I don’t know what I find more surprising about the Murdoch scandal in the UK, the way the British lived under his yoke for so long or Murdoch’s hopeless attempt to muddle through this quietly. On the first count, I can’t fathom that people would continue to support a tabloid that published such horrible lies about the Hillsborough tragedy (and I realize that people in Liverpool don’t). On the second count, they have to fired Brooks, can’t they just pay her enough money that she’ll keep her mouth shut, right?
I don’t think I could ever understand British politics any better than Sullivan and Hitchens understand American politics, though I’d like to think that if I tried, I wouldn’t be quite so willfully obtuse about it.
Zifnab
They’re only lies if you know they aren’t true. I’m sure many people buying the Sun trusted it more than other reports. That made the Sun true to them and everyone else the liars.
Murdoch’s business model involved divorcing his audience from reality. Once he had everyone sequestered, they became akin to addicts. If they want news, they HAVE to come to Murdoch, because everyone else will be talking a completely different language.
Parmenides
What I can’t figure out about Sully and Hitchens is that their understanding of American politics wouldn’t even work with British Politics. They seem to have invented an American Politics and keep analyzing that rather than whats right in front of their face.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Tell enough people what they want to hear, and they’ll defend to the death their right to hear it. Or what Zifnab said.
Nutella
The only difference between the UK and US yokes are that British politicians of ALL parties took orders from Murdoch while here it’s only all of the Republican politicians who take orders from him. So far.
PeakVT
@Parmenides: Who says they’re actually trying to get their analysis right?
Southern Beale
Hmm, well, here in the U.S. ThinkProgress has a piece up about Murdoch’s $27 million no-bid government contract that seems suspiciously tied to when former NY schools superintendent Joel Klein joined the company.
I mean cripes, Murdoch’s shit stinks on both side of the Atlantic.
moderately
I’m concerned DougJ might have “Bash Sully” Tourette’s. It’s one thing to go after him when he’s spouting nonsense about “punishing the successful” with higher taxes and Paul Ryan’s “serious plan” to tackle Medicare (and Doug’s as good as any at calling him out), but it’s starting to feel like every other post has a random dig that’s completely unrelated to the point. And it’s especially odd considering that Sully’s been on vacation the last two weeks.
BGinCHI
I can’t wait till Conrad Black is buggering Murdoch in prison.
Not sure who would agree to be a bottom in that duo.
Culture of Truth
Gossip is irresistible. And they’re not in trouble for publishing lies, but immoral tactics in trying to discover truthful information. As far as the general public was concerned, I expect, it’s all good fun until an innocent non-celebrity is targeted.
In addition, I imagine his grip grew slowly over time, until by the time politicians noticed, they either owed their jobs to RM or were being blackmailed by him. Or just lived in fear of his influence. Which, even if vast, is not necessarily illegal.
Roger Moore
@Parmenides:
I think this shows that they understand American conservatism perfectly. Isn’t “I reject your reality and substitute my own” the working principle of Movement Conservatism?
Martin
Sully is more Cole’s bailiwick, actually.
RSA
Off-topic:
I like how Pink Floyd paraphrased Thoreau: “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” Because, really, it’s the American way.
ChrisNYC
Rupert Murdoch has to protect Brooks because she’s the firewall in front of James Murdoch. If she goes OR if she admits knowledge of the events and cover up, J Murdoch is toast — he can’t say he had no idea of what Brooks was aware of (obliviousness) or that he did and sanctioned it (criminality). Brooks has to remain defiant, unapologetic. I heard this theory on a Guardian podcast and it sounds spot on to me.
Agree Sullivan doesn’t understand US politics. Neither does Frum.
Chris
More or less, which is one reason conversations with them have become close to impossible even on a very basic level. We can disagree on principles, on policies, whatever, but it’s hard to find any common ground when we can’t agree on reality.
Origuy
Murdoch’s testing his WMD. A 3.9 earthquake hit in the middle of the Channel.
Stefan
One reason that it’s hard for Americans to understand Murdoch’s reign is the different status of the print media over in Britain. Incredibly for Americans, some 70% of British households still take in a daily print newspaper, with many of them taking in more than one. So the depth and breadth of market penetration is far greater, and therefore a print baron can really go after politicians and other major public figures in a way that the print media here can’t.
(Also, too, there are far more “national” papers in Britain than there are here. Sure, we have the NYT and the Journal, but outside of New York they’re really only read by a very small number of affluent households. But you can pick up the Times, the Guardian, the Star, the Independent, the Daily Express, the Telegraph, etc. on newstands all over Britain).
TreeBeard
…thought I’d something more to say.
EdTheRed
If some rag printed a bunch of heinous libel about 96 dead New Yorkers, would it really surprise you that, 22 years later, their circulation was 1) basically 0 in New York, and 2) just fine in places like Texas and Alabama?
Alex
Especially incoherent is Doug’s recent criticism of Sullivan’s “silence” on the NOTW affair. Given that (1) he’s on vacation (2) it’s been extensively covered by the guest-bloggers on the Dish. Doug seems to be implying that Sully has been particularly “captured” by the Murdoch empire, as it were, but doesn’t seem to have the courage (or the information) to pony up any evidence.
