DOSSIÊ ESPECIAL CASO MURDOCH

TEXTOS RETIRADOS DA IMPRENSA

nacional e internacional
_____________________________________________________________________

ÍNDICE
Página 3
Murdoch's Watergate?

Página 6
From the Gutter, Into the Sewer

Página 8
RIP the PCC
The Press Complaints Commission is another victim of the phone hacking
scandal

Página 9
La crisis de 'News of The World' salpica a Cameron

Página 11
Hugh Grant and the unlikely cast of characters in the phone-hacking crisis

Página 14
BSkyB shares fall £1.8bn on fears about 'fit and proper' Ofcom test

Página 16
News Corp's non-executive directors

Página 18
Phone Hacking: Police probe suspected deletion of emails by NI executive

Página 20
A special report on the news industry: The end of mass media

Página 22
American newspapers are in trouble, but in emerging markets the news industry
is roaring ahead

Página 26
The internet has turned the news industry upside down, making it more
participatory, social, diverse and partisan—as it used to be before the arrival of the
mass media, says Tom Standage

Página 30
Britain's phone-hacking scandal

1
 Página 32
Labour Party Vows to Fight Murdoch‘s Bid to Take Over Satellite Company

Página 34
Scandals Redefine Rules for the Press in Europe

Página 37
E-mails sugerem que donos de tabloide já poderiam saber de grampos; grupo
nega

Página 39
Q&A: Super-injunctions

Página 41
Última edição de tabloide inglês vende 4,5 milhões e chega perto de recorde

Página 43
Libel laws explained

Página 44
Britain‘s media must start policing itself

Página 45
Read all about it! All the news is bad news

Página 48
Governo britânico pede que Murdoch desista de comprar operadora a cabo.
Parlamento deve convidar Murdoch a explicar escândalo da obtenção ilegal de
informações.

Página 50
Murdoch é pressionado a rever compra de TV

Página 51
Murdoch retira oferta de compra pela "BSkyB", diz "Sky News"
Agencia EFE

Página 52
Senador democrata quer saber se grupo de Murdoch espionou nos EUA

Página 53
In Retreat, Murdoch Drops TV Takeover

Página 57
A globalização da ética de imprensa

Página 59
News Corp. Newspapers May Face U.S. Inquiry

Página 61
FBI Opens News Corp. Hacking Probe

2
Newsweek
July 11, 2011

Murdoch’s Watergate?
His anything-goes approach has spread through journalism like a
contagion. Now it threatens to undermine the influence he so covets.
by Carl Bernstein

The hacking scandal currently shaking Rupert Murdoch‘s empire will surprise only
those who have willfully blinded themselves to that empire‘s pernicious influence on
journalism in the English-speaking world. Too many of us have winked in amusement
at the salaciousness without considering the larger corruption of journalism and
politics promulgated by Murdoch Culture on both sides of the Atlantic.
The facts of the case are astonishing in their scope. Thousands of private phone
messages hacked, presumably by people affiliated with the Murdoch-owned News of
the World newspaper, with the violated parties ranging from Prince William and actor
Hugh Grant to murder victims and families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The arrest of Andy Coulson, former press chief to Prime Minister David Cameron, for
his role in the scandal during his tenure as the paper‘s editor. The arrest (for the
second time) of Clive Goodman, the paper‘s former royals editor. The shocking July 7
announcement that the paper would cease publication three days later, putting
hundreds of employees out of work. Murdoch‘s bid to acquire full control of cable-
news company BSkyB placed in jeopardy. Allegations of bribery, wiretapping, and
other forms of lawbreaking—not to mention the charge that emails were deleted by
the millions in order to thwart Scotland Yard‘s investigation.
All of this surrounding a man and a media empire with no serious rivals for political
influence in Britain—especially, but not exclusively, among the conservative Tories
who currently run the country. Almost every prime minister since the Harold Wilson
era of the 1960s and ‘70s has paid obeisance to Murdoch and his unmatched power.
When Murdoch threw his annual London summer party for the United Kingdom‘s
political, journalistic, and social elite at the Orangery in Kensington Gardens on June
16, Prime Minister Cameron and his wife, Sam, were there, as were Labour leader Ed
Miliband and assorted other cabinet ministers.
Murdoch associates, present and former—and his biographers—have said that one of
his greatest long-term ambitions has been to replicate that political and cultural power
in the United States. For a long time his vehicle was the New York Post—not
profitable, but useful for increasing his eminence and working a wholesale change not
only in American journalism but in the broader culture as well. Page Six, emblematic
in its carelessness about accuracy or truth or context—but oh-so-readable—became
the model for the gossipization of an American press previously resistant to even
considering publishing its like. (Murdoch accomplished a similar debasement of the
airwaves in the 1990s with the—tame by today‘s far-lower standards—tabloid
television show Hard Copy.)
Then came the unfair and imbalanced politicized ―news‖ of the Fox News Channel—
showing (again) Murdoch‘s genius at building an empire on the basis of an ever-
descending lowest journalistic denominator. It, too, rests on a foundation that has little
or nothing to do with the best traditions and values of real reporting and responsible
journalism: the best obtainable version of the truth. In place of this journalistic ideal,

3
the enduring Murdoch ethic substitutes gossip, sensationalism, and manufactured
controversy.
And finally, in 2007 The Wall Street Journal‟s squabbling family owners succumbed
to his acumen, willpower, and money, fulfilling Murdoch‘s dream of owning an
American newspaper to match the influence and prestige of his U.K. holding, The
Times of London—one that really mattered, at the topmost tier of journalism.
Between the Post, Fox News, and the Journal, it‘s hard to think of any other
individual who has had a greater impact on American political and media culture in
the past half century.
But now the empire is shaking, and there‘s no telling when it will stop. My
conversations with British journalists and politicians—all of them insistent on
speaking anonymously to protect themselves from retribution by the still-enormously
powerful mogul—make evident that the shuttering of News of the World, and the
official inquiries announced by the British government, are the beginning, not the end,
of the seismic event.
News International, the British arm of Murdoch‘s media empire, ―has always worked
on the principle of omertà: ‗Do not say anything to anybody outside the family, and
we will look after you,‘ ‖ notes a former Murdoch editor who knows the system well.
―Now they are hanging people out to dry. The moment you do that, the omertà is
gone, and people are going to talk. It looks like a circular firing squad.‖
News of the World was always Murdoch‘s ―baby,‖ one of the largest newspapers in
the English-speaking world, with 2.6 million readers. As anyone in the business will
tell you, the standards and culture of a journalistic institution are set from the top
down, by its owner, publisher, and top editors. Reporters and editors do not routinely
break the law, bribe policemen, wiretap, and generally conduct themselves like thugs
unless it is a matter of recognized and understood policy. Private detectives and phone
hackers do not become the primary sources of a newspaper‘s information without the
tacit knowledge and approval of the people at the top, all the more so in the case of
newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch, according to those who know him best.
As one of his former top executives—once a close aide—told me, ―This scandal and
all its implications could not have happened anywhere else. Only in Murdoch‘s orbit.
The hacking at News of the World was done on an industrial scale. More than anyone,
Murdoch invented and established this culture in the newsroom, where you do
whatever it takes to get the story, take no prisoners, destroy the competition, and the
end will justify the means.‖
―In the end, what you sow is what you reap,‖ said this same executive. ―Now
Murdoch is a victim of the culture that he created. It is a logical conclusion, and it is
his people at the top who encouraged lawbreaking and hacking phones and condoned
it.‖
Could Murdoch eventually be criminally charged? He has always surrounded himself
with trusted subordinates and family members, so perhaps it is unlikely. Though
Murdoch has strenuously denied any knowledge at all of the hacking and bribery, it‘s
hard to believe that his top deputies at the paper didn‘t think they had a green light
from him to use such untraditional reportorial methods. Investigators are already
assembling voluminous records that demonstrate the systemic lawbreaking at News of
the World, and Scotland Yard seems to believe what was happening in the newsroom
was endemic at the highest levels at the paper and evident within the corporate
structure. Checks have been found showing tens of thousands of dollars of payments
at a time.

4
For this reporter, it is impossible not to consider these facts through the prism of
Watergate. When Bob Woodward and I came up against difficult ethical questions,
such as whether to approach grand jurors for information (which we did, and perhaps
shouldn‘t have), we sought executive editor Ben Bradlee‘s counsel, and he in turn
called in the company lawyers, who gave the go-ahead and outlined the legal issues in
full. Publisher Katharine Graham was informed. Likewise, Bradlee was aware when I
obtained private telephone and credit-card records of one of the Watergate figures.
All institutions have lapses, even great ones, especially by individual rogue
employees—famously in recent years at The Washington Post, The New York Times,
and the three original TV networks. But can anyone who knows and understands the
journalistic process imagine the kind of tactics regularly employed by the Murdoch
press, especially at News of the World, being condoned at the Post or the Times?
And then there‘s the other inevitable Watergate comparison. The circumstances of the
alleged lawbreaking within News Corp. suggest more than a passing resemblance to
Richard Nixon presiding over a criminal conspiracy in which he insulated himself
from specific knowledge of numerous individual criminal acts while being himself
responsible for and authorizing general policies that routinely resulted in lawbreaking
and unconstitutional conduct. Not to mention his role in the cover-up. It will remain
for British authorities and, presumably, disgusted and/or legally squeezed News Corp.
executives and editors to reveal exactly where the rot came from at News of the
World, and whether Rupert Murdoch enabled, approved, or opposed the obvious
corruption that infected his underlings.
None of this is to deny Murdoch‘s competitive genius, his superior understanding of
the modern media marketplace, or his dead-on reading of popular culture. He has
made occasionally dull newspapers fun to read and TV news broadcasts fun to watch,
and few of us would deny there are days when we love it. He‘s been at his best when
he‘s come in from the outside: starting Sky News, which shook up a complacent
British broadcasting establishment; contradicting conventional American media
wisdom that a fourth TV network (Fox) could never get off the ground; reducing the
power of Britain‘s printing trade unions that were exercising a stranglehold on the
U.K. press.
But Murdoch and his global media empire have a lot to answer for. He has not merely
encouraged the metastasis of cutthroat tabloid journalism on both sides of the
Atlantic. But perhaps just as troubling, authorities in Britain may respond to popular
outrage at the scandal by imposing the kind of regulations that cannot help but
undermine a truly free press.
The events of recent days are a watershed for Britain, for the United States, and for
Rupert Murdoch. Tabloid journalism—and our tabloid culture—may never be the
same.
Bernstein‟s most recent book is A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham
Clinton.
Correction: This article initially described News of the World as a daily paper.

5
The New York Times
July 9, 2011

From the Gutter, Into the Sewer

By A. C. Grayling

London
INTELLECTUALS in Britain have always regarded Rupert Murdoch with
suspicion. His rise to prominence on the media scene in the 1980s coincided with a
brutal yearlong lockout of newspaper workers, aimed at breaking the traditional hold
of their labor unions. In the dominant position he subsequently gained, with four
major newspapers and a large stake in television, he began to exercise significant
influence over the political scene, and even greater influence on the down-market end
of the press.
One anomalous feature of British journalism is its long history of scurrilous,
muckraking weekly scandal-sheets, the tabloids or ―gutter press,‖ which since the
Victorian era have delighted blue-collar readers with stories of murders and sexual
misconduct.
Mr. Murdoch‘s achievement was to take the tabloid press from the gutter into
the sewer, widening its range from coverage of celebrity scandals to the performance
of criminal acts. Some of the latter, such as hacking into the phones of crime victims
and their families, were appalling.
There is no redeeming feature in the scandal that has engulfed Mr. Murdoch‘s
British fief, News International, other than that it has now killed his biggest-selling
newspaper, The News of the World. This tabloid made its money by regularly
crossing the line of decency; the revelation that it also regularly crossed the line of
legality surprises no one, for no one expected any better. What has horrified the
British public is the nature of the illegalities. Murdoch journalists not only hacked
into the phones of child murder victims and their parents, but of the families of
victims of terrorist attacks and of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And in search of sexual and political scandal they hacked into the phones of
thousands of others; the London police say they have a list of 4,000 people who might
have suffered their attentions.
Discovery of these serious crimes has brought forward a crisis that was already
culminating. News International‘s bid to take control of the television company
British Sky Broadcasting, or BSkyB, was, in the opinion of many, a step too far,
given that, even before the hacking revelations, its influence on politics and public
conversation had become deeply corrosive.
The Murdoch media have influenced every election in Britain since the Thatcher
era. Both major political parties have courted Mr. Murdoch in hope of his support,
and when he gave it, they flourished at the polls. In return, he was allowed to take
control of increasing stretches of the media landscape, meanwhile dissuading
government from regulation that would hamper his operations. He already owns 39
percent of BSkyB; his reason for wishing to own it all is, as he has publicly indicated,
to make it more like its American counterpart, Fox News.
Mr. Murdoch‘s influence over successive governments has long been a concern.
His hostile attitude toward the European Union and his ingratiating attitude toward
China, to name but two examples, have influenced politicians eager to please him.

6
That the former News of the World editor, Andy Coulson, was, until the hacking
scandal broke, Prime Minister David Cameron‘s trusted director of communications,
is only the latest instance of this unseemly influence. Mr. Coulson is now under arrest
for being part of the hacking crimes. Significantly, when the scandal emerged in 2005
under the Labor government, the police did little to pursue it; only now, under public
pressure, have they begun to alert hacking victims to what happened back then.
Tabloid practices have always had a corrupting effect on the public
conversation, but they reached new depths under the editorship of The News of the
World by Mr. Murdoch‘s much-favored deputy, Rebekah Brooks. The cynicism of
tabloid technique is well understood: Splash a rumor as news on the front page, then
print a one-line retraction on an inside page two weeks later. By then, the victim has
been thoroughly damaged, with other papers, and the graffiti wall of blogs and
Twitter, transmitting the allegations globally.
Realists accept that scandal and gossip sell, that conflict is entertainment, and
that an adversarial stance attracts spectators. But the Murdoch tabloids have
championed this approach beyond the breaking point. The soiling of the public
debate, and the distorting influence of one foreigner on the political landscape, were
barely supportable before the hacking revelations; they are now insupportable.
No doubt over-optimistically, many in Britain hope that the current scandal will
at last persuade their government and fellow citizens alike to end Mr. Murdoch‘s
freedom to poison the well from which they drink. At the very least, they hope that
culpable heads will roll. No one believes that senior managers at News International
were ignorant of their employees‘ crimes. Ms. Brooks claims that she was. If that is
true, she failed dramatically in her role as manager; if that is false, she and others are
liable for criminal prosecution.
If there proves to be a silver lining to this debacle, it would be the defeat of Mr.
Murdoch‘s effort to take control of BSkyB, and a diminution of his influence in
British affairs. Alas, the anxiety is that the transgressions of News International will
prompt a bout of media regulation that will impinge on press freedoms in the wrong
way, making it harder to expose the wrongdoings of companies like News
International rather than protecting us from them. If this happens, Mr. Murdoch‘s
degrading influence will have reached well beyond the damage it has already done.
A. C. Grayling, a philosopher, is the author, most recently, of “The Good Book: A
Humanist Bible.”

