Is this the beginning of the end of Rupert Murdoch's media empire?

But the Watergate situation was different. There were no journalists involved in the conspiracy or the cover-up, and no known police corruption. When Woodward and Bernstein went to work on the Watergate conspiracy, they had no entré to the conspirators, and no big scandal on which to hang their hats. They had to dig and dig to get at the scandal. In this case, the scandal is already blown sky high.

It wasn't when the Guardian started its investigation. At the end of the day only one journalist and one PI have been punished for any of this.

Also, there are loads of potential culprits. Mulcaire's notebooks had thousands of names of potential victims, only a fraction have been contacted. There is so much evidence to sift through. They're even starting to say that it may jeopardise the security at the Olympics, it's going to need that much manpower.

Sure, but Woodward and Bernstein had nothing, absolutely nothing to take to their editor literally for months. The Watergate break in was in June, 1972, but it was more than a year before it went any further than the original burglars for more than a year. Even then, Woodward and Bernstein were stymied until "Deep Throat" came forward, and even then, he would only hint about what they should look for. For more than a year, Woodward and Bernstein circled a stone wall, and had to do it at night, because they still had day jobs, which, as far as their editor was concerned, didn't include a bungled burglary at the Watergate.

It's still going to take a long time though.

By the way, you've started an ugly trend. Another member "bookmarked" a thread of mine this evening--but instead of posting "bookmark," he posted "teapot."

You know, though, one of the greatest entertainments of late 1973 was the Senate Watergate Committee grilling all the bad boys. The chair was Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina, and he played like a cheap huckster at the county fair. When he and Lyndon Johnson were both in the Senate, he stood up to speak once, and began: "Now, i'm just an old country lawyer . . ." at which point LBJ loudly commented: "Whenever i hear someone say that, i get a firm grip on my wallet." It was your proverbial three ring circus, and old Sam Ervin was the ringmaster.

I don't know a great deal about Watergate, but I understand it was primarily about a break in and cover up. I know it was a landmark moment in American politics. This doesn't have the enormity of the head of state sanctioning an obviously criminal act. This is more about lots of people being involved in petty fraud, and it's a huge papertrail.

As well as those who have been arrested, there's all the mid ranking journos, and all the police who took money from NOTW. Watergate reached up and grabbed the president. I can't see this doing that. The most damage that can be done will be political. How many smoking guns are out there? A lot less than there would have been if the Met acted on The Guardians' allegations in the first place.

One big change is that people are starting to talk about opening up top police positions to non EU nationals for the first time. Apparantly there's a police commissioner from NYcity that the Tories like, and one from Boston that Labour like.

By the way, don't blame me for the teapot, blame Bertrand Russell. On a sketch show recently it was said we shouldn't call it Watergate anymore. As it's now the habit to stick 'gate' at the end of every political scandal it should be Watergategate.

Two articles from today's Guardian. The first one is about Cameron/Coulson's dodgy relationship.

Pressure mounts on David Cameron over Andy Coulson's security levelQuestions asked about why former News of the World editor, embroiled in phone-hacking scandal, was spared No 10 vetting process undertaken by his successor and former deputy


Pressure on David Cameron to explain why Andy Coulson was spared tough security and background checks increased as it emerged both his successor as director of communications and his former deputy are being vetted to a higher level than he ever was.

Labour called on the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, to reveal who inside Downing Street decided not to seek the highest level of security clearance for the former News of the World editor and whether the decision was discussed with the prime minister. Ivan Lewis, the shadow culture secretary, said it was "now a matter of urgency that this information is put into the public domain otherwise it will fuel the belief that there was knowledge about Andy Coulson's involvement in illegal activities before he was employed".

Craig Oliver, a former BBC executive who replaced Coulson when he resigned from Number 10 in February, is undergoing "developed vetting" – a rigorous probe into his background and finances aimed at uncovering anything that could make him vulnerable to blackmail or other compromises. Coulson underwent less stringent checks.

A former senior counter-terrorism official said it was "unthinkable" and "very surprising, that someone would not be vetted to the higher 'DV' level when they are working in No 10, that close to the PM".

He said: "Developed vetting is an intrusive analysis of someone's character. It potentially could have picked up phone hacking. It would look into everything about them, including allegations made publicly, in the media, about them."

