Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
.....good enough for Mr Mudrock to say he 'didn't know' or he 'wasn't involved' or he 'wasn't told'. As head of that creepy organisation, he must be held accountable for ALL of its actions, irrespective of what they were or where they came from. Playing the cool, calm, collected, 'unknowing' chairman might wrong-foot some but he is ultimately responsible and should expect to pay the price.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Are you saying that the CEO of a global company is personally responsble for every illegal action taking place in the company?
If (as I believe) the management at News International has fostered a culture where such actions become accepted then I will agree that he should take responsibility, but that is a matter of coporate governance which is a different thing. To say that he is responsible whether or not his executives advised him of the issue is pushing accountability too far.
Why not? MPs seem to be automatically held responsible for every single thing their junior ministers do.
These 'Big Wigs' get paid enough for the positions of responsibility they are in..............when it all goes wrong, they should pay the price. They take the money, the responsability lies with them.
Quote: Why not? MPs seem to be automatically held responsible for every single thing their junior ministers do
Don't wink! You're right!!
Re mikehit - when you say 'every illegal action' I take it to mean as far down as the office cleaners? But this issue has the then sitting editor of a national newspaper in its line of fire. To suggest that the head of NI shouldn't be culpable when one of his highest-ranking employees might be involved is a bit far fetched, even by your standards Mike
If you said that the editor of the NoW had personal responsibility I would have far more sympathy with that view because they will (or should) have a feel for what is going on and how their paper is getting major stories.
To us in the UK this is a big deal. But for NI, the Bitish print media is something like 2% of the entire global operation (print, TV, film etc) and NoW was a fraction of that. It is unreasonable to expect the CEO of a global company to have that level of involvement in the management of what is a minute part of the business - that is why the delegate to people lower down the food chain.
If it can be demonstated by the committee (ha!) that if he did not know, but he damned well should have done then yes, Murdoch should be accountable. On this score, the US have already prosecuted CEOs for 'wilful blindness' and this issue was brought up in the first hearing a couple of months ago: the current hearing is really aimed finding out if Murdoch received the e-mail in question and if he did then there will be the understandable conclusion that he should have taken steps to make sure it was investigatded.
That is quite different to de facto guilt for no other reason that something unsavoury was committed under his leadership.
Quote: Why not? MPs seem to be automatically held responsible for every single thing their junior ministers do.
I don't necessarily agree with that either.
Up to a point I would rather have in place someone who has made a mistake but corrects it and (more importantly) learns from it and improves their performance; than have a new guy come in who makes the same, or different, errors.
How many publications are produced by the News International Group ??
I'm not defending Murdoch but it is a pertinent question when considering if he 'should' have known about the underhand activities of one editor of one publication in his vast empire.
It is a relevant question, monsterwoman. I don't know if you were listening to Radio 5 this morning but they had on there the guy from the 7/7 bombing who was featured as a hero for helping people out of the wreckage. His phone was apparently tapped and he moer than most has cause to be aggrieved. But he was very rational about it and made the same point as you do - first he wants to know how involved he is (was) in the running of NoW and from there make a decision as to how culpable Murdoch actually is.
Quote: It is a relevant question, monsterwoman....
Monsterwoman is a man by all accounts.....or so I'm led to believe
WHOOPS! A touch of lysdexia there.
Be interesting to see where all this ends up -
JM didnt appear too bothered about being questioned again.
If, hypothetically, execs of a company request only sight of communication, and instruct that under no circumstances are they to be copied in / BCC etc. How can it be proved otherwise?
As for yesterdays performance - well he's had 2 months to learn his lines. Quite easy really "I have no knowledge", "it was before my time at newscorp".
Its easy to see how things transpired - "just get the story, I don't care how, and I don't want to know how". The problem is it is a very fine line between award winning exceptional journalism and the so called gutter press tactics. Only last week the NOTW were praised for their exposure of the Cricket betting scandal, but of course only legitimate journalistic tactics were used there
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar