Pressure on Peston and News Corp Counter-Intelligence hacking.

Tom Watson MP, one of the two Labour MPs who have been pushing for greater scrutiny of the phone hacking scandal for years has become the first prominent person to openly call out Robert Peston as a News Corporation patsy.

He is "close friends" with Will Lewis, who was Rebekah Brooks' deputy until she stepped down. He also broke the story the Telegraph sting operation on Vince Cable (the business secretary) had revealed Vince Cable was openly opposed to Rupert Murdoch gaining control of BSkyB. Cable was overseeing the merger at the time , the Telegraph realised what a boon this would be for Murdoch and kept it quiet, Peston broke it and got Cable removed from overseeing it.

He was also at the Chipping Norton set party just hours before the Milly Dowler story broke.

True to form when two prominent ex-News International employees accused James Murdoch of lying in his testimony to the select committee this Tuesday Peston broke the news a low level editor who'd been in his job only six months had been fired.

This lead Watson to attack Peston on Twitter:

Watson accused Peston of being spoon fed stories by News International to distract the public's attention from the more dramatic development about James Murdoch's evidence to parliament.

Watson tweeted: "Why Sun story now @Peston? More spin to deflect Myler/Crone statement? Where's your dignity?"

Peston responded: "@tom_watson Tom, this is an outrageous and untrue allegation."

Watson shot back: "I'm sorry @Peston but you are being spoonfed stories. The Myler statement creates a crisis at NI. You have form. Stop being a patsy."

To which Peston replied: "@tom_watson That is not worthy of a response."

Nice to see Peston is following the standard News Corporation line of pretending there is no crime to answer for.

In addition News Corporation have plumbed yet deeper depths, BBC's Newsnight have accused the News of the World of hacking the phones of three lawyers for phone hacking victims.

11.27pm: Three solicitors representing phone hacking victims were themselves targets of the News of the World, according to Newsnight. They included Mark Lewis, the lawyer for the family of Milly Dowler and Gordon Taylor, the former head of the Professional Footballers' Association. The programme reported that the solicitors were not put under surveillance for the purpose of writing stories about them.

Which strongly implies News Corporation were running counter-intelligence against hacking victims, either trying to find out legal information to undermine the victim's cases or blackmail material to make the lawyers back off. By God these motherfuckers are dirty.

Murdochgate = Watergate?

The Guardian's John Harris has written an article looking at how Murdochgate has unmasked the UK's political elite and how it will affect civil society in the future. I highly recommend you read this.

As the title implies I want to look at his allusion to Watergate at the end impacts things. First of all I want to direct you to a piece Noam Chomsky wrote in 1973, when admittedly the Watergate scandal had been running a bit longer (but then again info moves much faster now) but it is still very much a contemporary assessment. While Chomsky doesn't specifically predict the moral majority and Reagan, which Harris highlights as a key outcome of Watergate, he does accurately predict an increase and entrenchment of executive power over other branches of the US government.

There are also strong elements of Chomsky's main criticism, that Nixon was punished not for wrongdoing but for breaking the rules. For upsetting the cosy elite. In a similar sense Murdoch is receiving so much criticism because he used his influence to sway the political parties to do his will. This is not right, the press exists to influence the masses, to manufacture consent on issues the elite have already agreed upon. Even then it was only the revelations such as those about Milly Dowler that gave politicians enough cover to act in their own interests and take down Murdoch. Indeed Murdoch's strong connections to the elite before the past two weeks and even now is not a particularly large issue, other media groups seem to tacitly accept that influence and connection to the rich and powerful is a good thing, they were more jealous that they didn't hold as much power as Murdoch than worried about such close links between power and the fourth estate.

Finally to quote a paragraph of Chomsky's:

"Still more cynical is the current enthusiasm [from the media] over the health of the American political system, as shown by the curbing of Nixon and his subordinates, or by the civilized compromise that permitted Nixon and Kissinger to kill Cambodians and destroy their land only until August 15, truly a model of how a democracy should function, with no disorder or ugly disruption."

We are seeing a similar compartmentalisation of Murdoch's wrongdoing here, it is a British problem, it is a problem only with his papers, the TV arms of News Corporation in the UK and US is seperate and shouldn't be blamed. Close ties to a media oligarch by politicians in both main parties are seen as a sign of shame but not an indictment of the British political system as a whole.

The myth is still being maintained that this is a scandal that can be dealt with by the political class even though it is the creation of the political class. Removing Murdoch's influence removes an especially egregious symptom but it certainly does not cure the disease.

Sunday's Murdochgate developments.

