The OJ Simpson Book Reminded Americans Of Rupert Murdoch’s Sleazy US Tabloid Beginnings – Something The Most Respected of American Media Barons Had Hoped Had Been Forgotten -- And Now The UK Jailing Of A Reporter And His Editor’s Resignation For Violating Prince William’s Privacy Has Tongues Wagging There, Too.

Philip Stone January 29, 2007

Rupert Murdoch had one big complaint back in the 1970s when he began buying into US media, starting with the racy San Antonio (Texas) Express tabloid, “I don’t get respect.” Thirty years later he is probably the most respected of all the American media barons. Today when Rupert Murdoch speaks, people everywhere listen and follow!

But when he arrived on American shores making that initial Texas investment in 1973 he was known as the Australian and British sleazy tabloid king and no one had a good thing to say about him. He followed that initial US investment by buying the New York Post three years later (which he later sold and then bought back in 1993), the Boston Herald-American in 1982 (for just $1 million) and The Chicago Sun Times a year later for $90 million (sold three years later for a $65 million profit). And during all this time he was considered a pariah in American media circles, someone whose name you wouldn’t mention in good company.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

©www.graphicnews.com

In the 20 years that followed Murdoch changed all of that, and then some. He got into local television, buying seven stations in major US markets from Metromedia for $2 billion, he started the Fox networks, he bought 20th Century Fox, even owning the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team for a while, and at the same time making investments in China, Italy, Australia and the UK turning himself into the respected mogul he is today. Frankly, in America, money and being the best at what you do earns respect and there can be no doubt that Murdoch has them both.

But two incidents in recent months, one on each side of the Atlantic, have served to remind everyone of Murdoch’s beginnings, and no doubt being the elder statesman he is in US media circles today he would just as soon people remembered him for what he is today, and not for his reputation 20 plus years back.

His Regan Book Company, a division of HarperCollins had scored an exclusive, something that it is said that Murdoch personally approved. It got OJ Simpson, probably the biggest pariah in the US today, to write a book on if he had killed his wife and her friend then this is how he would have done it. Not only that but talk about convergence – the Fox Network would carry an OJ Simpson interview over two nights during sweeps time. How could this be anything but a fantastic moneymaker and a great TV ratings winner?

But Murdoch and his people had very badly misjudged. Yes, the American people wanted to know how Simpson pulled off the murders for which he went through the so-called trial of the century only for the jury to take about 30 minutes in finding him not guilty, but, by golly, paying the man -- in effect having him earn money from such a crime, fictional account or not, was an absolute no-no. The hue and cry was fierce, even within News Corp., and finally Murdoch intervened to personally cancel the project. The book publisher was fired and her book division dismantled. 

With such decisive action News Corp hoped the terrible PR would go away. But now it has all hit the fan again in the UK. The royal reporter for Murdoch’s News of the World, the largest circulation UK tabloid at over 3 million, has just been jailed for four months, a private investigator working on retainer was jailed for six months, and the newspaper’s editor has resigned in disgrace, all for invading Prince William’s privacy by tapping into his aides’ voice-mail messages.

And since Murdoch is known to micro-manage major decisions within his organizations the questions being asked now in the UK are whether he was aware of the voicemail hacking? If not him, just how high did all this go in his organization? Was the editor’s resignation necessary to silence such questions by having a senior executive take responsibility?

The judge made it quite clear he considered the phone hacking, especially against royalty, to be a serious, inexcusable crime. And he completely dismissed any thought this case had anything to do with freedom of the press. He told the defendants in sentencing them, “ This was low conduct, reprehensible in the extreme. This case is not about press freedom. It is about grave, inexcusable and illegal invasion of privacy. The targets were members of the Royal Family. The Royal Family holds a unique position in the life of this country. It is grave indeed.”

What has really raised questions is the involvement of the private investigator who apparently came up with the way of hacking into the voicemails. He was paid an annual News International retainer of £104,988 ($200,000, €150,000) for “research and information services.” At what level within News International would such a retainer have needed executive approval, and did that executive know the true work involved?

Usually UK politicians refrain from anything even near criticism of Murdoch. They fear the power of The News of the World, with the largest UK Sunday circulation of 3 million plus; The Sun, with the largest UK daily circulation of 3 million plus; The Sunday Times, largest UK “quality” Sunday circulation with 1.2 million; and The Times, perhaps the most time-honored name in British journalism with about 670,000 circulation, let alone the power of the Sky television news. 

It is truly believed that whichever political party the Murdoch newspapers supports in a general election will win. The well-known complaint in the UK is that Prime Minister Tony Blair is George Bush’s poodle, but there is another complaint – that he is Rupert Murdoch’s poodle, too, often showing up at News Corp events around the world. Many in London political circles believe that it won’t be too long after Blair gives up being prime minister that he will be appointed to the News Corp. board.

So it is a major milestone when the chairman of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Culture, Media, and Sports, said he is considering an inquiry. “This has been the most serious breach of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) code. It must carry out a full and thorough investigation into what happened … at all levels of this news organization.”  Obviously he prefers that the PCC investigation will be complete enough so that Parliament doesn’t get involved.

The PCC, whose chairman is no less than Les Hinton, News International’s executive chairman, has said it will conduct an inquiry during which it will ask Andy Coulson, the resigned News of the World editor, some very hard questions. Hinton had much to do with drawing up the PCC code that takes privacy seriously. It was Hinton who a few weeks back told News International newspapers they could not buy paparazzi news pictures of Kate Middleton, Prince William’s girlfriend, because of the media circus the paparazzi were creating for someone who, still, is a private person.

The spin at the News of the World is that when the royal reporter, Clive Goodman, was arrested last August, Coulson was called into a meeting with Hinton and Murdoch and they read him the riot act. When Goodman pleaded guilty four months later Coulson offered his resignation and it was accepted a couple of weeks later, but not announced until last Friday’s sentencing.

So, the editor has fallen on his sword. Was he as high as it got in knowing what was going on, or were there winks and nods from even higher? It’s doubtful that the PCC or any Parliamentary Committee will find any smoking gun.

But none of this has enhanced Rupert Murdoch’s reputation as the elder media baron with the Midas touch who can do no wrong. The older we all get the more we care about how history treats us, so these have not been good months for enhancing Murdoch’s reputation; indeed, they have reminded the world of the tabloid ink that still runs in his veins.

ftm Follow Up & Comments