"How much more humiliation can Rupert Murdoch take?" Never enough, say I, but I also say, why don't we find out?

Not fit to run a major company. It is a damning judgment on Rupert Murdoch, a threat to his British assets — and a headache for Britain's government.

The majority verdict by a divided committee of British lawmakers brings more scrutiny of Murdoch's holding in British Sky Broadcasting — already under investigation by the U.K.'s broadcast regulator — and could increase calls for the breakup of his British media empire.

"How much more humiliation can Rupert Murdoch take?" asked commentator Roy Greenslade in Wednesday's Evening Standard newspaper.

And if Murdoch is unfit, what does that say about Prime Minister David Cameron and other politicians who courted the media baron for his newspapers' election-swinging power and, until revelations of tabloid phone hacking exploded, were poised to let Murdoch have full control of one of the country's most powerful broadcasters?

-- the start of an an AP report today carried by Fox Noise (yes, Fox Noise!) as "Murdoch, politicians under pressure after report"

by Ken

It's the question being echoed 'round the world: "How much more humiliation can Rupert Murdoch take?" And if at first it sounds as if it's being asked sympathetically, as in "Really now, how much more should the poor bloke, I should point out that the head on the London Evening Standard "media analysis" by Roy Greenslade (a professor of journalism at City University London and Guardian blogger) which leads off with this question is: "Murdoch has been humiliated but much worse is yet to come."

Now you have to give Fox Noise a grudging amount of credit for not ignoring the story, even if its AP coverage focuses on the joint culpability of our Rupert the master coopter and corrupter with the people he worked so hard to coopt and corrupt. to the suggestion that David Cameron is just as unfit to govern the U.K. as Rupert is to run a major media company, I would just say, "Welecome to the party."

Media Analysis: Murdoch has been humiliated but much worse is yet to come

Roy Greenslade
02 May 2012

How much more humiliation can Rupert Murdoch take?

Yesterday, when the Culture, Media and Sports Select Committee said in conclusion to its investigation into News International that he “exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on at his company”, it was yet another day of abasement in a sequence going back to July last year when he visited the parents of murdered girl Milly Dowler to apologise for his journalists’ activities.

Ever since the revelation News of the World hacked into her mobile phone to listen to her voicemail messages, Murdoch has been on the back foot.

Every attempt to regain the initiative has failed. He closed the News of the World, accepted the “resignations” of senior executives and set up a special internal committee at News International to work with the police.

The result was to stoke further the fires of speculation. At the same time, he lost the confidence of politicians. Negative mentions of his name on TV and radio suggest public sentiment is against him too. And his televised public performances — in front of both the Select Committee and the Leveson Inquiry — did nothing to assuage the widespread hostility.

But the real crisis for Murdoch, on either side of the Atlantic, is altogether more troubling. Here, Ofcom is investigating whether BSkyB is a fit and proper company to hold a broadcast licence while in the States, shareholders will be wondering whether Rupert Murdoch should continue to be both chairman and chief executive of News Corp. Similarly, should his son James be a board director and chief operating officer?

I don’t believe the Ofcom inquiry is as problematic as concerns raised in America. I cannot imagine for a moment that the broadcaster faces any real threat to its future.

But in America, the reputational damage to the Murdochs and, by implication, to News Corp is hugely significant. Pressures on Rupert to sell off News International will grow, though the papers can’t be offloaded until all the inquiries and litigation have concluded. Who would bid for a company with so many financial liabilities? In the short term, what cannot be ignored by concerned News Corp shareholders is that their company is irreparably tainted by the hacking scandal.

What the MPs have said, in effect, is that senior executives at the company’s UK division — whether knowingly or not — failed to act appropriately when confronted by the discovery of illegal and unethical activities.

Nothing can absolve the Murdochs from their responsibilities. The buck stops with them. They might take heart from the split among MPs on the Select Committee, which resulted in the Conservative members refusing to sign up to the line about Rupert not being “a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company”.

But it is hardly a matter for celebration. There is no getting away from the fact that the majority verdict was damning. And anyone reading between the lines will surely judge that both Murdochs were heading a company that allowed a culture of unethical journalism to flourish and then, when the culprits were found out, failed to realise a cover-up was occurring despite allegations published in the Guardian, the Independent and the New York Times, and broadcast on the BBC and Channel 4.

Sure, these were rival media organisations. But did the Murdochs really fail to realise the import of those allegations? Did they not suspect there was more to it than mere rivalry?

Even if they did not, they cannot escape blame. Note the words of the select committee’s majority: the culture of the company’s newspapers “permeated from the top” and “speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International”.

As we know, Murdoch Sr quickly took steps to seal himself off from any possible personal involvement in what he realised had been a cover-up by letting certain key figures depart.

During his Leveson questioning, he did not name former News International chief Les Hinton but his references to him and to former News of the World editor Colin Myler, and the paper’s legal manager, Tom Crone, meant their identities were never in doubt.

All three were heavily criticised by MPs and may yet receive a formal parliamentary rebuke for having been economical with the truth when giving evidence to the Select Committee. They shouldn’t, however, take the rap alone.

I would just add one point. I don't think our Rupert's perception of his position with regard to the law is as mysterious as Roy seems to think. At different times and under different circumstances I think Rupert believes:

* Yes indeed, he's above the law.

* At this point in time, in many jurisdictions he more or less is the law.

* And at the very least, he owns the law -- and has paid top dollar (and pound) for his ownership stake.


UPDATE: IS OUR RUPERT GOING TO WALK?

In the Comments, our friend me raises the always-pertinent question of what actual price Rupert M has paid or will ultimately pay. I've thrown out some thoughts there in response.

#