7
The Economist
RIP the PCC
The Press Complaints Commission is another victim of the phone
hacking scandal
Jul 8th 2011, 12:22 by A.McE | LONDON

ALONG with Fleet Street and the prime minister's reputation for sound judgement, a
British institution is up against the wall today. The Press Complaints Commission will
shortly be put out of its misery. Weighed in the balance by the hacking scandal and
News International‘s failure to investigate it properly, the PCC has been found sorely
wanting. David Cameron today and Ed Miliband yesterday were in uncommon
agreement that it must be ditched. Baroness Buscombe, its chairman, never looked
remotely up to the task of holding a newspaper out of control to account. For what,
the Baroness plaintively asked, could she do if lied to be senior figures in the press?
This is truly pathetic. "Absent, ineffective, lacking in rigour," was Mr Cameron's
judgement. Had the PCC insisted on pursuing the allegations of hacking, and made a
fuss about the limited flow of information from the News of the World, the
organisation might be in a better place to defend its record on self-regulation.
In truth, the commission has not been so much toothless as blind. In many cases, self-
regulation has worked well in Britain. That's a point to remember, as many who want
a sweeping privacy law would like to use the current events as cover to muzzle the
press. Does Britain really want supine newspapers on the model of France of
Germany, where the lives of elites are immune from impolite probing and the official
version often triumphs over the truth? Your blogger would say not. Also, the rough
and tumble of competitive tabloids and a lively middle-market in newspapers, creates
an exciting, commercially vibrant media landscape. These are not bad things. But
right now, Fleet Street does need to examine itself and the cosiness of its practices—
not least the assumption that the big titles could and should be trusted to regulate their
own behaviour. In effect, the PCC has only got involved where issues like the impact
of reporting on children, redress for those wronged by intrusion, or the prospect of
court injunctions against publication were at stake. What it has not done is set out, or
enforced, minimum standards of behaviour. That is one reason the grim News of the
World culture could flourish, without fear by the perpetrators or bosses that they
might be found out.
Mr Cameron says his "instincts" remain that self-regulation should continue, but with
a new and more independent body. Good idea: but lay members of the PCC are
already in a majority. What matters is not so much that is on a new body, but what its
powers will be. Would it, for instance, be able to call journalists to give evidence, and
how would it avoid ending up embroiled in legal battles about what can legitimately
be published—and what cannot? One thing is for sure: the PCC will disappear. What
Leviathan would like to know (and will continue to chart), is how public policy
towards the press will henceforth change in Britain, as a result of the horrors of
tabloid excesses and the humbling of a brash newspaper. The battles over that will
shape what kind of journalism we will get to read for years to come—and perhaps just
as important, what we won't.

8
Elpaís
La crisis de 'News of The World' salpica a Cameron
El primer ministro británico propone reformar el actual sistema de
autorregulación de la prensa tras el escándalo de las escuchas - Murdoch
viaja hoy a Londres para abordar la crisis
WALTER OPPENHEIMER | Londres 09/07/2011

David Cameron se ha visto obligado a saltar al ruedo para impedir que la crisis de las
escuchas ilegales del tabloide News of the World le acabe afectando políticamente.
Saber de que el viernes por la mañana iba a ser arrestado Andy Coulson, su antiguo
asesor de comunicaciones, primero en el Partido Conservador y luego en Downing
Street, el primer ministro británico ha comparecido en una larga conferencia de prensa
para exponer sus puntos de vista sobre el caso y liderar un movimiento de
regeneración de la vida política británica en el sentido más amplio de la expresión.
Coulson fue liberado en la noche de este viernes tras ser interrogado durante casi
nueve horas.
Mientras, el presidente del grupo empresarial, Rupert Murdoch, viaja hoy a Londres
para abordar la crisis, han informado fuentes conocedoras del viaje, si bien la propia
compañía ha declinado hacer declaraciones. El magnate, de 80 años, llega a Reino
Unido apenas dos días después de su decisión de cerrar el dominical, el más vendido
del país.
Cameron adoptó ayer un tono de contrición general por un escándalo que a su juicio
afecta no solo al diario que durante años ha practicado la técnica de las escuchas
ilegales sino a toda la prensa británica, a la clase política y a la policía por la manera
en que se relacionan entre sí. El primer ministro ha confirmado que pondrá en marcha
dos investigaciones. Una, liderada por un juez, se centrará en las escuchas ilegales y
la manera en que la policía ha tratado el caso. La otra, más genérica, reunirá a un
panel de expertos independientes y abordará la cuestión más filosófica de las
relaciones entre la prensa y la política.
El primer ministro ha afirmado que el escándalo del News of the World "es una
llamada de atención" a toda la clase dirigente del país y ha asegurado que "no quedará
piedra por remover". Cameron ha dado por muerto el actual sistema de
autorregulación de la prensa a través de la llamada Comisión de Quejas de la Prensa.
Un organismo gestionado por los propios medios y, que a su juicio, "ha fracasado" y
ha estado "totalmente ausente" en el caso de las escuchas. Será sustituido por un
organismo regulador independiente. La oposición se ha unido a las críticas por el
pasivo papel jugado por la comisión en esta crisis.
Los medios británicos le han acosado a preguntas, en particular en torno a Andy
Coulson. El que fuera director del News of the World cuando estalló el escándalo -y
director adjunto cuando en 2002 se practicaron las polémicas escuchas a la niña
desaparecida Milly Dowler- dejó el diario cuando uno de sus redactores fue
encarcelado en enero de 2007 por las escuchas. Coulson dimitió porque era el director
y se sentía responsable último del comportamiento ilegal de su redactor, pero negó
que supiera de las escuchas. Pese a las dudas que despertaban sus argumentos,
Cameron le contrató primero para el partido y luego para el Gobierno. Pero Coulson
se vio obligado a dejar Downing Street en enero pasado, acosado por las constantes

9
revelaciones del diario The Guardian sobre las escuchas del News of the World.
También en esta segunda dimisión mantuvo la tesis de que no supo nada de escuchas.
Su posición, y la del primer ministro, han quedado en entredicho después de que ayer
por la mañana el periodista tuviera que presentarse en una comisaría del sur de
Londres, donde le han arrestado varios oficiales que investigan en dos operaciones
paralelas tanto las escuchas ilegales del News of the World como los pagos que este
diario ha admitido que hacía a oficiales de la policía a cambio de información.
Aunque la figura del arresto no tiene en Reino Unido el mismo significado de
presunta culpabilidad que tiene una detención en España, sí convierte a Coulson en
sospechoso y permite a la policía inspeccionar su domicilio o su despacho en busca de
documentación potencialmente comprometedora.
David Cameron ha marcado distancias con el emporio de Murdoch. Preguntado sobre
si James Murdoch, hijo del patriarca y responsable de sus negocios en Europa, debía
ser interrogado después de que la víspera admitiera que la empresa había engañado
involuntariamente al Parlamento, el primer ministro ha declarado: "La policía tiene
los recursos y la habilidad necesaria para perseguir las pruebas que tiene. Para
interrogar a quien quiera, con independencia de lo alto o lo bajo que esté situado". "La
declaración [de James Murdoch] deja todo tipo de preguntas sin respuesta. La policía
ha de tener en cuenta que puede ir allí donde quiera para interrogar a quien quiera", ha
añadido.
También seha distanciado de la exdirectora de The Sun y del News of the World y
consejera delegada de News International, Rebekah Brooks, de la que es amigo
personal. Recordando que según algunos medios Brooks ha presentado dos veces su
dimisión y que esta no le ha sido aceptada, Cameron ha dicho que él sí se la hubiera
aceptado. Según el diario The Guardian, James Murdoch ha empezado a recortar los
poderes de Rebekah Brooks y esta ya no está al frente del restringido comité formado
en su día para "limpiar" la casa.

Ediciones El País S.L. - Miguel Yuste 40 - 28037 Madrid (España) - Tel. 91 337 8200

10
Guardian.co.uk

Hugh Grant and the unlikely cast of characters in the

phone-hacking crisis
Some unexpected figures have taken centre stage, from the Four
Weddings actor to the News of the World's political editor
James Robinson
Friday 8, July, 2011 - 21h27 BST

Hugh Grant
The Four Weddings and a Funeral star is an unlikely expert on press regulation, but
the actor has become an unofficial spokesman for hacking victims, and an articulate
critic of the tabloid press in general and the News of the World in particular. Grant
was also hacked, although he is unlikely to take action against the paper, and railed
against politicians for failing to tame Rupert Murdoch. He said this week: "This is the
watershed moment when, finally, the public starts to see ... just how low and how
disgusting this particular newspaper's methods were." He visited ex-News of the
World journalist Paul McMullan at his Dover pub and secretly recorded a
conversation in which McMullan alleged Rebekah Brooks "absolutely" knew about
hacking.

Ed Miliband
The Labour leader has cast political caution aside by calling on Brooks to resign and
declaring that the phone-hacking scandal shows News Corp's bid for BSkyB should
be blocked. At the start of the year his press adviser, Tom Baldwin – a former
political journalist at the Times, owned by News International – urged Labour MPs
not to conflate the two issues, but Miliband's U-turn has placed him in line with
public opinion and put David Cameron on the back foot. Miliband has shown he will
not be cowed by the power of the Murdoch press, ending a 15-year period when
courting the media mogul's papers was a key priority for any Labour leader. His stand
also seems to have liberated MPs on all sides, many of whom were previously
unwilling to publicly criticise Murdoch. It may prove to be the moment when a news
organisation whose influence has been growing stronger for a generation or more
finally has its power checked.

Chris Bryant
The Labour MPs have been among the most steadfast and outspoken critics of the
Murdoch press over the affair. "At least Berlusconi lives in Italy," Bryant told the
Commons this week during the emergency parliamentary debate on phone hacking he
secured.

11
Chris Bryant is suing the NoW and Glenn Mulcaire over phone hacking and his case
is one of five that will be tried next year. He has pursued the story doggedly despite
coming under pressure from senior Labour sources at one point to stay quiet. A
former priest and BBC executive, Bryant has said he lost his fear of the press when
the Sun published a picture of himself he'd sent to his ex-partner dressed only in his
underwear.

Tom Watson
Another ex-Labour minister, Watson has enhanced his maverick status by taking on
the Murdoch press.
A key Gordon Brown ally in government, he is likely to feel vindicated this weekend
as a succession of shadow cabinet ministers queue up to condemn News Corp. Tom
Watson has been highlighting the company's wrongdoing for two years, revealing the
NoW may have targeted the families of the girls murdered by Ian Huntley in Soham.
In Wednesday's hacking debate he said Brooks had been warned by police over the
behaviour of investigators hired by the NoW while she was editor.

Simon Greenberg
News International's director of corporate affairs, also a regular on news programmes
last week, has been handed the unenviable task of publicly defending the company.
He has conveyed contrition but has sometimes looked uncomfortable doing so. A
former communications director at Chelsea FC and the FA's 2018 World Cup bid, he
was hired this year by Brooks. Greenberg worked briefly as a sports editor under her
when she was editing the NoW and has also worked for the London Evening Standard
and Mail on Sunday. His first task at NI was to tackle the hacking affair and he was
instrumental in the decision to apologise to victims and set up a compensation fund.

David Wooding
The political editor of the NoW has become the face of the staff since the bombshell
announcement, emerging from the paper's Wapping offices immediately after
Brooks's address on Thursday to tell TV crews that he and his colleagues were
"devastated", some of them in tears. He joined the paper 18 months ago. During the
past 24 hours he has toured broadcast studios stressing those at risk of losing their
jobs are part of a "great, dynamic professional" team, caught up in an "awful mess"
created years ago and not of their making.

Lady Buscombe
The Tory peer has had to defend the Press Complaints Commission, which she chairs,
after it conceded last week it had been fooled by the NoW over the extent of phone
hacking. The PCC's inquiry into the Guardian's 2009 revelations about hacking at the
title concluded there was no evidence to support the paper's claims and "did not quite

12
live up to the dramatic billing they were initially given". Buscombe said on
Wednesday the PCC could no longer stand by that report. On Friday she added her
signature, along with PCC colleagues, to a defiant statement, after Cameron said the
PCC had "failed" and should be replaced with a new body independent of the press
and government.

Paul McMullan
One of the few former-NoW journalists to admit that hacking was rife at the paper,
McMullan argued it was often justified in order to obtain legitimate stories and he
popped up frequently on news channels last week talking about the scandal. A former
features executive, he told Hugh Grant when he was interviewed covertly that
Cameron must have known about hacking because of his close friendship with
Brooks. McMullan also told the Guardian's Nick Davies that hacking was widespread
at the NoW.

13
BSkyB shares fall £1.8bn on fears about 'fit and
proper' Ofcom test
Markets react to phone-hacking scandal as City speculates over Rupert
Murdoch's plan to take full control of BSkyB
Richar Wachman and Jill Treanor

Friday 8 July 2011 20.21 BST

There was mounting concern in the City on Friday as it emerged Rupert Murdoch's
plan to take full control of BSkyB could be blocked because his company, News
Corporation, may not be viewed as a "fit and proper" owner.
The prospect of intervention from the regulator Ofcom prompted a huge sell-off of
shares in the satellite broadcaster. They were down nearly 12% on the week, wiping
£1.8bn off the company's value.
Ofcom has written to the authorities, asking to be "kept abreast" of information that
could be of help to its chief executive, Ed Richards, following allegations of illegal
activities at the News of the World.
Nervous US hedge-fund investors jammed the switchboards of London lawyers,
demanding to know the scale of the regulatory threat. By late afternoon, shareholders
were dumping the stock and the share price began to fall, down more than 7
percentage points to close at 750p.
Before the latest phone-hacking allegations at the News of the World on Monday, the
shares were up at 850p on the assumption that News Corp's bid would be cleared by
the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt. Now there are worries the hacking scandal could
implicate senior executives within Murdoch's media empire, raising questions about
whether BSkyB's current licence is in good hands.
Jane Coffey, head of equities at Royal London Asset Management, said that in a
worst-case scenario, News Corp could be forced to sell its 39% stake in BSkyB.
"Although this seems unlikely, it's a possibility," she said, "This certainly isn't a good
time to be buying into BSkyB."
In a letter to John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons culture, media and sport
committee, Richards said Ofcom has a duty under the Broadcasting Act "to be
satisfied that any person (which will include controlling directors and shareholders)
holding a broadcasting licence remains fit and proper to hold those licences".
Richards adds: "Ofcom will consider any relevant conduct of those who manage and
control such a licence."
He said that Ofcom would not do anything to prejudice investigations by the police.
However, "we are writing to the relevant authorities to highlight our duties in relation
to 'fit and proper' and would like to know of any further information which may assist
us in the discharge of our own duties".
Peter McInerney, head of the TV practice at media law firm Sheridans, said that if
James Murdoch, chairman of News International (NI), which owns the News of the
World, was asked to give evidence to the police, "that could hardly be construed as
meaning News Corporation [NI's parent] wasn't fit and proper".
In trading rooms, there was talk that Odey Asset Management would be nursing
losses, but a spokesman for the fund insisted the group had owned BSkyB stock for

14
about 10 years. He described the share price fall as "nothing. It was 550p a year ago".
But local authorities and pension funds are more concerned.
Theo Blackwell, Labour cabinet member for finance in Camden, said a review of the
council's £877m pension fund holdings in BSkyB had been ordered on Friday.
"Camden ordered a review with our financial advisers Legal & General on the impact
of the continuing developments and uncertainty around this."
"Pension funds like Camden may start voting with their feet in order to secure more
stable returns for staff and pensioners," he said.
Other local authorities are also thought to be considering action.
Sam Hart, media analyst at broker Charles Stanley said: "Murdoch's plan to bid for
the satellite operator has been kicked into touch.
"Shareholders are discounting the possibility that this bid won't happen for the
foreseeable future. Some people wonder if it will happen at all. It could take years
before the various inquiries have wound up, so the deal has been pushed much further
back than anyone would have guessed a week ago."
Several institutional investors agreed with Hart that the prospect of a deal happening
anytime soon was fading. One said: "As things stand, it would be inconceivable for
such a deal to receive political clearance. There would be a huge uproar." Brokers say
that, without a bid, BSkyB would be worth between 695p and 725p a share.

