Rupert Murdoch: “Not a fit Person” To Run A Major Company
Posted by Michelle Moquin on May 2nd, 2012
Good morning!
I HOPE everyone had a safe May Day, aka: International Worker’s Day, and Immigrant’s Rights Day yesterday!
Wow – a lot was going on yesterday. It seemed that the protests were peaceful…at least from what I have heard. If you were amongst the crowds, part of the Occupy movement, etc., or just observing, how was it? What was your experience like? Unfortunately, I could not participate – the only thing I was part of was the traffic. :) It was difficult getting around, but I was cheering for the people.
On my way out yesterday morning I was listening to some of it on the radio, and then I tuned into NPR and heard all the talk about Rupert Murdoch. Perhaps my so savvy readers have already read the latest, but if not here it is:
Rupert Murdoch ‘Not A Fit Person’ To Run Major Company, Phone Hacking Report Says
A parliamentary committee has judged that Rupert Murdoch is “not a fit person” to run a major international company such as News Corp. due to his handling of the phone hacking scandal.
The verdict, from the Culture, Media and Sport committee in the House of Commons, is an unexpectedly damning one. Committee members made clear on Tuesday that it was not a unanimous one, setting up a political fight when the entire House votes on some of its findings.
The committee wrote that Murdoch “turned a blind eye and exhibited willful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications,” and concluded that he “is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company.”
The report is the culmination of years of investigation since the phone hacking crisis first broke in 2009. Since then, the scandal has caught everyone from journalists to police to politicians in its net, and cost Murdoch hundreds of millions of dollars.
Both Rupert and James Murdoch gave evidence to the committee after the Milly Dowler story sent the scandal into overdrive in July of 2011. Last week, Rupert Murdoch said that there had been a “cover-up” at the News of the World, the now-shuttered paper at the center of the scandal. But he has insisted that he was completely in the dark about the extent of phone hacking, and that he “failed” to make any attempts to find out what was going on at his newspaper.
The report was highly divided along political lines, chiefly due to the surprisingly harsh criticism of Murdoch. Members of the opposition Labour party voted as a bloc, along with one Liberal Democrat, to insert the passages, over the objections of all of the Conservative members.
At a press conference held by the committee on Tuesday, Louise Mensch, a Conservative member, said that the report was “partisan” and had been “damaged” by the controversial sections. Labour MP Tom Watson countered, saying that he was “disappointed that some members didn’t feel sufficiently convinced or confident to hold the most powerful to account.”
*U*N*F*I*T*
Readers: What’s going on with you? Blog me.
Peace out.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
May 2nd, 2012 at 2:47 pm
I am so happy Arianna said that it is crucial for Obama to get re-elected. But I think she is naive at best for insinuating that Obama was “fearmongering” with one of his ads.
Where was this woman when Bush and McCain were filling with fear mongering at every opportunity?
Obama is staying true to himself..However, when the other side pounds on you, you cannot just stand there against the rope and take it!
Do we hear Ariana calling the racist appeals used by Romney, Gingrich and other republicans what it is race baiting and appealing to bigotry? No, she like the other white media, she ignores the obvious.
Romney has attacked Obama so much in the last few months, in order to win the Republican nomination..I really feel that Obama has to get tough, and say enough is enough.
May 2nd, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Who questioned Romney’s patriotism? We simply question his courage and competence to make such a daring call.
Simply put, when many told President Obama don’t do it, the act was too risky and not enough intel was available, President Obama said ” Now is the time, Go”.
May 2nd, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Ellen, I agree whole heartedly. Ariana is just plain stupid. Despicable? Really? Arianna as a liberal woman, I am asking you to take a breath and think before you veer off on some “macho” analysis that simply invites ridicule.
How long have we been waiting for democrats to fight back? At the first sign, you manufacture a clever insulting opinion that puts us back to square one.
According to conservatives, national security is perhaps the only area the executive branch should be concerned with (not the economy, not civil rights, etc.), so the president shouldn’t talk about it?
I admire you, and hope this is a learning experience for you.
May 2nd, 2012 at 2:52 pm
I would just like to add that the President is more of a basketball guy, so if anything his call on OBL was a SLAM DUNK! You can say that Mitch McConnell SLAM-DUNK
May 2nd, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Arianna where were you and the rest of the white media when the republicans were questioning Obama’s patriotism?