JaneGoth
Zifnab is quite right, people believe the lies because they’ve not been exposed to the truth or are not open to the truth.
Also add to that, the atmosphere at the time, the Thatcher government was demonising football fans, they were treated by clubs, police and the media as the unwashed, unredeemable rabble. So people were primed to believe the worst, then add to that mix the nasty stereotype that Scousers are all thieving workshy layabouts, a stereotype that still lives today then its easy to see why the boycott of The Sun never spread outside of Liverpool. For the record, I’ve never bought a copy in my life but then I’m a Guardian reading feminist so it’s no lose for me.
There’s a rumour that NI are going to release the Sun on Sunday (replacement for NOtw) as a freesheet. If they do that it will spell the end for the other low rent tabloids.
LGRooney
So, is this all part of the Reds’ revival? Has King Kenny finally gotten his revenge? If he brought down Murdoch, he is manager for life.
SiubhanDuinne
@BGinCHI #8:
ICK. Ick ick ick ick ick.
TreeBeard
If Kenny was responsible for Murdoch’s downfall, *I* would be a Reds fan for life, in spite of my dislike for them!
eemom
so even Sully has paid trolls now? Who’d’a thunk.
BGinCHI
Rooney, that’s genius.
Kenny for PM! Wait, no, we can’t spare him.
scav
It’s the land of Jeckll as well as Hyde. They stand in queues and then enjoy a spot of hooliganism. Jake Cade, Capt. Ludd, Gordon riots, Name and Shame and stop for a cup of tea. I believe they’ve managed to purposely misplace with violence more kings than the French. What I find mysterious is when where and why they tip.
aimai
Zifnab @1 that’s a brilliant, brilliant thing to say. That’s the best short version of epistemic closure and social psychotic breakdown I’ve ever read.
aimai
handsmile
As one response to DougJ’s musing as to why the British public tolerated Murdoch’s predations upon civil society, this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/13/deborah-orr-phone-hacking
Breaking News from the Guardian (@12:15pm EST) states that Rupert and James Murdoch have agreed to appear before a special session of Parliament’s culture, media and sports committee next Tuesday. More details to follow it says….
This is in response to a formal invitation from the committee that was personally delivered to NewsCorp’s headquarters by the deputy sergeant at arms of the House of Commons (no report if he was wearing a busby).
Rebekah Brooks had agreed earlier today to appear, but warned the committee that due to the current police investigation into phone-hacking by Murdoch publications it would be inappropriate to discuss details that might prejudice that inquiry.
While she may continue to serve as Murdoch’s firewall, it will be illuminating to learn how she withstands being a pinata for parliamentary batons. I suspect that next week’s session (not likely to be public, more’s the pity) will be nothing like that of our banksters testifying before their friends in Congress.
Jay C
Culture of Truth @ #9:
More like:
“Truthful information” isn’t now – and never has been – anything but an accidental priority for the “yellow press”: Rupert Murdoch has built an immense and profitable business out of conscientiously ignoring the niceties of “truth” where it might interfere with a good story: why should it be surprising that reality should come back and bite him in the ass? Even if belatedly…
NamelessGenXer
No one on the panel on FOX “The Five” challenged it. Video at Huff & Puff.
Lunatics. On the path.
dpcap
In times like this we have to ask ourselves:
dollared
@dpcap – FTW!
Nutella
@Jay C:
Actually the UK press is more careful about printing truth because they have very strict libel laws there. So they rarely make up facts and instead concentrate on illegally obtaining those facts or on printing nasty innuendo instead of facts.
One amusing aspect of this is that a Scottish Soshulist politician sued NotW for libel when they published a story about his adultery. NotW was correct on the facts, though, so then the politician was convicted of perjury. However, in the politician’s perjury trial several NotW editors testified about how they got the information and apparently they also perjured themselves by saying they never did any phone hacking.
ETA: Aargh it doesn’t even let me edit out the obfuscated dick pill word. FWP.
dpcap
And of course I have to include this.
Maude
@dpcap:
That was wonderful.
Parmenides
It may be that many like Sully and Hitchens have misunderstood the American Civil Religion. You would think that Sullivan would understand it since it has a liturgy that bares little relation to the content of the creed and that seems to be Catholicism in a nutshell. “We are a nation of laws” is true and not true, but to them it should be with a burning fervor of should. Ought becomes is and the syllogism is complete.
When Hitchens had his fainting spells during the Clinton Impeachment. He screamed over and over that the Clenis had lied and purgered himself and therefore in THIS AMERICA could no longer be THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. For most Americans who never really got the point of the Paula Jones Suit but did understand that you lie about sex when the confession is in public and the sex was not with your spouse ,the caterwhaling of the political class never made any sense. But if you where defending The Village or your made up understanding of America as a land of laws, irrespective of their importance, then it became horribly important.
THIS IS A NATION OF LAWS he screamed. Yes people said but in this case we’ll have to overlook it because well who amongst us wouldn’t have done the same thing. LAWS he screamed as he choked back another slug of whiskey. LAWS he whimpered as he slipped into a fever dream of America shorn of Clinton and murmuring sweet nothings about a Trotskyist, atheistic, city on a hill.
Tony J
JaneGoth @ 20
QFT.
And for that we can blame the 1980s troika of Carla Lane’s ‘Bread’ sitcom, Harry Enfield’s ‘Scousers’ characters, and the decision made by Neil Kinnock as Labour Party leader to crucify Liverpool’s Labour Party at the 1985 Party Conference as a sop to the right-wing Press.
After all that, Kelvin Mackenzie thought (rightly) that he could say anything he liked about Liverpudlians and the bulk of the country would believe it.
Nutella
About firing Brooks: I think they’re keeping her on so they can make a dramatic gesture of firing her at a crucial point and then claim to have cleaned out all the rot so leave everyone name Murdoch alone.
JaneGoth
TonyJ
I hated Bread, I think I lasted 15 minutes of one episode before getting stabby.
The destruction of working class jobs in the North West didn’t help the area either. Manchester suffered really badly too but it’s facinating how the reputation of the two cities vary.
drkrick
I suspect paying her off would be too expensive to hide on the books of a publicly traded company, and that the size of the payoff would be almost as damning as her testimony. If they can’t tough it out by keeping her on board, the game will probably be up.
Tony J
Nutella @ 38,
I think we’re beyond that now. Say they did hang Brooks out to dry, what then? She’s have to to go to court and convince a jury that, no, really, she’s been running all this on her own for over a decade and somehow hiding it from her superiors. Please lock me up and throw away the key because I just can’t be trusted. She’d have to be some kind of weird alternate-universe saint to pull that off, and I don’t see her sporting a goatee.
IMO, they’re protecting Brooks because she’s been Murdoch’s consigliere in the British racket for years. She knows where all the bodies are buried, and could drag all of the Murdochs down with her if they cut her loose.
snarkypsice
I don’t get the Brit-bashing, Doug J. So they lived under Murdoch’s influence for years – we live under the influence the corporate owners of our TV networks and have done for years. It’s more insidious when they’re not open about their agenda.
Add to that the fact that a Brit could look at our system and ask what in God’s name we’re doing letting corporations buy and sell our politicians in a way that simply doesn’t happen over there. or he might ask why on earth God is part of every political conversation. Or he might reasonably wonder what kind of morons would elect George W. Bush.
Sad to see such self-satisfied condescension – especially when it’s based on a complete lack of knowledge of the system over there and how it differs from ours. And especially when you of all people know how screwed up we are over here.
Tony J
JaneGoth,
Weird thing is, I remember my parents watching ‘Bread’ every week and finding it hilarious. Even weirder, when my girlfriend and I got our first place together it was in the street where they filmed it, right next door to Grandad Boswell’s house. Funnily enough, there were no flash cars or dodgy vans to be seen in real life.
Manchester got the very YMMV ‘benefit’ of having its run-down city centre torn out by an IRA bomb in the mid 90s, thus opening the way for massive redevelopment and all the money that came with it. Liverpool lagged behind for a good long while, and only got its facelift just before the latest recession hit, when all the money dried up.
Plus, y’know, one had ‘Coronation Street’, and the other had ‘Brookside’. People looked at them very differently.
Jane2
Yes, I’d far rather be living in America with a free media that thinks Michelle Obama’s hamburger is “breaking news” than living under the yoke of Murdoch media in Britain. Do you really think that 99 percent of what you read or watch isn’t controlled by the same bottom line corporate plan?
Brain Hertz
Tuesday is going to be very interesting. The Murdochs and Brooks are all looking very much out of their depth, and the committee is not going to be holding back.
Major boneheaded move of the day: the Murdochs declining the invitations to appear in front of the select committee, resulting in summons being issued. That makes the both of them look like out of touch arrogant pricks before they even arrive. Not going to go over well…
Incidentally, I’ve seen quite a bit of reporting suggesting that they could not be compelled to attend because they’re not UK citizens. Based on some reporting from the Guardian earlier, that seems to be not true; the reality is that nobody knows what would happen if they ignored a summons to attend, because such a thing hasn’t happened in over 200 years and it just isn’t clear what powers Parliament still has in that case.
Further to some of the points made upthread, what I think is really happening here is that many politicians have been under Murdoch’s thumb for a very long time, because of the power wielded by his media empire. They’ve quietly acquiesced for a long time, but really, really detest the lot of them for it. Suddenly, the News Corp power has evaporated, and two things follow:
1) Politicians have suddenly discovered their spines, and are not going to let the opportunity go. They’re clambering over each other for the chance to stick the knife in
2) The Murdochs and Brooks have no idea what to do. They’re basically just bullies, and the only way they know how to act is to make demands backed up by threats of retribution. Suddenly their power has been neutralized, and they’re completely lost. I think this mornings boneheaded move (see above) was just one symptom of this. They’re still acting as if they can just ignore the normal rules.