15
News Corp's non-executive directors
An opera singer, a former prime minister and Rupert Murdoch's eldest
son are among those sitting on News Corp's board
Rupert Neate and Jill Treanor

Friday 8 July 2011 20.13 BST

Rupert Murdoch's eldest son, Lachlan, who sits on the board of News Corporation. Photograph:
Reuters

Natalie Bancroft
The only woman on the board, Bancroft, a 31-year-old professionally trained opera
singer, joined News Corporation following the Bancroft family's sale of its controlling
stake in the publisher of the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, to News Corp for $5.6bn
(£3.5bn) in 2007.

Lachlan Murdoch
Lachlan Murdoch, 39, is Rupert Murdoch's eldest son. He was born in London, raised
in New York and entered the family firm as general manager of Queensland
Newspapers at just 22. Earlier this year he was appointed interim chief executive of
Australian TV network TEN.

Thomas Perkins
Perkins, one of the founders of venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers,
has been a director of News Corp since 1996. The 78-year-old used to own the
Maltese Falcon, the world's largest sailing yacht at the time.

Arthur Siskind
Siskind has been senior adviser to Rupert Murdoch since 2005. He has served as
general counsel since 1991. Last year he collected pay and bonuses totalling $3.7m.

Stanley Shuman
Shuman is managing director of specialist media investment bank Allen & Company.

16
He has been a major player in the financing of the global media industry for decades
and has been a stalwart at Allen & Co since 1961.

Viet Dinh
The 43-year-old, who fled Vietnam as a child, grew up in California, studied at
Harvard and is a professor of law at Georgetown University. Dinh served as the US
assistant attorney general under George W Bush between 2001 and 2003, and created
the Patriot Act, which gave US authorities the power to tap phones of suspected
terrorists in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Dinh, and Joel Klein, News Corp's
CEO of its education division, have been drafted in to London to handle the News of
the World crisis.

Peter Barnes
Barnes has spent most of his career at tobacco giant Philip Morris (now Altria Group),
where he headed up the company's Asian expansion. He was also chairman of
condom-maker Ansell and Samuel Smith & Son, the independent brewer known for
its cheap and cheerful pubs across London.

José María Aznar

The son of a journalist, Aznar served as Spain's prime minister between 1996 and
2004. Aznar, also a Harvard graduate, joined the News Corp board in 2006. He has
been a firm supporter of expanding the European Union's powers and extending
Spain's links with the US.

John Thornton
Thornton stunned the financial world in 2003 when he gave up his role as head of
Goldman Sachs to take up a teaching post at a university in China. A serial networker,
he is well known to the Murdoch clan who used Goldman for BSkyB's stockmarket
flotation.

Andrew Knight
Started his career at the Economist in the 1960s. By the 1980s he had risen into
management, becoming chief executive of the Daily Telegraph and then moving to
take on an executive position at News International and later News Corporation
before retiring from a full-time executive role in 1994 after a skiing accident.

Sir Rod Eddington

Best known in Britain for his tenure at the top of British Airways, a position he held
from 2000 to 2005 before returning to his native Australia. As well as his role on the
board of News Corporation, he is non-executive chairman of JP Morgan in Australia
and New Zealand and also sits on the board of mining company Rio Tinto.

Kenneth Cowley
Retired as head of the Murdoch Australian empire in 1997 and is now chairman of
RM Williams, a well known Australian outdoor clothing business.

17
Phone Hacking: Police probe suspected deletion of
emails by NI executive
'Massive quantities' of archive allegedly deleted Emails believed to be
between News of the World editors

Friday, 8 July, 2011 - 14.18 BST

Police are investigating evidence that a News International executive may have
deleted millions of emails from an internal archive in an apparent attempt to obstruct
Scotland Yard's inquiry into the phone-hacking scandal.
The archive is believed to have reached back to January 2005, revealing daily contact
between News of the World editors, reporters and outsiders, including private
investigators. The messages are potentially highly valuable both for the police and for
the numerous public figures who are suing News International (NI).
According to legal sources close to the police inquiry, a senior executive is believed
to have deleted "massive quantities" of the archive on two separate occasions, leaving
only a fraction to be disclosed. One of the alleged deletions is said to have been made
at the end of January, just as Scotland Yard was launching Operation Weeting, its
new inquiry into the affair. The allegation directly contradicts NI claims that it is co-
operating fully with police in order to expose its history of illegal newsgathering.
The alleged deletion of emails will be of particular interest to the media regulator
Ofcom, which said it had asked to be "kept abreast" of developments in the Met's
hacking investigation, so it can assess whether News Corp would pass the "fit and
proper" test that all owners of UK television channels have to meet.
That came amid the first signs that Rebekah Brooks's grip on NI was weakening on a
dramatic day when David Cameron all but called for her resignation. It also emerged
that Brooks was no longer in charge of the company's three-person in-house standards
committee that is tackling the hacking issue, and that Rupert Murdoch is planning to
fly into London on Sasturday to confront the crisis.
Earlier on Friday, the prime minister told reporters at an emergency press conference
on the crisis on Friday morning: "It's been reported that [Brooks] had offered her
resignation, and in this situation I would have taken it." Although NI denies that she
offered to resign, Cameron's meaning was clear as he tried to distance himself from a
person with whom he has a close social relationship.
The scandal brought a number of arrests on Friday, with the prime minister's former
PR chief Andy Coulson held under suspicion of involvement in phone hacking. As he
was released on bail, he told reporters: "There is an awful lot I would like to say, but I
can't at this time." Clive Goodman, the NoW's former royal reporter, was also arrested
in relation to the alleged payment of bribes to police, and subsequently bailed. And
last night an unnamed 63-year-old man was also arrested in connection with alleged
corruption.
Cameron yesterday announced that his administration will launch a full judicial
review into phone hacking defended his hiring of Coulson, and in effect announced
that the Press Complaints Commission would be scrapped after 20 years and replaced
by a new regulatory body independent of the newspaper industry and the government.
He said all party leaders had been "so keen to win the support of newspapers that we
turned a blind eye to the need to sort this issue".

18
The Guardian understands that the suspected deletion of emails is one of a number of
actions that have infuriated detectives investigating hacking. In addition to deleting
emails, NI executives have also:
• Leaked sensitive information in spite of an undertaking to police that they would
keep it confidential.
• Risked prosecution for perverting the course of justice by trying to hide the contents
of a senior reporter's desk after he was arrested earlier this year.
NI originally claimed the archive of emails did not exist. Last December, its Scottish
editor, Bob Bird, told the trial of Tommy Sheridan in Glasgow that the emails had
been lost en route to Mumbai. Also in December, the company's solicitor, Julian Pike
from Farrer and Co, gave a statement to the high court saying it was unable to retrieve
emails more than six months old.
The first hint that this was not true came in late January when NI handed Scotland
Yard evidence that led to the immediate sacking of its news editor, Ian Edmondson,
and to the launch of Operation Weeting. It was reported that this evidence consisted
of three old emails.
Three months later, on 23 March, Pike formally apologised to the high court and
acknowledged News International could locate emails as far back as 2005 and that no
emails had been lost en route to Mumbai or anywhere else in India. In a signed
statement seen by the Guardian, Pike said he had been misinformed by the NoW's in-
house lawyer, Tom Crone, who had told him that he, too, had been misled. He offered
no explanation for the misleading evidence given by Bird.
The archive was said to contain half a terabyte of data – equivalent to 500 editions of
Encyclopaedia Britannica. But police now believe that there was an effort to
substantially destroy it before NI handed over their new evidence in January. Police
believe they have identified the executive responsibleby following an electronic audit
trail. They have also attempted to retrieve the lost data. The Crown Prosecution
Service is believed to have been asked whether the executive can be charged with
perverting the course of justice.
At the heart of the affair is a data company, Essential Computing, based near Bristol.
Staff there have been interviewed by Operation Weeting. One source speculated that
this company had compelled NI to admit that the archive existed.
The Guardian understands that Essential Computing has co-operated with police and
provided evidence about an alleged attempt by the NI executive to destroy part of the
archive while they were working with it. This is said to have happened after the
executive discovered that the company retained material of which NI was unaware.
The alleged deletion has caused tension between NI and Scotland Yard, who are also
angry over leaks. When it handed over evidence of journalists' involvement in bribing
officers, it wanted to make an announcement, claiming credit for its assistance to
police. NI was warned that this would interfere with inquiries and finally agreed to
keep the entire matter confidential until early August, to allow police to make arrests.
In the event, a series of leaks this week has led Scotland Yard to conclude that NI
breached the deal.
There was friction this year when police arrested a senior journalist. When they went
to the NoW office to search his desk, they found its contents had been removed and
lodged with a firm of solicitors, who refused to hand them over. They eventually
complied. A file is believed to have been sent to the Crown Prosecution service
seeking advice on whether anybody connected with the incident should be charged.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2011

19
ECONOMIST
A special report on the news industry: The end of mass media
Coming full circle
News is becoming a social medium again, as it was until the early 19th
century—only more so
Jul 7th 2011 | from the print edition

THERE IS A great historical irony at the heart of the current transformation of news.
The industry is being reshaped by technology—but by undermining the mass media‘s
business models, that technology is in many ways returning the industry to the more
vibrant, freewheeling and discursive ways of the pre-industrial era.
Until the early 19th century there was no technology for disseminating news to large
numbers of people in a short space of time. It travelled as people chatted in
marketplaces and taverns or exchanged letters with their friends. This phenomenon
can be traced back to Roman times, when members of the elite kept each other
informed with a torrent of letters, transcriptions of speeches and copies of the acta
diurna, the official gazette that was posted in the forum each day. News travelled
along social networks because there was no other conduit.
The invention of the printing press meant that many copies of a document could be
produced more quickly than before, but distribution still relied on personal
connections. In early 1518 Martin Luther‘s writings spread around Germany in two
weeks as they were carried from one town to the next. As Luther and his supporters
argued with his opponents over the following decade, more than 6m religious
pamphlets were sold in Germany. ―News ballads‖, which spread news in the form of
popular songs, covered the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, among many other
events.
In January 1776 Thomas Paine‘s pamphlet ―Common Sense‖, which rallied the
colonists against the British crown, was printed in a run of 1,000 copies. One of them
reached George Washington, who was so impressed that he made American officers
read extracts of Paine‘s work to their men. By July 1776 around 250,000 people,
nearly half the free population of the colonies, had been exposed to Paine‘s ideas.
Newspapers at the time had small, local circulations and were a mix of opinionated
editorials, contributions from readers and items from other papers; there were no
dedicated reporters. All these early media conveyed news, gossip, opinion and ideas
within particular social circles or communities, with little distinction between
producers and consumers of information. They were social media.

The rise and fall of mass communications

The invention of the steam press in the early 19th century, and the emergence of
mass-market newspapers such as the New York Sun, therefore marked a profound
shift. The new technologies of mass dissemination could reach large numbers of
people with unprecedented speed and efficiency, but put control of the flow of
information into the hands of a select few. For the first time, vertical distribution of
news, from a specialist elite to a general audience, had a decisive advantage over
horizontal distribution among citizens. This trend accelerated with the advent of radio
and television in the 20th century. New businesses grew up around these mass-media
technologies. In modern media organisations news is gathered by specialists and

20
disseminated to a mass audience along with advertising, which helps to pay for the
whole operation.
In the past decade the internet has disrupted this model and enabled the social aspect
of media to reassert itself. In many ways news is going back to its pre-industrial form,
but supercharged by the internet. Camera-phones and social media such as blogs,
Facebook and Twitter may seem entirely new, but they echo the ways in which people
used to collect, share and exchange information in the past. ―Social media is nothing
new, it‘s just more widespread now,‖ says Craig Newmark. He likens John Locke,
Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin to modern bloggers. ―By 2020 the media and
political landscapes will be very different, because people who are accustomed to
power will be complemented by social networks in different forms.‖ Julian Assange
has said that WikiLeaks operates in the tradition of the radical pamphleteers of the
English civil war who tried to ―cast all the Mysteries and Secrets of Government‖
before the public.
News is also becoming more diverse as publishing tools become widely available,
barriers to entry fall and new models become possible, as demonstrated by the
astonishing rise of the Huffington Post, WikiLeaks and other newcomers in the past
few years, not to mention millions of blogs. At the same time news is becoming more
opinionated, polarised and partisan, as it used to be in the knockabout days of
pamphleteering.
Not surprisingly, the conventional news organisations that grew up in the past 170
years are having a lot of trouble adjusting. The mass-media era now looks like a
relatively brief and anomalous period that is coming to an end. But it was long
enough for several generations of journalists to grow up within it, so the laws of the
mass media came to be seen as the laws of media in general, says Jay Rosen. ―And
when you‘ve built your whole career on that, it isn‘t easy to say, ‗well, actually, that
was just a phase‘. That‘s why a lot of us think that it‘s only going to be generational
change that‘s going to solve this problem.‖ A new generation that has grown up with
digital tools is already devising extraordinary new things to do with them, rather than
simply using them to preserve the old models. Some existing media organisations will
survive the transition; many will not.
The biggest shift is that journalism is no longer the exclusive preserve of journalists.
Ordinary people are playing a more active role in the news system, along with a host
of technology firms, news start-ups and not-for-profit groups. Social media are
certainly not a fad, and their impact is only just beginning to be felt. ―It‘s
everywhere—and it‘s going to be even more everywhere,‖ says Arianna Huffington.
Successful media organisations will be the ones that accept this new reality. They
need to reorient themselves towards serving readers rather than advertisers, embrace
social features and collaboration, get off political and moral high horses and stop
trying to erect barriers around journalism to protect their position. The digital future
of news has much in common with its chaotic, ink-stained past.