The ad you have decided to protest doesn’t question Romney’s patriotism – it questions his ability to make a decision that he’d actually have to stick with.
I think that’s clear to anyone watching the ad or considering the situation.
How can Romney make a decision of that magnitude – he can’t even stick with the same story, let alone actually follow through on a plan.
Send him back to the country club where he belongs and leave the big thinking to Obama.
May 2nd, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Arianna.
When you find yourself in the middle of a knife fight, that is NOT the time to start meditating on the virtures of non-violence.
The ad wasn’t “fear-mongering”. It was PUSHBACK against the relentless (and baseless) attacks by the Romney campaign which seems to think it can win the White House on the back of The Big Lie. That they can make any charge stick if they simply repeat it loud enough and often enough.
The ad was also pointing out that Romney is a shameless hypocrite as well as a liar. Criticizing the declaration by Obama that he would violate Pakistan’s sovereignty if they had a clear shot at bin Laden…and then trying insist that he would have done same, once the raid he initially criticized proved to be wildly successful.
Republicans have been beating Democrats senseless for over 30 years by shamelessly politicizing national security issues. In a perfect world, neither side would do this…
But in the political world in which we live in, you either fight back…or you get Swiftboated.
Obama made the right call, and hit first.
May 2nd, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Sorry, Arianna. I love you and we agree about 99% of the time but this time I have to disagree.
Romney lambasted Obama saying you should never go into a foreign country in previous remarks. But consider it a different way:
If I go for a job interview, the interviewer wants to know what I have as accomplishments and they also want to know what differentiates me from the other candidates.
Obama is being interviewed for the most important job in this country and he listed one of his accomplishments and what separates him from the other candidate. That’s not out of bounds in my book.
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:00 pm
This is the difference between Republicans who want to win elections and wimpy Democrats who are afraid they may appear ‘macho’.
Has anyone on the Right ever criticized Bush for his Mission Accomplished Stunt on an aircraft carrier, or his ad in the 2004 election with a 9-11 backdrop?
Obama needs to do MORE campaigning that he indeed IS the better choice for a safer America. Hope he doesn’t listen to Arianna, and stays on offense!
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:01 pm
And the wise individual would be able to imagine an array of frightening outcomes that might and could result from such decisions as the one that this administration, and this President, chose to make.
No Arriana, it is NOT about MACHO, it is about courage of conviction and the guts to take the fallout, no matter which way that fallout will go. THAT is what this is all about.
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:02 pm
“the guts to take the fallout”
Obama’s got the right stuff.
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Arriana, of all people, you still don’t get it. And that is fine if you don’t get it.
The question asked by the ad has little, if anything, to do with “macho”.
It does, however, have everything to do with courage, commitment, nerve, confidence, focus of intent and most of all, the guts to take a tough stand on something highly critical and be willing to stand by the fallout of that decision, regardless as to what the outcome MIGHT become.
This, having no “crystal ball” or certainty that the outcome sought will be the outcome realized. Another crucial factor is the fact that in making the decision perhaps innocent people are being sent to their demise or innocent people will be harmed predicated upon the decision the individual is making.
The substance of such questions and of asking such a question is at the heart of leadership and the selection of leadership on the part of those who are to be led.
There is nothing “macho” about it. On the contrary, the wise individual would and should be scared perhaps “our of their wits” if confronted with such a scenario, because in its reality, the overall burden and specter of every real dimension in the possible outcome of the chain of events that will inevitably follow the making of such a decision as this are frightening beyond imagination.
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Happy Hump Day to you all and let’s dive right in to what the staff at Human Events has for you this fine Wednesday:
Government neglect poisons Camp Lejeune Marines and families
A story that will certainly draw some attention comes from Camp Lejeune this morning. Hope is reporting that approximately 75K Marines over a three-decade period were exposed to serious contaminants, including chemical degreasers and organic solvents, which seeped into the drinking water on the base. The Marines and their advocates in Congress, as Hope reports, have asked for “medical care and hospice for their contamination-related illnesses, a plan that would cost an estimated $3.9 billion to fund.” And it seems like Veterans Affairs had a surplus. However, they went ahead and unilaterally spent it on other things.
Gingrich out of presidential race, regrets some decisions
In an interview with USA Today, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told the paper that he will support Mitt Romney for president and has a few regrets from this campaign, one being how people reacted to his plans about outer space. To read more, scroll down to the story from the USA Today.