The contrast between Coulson's and Oliver's security vetting emerged after 24 hours of refusals by Downing Street to say what Oliver's security status would be. Adding to the impression Coulson was afforded special treatment, Gabby Bertin, Coulson's former assistant who is still Cameron's deputy press secretary, is also undergoing full checks.

A Cabinet Office spokesman said on Thursday night: "Andy Coulson, like all civil servants, was vetted to the level appropriate to the information he has access to, in line with other officials and special advisers."

Downing Street sources claimed security was not a high priority at the start of Cameron's premiership, but became more important with the start of military action in Libya. There was also said to be concern at the £500 cost of the vetting process.

On Thursday, a string of former Downing Street press advisers said they could not understand how Coulson could do his job properly without the fullest security clearance which involves Ministry of Defence investigators gathering details of psychological problems, alcohol and drug histories and mortgages, personal property, and debts. Applicants are also required to give details of any person to whom they have given more than £1,000.

Alastair Campbell and Lance Price, press advisers to Tony Blair, said they struggled to understand how Coulson could operate on issues ranging from the British economy, Nato policy, European security policy, Afghanistan and the terror threat to the UK with such low level clearance.

Price said it was "breathtaking" that Coulson would have anything less than full security clearance. "It is very hard to see how you could do the press and strategy job, particularly on foreign affairs, without being fully in the picture."

The disclosure that Coulson had only the basic level of security vetting is understood to have "absolutely shocked" some Whitehall information staff. Security policy for government staff is ultimately the responsibility of the prime minister, who delegates this authority to cabinet members and O'Donnell. The government's security guidelines state that one of the five core principles of government security policy is "the need to employ trustworthy people".

Downing Street declined to say whether Coulson had been consulted on what level of vetting he should undergo, or whether Cameron was notified of the clearance he received.

By the time he entered Downing Street in May 2010, the Guardian had run more than 40 articles about phone-hacking at NoW under Coulson and passed a warning to senior Cameron aides about material it was unable to publish for legal reasons.

Questions were also raised over whether Coulson was allowed to attend meetings relating to national security, counter-terrorism or Afghanistan. Assistant Commissioner John Yates told MPs he had met Coulson to discuss, among other issues, counter-terrorism.


The next one is about the spat between Jimmy and top NOTW execs regarding the 'Dear Neville' email


James Murdoch misled MPs, say former NoW editor and lawyerColin Myler and Tom Crone challenge News Corp executive's statement to MPs at phone-hacking hearing


Phone hacking: James Murdoch's evidence to the culture select committee has been challenged by Colin Myler and Tom Crone. Photograph: Rex Features
James Murdoch has been accused of misleading the parliamentary select committee this week in relation to phone hacking, igniting yet another fire for the embattled News International boss to extinguish.

In a highly damaging broadside, two former News of the World senior executives claimed the evidence Murdoch gave to the committee on Tuesday in relation to an out-of-court settlement to Gordon Taylor, chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association, was "mistaken".

The statement came as something of a bombshell to the culture, sport and media select committee, which immediately announced it would be asking Murdoch to explain the contradiction.

Colin Myler, editor of the paper until it was shut down two weeks ago, and Tom Crone, the paper's former head of legal affairs, said they had expressly told Murdoch of an email that would have blown a hole in its defence that only one "rogue reporter" was involved in the phone-hacking scandal.

This contradicts what Murdoch told the committee when questioned on Tuesday.

The existence of the email, known as the "for Neville" email because of its link to the paper's former chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck, is thought to have been critical in News International's decision to pay out around £700,000 to Taylor in an out-of-court settlement after he threatened to sue the paper.

James Murdoch is standing by his version of events. A statement issued by News Corporation said: "James Murdoch stands by his testimony to the select committee."

In their statement, Myler and Crone challenged this: "Just by way of clarification relating to Tuesday's Culture, Media Select Committee hearing, we would like to point out that James Murdoch's recollection of what he was told when agreeing to settle the Gordon Taylor litigation was mistaken.

"In fact, we did inform him of the 'for Neville' email which had been produced to us by Gordon Taylor's lawyers."