21
American newspapers are in trouble, but in
emerging markets the news industry is roaring
ahead
Jul 7th 2011 | from the print edition

―WHO KILLED THE newspaper?‖ That was the question posed on the cover of The
Economist in 2006. It was, perhaps, a little premature. But there is no doubt that
newspapers in many parts of the world are having a hard time. In America, where
they are in the deepest trouble, the person often blamed is Craig Newmark, the
founder of Craigslist, a network of classified-advertising websites that is mostly free
to use. Mr Newmark has been called a ―newspaper killer‖ and ―the exploder of
journalism‖, among other things. The popularity of Craigslist, the ninth most popular
website in America, has contributed to a sharp decline in newspapers‘ classified-
advertising revenue (see chart 1)—a business where many newspapers have had
comfortable local monopolies for decades. Sitting in a café in San Francisco, Mr
Newmark looks an unlikely assassin. Did he kill newspapers? ―That would be a
considerable exaggeration,‖ he says with a smile.

22
The internet-driven fall in classified-ad revenue is only one of the reasons for the
decline of newspapers in America, which started decades ago (see chart 2). The
advent of television news, and then cable television, lured readers and advertisers
away. Then the internet appeared in the 1990s. A new generation of readers grew up
getting their news from television and the web, now the two leading news sources in
America (the web overtook newspapers in 2010 and is already the most popular
source among the under-30s).
These technological shifts hit American newspapers particularly hard because of their
heavy reliance on advertising. According to the OECD, a club of developed countries,
in 2008 America‘s newspapers collectively relied on advertising for 87% of their total
revenue, more than any other country surveyed. The 2008-09 recession made things
worse. Between 2007 and 2009 newspaper revenues in France fell by 4%, in Germany
by 10% and in Britain by 21%. In America they plummeted by 30%. On top of that, a
series of mergers and acquisitions in the American newspaper business left many
companies saddled with huge debts and pushed several into bankruptcy.
For American regional and metro-area newspapers, further job cuts, closures and
consolidation now seem likely. In retrospect it is clear that the industry became too
dependent on local advertising monopolies. ―The real trouble that a lot of US news
organisations have is that they are defined by geography—by how far trucks could go
to deliver papers in the morning,‖ says Joshua Benton, head of the Nieman Journalism
Lab at Harvard University. The internet has undermined that business model by
providing alternatives for both advertisers and readers.
The health of newspapers is particularly important because they tend to set the agenda
for other news media and employ the most journalists. In America, for example, the
national television networks had around 500 journalists on their staff in 2009,
compared with more than 40,000 for daily newspapers (down from 56,000 in 2001).
But it would be wrong to conclude from the woes of American newspapers that
newspapers and news are in crisis everywhere.
―The United States is the worst case that we see worldwide, and a lot of media news
comes out of the US, so it is exceedingly negative. But the US experience is not being
replicated elsewhere,‖ says Larry Kilman, deputy head of the World Association of
Newspapers (WAN), an industry body. ―There‘s an assumption that there‘s a single
crisis affecting all news organisations, and that‘s not the case,‖ says David Levy,

23
director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University.
―There are different kinds of crisis in different countries, and some countries in the
developing world are experiencing expansion rather than decline.‖
Newspapers in western Europe are having to manage long-term decline rather than
short-term pain. In Germany, the biggest market, a 10% drop in revenue amid the
worst recession in a generation ―is not a terrible result‖, says Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, a
colleague of Mr Levy‘s at the Reuters Institute and co-author with him of a recent
book, ―The Changing Business of Journalism and its Implications for Democracy‖.
That does not mean the German industry is immune to long-term changes. ―But
broadly speaking, the German industry has a large and loyal audience, strong brands
and editorial resources to manage that transition,‖ says Mr Nielsen. Many European
newspapers are family-owned, which helps to protect them in difficult times.
In Japan, home to the world‘s three biggest-selling daily newspapers (the Yomiuri
Shimbun alone has a circulation of more than 10m), circulation has held up well, in
part because over 94% of newspapers are sold by subscription. But there is trouble on
the horizon. Young Japanese do not share their elders‘ enthusiasm for newsprint, and
advertising revenues are dropping as the population ages.
The number of newspaper titles in Russia increased by 9% in 2009, but it might be no
bad thing if a few newspapers died, particularly those ―useless‖ titles that are merely
mouthpieces for the local authorities that fund them, says Elena Vartanova, dean of
the journalism school at Moscow State University. The Kremlin controls 60% of
Russia‘s newspapers and owns stakes in all six national television stations. In a
country where newspapers were traditionally used as propaganda tools, online news
sites offer an opportunity to break with the past. But there is a clear divide between
the internet-savvy youth, who get their news online, and the old and rural populations,
who depend on state-run television.

Hungry for news

There is certainly no sign of a news crisis in India, now the world‘s fastest-growing
newspaper market. Between 2005 and 2009 the number of paid-for daily newspapers
in the country increased by 44% to 2,700 and the total number of newspapers rose by
23% to more than 74,000, according to the WAN. In 2008 India overtook China to
become the leader in paid-for daily circulation, with 110m copies sold each day.
Newspaper and magazine advertising expenditure increased by 32% in the year to
June 2010, according to Nielsen India, a market-research firm.
Television news is also booming: of more than 500 satellite channels that have been
launched in India in the past 20 years, 81 are news channels. The field is dominated
by private firms with interests in both news and entertainment media, so the emphasis
is on sensationalist, ―Bollywoodised‖ coverage of celebrities, says Daya Thussu at the
University of Westminster in London. Most news outlets are openly partisan. Thanks
to India‘s vast population, there is scope for growth in print media for years to come.
―Indian publishers come to newspaper conferences and complain that it‘s too focused
on digital, not enough on print,‖ says Mr Kilman. But Mr Levy wonders whether the
greater interest in news in fast-growing India and Brazil will prove to be a short-term
phenomenon that will be undermined by the spread of internet access.

24
China is another market where news media are growing rapidly, but the strict
controls on them have intensified in recent months. A private media industry was
allowed to develop only in the 1990s. The combination of social change, increasingly
savvy readers, a booming advertising market and the need to reconcile credibility
among readers with state controls has created a very confusing environment, says
David Bandurski at the University of Hong Kong. Media firms must dance skilfully
―between the party line and the bottom line‖, in the memorable phrase of Zhao
Yuezhi, an analyst of the Chinese media scene.
Officially the state permits watchdog journalism, known as ―supervision by public
opinion‖, but in practice news outlets are wary of offending local party officials. One
way around this used to be for reporters to expose wrongdoing in other provinces, but
a ban on ―cross-regional‖ reporting put an end to that. Journalists must identify areas
where muckraking will be permitted by officials, or ensure that their own political
connections will provide them with sufficient cover.
A new tactic, which became particularly popular in China during 2010, is the use of
microblogging services to release information anonymously in small chunks, notes
Ying Chan, dean of the journalism school at Shantou University in China. Twitter is
banned in China, so this is done using local clones of the service. Microblogging
works well in China because it can be done on mobile phones, which are widespread,
and Chinese characters allow an entire paragraph to be packed into a short message.
Moreover, microblog posts are difficult to censor because they may not make sense
unless they are all read in order.
Ms Chan describes the future for Chinese journalists as ―both promising and
perilous‖. Journalists elsewhere would agree, though for different reasons. Like
Tolstoy‘s unhappy families, all unhappy in their own way, the news business faces
different problems in different countries. To survive, news organisations will have to
make the internet part of the solution.

25
The internet has turned the news industry upside
down, making it more participatory, social, diverse
and partisan—as it used to be before the arrival of
the mass media, says Tom Standage
Jul 7th 2011 | from the print edition

EVEN IF YOU are not a news junkie, you will have noticed that your daily news has
undergone a transformation. Television newscasts now include amateur videos, taken
from video-sharing websites such as YouTube, covering events like the Arab spring
or the Japanese tsunami. Such videos, with their shaky cameras and people‘s
unguarded reactions, have much greater immediacy than professional footage.
Messages posted on Twitter, the microblogging service, have been woven into
coverage of these events and many others. ―You have these really intimate man-in-
the-street accounts, and you can craft a narrative around them,‖ says Jack Dorsey, co-
founder of Twitter. A computer consultant in Pakistan unwittingly described the raid
on Osama bin Laden‘s compound in a series of tweets. The terrorist attacks in
Mumbai in 2008, too, were reported on Twitter in real time by people who were there.
The past year has also seen the rise to fame of WikiLeaks, an organisation that
publishes leaked documents supplied to it anonymously. WikiLeaks and its media
partners have published detailed records of the Afghan and Iraq wars, hundreds of
classified American diplomatic cables and records from the Guantánamo Bay
detention centre. ―We believe that true information does good,‖ says Julian Assange,
WikiLeaks‘ founder. ―Our goal is not just to have people reading documents, but to
achieve political reforms through the release of information.‖

26
27
In January this year Al Jazeera, a news organisation based in Qatar, published its own
cache of leaked documents, known as the Palestine Papers, which lifted the lid on
more than a decade of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. And by broadcasting amateur
videos of the Tunisian uprising to its millions of satellite viewers across the Arab
world, the channel played an active role in spreading the protests across the region.
Among television news organisations it has led the way in integrating social media
(such as tweets, Facebook posts and amateur online video) into its operations in order
to engage with its increasingly wired audience. ―The way we operate has changed
because the landscape has changed dramatically,‖ says Moeed Ahmad, the firm‘s
head of new media.
Clearly something dramatic has happened to the news business. That something is, of
course, the internet, which has disrupted this industry just as it has disrupted so many
others. By undermining advertising revenue, making news reports a commodity and
blurring the boundaries between previously distinct news organisations, the internet
has upended newspapers‘ traditional business model. But as well as demolishing old
ways of doing things, it has also made new ones possible. As patterns of news
consumption shift, much experimentation is under way. The internet may have hurt
some newspapers financially, but it has stimulated innovation in journalism.

Reporters all
For consumers, the internet has made the news a far more participatory and social
experience. Non-journalists are acting as sources for a growing number of news
organisations, either by volunteering information directly or by posting comments,
pictures or video that can be picked up and republished. Journalists initially saw this
as a threat but are coming to appreciate its benefits, though not without much heart-
searching. Some organisations have enlisted volunteers to gather or sift data, creating
new kinds of ―crowdsourced‖ journalism. Readers can also share stories with their
friends, and the most popular stories cause a flood of traffic as recommendations
ripple across social networks. Referrals from social networks are now the fastest-
growing source of traffic for many news websites. Readers are being woven into the
increasingly complex news ecosystem as sources, participants and distributors. ―They
don‘t just consume news, they share it, develop it, add to it—it‘s a very dynamic
relationship with news,‖ says Arianna Huffington, co-founder of the Huffington Post,
a news website in the vanguard of integrating news with social media.
As well as making Twitter, Facebook and Google part of the news ecosystem, the
internet has also made possible entirely new kinds of specialist news organisations. It
has allowed WikiLeaks, for example, to accept documents anonymously and publish
them to a global audience, while floating in cyberspace above national jurisdictions,
operated by a small, nomadic team. Other newcomers include a host of not-for-profit
news organisations that rely on philanthropic funding and specialise in particular
kinds of journalism. Many of these new outfits collaborate with traditional news
organisations, taking advantage of their broad reach and trusted, established brands.
All these new inhabitants of the news ecosystem have brought an unprecedented
breadth and diversity of news and opinion to the business. This has cast new light on a
long-running debate about the politics of journalism: when there are so many sources,
does political objectivity become less important?
This special report will consider all these trends in turn, starting with a look at the
state of the industry and the new business models that are emerging. It will argue that
as news becomes more social, participatory, diverse and partisan, it is in many ways
returning to the more chaotic, freewheeling and politically charged environment of

28
the era before the emergence of mass media in the 19th century. And although the
internet has proved hugely disruptive to journalists, for consumers—who now have a
wider choice than ever of news sources and ways of accessing them—it has proved an
almost unqualified blessing.

29
Britain's phone-hacking scandal
Street of shame

A full judicial inquiry is needed immediately to clean up British

journalism
Jul 7th 2011 | from the print edition

NOT for nothing is it known as the gutter press. The allegations that the News of the
World, Britain‘s biggest Sunday newspaper, broke into the voicemail of a murdered
teenage girl, is a stain on the newspaper and on News International, its owner. But the
stench is much more widespread. As new allegations of lawbreaking surface,
journalism itself is reeking. So are Britain‘s politicians and especially its police.
Britain has long had a scrappy press. A brutally competitive newspaper market
encourages screaming headlines and intrusive tittle-tattle. In France a politician‘s
peccadillos may be kept quiet for years. In Britain they are splashed across the front
pages. Britons know their newspapers are rude, excessive and unreliable. But they
want them to draw blood from politicians and misbehaving celebrities.
Thanks largely to some splendid muckraking by the Guardian, it is now clear how
one tabloid obtained some of its headlines. The News of the World seems routinely to
have asked a private investigator to hack into mobile-phone mailboxes, which is a
crime. Until this week the victims seemed to be celebrities, publicists, politicians and
other journalists—the sort of people who, in the British mind, probably deserve what
they get. But a lawyer representing the family of the murdered girl claims that police
said her phone was hacked in a way that raised hopes that she was alive. The families
of terrorism victims, dead soldiers and two other murdered girls are also said to have
been targeted. If true, that is callousness heaped on criminality.

Far beyond the printing presses

Four deeply worrying questions emerge from this. The first is how a newsroom could
run so far out of control. And almost certainly not just one newsroom. In 2006 the
Information Commissioner explained that the use of private investigators was
widespread. It is notable that Britain‘s other tabloid newspapers, which love to kick a
rival when it is down, have been disturbingly quiet about the allegations of phone
hacking at the News of the World. It may turn out that the paper was merely the most
enthusiastic, ruthless lawbreaker among several.
The second question concerns News International, the British newspaper arm of
Rupert Murdoch‘s News Corporation. It has consistently ducked and twisted. For as
long as they could get away with it, executives claimed the phone hacking was the
doing of a rogue reporter. When that argument was demolished, they claimed few
knew of wrongdoing. Rebekah Brooks, News International‘s chief executive, told
staff this week that it was inconceivable she knew of the alleged phone hacking when
she was editor of the News of the World. Yet if the allegations are true, many
journalists at the newspaper would have known about such practices, and failed to
report them. That can only happen in an outfit that has lost any sense of right and
wrong. The notion that its rivals were perhaps doing the same thing is no excuse.

