Watson's mafia jibe, the Murdochs and the British State

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.   

Occupy and St Pauls

The media is doing what the media does so well, reducing something complex to a set of reductionist statements and headlines. The occupation at St Pauls is being portrayed as a crisis within the church when in reality it is no more than an expression of a tension that is inherent or even essential to its existence. The Church, indeed any Church, is both a set of ideas and values, and an institutional and organisational presence. The arguments that have taken place within the Church of England this week are a reflection of that reality and of the commitment of the Church to maintain both its values and its institutions.

The protesters have convincingly argued that the values of their campaign are in keeping with many of the  underlying values and principles of the Church. Social justice, equality and human rights are all integral to the values of both. The difficulty for the Church is that as an institution its is deeply embedded within the cultural constraints of the society in which we live. Whilst Occupy can and should adopt a more radical approach to the issue of social injustice the Church can realistically only adopt an approach that is at best progressive. The Church of England is what it says on the tin - an institution that is integral part of this country and of the values which are central to it. Whereas Occupy is an expression of the anger that many of us have toward the exploitation of the people. These are not groups that are in opposition but allies in a common struggle.

Occupy St Pauls came about because the Movement and the Church share a commitment to social justice. The resignations are regretable, especially for the individuals concerned, but do not represent a crisis in the Church. The resignations are far more a reflection of its internal diversity and the commitment of its people to uphold to its values and its organisational sustainability, they are also a reflection of the decency of the Dean and his colleagues. As for the media thats totally missing the point... whats new.         

Occupy - a different kind of politics

Its becoming a bit repetitive now,  the constant refrain of the media, that the Occupy Movement doesn't have a vision of what it wants and what it stands for. The Occupy Movement stands for a great many things but foremost and self evidently it stands for a different kind of politics. This is a kind of politics where finance and privilege aren't the only means to power; a politics where discussion and debate are used to explore issues in the kind of detail that the complexity of a decision demands. You could argue that it stands for a somewhat naive approach to the media, as time and again the protesters struggle to express their message when confronted by the reductionist constraints of the sound bite. Whilst it is a naivety that might allow their opponents to attack them, it is a naivety that lies at the heart of who they are. That naivety is also a statement about the kind of media that we want. Do we want a media that misrepresents and exaggerates? Do we want a media that is carefully managed and manipulated by the powerful. As the News International scandal begins to fade into memory we need to contrast the sincerity of the occupiers with the actions of those who where embroiled in the triangle of disinformation that included News International, our politicians and our police.


So, far from standing for nothing, Occupy represents a new approach to politics and the demand for a media that sees the people as their vested interest - and therein lies the essence of what Occupy is really about - the people. It is not for no reason that the Occupy Movement has taken root in the USA, a country that has unparalleled wealth juxtaposed with levels of poverty and social inequality akin to that of Turkey. Whilst the US political and media establishment presents a vision of a nation with opportunity for all, the current financial crisis has made it clear that opportunity is no longer the preserve of all Americans and it is this realisation that has begun to mobilise America. As is the case in the UK and across much of Europe, it is the poor, the young  and the lower middle classes that are paying the price of the global financial crisis. It is the people whose homes were repossessed, the people whose jobs have disappeared and the people whose benefits are being removed. Whilst at the same time banks and businesses return to profits and bonuses, that have been part funded by the very people who have lost everything. It is this sense of injustice that underpins the emergence of the Occupy Movement.


If Occupy is about the iniquity of the West's internal response to its financial crisis, it is also about a re-awakening of what has been long understood: that we are One World and that present levels of  poverty  and conflict are indefensible. So the Occupy movement is about peace, fairness and global justice. Its about western governments supporting human rights in a way that is consistent and supported by agreed international standards and organisations. So for example rather than NATO intervening in Libya to protect the people of Benghazi from genocide (and only incidentally put in place a government they approve of in order to have better access to Libyan oil)  - they mandate, resource and equip the United Nations to do so on behalf of the global community. In this way the conflict might have found a more inclusive resolution at an earlier stage and it might not have ended with the appalling spectacle of Qaddafi's violation and murder.

Occupy is not about smashing the state or world revolution, it is about the people and their interests being placed at the centre of how the world works. It is about ' the people' reclaiming and re-occupying the world's institutions and processes.  So that it is not the trade in obtuse financial derivatives that motivates a bank to speculate and lend - but a business's need to invest in the things they make or the things they do. We are approaching a time when the world's economic institutions will have to come to terms with the reality that in a world of finite resources, growth and profit at all costs cannot be sustained indefinitely, and that one day we will have to choose between the freedom to speculate and the freedom to live and the freedom to work.

The solutions to these problems will not come through the extravagent claims of media savvy politicians who promise much but consistently fail to deliver but from the actions and activism of the people. What the politicians, the media and institutions that mock the Occupy Movement fail to understand, is that what we are seeing is the begining of a movement that will one day reclaim our economy, our politcs and our futures.