they still cannot remove him from his company, they can only fine the company itself....which in this case is News International and the CEO was Rebekka Brooks and it's chairman James Brooks, so they was responsible for the corporate governance of the company, not its shareholders.

Maybe not directly, but through their actions they could easily influence the actions of shareholders. ie: remove the Murdochs licences to be a broadcaster.

The Murdochs do not personally hold the broadcasting licence, the company do....that company being BSKYB, which Newscorp is only a shareholder of, not the executive board of.

The point I'm trying to make is not whether Rupert Murdoch is fit to run Newscorp or not (although purely on benefit to the shareholders he clearly is given that he created it out of nothing) but that the Govt can't do any thing about it either way.

 

[Freakbro]

You pointed to an illegal operation that was acting as an investment company as comparative to News Corp.....it is not even an example, as the company was a front for an illegal ponzu scheme and so it was shut down and it's owner jailed.

THAT is the strawman, not my pointing out that the example you gave is bogus.

I respectfully disagree with that interpretation and your intial assertion

The FBI are investigating a subsidary of Newscorp, not Newscorp itself....

Is that so? As everything I have heard, and all the news stories a google now bring up, say it's Newscorp they are investigating.

And even if it turns out to be a subsidiary, there does seem to be a pattern going on here doesn't there....

Remember that the very same MP group who said he was unfit also did not censure either Rupert Murdoch or James Murdoch formally, which indicates this is a politically driven rather than a legally enforcable ruling.

I have no doubt there are plenty of people revelling in the ability to stick one on Murdoch politically even if they can't get him legally. Now his grip on the elite seems to have weakened I bet plenty of people have a score to settle.

 

[Werewolf]

Castiel, IIRC under corperate law executives have a responsibility to be aware of what the company is up to.
That includes overseeing things to make sure that nothing illegal is going on below them, and to assist in preventing/dealing with such matters.

So by the sounds of it Murdoch has either failed that by:
A: Not being aware of what his company was doing to the extent required for his position under the law (both here and in America and much of the rest of the world).
B: By participating in a cover up and potentially having knowingly lied to the government about his knowledge and/or involvement in it.

Basically, even if he didn't know of anything at the time, he should have become aware of it when it became a story, and made very sure of things before he was first called to account for the company.

Remember there are also the allegations of improper payments to government officials, if the FBI in the US do go ahead with that, they've already got admissions on camera from senior execs of at least some payments (which where very quickly ammended by the lawyers present).
If the FBI do find the company was involved in paying police officers for information, it is a major crime in the US an could result in major problems for his operations there.

 

[wildman]

Maybe not directly, but through their actions they could easily influence the actions of shareholders. ie: remove the Murdochs licences to be a broadcaster.

this last statement is rather 'Witch Hunty' ? The licence is not held personally by Murdoch it is held by the company. I am not one of his biggest fans, but this is almost turning out into another banker bashing scenario where people just want to see someone take a good hiding over something even if they were not the perpetrators.

In the case of the hacking scandal the buck should stop with who ever was the editor in chief of the paper at the time for failing to have knowledge of his journo's operations and with the CEO of the company behind the paper (Brooks) for failing to control her editors.

We could line the Murdoch's up against a wall and shoot them and nothing would actually be resolved, save the irrational rantings of people who despise them for what ever reasons.

Most of this i fear is based on jealousy of success, rather than any moral high ground, similar to the irrational hatred everyone today has for anyone who works or is associated within the banking or financial sectors.

 

[Castiel]

Is that so? As everything I have heard, and all the news stories a google now bring up, say it's Newscorp they are investigating.

And even if it turns out to be a subsidiary, there does seem to be a pattern going on here doesn't there....

The investigation is into a Russian subsidary that has since been sold, and the ongoing investigation into News International, which according to the FBI has so far shown no evidence that Newscorp was complicit or guilty of any wrongdoing that would come under the FCPA, such as hacking 9/11 victims.