A marriage born of true love. I also hear Rupert is a big fan of Anime

Saturday was a little sleepy but Sunday brought yet more big news stories. This fits with a favoured strategy of getting as much bad news out of the way as quickly as possible but as we will see there is so much bad news out there the Murdochs may well be sacrificed to save News Corp.

However the biggest story today has been the arrest of Rebekah Brooks. Conveniently this occurred just two days after she quite as the CEO of News International but as her PR firm were at pains to make clear, she had no idea she was to be arrested today when she went in for questioning. Given just a week ago she was in charge of the internal investigation News Corp was holding on the phone hacking scandal this doesn't look good for them or any of her politician friends. Do be wary of the Robert Peston quotes in that article though, he is a News Corporation man that just happens to be working for the BBC.

Brooks' arrest is fortuitous in that it will likely prevent her from giving evidence to a the select committee on Tuesday but it is even more fortuitous for Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson who appears to be as corrupt as all hell. The close connection between senior Metropolitan Police officers at the heart of the phone scandal and News Corporation was mentioned by me yesterday but this morning brought revelations of numerous official and private meetings between the police and a senior News Corporation employee. This was followed just hours later by a further revelation that Commissioner Stephenson took a £12 000 spa holiday for free.

In such a situation an embattled Police Commissioner might just push for a headline grabbing arrest that need not result in a solid conviction, just give him some breathing room. Heck if he is really in News Corporation's pocket a "botched" arrest now could save her from punishment in the future.

Still if Brooks does end up facing the Select Committee on Tuesday things might not be so bad as has been made out. The Independent exclusively revealed that the Chairman of the committee has very close links with News Corporation too! While he may be trustworthy on this matter one can't help but ask questions about things such as this (quoted from this article I'll get on to in a moment)

Committee members preparing to grill the trio are to be given legal advice on the morning of the hearing on how far they can push the News Corp boss and his son for answers. The committee's chairman, the Tory MP John Whittingdale, has asked for details of their lines of questioning to avoid duplication.

While certainly duplicated lines of questioning would be a bad thing, one has to hopes his links to News Corp don't mean that Murdoch father and son (and maybe Mrs Brooks too) aren't forewarned.

Still everything does not seem to be going the Murdoch's way of late. It would seem, at least at this point, News Corporation isn't really at that much risk, its' most profitable arms and ventures are yet to be touched by the scandal, but Murdoch control of the company does seem to be looking weaker. There is no place for sentimentality in business so the fact he built the empire from scratch will count for little. Still there is no guarantee without him at the helm sailing will be as smooth and even with Rupert gone it is likely in the short term at least politicians in the US and definitely the UK wont want to appear to close to the Corp. Furthermore every indication is Rupert wont fall easy if they try to usurp him and that could cause a great deal of damage before he is gone.

Indeed Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour party is now in a do or die struggle against News Corporation and is smart enough to realise it. Breaking up News International is not a new policy, Neil Kinnock tried it in 1992 , which lead to The Sun fighting an all out war against him. With the Sun claiming "It was The Sun wot won it!" for the uninspiring John Major in the general election that year. This time around popular opinion is definitely on Miliband's side. His victory in this is far from assured but if he loses his political career is over and Rupert Murdoch hardly needs an enemy that motivated with the public backing at this point in time.

If you are interested in how much Miliband has benefited from his strong opposition to Murdoch this interview is worth a read. While they're definitely slanted to favour Miliband there are some interesting examples of just how much influence News Corporation papers had in the UK (and likely still do elsewhere).

I hope I haven't missed anything. This looks like it is going to be another interesting week for News Corporation and the Murdochs.

US coverage of Murdochgate so far.

Someone in a comment thread on the Guardian website suggested the scandal be called Murdochgate and I think it fits rather well.

Rumour has it the NYT has a scoop on the phone hacking of 9/11 victims and their families that will break tomorrow. In which case it seems likely the story is about to become at least somewhat more prominent in the US. So pointing out this comparison Media Matters made of CNN, Fox and MSNBC's coverage of the issue seems rather timely.

Oh and courtesy of Jonny here is a sample of Fox News' coverage of the scandal:

Further developments in the News Corp. crisis.

The Guardian has revealed that in late 2009 and then in late 2010 the Metropolitan Police tried to pressure them away from investigating phone hacking. It is very much worth reiterating that during that specific period Neil Wallis, the now arrested former executive editor of the News of the World was working as an "advisor" to the Metropolitan Police.

