Shona Ghosh

Rupert Murdoch’s biographer, Michael Wolff, is a peculiar character. In appearance not unlike Murdoch himself, he has emerged over the last few weeks as a curious mix of spokesman and whistleblower – and it was in this double role he continued at an LSE debate on Murdoch’s future. Having inveigled his way into the centre of the Murdoch family fold – essentially because no one stopped him, he claims – he has somehow navigated their complex relationships to convey how inextricable the family dynamic is from the inner workings of News Corp.

Personal politics: all of my folks hate all o’ your folks

Pie-blocking-ninja-wife Wendi hates Rebekah. Elisabeth hates Rebekah. All the Murdoch kids hate Wendi. News Corp execs hate Wendi. Rupert can’t take anyone’s side for fear of antagonising the kids or Wendi. That’s roughly the gist of the interpersonal relationships.

Rupert: the man

After that performance in the Parliamentary select committee, Rupert’s reputation as a media dynamo is somewhat on the wane – with Wolff, as Will Sturgeon puts it, sticking the boot in. But there are curious contradictions in Wolff’s observations – since I haven’t read his account, I can’t determine whether that’s because Wolff isn’t a particularly astute observer, or because Murdoch is himself contradictory. The latter, I suspect. Wolff describes Murdoch – to whom he consistently refers by his first name – as “autistic” and “aspergistic” in his interpersonal failures, and apparent inattention. Yet in the same breath, he claims this is a man who spends the majority of time worrying about, and being “in love with his family”.

Wolff is asked, bluntly, “Do you like him?”. A long pause follows, then, “Yes. I did like him.”

Murdoch’s personality isn’t, in and of itself, necessarily that interesting but provides a helpful backdrop for…

Lying to Parliament?

Discussing the select committee, Wolff is adamant in his insistence that Murdoch Sr., at least, was not performing. He later said – though he didn’t outright accuse the family of lying – that Murdoch “knew everything” about what happened at his papers, which means that the majority of his Parliamentary statements were nothing but performance. The consequences of Murdoch and his son lying to MPs have been chewed over many times elsewhere, so I won’t go into it.

Keeping the Times/Sunday Times taint-free

Wolff hints, with serious implications, that the Times (which has asserted its editorial independence throughout the hacking claims) was not free from interference. He offers little by way of proof however, beyond accounts of phone calls to editors and a pervasive culture at News International to do everything possible to please the top boss. The implication being that, without direct instruction, editors took certain decisions – like cutting articles inconvenient to Murdoch’s business interests - to keep things flowing smoothly. Wolff’s radical solution – which will no doubt cause smirks at Kings Place – is for News International to drop the Sun (another toxic brand, presumably) and keep the Times and ST free of the taint by…putting them in a trust, not dissimilar to the Scott Trust/Guardian arrangement, to “save British journalism”.

This is some coverage I did for Journalism.co.uk on a talk given by Starsuckers director and journo-prankster Chris Atkins on tabloids fabricating news.

The tabloid press is adopting increasingly ‘murky newsgathering’ tactics according to a documentary maker who exposed UK tabloids for publishing false celebrity stories.

Speaking at a Media Society debate on Wednesday night, ‘Starsuckers’ director Chris Atkins called for better self-regulation among British newspapers and accused them of colluding to keep the public ignorant of media malpractice.

“When pharmaceuticals and the police are up to no good, everyone reports it. But when journalists are up to no good, no one reports it,” he said.

Atkins focused his criticism on the News of the World after it attempted to stop the release of his film, which showed one of the newspaper’s journalists taking details of a false story.

“They will fight privacy laws and restrictions, but when you criticise them, they will do everything to shut you down.”

In the course of making the Starsuckers documentary, Atkins’ team planted a fake story about Amy Winehouse’s hair catching fire.

“It’s the same journalists who write about Amy Winehouse’s hair [catching fire] who then write something about global warming,” he said.

He added that a tabloid tendency to promote showbiz reporters to senior editorial positions took the problem beyond celebrity gossip stories. “Why do [the Sun’s] Bizarre reporters get to be editors? They don’t check facts, and then you have the Sun saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” he said.

But former editor of the People Bill Hagerty defended tabloid behaviour:

“I disagree that people lie about news across all areas. I reject the thought that many journalists start out to falsify news. It’s a few bad apples, and it’s not huge.”

Hagerty also held the online ‘welter of media’ responsible for falling standards in print journalism, but maintained that false reporting was not a widespread practice:

“It’s true that reporters don’t go out any more, and news is often web driven. The press is in very bad shape, but it isn’t driven by people who want to make up stories.”