Speaking of the Speaker, his weekly column is below, too. It’s critical of the Obama administration’s Afghanistan policy in light of the recent developments between the White House and Kabul.
“Sacaja-Whiner”: Elizabeth Warren and the oppression Olympics
What a hilarious column title from Michelle Malkin. This Senate race in Massachusetts will certainly be one to watch. Elizabeth Warren has claimed questionable Native American minority status for years to reap career “diversity” benefits, Michelle says. Look for more incredible stories from this race, as we get closer to November. That story is below.
Also — look below for David’s weekly commentary column, John Stossel and much more.
-Adam
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Can somebody tell Ms McCain that the republican party she thinks she represents does not exist in 2012?
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Malkin is Fox News’ token brunette. I heard that if she doesn’t go blonde within 3 years she gets shipped off to do promos for Glenn Beck.
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:10 pm
If Megan’s last name was Smith and she was a B cup, she would have to get a real job.
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:15 pm
I would expect the members of the British Parliament would be somewhat more honest in their assessment of Murdoch’s ability over the “employed” backers and yes men, including the members of the board, whom also have been derelict in their duties to the shareholders in the area of oversight.
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:16 pm
The Board of Directors of News Corporation met today and announced its full confidence in Rupert Murdoch’s fitness and support for his continuing to lead News Corporation into the future as its Chairman and CEO,” the statement read in part because they are scared to S… of old Rupert how is a tyrannical old mean ruthless man.
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:17 pm
So FOX has “full confidence” in the guy who has been described as “unfit” to run a news organization. Why is that not at all surprising?
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Gee, I wonder how Rupert got them to say that?
When your own company is forced to describe you as “competent”, it really is time to throw in the towel.
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Wow! I guess they are all in it together. What other reason could anyone come up with that would make the News Corp board say they have full confidence in a guy that is responsible for its company committing widespread criminal and unethical activity in many different countries?
At the very LEAST it would signal that Murdoch has lost control and is unfit for running the corporation.
The News Corp board’s statement is about as Orwellian as it gets. Then again what do you expect from that kind of organization?
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Richard Grenell a confessed gay was fired by Romney as his foreign policy advisor before he could be issue a single opinion.
The real question is what is the sick state of mind of those white gays who continue to attempt to join a party that would throw them in jail for being gay if they could get the law passed?
I think one answer is clear. Racism trumps the self interest of most white boys. This is just another indication of that fact.
Robert, RT
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Robert,RT you suck. You never miss an opportunity to race bait.
I have supported the G.O.P. for 40 years. I don’t know a party that has done more for you people to get off your butts and join the rest of us. The fact that Obama IS the president shows that race is OVER as an issue.
For me the initials GOP stand for God Over People. That is what the G.O.P. stands for. It is you godless people who hate the G.O.P. so much.
Henry
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Robert,RT that was not a surprise. The Mormon church is militantly anti-gay and Mitt is a devout mormon.
But your analysis is dead on. My brother is a white gay boy. He is so against the “black cat” in the White House.
Oh and I’m sure you will step all over Henry’s comment.
Gloria
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Henry, in light of the actions of the GOP congress and mitt’s statements, it would appear that the GOP initials would better stand for Gold Over People.
Robert, rt
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Mitt Romney managed to blow this two ways. First, he hired the guy, despite his history of intemperate tweets about women, as a foreign policy adviser, despite his having worked for John Bolton.
In my opinion, his credentials for the job stank. But Romney and his campaign evidently thought they were good.
Then Romney didn’t stand by his employee in the face of vicious attacks. As Teddy Roosevelt, that fighting progressive Republican said of William McKinley, “He has all the backbone of an eclair.”
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Isn’t this a clear example where Mr. Romney acts first and thinks later?
Otherwise why would he select Mr. Grenell only to have leave under undisclosed reasons after two weeks? This country, or any other, does not need a President who lacks vision and the conviction of his or her decisions.
Do we want Romney on the other end of that phone call that rings at 3:00AM?
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:40 pm
If there is any way the GOP can cut its own throat any further I am certain they will find it. Since George W. Bush the GOP has had no leader and certainly no direction. Just saying “No” to everything President Obama does is not the answer for anything.