The second piece I want to draw your attention to isn't so much a development as a summary of the first ten days. Johnathan Freedland looks at what has happened so far and what the aftermath may be. It raises the very real possibility that as with the credit crunch and the MPs expenses scandals the aftermath of this wont be any real change. Nonetheless though it is a worthwhile summary of the spirit if not the details of what has happened so far. It also points out a very important point it has been easy to miss:

One aspect of this British revolution sets it apart. Normally, people know how they are governed long before any change in the system happens. It did not take the Arab spring to teach the people of the Middle East how they were ruled. But in Britain there has been a degree of shock as the curtain was suddenly pulled back, revealing exactly how Murdoch has operated these last 30-plus years.

A great point that raises a scary question, if you don't know who is oppressing you how can you revolt against them?

The Guardian's initial summary of Lord Justice Leveson.

edit: Haha, forgot to mention Lord Justice Leveson has been appointed to head the inquiry into the phone hacking scandal and wider media ethics.

This is just a copy paste from the Guardian liveblog of events. However a lot of this stuff is easy to miss if you're not following it neurotically like I am. Relevant bit I copy pasted from is here

Lord Justice Leveson, who has been put in charge of the hastily-assembled inquiry into phone hacking, is a trusted senior judge who is currently chairman of the Sentencing Council, which draws up guidelines for the courts.
He was lead prosecutor in the case of Rose West, Britain's most prolific female serial killer ...

Leveson was educated at Oxford University and became a barrister in 1970, working out of chambers in Liverpool. He initially practised in northern England across a range of crime, personal injury and commercial work.

He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1986 and began his climb up the judicial ladder, sitting as a recorder and then a deputy high court judge. As Sir Brian Leveson, he joined the appeal court in 2006.

He has already demonstrated his willingness to engage with broader public debates beyond the confines of the courts. Earlier this year he defended a district judge who had been severely criticised – by the prime minister among others – for imposing only a £50 fine on a man who burnt poppies during an Armistice Day event.

In an interview on BBC radio, Leveson explained: "[The judge] had to balance the insult caused to those who were respecting the two minutes' silence against the right which we all have to express ourselves freely … It depended on the evidence and what he heard."

On his appointment to the Sentencing Council in March 2010, Leveson said: "I am keen to look at ways in which the council can help to inform the public about the practice of sentencing in our courts. I am aware from personal experience that giving people the opportunity to explore and understand the way in which judges approach sentencing can significantly increase their confidence in the criminal justice system."

I don't know nearly enough about the English Judiciary to make a comment on the appointment but given a lot of the people who'll read this are American I will make a few basic points.

1) Because this was decided on last week to be a Judicial inquiry it was always going to be headed by a senior judge. All senior judges are Lords, this is a throwback to Britain's medieval heritage and all that, especially because the House of Lords (the upper chamber of our legislature) is the highest court in the land. So while it may seem elitist it is just a seniority thing. (well seniority in an elitist institution but still)

2)Activist judges don't really exist exist in the UK for various reasons so the guy's willingness to stand up and publicly support a fellow judge is noteworthy.

3)Judges are never elected in the UK (in fact I'm fairly fuzzy on how exactly they are selected) so he isn't likely to be overtly political. However since the British establishment is deeply intertwined with this scandal his impartiality is impossible to assert. That would however be true of all potential appointments.

The Guardian reviews the Metropolitan Police's position.

I was somewhat unsure what was happening regarding the Home Affairs Committee interviewing four senior police officers yesterday. The Guardian has clarified things somewhat.

For reference those police officers were: Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner John Yates, Peter Clarke; a retired Deputy Assistant Commissioner with the Metropolitan Police, Andy Hayman; a retired Assistant Commissioner with the Metropolitan Police and Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers, currently heading Operation Weeting, the ongoing investigation into phone hacking by the News of the World.

Nick Davies who is one of the main Guardian journalists behind their investigation into phone hacking has made a video summing up what happened.

Meanwhile Simon Hoggart further puts the boot in for Andy Hayman.

However it is worth bearing in mind that the man heading up the Home Affairs Committee, Keith Vaz has a fair amount of association with corruption himself.

Sir Hugh Order of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), which in spite of its' name is a wholly private company with no attachment to the state, has also criticised Mr Hayman. One has to assume Sir Hugh and ACPO are bristling at someone else horning in on their undermining people's privacy. and example two

But hey in the midst of all this at least our noble law enforcers are marching against deep cuts to public services. So at least in this we can stand in solidarity with these peo-

We accept that cuts have to be made but we ask that the government acknowledges our unique status.

Oh. So cuts to public services in general are fine, just not to their wages. What a fine bunch the British police are.