Blogs and Stories
Murdoch's Crazy Gang
Wade is said to be the apple of Murdoch’s eye: He has just promoted her to be chief executive of all his British newspaper operations and she has become a leading figure in London’s incestuous social-political scene. The guest list at her recent wedding to a racehorse trainer in the lush Cotswolds—London’s version of the Hamptons—read like a who’s who of British power: Both Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, attended, along with much of the inner Murdoch family (including the old man himself), rival editors, TV personalities, and even Madonna’s ex, Guy Ritchie.
The 41-year-old Wade is now the most powerful woman in the British media. Her social life is flamboyant—she once apparently thumped her previous lover, a famous British soap star, and thinks nothing of flying to Morocco or Venice for dinner with her new beau, according to the social magazine Tatler. Since Murdoch has previously hated this kind of publicity for his editors and had no time for the sort of country toff she has just married, he must really like her.
Coulson is much lower key. He resigned as editor of the News of the World when his royal correspondent was jailed, saying he knew nothing about how he got his stories but took responsibility for what happened on his watch. The Guardian’s allegations have been given a political twist since Coulson is now David Cameron’s spin-doctor-in-chief. Coulson is sticking to his “I knew nothing” line, but since there are reports that almost 30 of his newsroom staff were at one time using the services of PIs, many have concluded that he must either have been complicit—or incompetent. Labour politicians, battered by scandals of their own, are enthusiastically calling for his scalp.
The spotlight now falls on a new parliamentary inquisition. This week it has called Coulson to testify, along with Les Hinton, who ran Murdoch’s newspapers in London—now his big cheese at The Wall Street Journal—who originally told parliament it was all the work of a couple of rogues. All of London is waiting for this show trial but don’t hold your breath—British parliamentary committees have neither the power nor the skills of congressional committees.
Wade has led the Murdoch counterattack, claiming that the Guardian has not been able to prove that illegality was widespread and insisting that it was all the work of a few bad apples. The Guardian has yet to prove that the problem was endemic. But if it wasn’t, why did the Murdoch papers pay so much to keep the information in its out-of-court settlement secret?
In America, such a story would create a crisis for journalism. In Britain, nobody seems to care very much. The weekend papers gave it little coverage, perhaps because they’ve all used PIs, with varying degrees of justification.
But the media might not be the final arbiter on its own behavior. The famous names who think they’ve had their privacy violated are being encouraged to bring what in America would be called a class-action suit against the Murdoch papers. In Britain it’s known as a consolidated claim and it could unseal what Murdoch has paid $1.6m to bury. It could result in a multimillion dollar lawsuit, which even Murdoch could struggle to afford.
Andrew Neil is a publisher and broadcaster working out of London, New York, Dubai, and the south of France. He is chairman and editor in chief of Press Holdings Media Group, publishers of The Spectator, Spectator Business, and Apollo.









Great account. Shocks enough in the original Guardian scoop, but to read Neil's report on how the rest of the British press reacted is grim. Bear in mind Murdoch owns much of the British press - forget the total circulation he (and now she) controls but it's a lot.
This article details just the tip of the iceberg of the danger of Rupert Murdoch's media conglomerate. European countries are far more interested in defamation than the united states so they have afar more developed and restrictive legal framework for publishers; on the other hand we in the united states have greater interests in personal privacy therefore we have a complex multi tiered legal framework related to eavedroping and wiretapping; felonies under both federal and state law with also penalties in civil court for victims. however Mr Murdochs now has been given leave of our government to operate out of compliance relating to trust and monopoly law and since that event they have added ownership of other more important media outlets such as dow jones/ wall street journal. They have staffed these media outlets with nutball right wingers and totally slant the news . Time to enforce our laws and force them to divest both news papers and television outlets.
Isn't it incredible that no one ever knows anything when something goes wrong? For me, the question is not whether Andy Coulson was involved or not in the phone-tapping scandal, but that as editor of a newspaper he SHOULD have known what his journalists were up to. Likewise, where were the financial controls that allowed money to be paid to a long list of investigators? Are we also to assume that all the journalists involved were acting alone and just happened to share private eyes?
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.