John Whittingdale, the chairman of the culture, sport and media select committee, said: "We as a committee regarded the 'for Neville' email as one of the most critical pieces of evidence in the whole inquiry. We will be asking James Murdoch to respond and ask him to clarify."

He added that "it was seen as one of the few available pieces of evidence showing that this activity was not confined just to Clive Goodman", the only journalist on the paper to have been prosecuted – and jailed – in relation to phone hacking so far.

The email is believed to have been critical in News International's decision to pay Taylor such a large sum of money.

If it had got out in a full-blown court case brought by the Profession Footballers' Association chief executive it would have blown a hole in News International's claim that only one reporter was involved in hacking.

James Murdoch claimed to the MPs that this email had been concealed from him by two company executives, Crone and Myler, when he was persuaded to sign off the secret deal with Taylor.

Earlier this month James Murdoch acknowledged he was wrong to settle the suit, saying he did not "have a complete picture of the case" at the time.

He repeated this on Tuesday at the select committee when he was asked by Labour MP Tom Watson: "When you signed off the Taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the full Neville email, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages?"

To this James Murdoch answered: "No, I was not aware of that at the time."

Watson went on to ask him why then had he paid an "astronomical sum" to Taylor.

James Murdoch replied: "There was every reason to settle the case, given the likelihood of losing the case and given the damages – we had received counsel – that would be levied."

With parliament in recess, it is unlikely but not unprecedented for a select committee to hold a special evidence session to clarify the issue.

Witnesses in the case have been given very strict instructions before giving evidence to tell the truth, although witnesses do not give evidence under a specific oath.

James Murdoch told the committee that his advisers had urged him to adopt a strategy of telling the truth when he spoke to the committee.

In its 2010 report the culture, sport and media select committee, in discussing the Gordon Taylor settlement, wrote: "The settlements were authorised by James Murdoch, executive chairman of News International, following discussions with Colin Myler and Tom Crone".

It did not specifically state whether Murdoch had been shown the "for Neville" email before making the settlement, but does state Murdoch was authorised to make the payment without bringing the issue to the News International board.

The problem, and what screwed Nixon, was the coverup. That scale of coverup, i don't believe, was ever possible in this situation.

My favorite graffitos from that era, seen in a diner washroom:

Behind every watergate, there's a millhouse.

(The President's full name was Richard Milhous Nixon.)

I heard on the radio this morning that Dame Murdoch, the mother of Rupert Murdoch, is still alive. She is 102 years old.

And much to Rupert's dismay she's supporting the incumbent Oz govt's push to price carbon
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-crusader-dame-elisabeth-murdoch-joins-public-campaign-for-a-price-on-carbon-20110614-1g21g.html

There was an article about her in last weeks Guardian. I can't find it, but she seems to stand against every shady practice Roop's organs have engaged in.

Here's the latest report.

Teletext on the BBC says that Newsnight (aBBC flagship production), has uncovered evidence linking The Sunday Mirror to phone hacking. It looks like the suspician that all the tabloid press, not just Murdoch's titles were involved in such criminal activity. This was suspected when The Guardian first launched its investigation. The only UK news organisations that bothered to report it were The Guardian (obviously), The Financial Times and The Independent (all 'quality papers'), also the BBC and Channel 4 news.

Over the years, I've come to rely on the Guardian and BBC news to provide balanced and factual information. I'm glad my devotion to those two are standing at the top of the heap.

They are very good, so is Channel 4 news, their tenacity over Sri Lanka has caused the UN to start talking about war crimes.

I've got to reply to this. Someone like me follows a lot but not everything all the time.. I have certainly railed re my rather stark views about our being in Afghanistan and doing a strange number on Libya. I try not to be repetitive, not to not be obnoxious but I don't see any value in weaving an argument cloth with the obsessed, by me. Others are better arguers. I care about famine - the presence of it and its causes, and I care about the hacking phantasmagoria of what appears to be many years re News of the World and the Major Minions.

I missed your thread, it was 5 something a.m. my time.

I don't like being made to feel guilty for caring about the hacking.

Hello Osso

Ah, well, my intent is not to make people such as yourself feel guilty, or others actually - it only gives me perspective when I write on both sides of the fence - which was the point of the cartoon that someone else posted. Call it a trap by the media to avert peoples gazes on other bigger pictures - it's one I'm prepared to fall into - but not to drag others in to.