I did not vote for Obama and I probably willnot vote for him in the coming election but I absolutely will NOT vote for the cheap shot guy they are trying to shove down the American throat…
Romney is not even close to being intelligent, this much can be seen on the surface, and his agenda would only be that of another Bush in office… and god help us if Jeb Bush gets in as VP.
In all I think if we just cut off Texas from the union we would all be happy and safer.
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:41 pm
In the end, every “win” that Brian Fischer proclaims is another step toward marriage equality.
Why? Because in order to secure such “wins”, they must be that much more hateful, that much more vicious – and doing so drives away those moderates who supported the groups simply because they had not given the issue much personal thought.
Grennell was rather obviously an “etch-a-sketch” selection – i.e., Romney selected him because he knows that he cannot win with only the support of the extremist conservatives, and so must appeal more desirable to the moderate right.
Hiring a gay man was Romney’s attempt to reinforce the (likely false) idea that he doens’t hate homosexuals, only their “lifestyle” (whatever that means), and thus court moderate conservatives who were turned off by his hard-line and highly-vocal anti-gay stances in the earlier months of his primary campaign.
I think that Grennell probably did believe that he could potentially do some good in that office and thus took it when offered. And when it became evident that Romney’s real intentions are with the extremist right, he left.
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:43 pm
There are simply some segments of our society that I will never understand supporting the Gold Over People party.
These include the LGBT community, women, minorities, and laboring people. Knowing the Republican track record, I cannot comprehend why Grenell ever went to work for the “presumptive Republican nominee.
He did–and he got burned. This was nothing more than a cynical ploy by the Republicans, in an effort to curry favor among a segment of our society that they utterly despised.
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:43 pm
Grenell was a pawn to win over moderates and perhaps even some liberals/gays.
Romney does NOT respect gay people. He doesn’t want to fight for the rights of gay people.
Here in Massachusetts, Romney told gay citizens of the Commonwealth that he would be better to us than Ted Kennedy was…back in ’94 when Romney hoped to usurp Kennedy’s senate seat.
Flash forward to a decade later, when gay citizens were fighting to sustain their recently won marriage rights.
Romney said, “If it was up to me, they’d have neither,” meaning neither civil unions NOR civil marriage.
NOTHING.
He’s a phony, and he’s NO FRIEND of gay people and their families.
May 2nd, 2012 at 3:45 pm
What a circus. I laugh at Romney and those so called pro-family organizations.
Just to give them a heads-up, a friend of mine is getting married for the third time (actually fourth/ he got his third marriage annulled).
I would like to see those pro-family groups do something to stop my friend from remarrying. His actions make a mockery of the institution.
He has children spread all across the country, doesn’t pay child support and is a serial cheater. I guess one can rejoice in the fact that it is a opposite sex marriage?
May 3rd, 2012 at 6:35 am
Need a New Car? Wait Until You See These!
Buy a new car now, and you might regret it before the year is out. More than 40 new models were recently unveiled at the 2012 North American International Auto Show in Detroit.
Some are concept cars that are unlikely to reach the roads soon, if ever, but others are 2013 model-year vehicles that will be in showrooms by mid-to-late 2012.
Among those are a handful that are so impressive that many car buyers will find them well worth the wait…
STYLISH MIDSIZE SEDAN
The redesigned 2013 Ford Fusion is about to present a major challenge to the midsize sedan competition, including the Toyota Camry, Honda Accord and Hyundai Sonata.
The new Fusion’s styling is striking—reminiscent of an Aston Martin. Its interior is elegant and relatively spacious, and it will offer a wide range of impressive drivetrain options.
The base gas engine is expected to provide 26 miles per gallon (mpg) in the city and 37 mpg on the highway* (best of any midsize sedan, excluding hybrids and alternative-fuel vehicles), while still producing a respectable 170 horsepower (hp).
There also are more powerful gas engine options…and a gas-electric hybrid that should deliver 47 mpg in the city and 44 on the highway.
A plug-in hybrid with a gas engine and a battery that can be charged from a wall socket will do even better.
Prices have not been announced but are expected to start at $18,000 to $19,000 for the base model and up to $26,000 to $28,000 for the hybrid. There will be an all-wheel-drive version, too.
Available: Fall 2012 for gas and standard hybrid…early 2013 for the plug-in hybrid.
AFFORDABLE HYBRID
Sure, hybrids make sense for the environment. They just haven’t made much sense for our wallets. Any money that hybrid owners save at the pump usually is offset by the high prices of the vehicles…until now.
