News

Rupert Murdoch must be held to his words

17/02/2012

Brian Cathcart

With one mighty leap, it seems, Rupert was out. One day his London journalists were reported to be in open revolt against him and the next he had apparently pulled off one of his masterstrokes and was firmly in the driving seat again.

Murdoch has conceded very little. On the central issue, the company’s new zero tolerance of lawbreaking and its full-on cooperation with the police in purging past lawbreakers, he seems to have stood absolutely firm. “We cannot protect people who have paid public officials,” he declared.His email to staff carried no echo of Trevor Kavanagh’s wild claims of a police witch-hunt and of a disproportionate investigation. Nor did it give more than vague acknowledgement to those much-aired concerns for for the protection of journalistic sources.

He bent a little by ending the suspensions of those who have been arrested (his London management had presumably not wanted them in the building) and he promised a new Sunday paper and a new dawn of ethical popular journalism. Above all perhaps, he restated his personal commitment to the Sun.

It is all good news. It is good that he refused to back down and abandon the process of house-cleaning, good that he is staying loyal to his paper and good that he is showing leadership by mapping out a better future. And it is especially good that he personally committed himself to making his company “an example to Fleet Street of ethical journalism”. He has written those words; now he must be held to them.

Brian Cathcart, a founder of Hacked Off, teaches journalism at Kingston University London. He tweets @BrianCathcart

Hacked Off is funded by supporters, not newspaper owners. Help us take this to Parliament: give £10 a month.

Give £10 a month

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

A year and two days: the story of one complaint to IPSO
Guest blog: Chris Goodall's complaint about fifteen errors in a Daily Mail article took IPSO a year and two days to decide. Here he publishes the full timeline — more than 80 emails, hundreds of hours of work, and one correction.
9/22/26
News
SLAPPs and the press: why the Anti-SLAPP Bill is the wrong answer
The private members Bill promoted by Baroness Stowell and Sir John Whittingdale would apply to any claim touching a matter of public interest, however meritorious and however properly brought. Hacked Off sets out why it would harm victims of press abuse, and why section 40 was the better answer.
9/21/26
News
Coverage of Professor Arday was not legitimate: the letter The Times refused to publish
Guest blog: Professor Paul Wragg replies to the letter published in The Times on 25 August defending the press coverage of Professor Jason Arday. The Times declined to publish his reply. We publish it here in full.
8/28/26
News
Defensive, evasive & hypocritical: The press reaction to the death of Jason Arday
The reaction of national newspapers to the death of Professor Jason Arday has exposed a brittle defensiveness at the heart of the press, and a determination to remain outside any meaningful accountability.
8/26/26
News