I read with interest of
the eventual laying of charges in the UK against Rebekah Brooks, former CEO of
News International, a subsidiary of the News Corp. empire owned by the
increasingly out-of-touch Rupert Murdoch. Ms. Brooks was charged along with
another six, one of whom is her husband, with conspiracy to pervert the course
of justice by concealing important evidence from the Metropolitan Police. All of
this arising out of the now infamous phone hacking scandal by both the "News of the
World" and "Sun" newspapers, published by News International. It is perhaps not
necessary to mention that the word "news" in relation to these two newspapers
is hardly appropriate: bottom-feeding muck-raking lowest-common-denominator
reporting being what sold the papers. But as the song goes: "The people want
what the people get, and the people get what the people want". The hacking
scandal involved a variety of celebrities, politicians, veterans and even crime
victims, which led to a public outcry that enough was
enough.
This story has had legs way beyond what many thought
it had, after the initial outcry and investigation, followed by the mandatory
slaps on wrists, one or two minor players punished, and all the "bigshots"
safely ensconced in their country mansions or on their uber-luxurious yachts.
But you know, ol' Rupert Murdoch does not outright close down a major newspaper
that is making him money, if he does not smell trouble brewing. All the denials
in the world from all the senior executives didn't appease the "bigshots" in
other walks of life, including the authorities. Additionally, the closeness of
Ms. Brooks, her husband and Mr. Murdoch to the British Prime Minister, David
Cameron, no doubt was believed to be a security blanket that no one would have
the authority or balls to rip off. Wrong. It actually has been a total
embarrassment to David Cameron, one that many naturally believe he wanted
covered up, given his sightings at public gatherings whispering into the ear of
Ms. Brooks, or having Mr. Murdoch delivered to a side door of Ten Downing
Street.
Unquestionably,
when you own News Corp., you have a voice that has an extremely wide reach, and
inevitably, given your power in actually persuading the nation to get certain
people elected, those very same people court your approval and the publicity
that goes along with it. It becomes a circle of power: you can get me elected as
the new Prime Minister, and you know it, and I can confer on you a
respectability in higher circles that you want so badly, and I know it. Which is
all very well, and is no doubt business-as-usual in politics, except that the
people who control the news and what it's content is are only useful to you when
they like you and you have something that they want. If the Beast suddenly finds
itself hungry with no food supply, it might just turn around and snap your head
off, with one swipe of it's massive claw. Or when the beast goes rogue, or becomes rotten, on the
inside, then it can turn against you, albeit unintentionally, by ruining your
own reputation due to previous tight association with it. This is what happened
to Mr. Cameron, and so he had no choice but to let the wheels of justice drive
into the face of the wheels of conspiracy, and the outcome is more or less a
foregone conclusion.
Of course it raises all sorts of questions about the
level of power that people like Murdoch or Brooks achieve, even at the level of
a country's government, but that is a much bigger discussion and one that is
relevant all over the world. News, or more specifically, those who control the
news, will always have a power that scares people in the so-called real
positions of power, because even if you are totally squeaky clean (a very rare
thing) there is sure to be some people close to you who are
not.
The arrogance of the Murdochs and Ms. Brooks in the
face of serious investigations was not something that helped their case, and in
the end, nor was any perceived sense that "our David" will back us up and make
this go away. They pushed the envelope so far beyond the pale, including hacking
into a dead girl's cell phone, giving her poor mother false hope that she was
still alive, when she was already dead. But the real kicker that probably sealed
their fate was the fact that they hacked a very prominent member of the Royal
Family and released some information that had to have come from phone hacking.
How stupid do you have to be to realize that with that kind of power, wealth and reach at her
disposal, the Queen of England herself was bound to look over her glasses
sternly and demand: "Bring me the heads of those responsible, and if Mr. Cameron
thinks he can intervene to protect his buddy Murdoch or that redheaded she-devil
Brooks, bring me his head also!" Trust me, you don't F with HRH, or the Royal
Family, in any tacky, brazen, contemptuous, sloppy manner, especially if you are
the high profile executive of a sleazy lowlife rag, and expect to be able to
continue such activities.
While ol' Rupert may still be
able to claim that he certainly was not key to the day-to-day running and
reporting practices of a rag like "News of the World", his son is not quite so
immune to such scrutiny, and for sure, Ms. Brooks, by her own alleged behavior,
simply had to be aware of what was going on. But the money was pouring in, and
like all such types, that was all that mattered in the end. - Kevin Mc
No comments:
Post a Comment