The soon-to-be-released Toyota Prius c five-door hatchback is the first hybrid that truly makes financial sense—it’s both less expensive and more fuel-efficient than earlier hybrids.
With a manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) that starts below $19,000, it will be only a few thousand more than well-made, well-equipped nonhybrid hatchbacks.
Expect 53 mpg in the city and 46 on the highway. The trade-off is size—the Prius c is 19 inches shorter than the standard Prius, but the backseat folds down to provide plenty of cargo space.
Available: March 2012. (Despite its late release, the initial Prius c will be part of Toyota’s 2012 model year.)
FUN CAR UNDER $20,000
Chrysler is bringing back a Dodge Dart, a name not seen on any new car sold in the US since the mid-1970s. But this new Dart actually has European roots.
It was designed in collaboration with Chrysler owner Fiat and will be built on a modified Alfa Romeo platform.
The result is a sharp-looking compact sedan that should offer a taste of the fun and sharp-handling ride of a European performance vehicle. It’s expected to start at just $16,000 to $17,000.
A range of available engine packages and options could push prices much higher, however. Fuel-economy data has not yet been released, but low-to-mid-30s mpg can be expected.
Available: Spring 2012.
FUN CAR OVER $20,000
The Hyundai Veloster 3-door coupe already is on the roads, having debuted as a 2012 model.
It’s a very appealing car for its price, offering sporty looks and handling, good fuel efficiency and Hyundai’s strong quality and warranty.
In fact, the 2012 Veloster had just one significant flaw—its 138-hp, 1.6-liter, four-cylinder engine felt under-powered for a car designed to be sporty.
Hyundai is correcting that for the 2013 model year with the new 201-hp Veloster Turbo. The result could very well be the most fun driving experience in this price range.
The Veloster Turbo’s projected fuel economy—27 mpg city, 38 highway—also is quite good for a car with this much power.
It’s likely to start somewhere between $21,000 and $24,000.
Available: Summer 2012.
HYBRID LUXURY SEDAN
The BMW ActiveHybrid 3 is a hybrid version of the BMW 3-series, the entry-level luxury sedan against which all other entry-level luxury sedans are measured.
The ActiveHybrid 3 is no underpowered, efficiency-first hybrid—it likely will have a 300-plus-hp, 3.0-liter turbocharged six-cylinder engine.
Still, the hybrid technology boosts fuel efficiency by 12.5%, compared with similar 3-series models, according to BMW.
That likely will mean around 37 mpg on the highway. Expect prices to start a little below $40,000.
Available: Fall 2012.
SMALL SUV
The terms “Buick” and “SUV” both conjure up images of large vehicles, but the new Buick Encore crossover SUV is small and efficient.
It’s just 168.5 inches long—more than a foot shorter than the popular Toyota RAV4, but its interior feels surprisingly spacious, and there’s an impressive 48 cubic feet of cargo space when the backseats are folded flat.
The same small-but-effective ethic applies to the Encore’s engine, a 1.4-liter turbocharged four-cylinder. The Encore’s styling and interior are as luxurious as you would expect from a Buick. Prices are likely to start in the mid-$20,000s.
Available: Early 2013.
*Fuel economy figures noted in this article for 2013 model-year vehicles are estimates from the automakers. Official EPA figures will be released as the cars approach their release dates.
Source: Karl Brauer, a longtime automotive journalist in Camarillo, California, who recently launched http://www.TotalCarScore.com, which brings a wide range of car reviews together in a single location.
He previously served as editor in chief of the leading automotive Web site http://www.Edmunds.com.
May 3rd, 2012 at 9:21 am
On the anniversary of the catching Ben Laden I wanted to say Thank you, President Obama, for giving the order and actually making it possible to hunt this guy down after your predecessor officially and intentionally dropped the case.
Thank you, Team Members, for taking that shot so he couldn’t kill anyone else.
May 3rd, 2012 at 9:26 am
I just want to add that those anti-Obama fanatics who will float any lie to make him look bad are at it again.
They are claiming that Obama is leaking national security secrets in an attempt to bran about their killing Osama bin Laden.
They know it to be a lie because the media sued to have access to bin Laden’s papers. Hence, materials that weren’t classified are being released. It is as simple as that.
Robert,rt