The reason I drew attention to the DEC plight alongside that particular cartoon photo was to show that the media plays and uses, as do we all in some way, shape or form, words or pictures to "sell" something - albeit good or bad sales, truth or falsehoods. Having started a famine thread, a while back, which to me was important as we have had mass coverage in the UK re this plight, garnered not a single response and barely a worldwide look - well, not surprising, just simply disappointing - tho this is a personal view - because I do feel guilt about these things, a level of absolute despair for these people and the people in Libya and the soldiers and people in Afghanistan... It doesn't mean I care less about other issues - but I haven't the ability to channel one thought - so it comes out as it comes out.

As you know, I didn't read/buy newspapers (still don't) or watch the TV/News for close on two years as it was too much for me when I needed to heal. So my world was limited, except for what I choose to read here.

What I see now, takes me back in some part to wishing to live in lalalllaa land but I understand I can't keep doing that. I am more infuriated than I could imagine at what happened with Millie Dowler... and all the other similar awful stories and the things I read constantly. I am anti the big-wig who hangs the little folk out to dry, but would never be "woman" enough to do something about it that can make a difference - other than now voice an opinion. Tho I do have a large set of balls for what I feel I have to fight for - I welcome the harsh criticism from all and sundry about the hacking and I hope I've been consistent about that throughout of where I stand on this subject, even tho it's for something I personally can't do much about.

I see that Hawkeye has now started a thread about the famine and will undoubtedly get more of a response simply due to his persona and perhaps will turn it into something to suit his purposes re his collective blah, disingenuous perhaps, maybe not - well, for me, and this is where I have to bite my tongue, if he can get folk to at least look at it - well, sobeit - because it is important and is something that isn't making the worldwide press, in my opinion, as widely as it should.

What's weird Osso - is as I find a voice that has too much anger in it for things I find hard to talk about rationally, I sit here in disgust as I have the news on. With what's just happened in Oslo - watching reporters cherry-picking out each young person who comes out of a church service, to get another more horrific story... well, that makes me sick too. The news corps are all the same - anything for a story. The reporter was just interviewing a young man who was describing how his friend had covered herself in two corpses so try and save herself - and she did save herself by whatever means she could as would anyone's gut instinct do... but before he could even finish his sentence, be acknowledged, the reporter moved the camera and mic to another young person who had been there, wanting to know the gory details he could relay. Sometimes, for me, it goes too far. In this instance, the press intrusion into that kind of coverage is dispicable.

As a photographer - I've also read a lot about how photographers can go into warzones, famines, see children on rubbish heaps - take their photograph, and walk away... leaving those people and children behind - being paid for their photograph... ya know, we're all made different - we all have different moral values, different moral compasses. I hear the arguments for and against photographic evidence, probably moreso than others may imagine, and again can be on both sides of the fence. If I was required to be a hard bitch photographer as a means to an end - I could.

I know for me, I have a struggle to make sense of the world we live in, leave alone the blessed world I've lived in and yet... in a heartbeat, i.would.change.it.

Anyhoo - this thread is about the hackers and there it will remain - so I shouldn't digress, tho admittedly I strangely found this as a comfort zone.

I wouldn't wish folk to think my intent is to force guilt on others for things that are beyond their control. I own enough of my own so have no need to push guilt on anyone. I was trying to point out that tho I despise a lot of things in this world we live in, expecially the media re what they've done and continue to do, the specific cartoon posted which I believe was an NI one, even tho it can be seen as moral indignation and averting the gaze, it does have it's place to put forward the perspective.

Necessary evils - can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.

There is a lot of good in the world too, it is beautiful place - but I recognise that I can be shuttered.

It's good to care about many things - unnecessary hacking of a murdered little girls phone is one of those things that maybe the world can attempt to put a halt to now and I hope the world continues to put the pressure on those who CAN make a difference.

It's called balance; we need to also see that many people in this world are "the good guys," and only wish well for our children - a universal goal for all parents (or should be).

I'm happy to see the Bill and Melinda Gates of this world who appreciates that the world is in need, and they do that with great generosity to all. I read recently that they both learned to give to society from their parents through example.

There are many such parents in this world.