James Murdoch may have got off relatively lightly the other day, and there are some who think that it is thanks in part to Tom Watson. Whilst Tom and other members of the committee adopted an aggressive stance toward Murdoch, ultimately their attacks failed to land on the issues that really mattered. By comparing News International to the Mafia, Watson may well have created news head lines but they were headlines and comparisons that some believe are a distraction . At this point in time, the real issue and the area where Murdoch seems most vulnerable, centre's on the matter and possibility of wilful blindness.
Murdoch's argument in relation to this issue, has been that the size and structure of the organisation has made it impossible for him to have oversight of everything going on in relation to this issue. At a certain level this seems perfectly plausible but in the context of this case it means that by seperating themselves in this way the Murdoch's have been able to operate a strategy of plausible deniability. Such a strategy would repeatedly allow James Murdoch to plead innocence or ignorance. Of course at this point in time we do not know that this was the case and Murdoch's ignorance may be an inevitable consequence of a management style and structure that is inefficient, but it could also be deliberate and have the advantage of leaving the more unsavoury aspects of running British tabloids to the likes of Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulsen. What is probable, is that when things started to go wrong the involvement of the News Corporation executives will have been very carefully managed and particular care will have been taken to control the audit trail. People may have presumed that James Murdoch was fully in the know, but as he carefully pointed out in his evidence, that presumption has been based on supposition and perception not documentary evidence.
A strategy of wilful blindness would also have been helped by the cosy nature of the News International's relationship with the British political elite and the Metropolitan Police and it is this that should probably concern us the most. Time and again in his evidence Murdoch cleverly acknowledged that they should have looked at themselves harder and sooner - but didn't do so because they had placed too great a dependence on the Met to bring wrong doing to their attention. At the moment we can only presume why police officers decided that the original hacking investigation was an isolated incident, when now the evidence for systemic hacking would seem to be overwhelming. The sad truth of the matter is that the hacking scandal is not simply a product of the actions of an over mighty news organisation; It is as much a scandal of British politics and of policing. Without their privileged position within the British political and policing establishment, News International would never have been in a position to contain the original crime and prevent rigorous examination of their activities. News International was and is not the Mafia - but there are profound questions about its relationship with the British state that were not asked, and issues of patronage, privilege and protection that are yet to be explored. Calling James Murdoch a mafia boss may well have been a distraction - but in the longer term it is a comparison that may yet come home to roost.
So whilst Tom and the committee may have failed to secure the outright evidence that they sought, you can't help but feel that the Murdoch's and a number of as yet unnamed figures have been backed a little further into a cul de sac, from which there is no way out.
No comments:
Post a Comment