In any case even if there was evidence to pursue a case, the case would be against the executives of News International, not News Corp...News Corp would only be liable to a fine (albeit potentially a rather large one)....Rupert Murdoch is isolated from that, James Murdoch however isn't, although the current impression is that he will extricate himself from Newscorp and escape any personal charges even if he is found to be connected directly to Duncan Larcombe with regard responsibility..

I have no doubt there are plenty of people revelling in the ability to stick one on Murdoch politically even if they can't get him legally. Now his grip on the elite seems to have weakened I bet plenty of people have a score to settle.

No doubt. Although I expect that Rupert Murdoch is somewhat made of Teflon as everyone will realise.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

We need a fox news in this country - only having left leaning news outlets isn't healthy.

Imagine this forum with only Stockhausen and no Dolph?

It would be like lager with no mini cheddars, peaches without cream, morecambe but no wise etc.

 

[dowie]

Precisely, it is only the owners (shareholders) of a company that can oust it's chairman etc.....Neither the Govt or OFCOM can remove Rupert Murdoch.

Its a Parliamentary committee, not the Govt... and yes while they don't have any teeth Ofcom could do some serious damage if they find him to not be a fit and proper person considering the desire of the company to acquire more of BSKYB. Shareholders, some of whom are already frustrated, will get rather more worried and he'll face calls to stand down.

 

[Castiel]

Castiel, IIRC under corperate law executives have a responsibility to be aware of what the company is up to.
That includes overseeing things to make sure that nothing illegal is going on below them, and to assist in preventing/dealing with such matters.

You are right, however Rupert Murdoch is not an executive of News International or BSKYB, he is the Chairman of the company that is their major shareholder.

This means that it would be Rebekah Brooks and James Murdoch that would have that responsibility as the CEO and Chairman respectively of News International, although James Murdoch may have been a non executive Chairman as he was for BSKYB so insulating him somewhat.

So by the sounds of it Murdoch has either failed that by:
A: Not being aware of what his company was doing to the extent required for his position under the law (both here and in America and much of the rest of the world).
B: By participating in a cover up and potentially having knowingly lied to the government about his knowledge and/or involvement in it.

Basically, even if he didn't know of anything at the time, he should have become aware of it when it became a story, and made very sure of things before he was first called to account for the company.

Rupert Murdoch is the Chairman of the company that is a majority shareholder in the companies under investigation, while it can be argued that he retains some level of responsibility for that it is also clear that he has made decisions as the majority shareholder and Parent Company to address the issues, including the closure of the News of the World which Jmaes Murdoch has to do as Rupert Murdoch was not directly responsible for News International the company that owned the NotW.....he effectively exercised his power as a majority shareholder rather than an executive board member of News International.

Is there actually any evidence that Rupert Murdoch was complicit or had direct knowledge of a cover-up or that he has lied to those in authority....remember he was under no obligation to talk to the enquiry at all.

Remember there are also the allegations of improper payments to government officials, if the FBI in the US do go ahead with that, they've already got admissions on camera from senior execs of at least some payments (which where very quickly ammended by the lawyers present).
If the FBI do find the company was involved in paying police officers for information, it is a major crime in the US an could result in major problems for his operations there.

Again, this would only directly effect James Murdoch personally and even then it would be impossible unless the FBI find evidence that the phone hacking extended to American Citizens in the US such as the 9/11 victims...something that the FBI has admitted they do not have. News Corp could be fined substantially, but Rupert Murdoch can not be directly charged with the actions of a company to which he is not an executive of.....otherwise they would be able to charge every shareholder that owned shares in Newscorp or any of it's subsidiaries, including pension funds and the holders of them.....which they obviously cannot do.

The long and the short of it is that unless the FBI can prove that Newscorp has actually bribed anyone abroad or in the US directly and that Rupert Murdoch was directly responsible or could have reasonably had knowledge of it then he is pretty untouchable......

 

[Castiel]

Its a Parliamentary committee, not the Govt... and yes while they don't have any teeth Ofcom could do some serious damage if they find him to not be a fit and proper person considering the desire of the company to acquire more of BSKYB. Shareholders, some of whom are already frustrated, will get rather more worried and he'll face calls to stand down.

All they can do is block Newscorp from acquiring a greater share of BSKYB, something that has already been mooted.

They cannot do anything to Rupert Murdoch or Newscorp. The shareholders of Newscorp are pretty toothless as well because while Murdoch only holds 12% of the shares in Newscorp, he owns 40% of the voting stock and the only single shareholder that owns a significant share is Al-Waleed bin Talal who owns 7% of the voting stock and is fiercely loyal to the Murdoch's. You would have to get every single class B shareholder to vote against the Murdoch's and that is pretty improbable.

In all likelihood I think we will see the resignation and distancing of James Murdoch from News Corp, this will limit the scope of the DoJ investigation and probably, if commentators are to be believed, remove the threat of any direct FBI charges against the Murdoch's allowing an out of court settlement regarding a fine. (if the FBI have any evidence, which is not yet known)

 

[Danthus]

At the end of the day Murdoch has had a good run and made a lot of money, now poor governance has caught up with him.

You play with fire you are going to get burned at some point.

 

[Nitefly]

How can any individual be unfit to run a company that he created, turns a huge profit, is fantastically successful, and who owns most of the damned thing?

What are the Govt going to do, buy Newscorp?

Ridiculous nonsense, any corporation only has undue influence because the politicians succumb to it...they should get their own house in order before judging who is fit to run what.

If people are frequently exposed to something or are infact expected to use a service, do you not think that these things should in some way be regulated to protect individuals and parties from undue harshness?

I'm not opposed to the regulation of the media at all, just as I'm not opposed to the regulation of financial services, legal professional bodies, company regulation, general medical council.... Etc.

 

[Castiel]

If people are frequently exposed to something or are infact expected to use a service, do you not think that these things should in some way be regulated to protect individuals and parties from undue harshness?

I'm not opposed to the regulation of the media at all, just as I'm not opposed to the regulation of financial services, legal professional bodies, company regulation, general medical council.... Etc.

You regulate the industry and the company, not the individual. If the company is in breach of regulations then the company should be held liable for those breaches....you cannot simply remove an owner from his assets simply because you feel like it without any evidence that the individual is personally liable or acted improperly without the consent of his board and any regulation that allows such a thing I am opposed to. You can't simply come along and say, "sorry, you are deemed unfit by a parliamentary committee, you forfeit your company and position forthwith".....especially when the person they have deemed unfit is not the person who runs the companies that are under investigation, he only owns a share of them and runs the company that is their major shareholder or parent. It would be good also if the investigation was actually concluded before parliamentary committees or whoever started making decisions or accusations.

 

[stockhausen]

I suspect that there are no corporate lawyers posting in this thread and if there are, they are probably not the expensive high-flyers that would be used by the Dirty Digger or his cronies so all the guff about his being blameless and safe from any action is pretty suspect (i.e. meaningless uninformed speculation).


As I understand it, Ofcom applies a “fit and proper” test when granting someone a broadcasting licence. If it decides that the applicant company, its controlling shareholders or directors do not pass this test it can take away that broadcasting licence.

The CCMS Committee found News Corp guilty of "huge failings of corporate governance" and judged that its instinct throughout had been "to cover up rather than seek out wrongdoing and discipline the perpetrators".

It remains to be seen whether Ofcom will actually decide to remove BSkyB's broadcasting licence or force the Dirty Digger to pick up his ball and walk. Quite clearly Cameron and the Tories aren't going to do anything about it.


I suspect that the real difficulty for the Dirty Digger is going to be if the FBI decide to investigate him for not noticing that his company was bribing foreign government officials. It is my understanding that the Americans are less relaxed about dodgy foreigners controlling their media than we are which is why the tax-dodging carpet-bagging Dirty Digger took up American citizenship.


Either way, the Dirty Digger's involvement in media here and perhaps in the US is going to take a big hit - which can only be a good thing