30
Then there are the police. The initial investigation by the Metropolitan Police into
phone hacking was pitiful. For years the cops sat on a huge sheaf of seized documents
and did nothing. Sloppiness is one thing. But the police tend to be hand-in-glove with
popular newspapers. An implicit deal applies: we give you stories, you raise the alarm
about criminals on the loose. And, occasionally, put your hand in your pocket too.
Files handed over last month suggest that police received some payments from the
News of the World.
The politicians who have fulminated against the press over the past few days are
tainted, too. Far from urging the police to conduct a full investigation, they have long
cosied up to the tabloids. Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair‘s powerful director of
communications, came from the Daily Mirror. Andy Coulson, who resigned as editor
of the News of the World in 2007, went on to run David Cameron‘s communications
machine. Fear seems to play a role. One member of the parliamentary culture
committee alleged last year that members had been warned they could be targeted by
newspapers if they insisted on summoning Mrs Brooks to give evidence against her
will.

Black, white and red all over

It is a depressing mess—and one with wide consequences. As the Times, another
Murdoch paper, has correctly pointed out, British journalism is in its equivalent of the
MPs expenses scandal. Given the uselessness of the Press Complaints Commission
throughout, this affair will only encourage demands for regulatory oversight of the
press. This would probably do more harm than good. Britain already has the toughest
libel laws in the world, which have been misused repeatedly to protect the rich and
the powerful; and giving the state power to regulate the press is a dangerous
temptation to governments.
So what should be done? Within News International anyone implicated directly in any
aspect of this saga—not just the apparent phone hacking at the News of the World but
the obfuscations since—should immediately stand down, pending a proper police
investigation. Then there needs to be a judicial inquiry, with the power to call
witnesses, including police officers, under oath. That should cover all newspapers, not
just Mr Murdoch‘s, and ferret out other dodgy activities, such as obtaining private
medical records and credit-card transactions. If the result of such an inquiry is a
bloodbath in Fleet Street and Scotland Yard, so be it. Mr Cameron‘s refusal to push
ahead with this forcefully is incredibly cowardly and shortsighted.
Some MPs have called for News Corporation‘s purchase of the 61% of BSkyB it does
not already own to be delayed, while Britain‘s media regulator investigates whether
the firm is a ―fit and proper‖ owner of the satellite-TV company. That is a stretch. The
acquisition, which this newspaper thought was fair, is a matter of competition law.
The regulator can find a broadcaster to be unfit, and yank its licence, at any time.
It also misses the point. Mr Murdoch is a ferocious businessman who has helped steer
media through a treacherous digital transition. But if it is proven that News
Corporation‘s managers condoned lawbreaking, they should not be running any
newspaper or television firm. They should be in prison.

31
New York Times
July 10, 2011

Labour Party Vows to Fight Murdoch‘s Bid to Take Over Satellite

Company
By JOHN F. BURNS

LONDON — The $12 billion bid by Rupert Murdoch‘s News Corporation to take
over Britain‘s most lucrative satellite broadcast company, British Sky Broadcasting,
ran into fresh trouble on Sunday when the opposition Labour Party promised to take
the battle against the takeover to a vote in the House of Commons — a step that, if
successful, could deal a fatal blow to the bid.
The News Corporation effort to buy the 61 percent of the company it does not already
own had been in peril because of the phone-hacking scandal that led to the shutdown
this weekend of The News of the World, the tabloid that was one of Mr. Murdoch‘s
biggest newspapers. Many commentators in Britain saw the closing of the paper as a
move to cauterize the phone-hacking crisis and save the bid for the much more
profitable company, known as BSkyB.
The Labour Party‘s new move against the takeover came as the 80-year-old Mr.
Murdoch landed at an airport outside London to take direct control of the crisis that
has enveloped his company from executives of News International, News
Corporation‘s London-based subsidiary.
Apparently keen to emphasize his support for his management team in Britain,
officials of News International arranged later in the day for news photographs to be
taken of a smiling Mr. Murdoch with his son James, News International‘s chairman,
and Rebekah Brooks, a former News of the World editor who is the subsidiary‘s chief
executive. The two have been the focus of much of the public outrage that has been
directed at the Murdoch empire in Britain since the long-smoldering phone-hacking
scandal re-erupted last week.
Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, announced his intention to force a Commons vote on
the takeover on a BBC Sunday morning talk show, saying that he regretted having to
take the step but believed that Prime Minister David Cameron had left no other option
to bid opponents with his refusal to take steps to halt the takeover. Mr. Cameron has
said that his governing coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is bound by
law not to interfere in the regulatory review of the British Sky Broadcasting bid,
which has already moved close to clearing the deal.
Under questioning by Andrew Marr, the BBC host, Mr. Miliband denied that he had
―declared war on Rupert Murdoch‖ — who is already Britain‘s most powerful media
magnate, with a daunting political influence over decades that has led governments in
Britain, Labour and Conservative, to seek his favor.
The reluctance of politicians to alienate powerful media barons was acknowledged
with unusual candor on Friday by Mr. Cameron, who told a news conference that The
News of the World scandal showed the importance of curbing what he called the
―cozy‖ relationship in Britain between the media, politicians and the police. At a news
conference, he announced plans for new regulatory controls to eliminate a pattern of
unhealthy and potentially unlawful collaboration among them.

32
Mr. Miliband minced no words in demanding that Mr. Cameron reverse course on the
British Sky Broadcasting takeover and instruct the cabinet minister responsible,
Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, to refer the bid to Britain‘s Competition
Commission, which has the power to kill the bid by ruling that it would lead to
excessive concentration of ownership in Britain‘s media.
This spring, Mr. Hunt issued an initial ruling that would spare the bid from scrutiny
by the commission, but delayed a final decision pending a mandatory delay to allow
for public submissions. On Friday, Mr. Hunt announced that he had received 156,000
submissions and a collective protest with another 100,000 signatures.
Mr. Cameron, Mr. Miliband said, ―has got to understand that when the public have
seen the disgusting revelations that we have seen this week, the idea that this
organization, which has engaged in these terrible practices, should be allowed to take
over BSkyB, to get that 100 percent stake, without the criminal investigation having
being completed and on the basis of assurances from that self-same organization —
frankly, that just won‘t wash with the public.‖.
The Cameron government, with a majority in the Commons and the power to set the
chamber‘s agenda, could seek to block the Miliband move for a vote on the proposed
takeover. But with the phone-hacking scandal roiling the political landscape in Britain
like no other event in years, blocking a vote would be a risky move. Signaling a keen
sense of the public fury over the phone-hacking and the political price for failing to
engage with it, Mr. Cameron has announced plans for two public inquiries into the
scandal: one into the hacking itself, and what the prime minister has called the
―abysmal failure‖ of Scotland Yard to investigate it effectively over a five-year period
until this year, and another into the ―culture, practices and ethics‖ of British
newspapers.The prime minister‘s calculations may be influenced by his coalition
partners, the Liberal Democrats, who have declared their own opposition to the
takeover, at least until the criminal cases arising from the phone-hacking have been
completed.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats‘ leader, who is deputy prime minister, and Vince
Cable, the Liberal Democrat who is business secretary in the Cameron cabinet, are
said to have made their opposition to the bid known to Mr. Cameron in strong terms,
and allowing it to go ahead would most likely add to the severe strains between the
coalition partners on other issues that have raised doubts as to how long the coalition
can survive.

Ravi Somaiya contributed reporting.

33
The New York Times
July 10, 2011

Scandals Redefine Rules for the Press in Europe

By ALAN COWELL

PARIS — A widening phone-hacking scandal is prompting a broad reassessment of

the balance between press freedom and privacy in Britain, even as France grapples
with the consequences of its tradition of protecting the powerful.
If Dominique Strauss-Kahn walks free now that the sexual assault case against him in
New York seems to be weakening, will the French public have a right, or, indeed, an
appetite to know more than what emerged in American courts? And if less-exalted
people in Britain feel that their secrets should be protected too, how should they
shield themselves from unscrupulous journalists hacking into their most intimate
voice mails?
The questions underscore the contrasts between cultures that, in the past, have made
Britain a temple to strident disclosure and France a whispered haven of discretion. In
both countries, the debate has reached what might, at first, seem like a tipping point.
In London, a tabloid newspaper, The News of the World, was accused of
eavesdropping on the cellphones of a kidnapped and murdered schoolgirl, the
relatives of people who died in the 2005 London transit bombings and possibly the
families of British war dead in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Such was the public revulsion that an embattled prime minister, David Cameron, was
forced on Friday to order two separate inquiries — one into the phone-hacking
scandal itself and the other into the behavior of the freewheeling British press. In a
news conference, Mr. Cameron insisted that the British press tradition of self-
regulation had failed.
―I believe we need a new system entirely,‖ he said, prompting an outcry on Saturday
from British journalists who have long resisted statutory restrictions on their
freedoms, arguing that the press is able to police its own affairs.
―As a politician, Mr. Cameron can perhaps be forgiven for trying to shift the blame,‖
said a columnist, Stephen Glover, in the conservative newspaper The Daily Mail. ―He
can‘t be allowed to shackle a free press.‖
Yet, the broad rules remain freighted with ambiguity, governed by two apparently
conflicting clauses of the European Convention on Human Rights: one endorses the
right to privacy, another the right to free expression.
In recent months, that legal chasm has been filled by judges‘ rulings in favor of high-
profile clients seeking to keep their private lives under wraps. But Mr. Cameron has
voiced unease. ―It is an odd situation if the judges are making the law rather than
Parliament,‖ he said this year.
On Friday, Mr. Cameron went much further, calling not only for a new form of press
regulation, but also for an end to the cozy relationships between news organizations
that are seen as wielding huge influence and politicians who are desperate to harness
the support of the press for electoral advantage.
―Of course it is vital that our press is free,‖ Mr. Cameron said. ―That is an essential
component of our democracy and our way of life. But press freedom does not mean
that the press should be above the law.

34
―While it‘s vital that a free press can tell truth to power, it is equally important that
those in power can tell truth to the press.‖
France — like much of Continental Europe — has long chosen a different, less
swashbuckling attitude toward matters of privacy, offering the powerful a degree of
protection that would be unthinkable in Britain or the United States. French
politicians have been able to hide behind some of Europe‘s tightest privacy laws,
protected by what amounted to a code of silence about the transgressions of the
mighty. Sexual activity among male politicians, indeed, is still seen as a sign of vigor
rather than a cause for moral concern.
The sexual reputation of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, for instance, was known to many
journalists but rarely publicized. The extent of that knowledge emerged only when he
was arrested in New York in May and charged with trying to rape a hotel housekeeper
at the Sofitel in Manhattan.
Then, just last week in France, a novelist, Tristane Banon, 32, filed a criminal
complaint in which she claimed that Mr. Strauss-Kahn tried to rape her eight years
ago — an accusation that Mr. Strauss-Kahn has dismissed as ―imaginary.‖
In France and Britain, the past days and weeks have shown both models of reporting
to be strained to the point of failure, leaving journalists in both countries to define the
role they ought to play. The epiphany, said Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The
Guardian in London, which has taken a lead in exposing the phone-hacking scandal,
represents ―the most severe crisis in the past two or three generations.‖
And, as the author Christophe Deloire put it in Paris, ―If tomorrow the French people,
readers or voters, accuse us again of having kept a secret among ourselves, of
accepting different standards for the powerful than for the humble, what will we tell
them?‖
―It should be our ambition to say nothing but the truth — but the whole truth,‖ he
concluded.
In a way, the malaise in both countries represents the logical conclusion to
longstanding and contrasting definitions of tolerance. Only when The News of the
World stood accused in Britain of hacking the phones of ordinary people in their
moments of pain did public rage ignite. In France, the spectacle of a single powerful
man brought low provoked an equally passionate debate.
But as prosecutors revealed doubts about the credibility of Mr. Strauss-Kahn‘s
accuser in New York, many of his allies in the Parisian elite — particularly men —
began to talk of a political comeback.
Before the episode at the Sofitel, Mr. Strauss-Kahn was widely viewed as the most
likely Socialist Party challenger in France‘s presidential election next year.
So the question arises: Is France still so magnanimous toward the sexual adventures
of the powerful that Mr. Strauss-Kahn, the former managing director of the
International Monetary Fund, would be permitted to re-enter public life without an
accounting of events that his lawyers say did not involve force or criminal behavior?
Some journalists say the affair will — or at least should — break the mold of silence.
―More than ever, the rule of journalism should be to speak out,‖ wrote the blogger
Jean Quatremer, ―and the exception should be to remain silent.‖
But there is some skepticism about whether the culture will change in France to the
extent that Mr. Cameron is seeking in Britain. ―Journalists will pay a bit more
attention to private lives‖ of powerful figures, said Lucas Delattre, an author and a
former Le Monde correspondent, ―but not much."
In Britain, journalists might well conclude that those who claim a right to call the elite
to account could soon face much the same scrutiny themselves.

35
36
BBC — reproduzida no UOL
10/07/2011 - 20h06

E-mails sugerem que donos de tabloide já poderiam saber de grampos;

grupo nega

O grupo News International, ao qual pertence o tabloide "News of the World",

encontrou há quatro anos e-mails que davam indicativos de que o jornal estaria
fazendo escutas telefônicas e pagando policiais para obter informações jornalísticas.
O tabloide circulou pela última vez neste domingo, após se envolver em um escândalo
de grampos telefônicos ilegais de celebridades, políticos e pessoas de interesse
midiático, em um caso que está causando comoção no Reino Unido.
Esses e-mails, que poderiam evidenciar comportamento criminoso, datam de 2007,
mas só foram entregues às autoridades britânicas em 20 de junho deste ano, informa o
editor de Negócios da BBC, Robert Peston.
O grupo midiático, porém, negou que o executivo James Murdoch, filho do magnata
Rupert Murdoch, tivesse conhecimento de tais e-mails.
Segundo fontes ouvidas pelo jornalista, essas mensagens eletrônicas teriam sido
guardadas temporariamente pelo escritório de advocacia Harbottle & Lewis e obtidos
de volta por advogados agindo em nome do News International.
As mensagens eletrônicas parecem indicar que Andy Coulson, editor do News of the
World entre 2003 e 2007 e ex-porta voz do premiê David Cameron, autorizou
pagamentos para que policiais contribuíssem com furos jornalísticos do tabloide.
Coulson foi preso e solto sob fiança na sexta-feira, sob acusações de ter avalizado as
escutas telefônicas ilegais. Ele nega ter conhecimento dos grampos.
Os e-mails indicam, também, que os grampos telefônicos iam além de atividades
promovidas por repórteres "mal intencionados" -- que é o que o "News of the World"
alegou à época em que o escândalo veio à tona, dando a entender que se tratavam de
ações isoladas que não eram de conhecimento da cúpula do tabloide.
Em uma carta apresentada ao comitê de cultura e imprensa da Câmara Baixa do
Parlamento britânico, o escritório de advocacia Harbottle & Lewis diz que pediu ao
News International investigasse se as ações ilegais de Clive Goodman - ex-editor do
News of the World, preso em 2007 por escutas telefônicas ilegais - eram de
conhecimento de seus colegas de jornal.
Na carta, datada de 29 de maio de 2007, o escritório de advocacia diz que não
encontrou provas de que a cúpula do jornal sabia dos grampos.
Mas, quando executivos do News International recuperaram esses e-mails das mãos
dos advogados, encontraram evidências que, à primeira vista, indicavam que os
grampos ilegais iam além das atividades isoladas de Clive Goodman. Apontavam,
também, a existência de pagamentos ilegais para policiais.
Robert Peston relata que são cerca de 300 e-mails, a partir de 2007, que sugerem
conhecimento amplo das más práticas aparentemente cometidas pelo "News of the
World".

Negócios
Rupert Murdoch chegou à Reino Unida neste final de semana, na tentativa de lidar
com o escândalo de grampos.
Na noite deste domingo, ele saiu de uma reunião ao lado de Rebekah Brooks,

37
executiva-sênior do grupo News International e ex-editora do News of The World
entre 2000 e 2003.
Apesar de pressões para a demissão de Brooks, Murdoch voltou a dizer que a apoia
no cargo.
Mas o escândalo envolvendo o tabloide já está atrapalhando outros negócios do
magnata midiático. Neste domingo, o líder do Partido Trabalhista (oposição), Ed
Milliband, disse que vai pressionar o Parlamento britânico a tentar adiar a proposta de
Murdoch de comprar 100% das ações da BSKyB, a subsidiária britânica da operadora
de TV por assinatura Sky, da qual já ele é acionista minoritário.
Milliband disse que quer que a compra seja adiada até que as investigações sobre o
News of the World sejam concluídas.

Última edição
Também neste domingo, o News of the World, existente há 168 anos, circulou sua
última edição, com os dizeres "Obrigado e adeus" na capa. Dentro, um editorial dizia
que o jornal havia "perdido seu caminho".
A tiragem do jornal, o mais vendido do Reino Unido aos domingos, foi quase
dobrada, para 5 milhões de exemplares, e é esperado que sua venda bata recordes.
Uma federação de vendedores de jornais do Reino Unido estimou que, ao meio-dia
(horário local), as vendas do jornal eram 30% maiores em comparação com o
domingo anterior.

38
20 May 2011
Q&A: Super-injunctions
By Dominic Casciani BBC News home affairs correspondent
A report by top judges has recommended changes to the way the courts deal with so-
called super-injunctions and other anonymity orders in important cases.

What was the purpose of this report - and who wrote it?
Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls and head of civil courts in England and
Wales, and other judges have produced a report examining how and when judges can
grant someone anonymity to protect their privacy in a so-called "super-injunction".
The report does not cover anonymity and secrecy in other branches of the law, such as
family proceedings or national security cases.

So what is a super-injunction?
There are different types of injunctions and a super-injunction is the most powerful. A
super-injunction stops anyone publishing information about the applicant which is
said to be confidential or private - but also prevents anyone from reporting that the
injunction itself even exists.

How does a super-injunction work in practice?

Taking a hypothetical case, a Premiership footballer asks the High Court to stop a
kiss-and-tell story from appearing in next weekend's papers, saying that he is a victim
of wrongdoing and blackmail by the other party.
If the judge agrees to a super-injunction, the newspaper cannot report the allegations -
and it is also prevented from saying that the footballer went to court to gag the paper.
If the newspaper breaks the injunction, the editor could be prosecuted for contempt of
court.

What other injunctions exist?

A court can make an anonymised order. Lord Neuberger's report describes an
anonymised order as an injunction that stops someone from publishing information
"which concerns the applicant and is said to be confidential or private where the
names of either or both of the parties to the proceedings are not stated."

So how many injunctions are there which are either supers or anonymised?
We don't know exactly and the report says the Ministry of Justice should start
collating figures. Since January 2010 two super-injunctions have been granted. One
was overturned on appeal and the second was only enforced for seven days. The
report says super-injunctions are now only being granted for very short periods and
only where this level of secrecy is necessary. However, at the same time, there has
been an increase in anonymised orders where the names of the parties involved are
kept from the public, but not the existence of an injunction.

Who created super-injunctions? Was it the judges?

Judges don't make new laws - Parliament does. The problem over super-injunctions
has come about because judge must interpret what exactly Parliament means in a
particular law.

39
In 2000, the European Convention on Human Rights became embedded in British law
- creating a right to privacy enforceable by the courts. The legislation simultaneously
created a competing right to freedom of speech. Parliament said that these two rights
had to be balanced - and the judges were left to work that out.

So does this report change the law at all?

Again, no. The report makes clear that the judges were not "vested with any authority
to enlarge or reduce" the rights to privacy or freedom of expression.
In April, Prime Minister David Cameron waded into the debate saying he felt
"uneasy" about super-injunctions and said that judges were developing a privacy law
without Parliament's say so. But the day before the report's launch, Culture Secretary
Jeremy Hunt ruled out a new privacy law.
So while the judges cannot change the law, they have proposed making it simpler for
the public and media to know what is going on.

So how will they do that?

The report says that judges who are asked to grant injunctions should make sure that
the media know about the application in advance. In effect, that means that the media
or other members of the public will have a greater and clearer opportunity to contest
orders before they happen.

Who currently has a super-injunction?

The BBC cannot tell you because that would mean it would be breaking the super-
injunction and its reporters would be in contempt of court.

But I can read about them on Twitter?

Allegedly. Speaking at the report's launch, Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, did not
rule out the possibility of specific future measures to prevent people spreading stories
online.
He said: "Are we really going to say that somebody who has a true claim for privacy,
perfectly well made, which the newspapers and media can't report, has to be at the
mercy of somebody using modern technology?
"At the moment that may seem to be the case, but I'm not giving up on the possibility
that people who in effect peddle lies about others [by using modern technology] may
one day be brought under control, maybe through damages."

What about Parliamentarians? Haven't they been busy busting super-

injunctions?
MPs and peers have the protection of Parliamentary Privilege - the law which
basically protects everything they say and do in the Houses of Commons and Lords.
The law exists to protect Parliament's right to do its work without interference.
Lord Neuberger said however that the law on Parliamentary Privilege is
"astonishingly unclear" and he asked whether it was a "good idea" for lawmakers to
be "flouting a court order just because they disagree".
As for journalists repeating what allegations made in Parliament, the committee's
report says: "It is an open question" whether publishing information that breaches a
court order and was deliberately intended to do so, would have legal protection
because it could have been done in malice."

40
11/07/2011
Última edição de tabloide inglês vende 4,5 milhões e
chega perto de recorde
Do UOL Notícias*

Em São Paulo
A tão anunciada última publicação do tabloide "News of the World", mesmo
mergulhado em denúncias envolvendo escutas ilegais, chegou perto de bater um novo
recorde de vendas neste domingo. Foram 4,5 milhões de cópias vendidas, encerrando,
pelo menos até agora, uma história de 168 anos.
O número foi divulgado pelo jornal britânico "The Guardian", mas não foi
confirmado pela publicação.
O recorde de vendas do jornal foi em fevereiro de 1998, quando foram vendidas
4.543.457 cópias em um domingo.
Nesta segunda-feira, o vice-primeiro-ministro britânico Nick Clegg pediu que Rupert
Murdoch, dono do tabloide, repensasse sobre a oferta de US$ 12 bilhões feita pela
News Corporation para adquirir a British Sky Broadcasting, uma das empresas mais
lucrativas do Reino Unido.
Clegg fez essas declarações após anunciar que o titular de Cultura, Jeremy Hunt,
pedirá a Ofcom, organismo regulador do setor das telecomunicações, assessoria sobre
a oferta da News Corporation pelo canal.
"Rupert Murdoch está agora em Londres tentando resolver as coisas. O que posso
dizer é: 'olhe como o povo se sente com isso, olhe como o país reagiu com
repugnância destas revelações", acrescentou o vice-primeiro-ministro.
Clegg falou com a imprensa após se reunir nesta segunda-feira com a família de Milly
Dowler, a menina assassinada, cujo celular foi grampeado pelo jornal depois que
desapareceu em 2002.
O político liberal democrata disse que é necessário contar com uma investigação
judicial sobre o escândalo porque há uma dívida com a família de Milly Dowler e
outras vítimas das escutas.
O advogado da família de Dowler criticou nesta segunda-feira o magnata Rupert
Murdoch por não ter pedido desculpas aos familiares.
"Até agora ele não se desculpou", disse o advogado Mark Lewis, embora o editorial
da última edição do jornal tenha pedido desculpas aos leitores e investidores do
jornal. Para Lewis, o pedido deveria partir de Murdoch.
"Nós valorizamos os altos padrões, nós pedimos alto padrão mas, como nós
infelizmente sabemos, a partir de 2006, alguns dos que trabalharam para o jornal
passaram longe desses padrões", diz um trecho do editorial.
Ainda de acordo com o advogado, a ex-editora do jornal e editora-executiva da
publicação, Rebekah Brooks, deveria assumir a responsabilidade pelas escutas ilegais.
"Ela deveria fazer a coisa certa. Ela era a editora na época em que Milly [Dowler,
adolescente que foi sequestrada e depois assassinada em Londres] desapareceu. Ela
deveria assumir a responsabilidade editorial do caso", disse.
Por enquanto, Brooks deve ser mantida no cargo de chefe-executiva da News
Corporation, embora muito peçam que ela seja desligada da empresa. Nos próximos
dias, ela deve ser ouvida pela política para falar sobre os grampos ilegais.

41
No entanto, a Scotland Yard, que investiga o caso, não informou se ela será ouvida na
condição de testemunha ou acusada. Ao todo, nove jornalistas e três policiais, que
teriam recebido propina de jornalistas, podem ser presos.
*Com agências internacionais

42
Libel laws explained
Thursday 31 August 2006 12.03 BST

By James Sturcke

Article history
British libel laws were already complicated enough before the internet came along.
Their aim is to balance the right of free speech against protection for the reputation of
an individual from unjustified attack.
In law, a person is defamed if statements in a publication expose him to hatred or
ridicule, cause him to be shunned, lower him in the estimation in the minds of "right-
thinking" members of society or disparage him in his work.
Juries are told that the measuring stick of a libel being committed is whether any of
this would affect how a "reasonable man" views the complainant.
There are defences in law for libel. The publisher could prove the statement to be true,
it could be fair comment - so long as the opinion is based on true facts, is genuinely
held and not influenced by malice - or it could be protected by privilege (reporting of
comments made in parliament, courts and other official arenas are, generally
speaking, protected from libel actions).
Since the 1998 Reynolds claim against Times Newspapers, it has become accepted
that material published in the public interest is a further defence in libel proceedings.
The problem for anyone preparing to publish information which may be defamatory,
is that the laws are very much open to interpretation. Different juries will have
different views on what exactly influences a right-thinking man.
What is certain is that the legal costs of defending a libel action will be considerable,
often running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. The loser almost always has to
pay the costs of the winner, plus any damages awarded to the claimant.
In effect, fighting libel cases is an expensive game of chicken, which newspapers are
often reluctant to enter into, even when they believe they have a strong case.
The emergence of the internet has further complicated the issue. Individuals now have
a simple way of putting their writings online - with little or no review or vetting.
Over the past decade, forums and online chats have introduced a new genre of
writing, that in effect provides a written record of raw, impulsive conversations where
most participants have paid scant consideration to any legal implications.
Furthermore, internet postings can be read anywhere, bringing into question issues of
jurisdiction. The internet has also been seen as a place where people can express
themselves anonymously, although the rise of successful online child pornography
and grooming prosecutions has raised awareness of the trail left by ISP addresses.
Finally, there have also been past doubts about who is the actual publisher of online
information and what, if any, protection they should have from being sued. In print,
the primary publisher is the newspaper and any libel action would normally be
directed against the author or editor or both.
It is rare, though not unheard of, for the shop which sold the publication, known as the
secondary publisher, also to have to pay out. The issue with online articles is whether
the publisher is the person who runs the website, or the ISP which hosts it.

43
Financial Times
July 6, 2011

Britain‘s media must start policing itself

By John Kampfner

No one can now be in any doubt about the depths to which some in the British media
will sink to get a story.
The claim that someone working for the News of the World, the tabloid owned by
Rupert Murdoch‘s News International, might have hacked into the voicemail of a
murdered teenager after she went missing reinforces the view that depraved practices
have been taking place on an industrial scale for many years. Hundreds of people –
not all celebrities – have had their phones hacked to glean private information. It will
be for police and prosecutors to decide who, beyond the two men jailed in 2007 (a
News of the World journalist and a private investigator) and others under
investigation, should be pursued.
Anger is easy; finding the remedy will be harder. Britain‘s parliament will today
debate the issue, before hosting a public meeting that will call for an inquiry into the
scandal. The initiative was organised by present and former journalists, some of them
now in academia, with impeccable motives. They want to clean up the profession, to
drive out the criminals. Who can disagree?
Indeed, there are many areas on which mainstream journalists and politicians agree.
Self-regulation for the written press is surely the best way of ensuring the right mix of
independence, scrutiny and standards. The UK‘s regulator, the Press Complaints
Commission, has long been considered toothless – in an interview on Tuesday, the
best its chairman could offer was a ―review‖ and a yelp that she had been lied to.
The PCC insists that the reality is better than the perception, that it has prevented
several wrongful acts without fanfare but is not given due credit. Yet any organisation
that loses public confidence struggles to restore it without fundamental reform. The
PCC, in its present configuration, is woefully inadequate.
This is a tough time to be promoting freedom of expression. The instinct among many
of the media‘s critics is to tar everyone with the same brush. Unfashionable though it
might sound, however, the problem in the UK is not too much investigation, but too
little. By investigation, I mean the dogged extraction of facts that those with power
would wish to conceal. Investigative journalism has for years been in decline – a
result of economic factors and some of the world‘s most restrictive defamation laws.
My organisation has, with our partners, led the campaign for libel law reform. The
danger is that reform, which has been progressing slowly since publication of a draft
defamation bill, is seen within the context of a ―feral‖ media, as Tony Blair famously
described it.
The same goes for discussions on privacy, a right that in recent years has gained
primacy over the competing right to free expression. A committee of parliament has
been asked to investigate how privacy is defined; who is entitled to it; what exactly is
meant by the public interest; and when it should override other concerns.
The third potential constraint on free speech, also gaining currency among politicians,
is greater control of the internet. Again, this is a complex area, but the instinct appears
to be to find ways of restricting free expression.

44
No country has a perfect media, and goodness knows Britain‘s is flawed. But a
healthy democracy should err on the side of journalists finding out too much rather
than too little. By definition it is a rough trade. If an investigative reporter knows of,
say, an arms company up to no good, should he in future be prevented from using
subversive or undercover methods to seek out the truth? The criterion must be a
heightened understanding of the public good, tested to distraction by editors and
managers.
An inquiry on phone hacking should be welcomed if it serves a broader purpose of
not just rooting out the criminals and the sharks – but of helping to restore journalism
to its rightful place as a fearless but fair challenge to authority.
The writer is chief executive of Index on Censorship and author of „Freedom For
Sale‟.

45
Financial Times
July 12, 2011

Read all about it! All the news is bad news

By Philip Stephens

In its way it was a touching gesture. Rupert Murdoch had flown in to London to douse
the fires engulfing News International. So what was his priority? ―This one,‖ he
replied, turning protectively to his flame-haired lieutenant Rebekah Brooks. Touching
maybe, but shareholders in his News Corp media group might take a rather more
hard-headed view. Mr Murdoch still does not get it.
The challenges for David Cameron are more straightforward. Britain‘s prime minister
needs to explain why he brushed aside advice and appointed the former News of the
World editor and now-arrested Andy Coulson as his communications director.
Unconvincing waffle about ―second chances‖ will not do.
More likely, the employment of Mr Coulson reflected the insouciant self-regard that
persuades Mr Cameron that he can always ―handle‖ things. In that case, a
straightforward public apology for a serious error of judgment would be a good start.
Mr Murdoch has offered the prime minister a breathing space by agreeing that his bid
for full control of British Sky Broadcasting should be examined by the Competition
Commission. Scarcely anyone in Whitehall or Westminster believes the deal can
proceed before the completion of the myriad police and parliamentary probes into
alleged criminality at News International. How can Mr Murdoch‘s News Corp be
deemed ―fit and proper‖ before the law has taken its course?
So the prime minister needs more than a respite. Mr Murdoch hopes to keep the bid
alive by delaying a decision. But it will probably be years before the investigations
into phone hacking and the bribery of police officers reach a conclusion. People are
facing jail. Whatever the interim opinion of the Competition Commission, it is hard to
see how the government can wave the deal though. Mr Cameron is a close friend of
Ms Brooks. The prime minister‘s nightmare is the headline declaring that BSkyB has
been gifted to an organisation that hacked into the voicemail of a murdered child.
One bright spot for Mr Cameron comes from Ed Miliband‘s break with the Murdoch
media. Now the Labour leader has cut himself loose, Mr Cameron can escape Mr
Murdoch‘s embrace at much lower political cost.
I have struggled to see any bright spots for Mr Murdoch since it emerged that phone
hacking at the News of the World had reached beyond politicians and celebrities to
the families of murder victims and of soldiers killed in action.
Each day brings fresh allegations – the latest that News International invaded the
personal privacy of Gordon Brown, the former prime minister, and that a police
officer was offered cash to pass on personal contact details of members of the royal
family. A plot to bug the Queen? It beggars belief, even if Mr Murdoch is a staunch
republican.
As often in such affairs, the cover-up may well turn out to be more significant than
the original allegations. Whatever Ms Brooks knew or did not know about hacking
during her tenure as editor of the News of the World, she has been compromised by
the subsequent failure to properly investigate.

46
Only last autumn Mr Murdoch told the annual meeting of News Corp that the affair
amounted to ―one incident more than five years ago‖. Ms Brooks was by then chief
executive of News International. Yet a bipartisan committee of MPs had already
declared the company‘s ―single rogue reporter‖ defence to be incredible. Now it
seems evidence pointing to wider criminality had been circulating within News
International as long ago as 2007.
The apposite question for Mr Murdoch is not whether he can save Ms Brooks, but
whether he can rescue his British newspapers. He may well decide he would do better
to sell up. With the closure of the News of the World, he has already lost his best-
selling title.
That leaves the third player in the drama. The Metropolitan Police is deep in the mire.
Public expectations of politicians and journalists are always low. The police are
supposed to be guardians of the law. The easy bit will be identifying and prosecuting
the police officers who received payments from the News of the World in return for
passing on privileged information. As damaging as these specific charges has been the
refusal of senior figures to pursue the allegations of criminality at the newspaper.
The original 2006 investigation into hacking did see a reporter and private
investigator going to jail. But it was curiously narrowly drawn. Much of the evidence
now emerging had been available in police files for five years. John Yates, an
assistant commissioner of the Met, has described his own dilatory inquiry as ―a crap
decision‖. Apologies are not enough. Politicians and the public need a credible
explanation. As Alan Johnson, a former home secretary, has put it: were the police
―evasive, dishonest or lethargic?‖.
So there you have it: Mr Cameron, Mr Murdoch and the police are all big losers.
Once they were close. Now they are falling out as each struggles to salvage a
reputation. For now, the news gets worse every day.

47
ESTADÃO
Governo britânico pede que Murdoch desista de comprar operadora a
cabo. Parlamento deve convidar Murdoch a explicar escândalo da
obtenção ilegal de informações.
12 de julho de 2011 | 14h 36

BBC Brasil - BBC

O governo britânico disse nesta terça-feira que vai apoiar uma moção da oposição
trabalhista pedindo que a News Corporation, empresa do magnata Rupert Murdoch e
pivô do recente escândalo de obtenção ilegal de informações, desista de finalizar a
compra da operadora de TV a cabo BSkyB.
Como o governo é formado por uma coalizão entre o Partido Conservador e o Liberal
Democrata, as três principais forças políticas britânicas estão unidas contra a intenção
da empresa de avançar em sua compra de 100% das ações da BSKyB.
Nesta quarta-feira, o Parlamento britânico votará a moção, que afirma ser "do
interesse público", para tentar cancelar a proposta.
O líder trabalhista, Ed Miliband, disse que a proposta de compra não deveria ser
considerada até o término das investigações criminais sobre a empresa de Murdoch.
O vice-primeiro-ministro e líder dos liberais democratas, Nick Clegg, já havia feito
um pedido semelhante.
"Em última instância, esta é uma decisão que compete à News Corporation, mas
sempre esperamos que as pessoas levem em conta o que o Parlamento tem a dizer",
disse um porta-voz do governo britânico nesta terça-feira.
O secretário da Cultura, Jeremy Hunt, responsável pela decisão final sobre a compra,
não vai votar.
'Gigante'
A News Corporation já detém 39% das ações da BSkyB. O negócio criaria um
"gigante" da mídia, com um lucro que superaria todos os seus rivais na Grã-Bretanha,
incluindo a BBC.
Grupos de mídia rivais alegavam, já antes do escândalo envolvendo os jornais de
Murdoch, que o negócio prejudicaria a concorrência ao concentrar muito poder em
uma só companhia.
O primeiro-ministro, David Cameron, deve se encontrar nesta tarde com Clegg e
Miliband para discutir detalhes de inquéritos propostos para investigar as alegações de
obtenção ilegal de informações envolvendo jornalistas das empresas de Murdoch.
A Câmara dos Comuns, a câmara baixa do Parlamento britânico, pediu para que
Murdoch, seu filho James Murdoch e a diretora-executiva do grupo, Rebekah Brooks,
prestem esclarecimentos na próxima terça-feira.
Também nesta terça-feira, o ex-premiê britânico Gordon Brown pediu para que os
jornais de Murdoch sejam investigados, após denúncias de que ele teria sido
espionado de forma ilegal quando ocupava o posto de ministro das Finanças.
As acusações contra jornais do grupo pertencente a Murdoch surgem uma semana
depois de alegações de grampo telefônico envolvendo o tabloide News of the World ,
também de propriedade da News Corporation

48
O escândalo levou, no último domingo, ao fechamento do News of The World, após
168 anos de atividade. BBC Brasil - Todos os direitos reservados. É proibido todo
tipo de reprodução sem autorização por escrito da BBC.

49
ESTADÃO
Murdoch é pressionado a rever compra de TV
12 de julho de 2011 | 0h 00

LONDRES

Em meio ao escândalo de grampos telefônicos que prejudicam a imagem do primeiro-

ministro David Cameron, o governo britânico busca uma maneira de evitar que o
magnata Rupert Murdoch compre a empresa de comunicações via satélite British Sky
Broadcasting (BSkyB).
Ontem, o vice-primeiro-ministro Nick Clegg, do Partido Liberal Democrata, pediu a
Murdoch que reconsidere sua proposta após as denúncias de que um de seus jornais, o
tabloide News of the World, grampeou os telefones de celebridades, políticos, vítimas
de homicídio e parentes de soldados britânicos mortos no Iraque e Afeganistão.
"Faça a coisa certa e reconsidere sua proposta de compra da BSkyB", disse Clegg à
rede de TV BBC, depois de um encontro com parentes de uma das vítimas das escutas
ilegais.
Londres já pediu ao Ofcom, órgão que regula as TVs na Grã-Bretanha, e ao Office of
Fair Trading (OFT), agência do governo que fiscaliza as práticas comerciais no país,
que reavaliem a proposta de Murdoch após o escândalo dos grampos.
Clegg tornou-se a figura mais graduada do governo britânico a se posicionar contra a
proposta da News Corp., empresa de Murdoch. O partido do vice-premiê, o Liberal
Democrata, tem um histórico de problemas com alguns dos jornais do magnata.
O governo também deve levar em conta a rejeição dos eleitores em relação à News
Corp. e ao acordo. Uma pesquisa publicada recentemente mostrou que apenas 9% dos
britânicos apoiam o negócio, enquanto 70% desejam que ele não ocorra.
A posição de Clegg é parecida com a do Partido Trabalhista, de oposição, que já
prometeu atrasar uma votação parlamentar sobre o acordo até a conclusão das
investigações, o que aumentará a pressão sobre o governo. / AP

50
G1
13/07/2011 10h32 - Atualizado em 13/07/2011 10h32

Murdoch retira oferta de compra pela "BSkyB", diz "Sky News"

Agencia EFE
Londres, 13 jul (EFE).- A companhia "News Corporation" do magnata Rupert
Murdoch retirou nesta quarta-feira sua oferta de compra da totalidade das ações do
canal britânico "BSkyB" diante das crescentes reservas no Reino Unido, segundo
informou a rede "Sky News".
O anúncio ocorre horas antes de a Câmara dos Comuns britânica votar uma moção,
respaldada pelos principais partidos, que pede a Murdoch que retire sua oferta por
causa dos escândalos das escutas telefônicas ilegais do dominical "News of the
World". EFE

51
OPERA MUNDI
13/07/2011 - 09:18 | Efe | Washington

Senador democrata quer saber se grupo de Murdoch espionou nos EUA

O senador democrata Jay Rockefeller pediu nesta terça-feira (12/07) uma investigação
para saber se o grupo jornalístico News Corporation -- dirigido pelo magnata Rupert
Murdoch -- espionou ou realizou atividades ilegais nos Estados Unidos. Rockefeller
disse que as acusações contra o diário britânico News of the World, propriedade da
News Corp., levantam dúvidas se a companhia violou alguma lei norte-americana.
Em comunicado, o senador democrata pelo estado da Virgínia Ocidental expressou
sua preocupação porque a espionagem jornalística em Londres, admitida pela News
Corp, "pode ter se estendido às vítimas dos atentados de 2001" e a outros norte-
americanos. "Caso isso se confirme, as consequências serão sérias", avisou
Rockefeller na nota, postada nesta terça-feira no site do Comitê de Comércio, Ciência
e Transporte do Senado dos EUA, que é presidido por ele.

52
THE NEW YORK TIMES
July, 13, 2011

In Retreat, Murdoch Drops TV Takeover

By JOHN F. BURNS AND ALAN COWELL

LONDON — In a stunning setback after days of building scandal surrounding its

British newspaper operations, Rupert Murdoch‘s News Corporation announced on
Wednesday that it was withdrawing a $12 billion bid to take over the shares it does
not already own in Britain‘s main satellite television broadcaster.
The withdrawal from the bid for complete control of British Sky Broadcasting, also
known as BSkyB, represented the most severe damage inflicted so far on Mr.
Murdoch‘s corporate ambitions by the scandal. Only a week ago, Mr. Murdoch hoped
to contain the damage by shutting down his 168-year-old tabloid, The News of the
World, which had admitted to ordering the hacking of the voice mail of Milly Dowler,
a 13-year-old girl abducted and murdered in 2002.
Since then, virtually every day has brought dizzying new disclosure and
developments, culminating in News Corporation‘s announcement on Wednesday.
In a statement, Chase Carey, the company‘s deputy chairman, president and chief
operating officer, said, ―We believed that the proposed acquisition of BSkyB by News
Corporation would benefit both companies but it has become clear that it is too
difficult to progress in this climate.‖
As the announcement was made, Prime Minister David Cameron was meeting with
Milly Dowler‘s parents at 10 Downing Street.
It was unclear whether the move would mute the outcry against Mr. Murdoch‘s
operations in Britain. Within minutes of News Corporation‘s announcement,
politicians from the Labour opposition and the Liberal Democrat junior coalition
partner said competition authorities should investigate whether to challenge the
Murdoch family‘s existing 39 percent stake in BSkyB.
Ofcom, the media regulator, said it would continue its scrutiny of BSkyB‘s ownership
structure.
According British law, News Corporation would be allowed to make another bid for
the BSkyB shares it does not already own in six months. Some analysts said another
bid is indeed likely, but that the company would in all likelihood have to wait until
investigations into the phone hacking and bribery allegations were completed.
As the announcement was made, the chief lawyer for News International, the British
subsidiary of the News Corporation, confirmed reports that he was quitting after 26
years at the paper. Officials at the company said that the lawyer, Tom Crone, had
been the lawyer chiefly responsible for clearing controversial stories published in The
News of the World and another paper in the Murdoch stable, The Sun. His resignation
made him the first senior executive of News International to quit in the scandal.
In Washington, Senator Jay D. Rockefeller IV, a West Virginia Democrat and the
chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said he had asked officials to
investigate whether any News Corporation entities in the United States had employed
illegal methods in their news gathering operations.
―The reported hacking by News Corporation newspapers against a range of
individuals — including children — is offensive and a serious breach of journalistic

53
ethics,‖ he said in a statement. ―This raises serious questions about whether the
company has broken U.S. law.
The senator voiced particular concern for the victims of the 9/11 attacks and their
families. If the phone hacking did extend to them, he said, ―the consequences will be
severe.‖
Only hours before News Corporation‘s announcement, Mr. Cameron had sought to
distance himself from Mr. Murdoch and had urged him to drop the bid for BSkyB,
reversing his previous support. The announcement came just before Parliament was
set to approve a cross-party call for Mr. Murdoch to abandon his long-cherished
desire to take full control of the lucrative satellite broadcaster — a deal regarded as
the cornerstone of his strategy for corporate expansion.
Mr. Cameron said Murdoch executives should ―stop the business of mergers and get
on with cleaning the stables.‖
The scandal has also convulsed British politics, the press and the police, forcing them
to contemplate unheard-of scrutiny of their sometimes incestuous ties. A criminal
investigation and a public inquiry have been spawned as a direct result of allegations
that journalists from Murdoch newspapers may have tried to hack the phones of
families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and that they made illicit payments
to corrupt police officers.
But given Mr. Murdoch‘s towering influence in British public life, the scandal has
also cast unusually sharp light on a world of cozy relationships between political and
corporate leaders and senior police officers.
On Wednesday, Mr. Cameron offered details for the first time of a broad inquiry into
those relationships to be led by a senior judge, Lord Justice Brian Leveson. Mr.
Cameron told Parliament that it would have the power to summon witnesses to testify
under oath. The announcement came as Mr. Cameron fought to recover the initiative
in a scandal that has turned into potentially the most damaging crisis of his time in
office, partly because of his own close relationship with senior figures in News
International.
He said that the inquiry would examine the ethics and culture of the British media as
well as the accusations of phone hacking at The News of the World, and that it would
also investigate why an initial police inquiry failed to uncover the extent of the
scandal. It will also explore allegations that journalists paid corrupt police officers.
The senior judge said in a statement that parts of his investigation would begin soon.
Mr. Cameron said he wanted the inquiry to be ―as robust as possible, one that can get
to the truth fastest and get to work the quickest, and one that commands the full
confidence of the public.‖
Mr. Cameron said it should complete a report on the future regulation of the press
within a year, but he acknowledged that inquiries into allegations of criminal
wrongdoing — which the police are also investigating — would take longer.
The opposition Labour leader, Ed Miliband, said the withdrawal of the BSkyB bid
was ―a victory for people up and down this country who have been appalled by the
revelations of the phone hacking scandal‖ and the failure of News International over
the years to take responsibility. ―The country wanted this. It wanted its voice to be
heard. Today, it has been.‖
―People thought it was beyond belief that Mr. Murdoch could continue with his
takeover after these revelations,‖ he said in a statement carried by the Press
Association news agency. ―It is these people who won this victory. They told Mr.
Murdoch: ‗This far and no further.‘ ‖

54
Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who is also the deputy prime
minister and nominal ally of Mr. Cameron, also praised the News Corporation‘s
decision. ―This is the decent and sensible thing to do. Now that the bid has been
called off and a proper inquiry set up, we have a once-in-a-generation chance to clean
up the murky underworld and the corrupted relationship between the police, politics
and the press.‖
In a rancorous session at the weekly encounter in Parliament known as prime
minister‘s questions, Mr. Cameron also came under renewed pressure from Mr.
Miliband to explain his relationship with his former director of communications,
Andy Coulson, a former editor of The News of the World who was taken in for
questioning last week on suspicion of conspiracy in the phone hacking and making
payments to police officers to gain confidential information.
The debate in Parliament was also marked with sharp exchanges between Mr.
Cameron and Mr. Miliband. ―He just doesn‘t get it,‖ Mr. Miliband said, referring to
the worries provoked by Mr. Cameron‘s decision to hire Mr. Coulson, who was
forced to resign in January as the phone hacking scandal gathered pace. Mr. Miliband
said Mr. Cameron‘s hiring of Mr. Coulson revealed a ―catastrophic‖ lack of judgment.
But Mr. Cameron replied, ―The person who is now not getting it is the leader of the
opposition.‖ He added, ―What the public wants us to do is to deal with this firestorm.‖
During the parliamentary debate, a lawmaker also asked if there was evidence that
journalists at News International had tried to hack into the voice mail of victims of the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, as they are accused of doing in Britain
after the London subway and bus bombings in July 2005.
The Daily Mirror newspaper had reported that journalists had sought to secure phone
data concerning Sept. 11 victims from a private investigator in the United States. Mr.
Cameron said he would investigate the issue.
Neither the e withdrawal of the BSkyB bid nor the shuttering of The News of the
World seems to have diverted the fury of lawmakers sensing that, for the first time in
decades, Mr. Murdoch and his family are vulnerable.
A spokesman for the House of Commons said that a parliamentary motion censuring
Mr. Murdoch — ―This house believes that this is in the public interest for Rupert
Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB‖ — would still be
debated later on Wednesday. But it was not immediately clear whether members
would vote on it.
David Winnick, a Labour member of parliament who has been investigating the
phone hacking case as part of the Home Affairs Committee, said in an interview that
Mr. Murdoch had ―anticipated what the result would be — a unanimous vote in the
House of Commons against him, 650 members deciding it was not in the public
interest. He‘s used his senses and come to the only possible conclusion.‖
He added that Mr. Murdoch had headed off a demonstration of ―political hostility
which would have been shared in the country,‖ but warned that ―the heat is not off,
bearing in mind the criminality that has started to be exposed.‖
A parliamentary committee said Tuesday that it would call Mr. Murdoch, his son
James and Rebekah Brooks, the chief executive of News International, to testify next
week about accusations of phone hacking and corruption at the News International
papers. John Whittingdale, chairman of Parliament‘s Culture, Media and Sport
Committee, said it would seek to determine ―how high up the chain‖ knowledge of
the newsroom malpractices in the Murdoch newspapers went.

55
John F. Burns reported from London, and Alan Cowell from Paris. Reporting was
contributed by Ravi Somaiya and Julia Werdigier from London.

56
A globalização da ética de imprensa
14 de julho de 2011 | 0h 00

Eugênio Bucci - O Estado de S.Paulo

O fechamento do tabloide inglês The News of the World, que vendia 2,6 milhões de
exemplares, deu a largada para a principal discussão sobre ética de imprensa no
mundo globalizado. A partir de agora está claríssimo: a conduta dos órgãos
encarregados de informar a sociedade é uma pauta supranacional. Não é apenas o
capital que viaja em segundos de um continente para outro. Não são apenas as massas
trabalhadoras que migram clandestinamente para disputar empregos em terras
estrangeiras. Não é apenas a indústria da diversão que alcança simultaneamente os
olhares de povos distantes entre si. Agora ficou evidente: a credibilidade dos órgãos
jornalísticos não é meramente um assunto doméstico, ela floresce e sucumbe na arena
global.
Já veremos por quê. Antes façamos uma recapitulação sumária do que se passou.
Esse jornal, The News of the World, tinha 168 anos de idade. Desde 1969 pertencia à
News Corporation, o megaconglomerado internacional, com faturamento na casa dos
US$ 33 bilhões ao ano, controlado pelo australiano Rupert Murdoch. Vivia de
bisbilhotagem, luxúria e algum sangue. Vivia muito bem, apesar do lento declínio em
circulação, que vinha de décadas. Sua fórmula editorial ia dos aposentos da família
real em Londres às estripulias transoceânicas dos astros do show business, passando
por bestialidades a granel.
Há poucos anos, seus métodos "jornalísticos" passaram a ser contestados. No site da
Press Complaints Commission - instituição encarregada da autorregulamentação da
imprensa britânica - há queixas de escutas clandestinas contra ele. Na esfera policial
também houve investigações. Um jornalista do News of the World, Clive Goodman,
chegou a ser preso em 2007.
Tudo isso não é novo, portanto. Mas até então se acreditava que os crimes registrados
eram desvios individuais, casos isolados, como se diz. Agora se viu que não. Os
crimes são mais sérios e muito mais numerosos. Segundo apontam as investigações,
seriam mais de 4 mil os telefones grampeados pelo jornal. Estamos falando, portanto,
da industrialização do grampo. Gerenciar milhares de escutas clandestinas é uma
operação de monta: requer equipes treinadas, orçamentos bem planejados, estruturas
próprias. Os inquéritos vão dando conta de que o News não era uma redação
jornalística - era uma agência de arapongas assalariados.
Descobriu-se mais. Além de grampear celebridades - o que já constitui uma
ilegalidade inaceitável, que se situa fora do campo do jornalismo -, o jornal teria
invadido celulares de pessoas comuns, que não dependem do estrelato para inflar seus
cachês. Grampeou parentes de soldados mortos. Grampeou até a adolescente Milly
Dowler. A garota estava desaparecida - soube-se depois que já tinha sido assassinada
- quando detetives contratados pelo News apagaram mensagens de seu celular, o que
causou nos familiares a impressão de que ela ainda estava viva. Com isso o caso
ganhou uma sobrevida - e, em consequência, a cobertura do caso, liderada pelo News
of the World, também ganhou sobrevida. Lucrativa.
Essas revelações estarreceram a Inglaterra. O tabloide era um serial killer da
privacidade de gente comum. Anunciantes caíram fora. Os protestos se generalizaram.
Murdoch fechou o semanário, na tentativa de estancar a sangria de reputação e de
salvar um objetivo maior: ele queria comprar a totalidade da BSkyB, um poderoso

57
grupo de canais a cabo do qual já é sócio. A tentativa não deu certo. O quadro só se
complicou. Andy Coulson, ex-diretor do News of the World e porta-voz de David
Cameron, o primeiro-ministro britânico, até janeiro de 2011, foi preso na sexta-feira
passada. Só foi liberado sob fiança. O ex-primeiro ministro Gordon Brown diz que
também foi grampeado. A crise do tabloide virou uma crise no Parlamento. Políticos
de correntes várias passaram a contestar em público as pretensões do dono da News
Corp., a tal ponto que, ontem mesmo, Murdoch anunciou que desistiu da compra da
BSkyB. Ele está acuado. Na Inglaterra e no mundo.
Aí é que entram as razões da internacionalização desse debate. O escândalo dos
grampos virou notícia no mundo todo porque o conglomerado de Murdoch está no
mundo todo - e se ele faz por aí o que parece ter feito em Londres, isso diz respeito a
todos nós. Ontem pela manhã a Rádio CBN noticiou em primeira mão no Brasil que o
senador democrata Jay Rockefeller pretende investigar o grupo de Murdoch nos
Estados Unidos. Um dos jornais que mais se destacaram na cobertura dos bueiros da
News Corp. - depois do diário inglês The Guardian - é o americano The New York
Times, que vem sofrendo uma concorrência frontal do Wall Street Journal, comprado,
em 2007, por ninguém menos que Murdoch. Na Newsweek desta semana, o jornalista
Carl Bernstein - autor, ao lado de Bob Woodward, da série de reportagens sobre o
escândalo de Watergate, publicadas no Washington Post, que levaram a renúncia de
Richard Nixon, em 1974 - lança a pergunta que só ele pode fazer: será que esse
escândalo não é o Watergate de Murdoch?
O sentimento geral foi bem sintetizado pela revista The Economist de quinta passada:
"Se ficar provado que os diretores da News Corporation agiram contra a lei, eles não
deveriam mais comandar nenhum jornal ou estação de TV. Deveriam estar na cadeia".
Isso vale para qualquer país. No mundo de hoje, as práticas dos tabloides ingleses
viraram tema do interesse público internacional.
Sim, isso mesmo. Existe um interesse público internacional, ainda que difuso,
rarefeito, pouco institucionalizado. Não são apenas o capitalismo selvagem e a
especulação financeira que rasgam fronteiras. As preocupações humanitárias em geral
e a ética jornalística em particular também se globalizam como valores universais. É a
isso que Murdoch terá de prestar contas. E com isso ele talvez não contasse.
JORNALISTA, É PROFESSOR DA ECA-USP E DA ESPM

58
News Corp. Newspapers May Face U.S. Inquiry
By BRIAN STELTER

Public criticism of the News Corporation‘s conduct in the British hacking scandal has
crossed the ocean as half a dozen members of Congress this week urged the United
States government to investigate possible misconduct, including violations of a law
that guards against foreign corruption.
In a letter on Wednesday, Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York,
pressed the F.B.I. to investigate whether journalists working for News Corporation
newspapers tried to obtain phone records of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, as one British newspaper claimed, citing anonymous sources.
Mr. King was the first Republican to call for an investigation into the company‘s
activities. The News Corporation‘s chief executive, Rupert Murdoch, is a longtime
supporter of conservative causes and Republican politicians.
Several of the other lawmakers who spoke out this week have been publicly critical of
the News Corporation in the past. The first to issue a statement, Senator John D.
Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, said Tuesday that the United States
government should hold investigations to ―ensure that Americans have not had their
privacy violated.‖
He was joined on Wednesday by senators like Robert Menendez, Democrat of New
Jersey, who asked the Justice Department to investigate the claims involving 9/11
victims. Mr. Menendez said in his letter that the ―large scope‖ of the hacking in
Britain made it ―imperative to investigate whether victims in the United States have
been affected as well.‖
New Jersey‘s other senator, Frank R. Lautenberg, suggested Wednesday that both the
Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission should examine the
case and consider starting a formal investigation. Mr. Lautenberg referred to news
media reports that journalists ―paid London police officers for information, including
private telephone information, about the British royal family and other individuals for
use in newspaper articles.‖
Because the News Corporation is based in the United States, such payments may have
violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which forbids payments to foreign
officials. Citing the act‘s accounting rules, he added, ―If indeed bribes were made and
were not properly recorded, this too may be a violation of law.‖
Several of the lawmakers echoed what Mr. Lautenberg asserted: that ―further
investigation may reveal that current reports only scratch the surface of the problem at
News Corporation.‖
Asked about Mr. Lautenberg‘s letter, Mary Schapiro, the chairwoman of the S.E.C.,
said, ―We will look at it very carefully, as we do all Congressional correspondence.‖
Some legal experts cast doubt that the government would pursue a legal case against
News Corporation. Ellen S. Podgor, a law professor at the Stetson University College
of Law and a regular contributor to a blog about the anticorruption act, said that
initiating an investigation against the company ―would be like entering a minefield.‖
She said prosecutors would weigh the First Amendment issues involved and the fact
that other statutes covered the conduct in Britain ―where they allegedly occurred.‖
Several civic and public interest groups, including some that have been longtime
opponents of Mr. Murdoch, have set up petitions and proposed Congressional
hearings into the company‘s conduct.

59
Floyd Norris contributed reporting.

60
The Wall Street Journal
July 14, 2011

FBI Opens News Corp. Hacking Probe

By DEVLIN BARRETT

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has opened a probe into whether employees of
News Corp. might have hacked or attempted to hack into the private calls and phone
records of Sept. 11 victims and their families, according to people familiar with the
matter.
The investigation was opened Thursday morning, following a request a day earlier by
Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) who heads the House Homeland Security Committee and
whose Long Island district was home to many victims of the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The investigation will try to determine whether employees of News Corp. illegally
accessed the private calls, voice-mail messages, or call records of 9/11 victims or their
families, these people say. It will also look into whether any News Corp. employees
bribed or sought to bribe police officials to gain access to such records.
A scandal over phone hacking in the U.K. by News of the World, a publication
recently closed by News Corp., has roiled the media empire and prompted a series of
legal inquiries.
The Daily Mail in the U.K. reported earlier this week that News of the World
reporters tried to hack the voice-mails of dead 9/11 victims, citing an unidentified
former New York policeman who said he was offered money by News of the World
reporters who said they would pay him to retrieve private phone calls. The
unidentified former officer says he declined the offer.
News Corp. also owns The Wall Street Journal.

61