Rupert is turning over his evil empire to evil son Lachlan

Short answer: nothing good.

    h/t Stephen

He STILL doesn't know how to spell "stolen"

Perhaps he should focus on his own "big trouble" lawsuits.  And why is he yelling this?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Let's look in on the Fox case

Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis said Fox lawyers previously had "represented to him more than once" that Murdoch was not an officer for the subsidiary cable network. Such information "could have" led him to make different rulings earlier on in the case, he said.

"I'm not very happy right now," Davis said, in his often-understated manner.

[...]

In a statement released Tuesday evening, a spokesperson for the network said "Rupert Murdoch has been listed as executive chairman of FOX News in our SEC filings since 2019 and this filing was referenced by Dominion's own attorney during his deposition."

A Fox proxy statement filed in 2020 does indeed list Murdoch as serving as the "executive chairman of Fox News Network, LLC."

  NPR

So...oopsie judge.

However...

Fox attorneys had sought to keep any potential liability against the cable network separate from that against the parent company. They also resisted requests from Dominion during the early stages of the lawsuit for information about the Murdoch family because, as Fox argued, "they were only affiliated with Fox Corporation," Dominion attorney Justin Nelson said on Tuesday.

As a result, Dominion's attorneys are "missing a whole bunch of Rupert Murdoch documents that we otherwise would be entitled to," Nelson claimed.

[...]

In response, one Fox attorney called Murdoch's position with the network "honorific," and said the role had been disclosed during a previous deposition. But Davis was not pacified. He said an officer of a company cannot "escape responsibility" by saying they didn't have any tasks.

[...]

Davis warned attorneys to "stay away from the word 'newsworthy'" in opening statements, because he had previously ruled it is not a legal defense against defamation. Still, he said, he would allow Fox hosts testifying during trial to state whether they personally believed false claims against Dominion were newsworthy.

That prompted the first instance of pushback from attorneys for Dominion on Tuesday, who argued that a jury would be prejudiced by such testimony from a Fox host. Davis shot back, arguing there is a distinction between what a Fox host believed to be newsworthy, and what Fox lawyers argued could absolve the company from defamation.

[...]

In a response that neared a roleplay, Davis suggested various questions that Dominion attorneys could ask during a cross-examination, including why Fox hosts who believed election lies to be newsworthy didn't also air interviews with then-President elect Joe Biden.

"I could have a lot of fun with this case," Davis said.

I think I see an appeal coming on.

On the other hand...

Dominion attorneys also pushed back against a previous decision from the court that barred them from introducing information at trial about the Jan. 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol, or about details of threats made against Dominion employees.

Davis said the actions made by individuals with no relationship to Fox – or what he called "third parties' looniness" – could unfairly prejudice the jury against Fox. While jurors could hear about the mere existence of threats, Dominion attorneys could not discuss the fine details of them, the judge said.

What?

Davis stressed that he must strike a "balance" between giving attorneys leeway and ensuring jurors would rule only on the claims in the case — and not the controversial issues that linger just beyond it.

[...]

Nelson argued Dominion should be allowed to question Fox employees about the Capitol riots as they are relevant to evidentiary issues, particularly why Fox chose to "pivot" its support away from Trump following the event.

Davis in response again suggested a question that Dominion could ask in its place. He said Dominion could inquire why Fox executives chose to pull back support from Trump. If their answer brought up Jan. 6, Dominion could pursue the topic, the judge said.

This all sounds like Dominion might be more inclined to settle than was earlier thought, but what do I know?

UPDATE 04/12/2023:

UPDATE 04/13/2023:

[T]he Delaware judge overseeing the case declared he would sanction Fox News and launch an investigation into Fox's apparent repeated failures to disclose information, including about the role of Fox founder Rupert Murdoch.

The trial, one of the most significant defamation cases in many years, is set to begin on Monday.

[...]

"I need people to tell me the truth," Davis said as he dressed down the network's attorneys. "And, by the way, omission is a lie."

Last week, Davis ruled that Dominion had already proved the contested statements' falsity and that the jury won't have to weigh their validity; instead, the judge will instruct them that the statements are false and defamatory.

[...]

Moving forward, Davis announced he would appoint a so-called "special master" to investigate Fox's apparent failure to share all information. Davis also allowed Dominion to re-depose some witnesses from Fox, including [Fox host Maria] Bartiromo, at Fox's expense.

  NPR

And here's a little tidbit that I found interesting...

Dominion attorney Davida Brook also cited a story broken by NPR earlier this week: NPR disclosed that Fox's chief political anchor, Bret Baier, had unsuccessfully lobbied from late November 2020 to January 2021 to host an hour-long special debunking election fraud myths for its viewers. According to five sources, Baier never received an anchor. (A Fox executive, speaking on condition of anonymity, say it was a "nascent" idea that became irrelevant after the January 6th, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. All attention turned to the Biden transition, the executive said.)

Irrelevant. Fox viewers are still believers in the Big Lie. And acting on it.

UPDATE 04/16/2023:

But I'm guessing that wasn't presented on the Fox channel.

Meanwhile, in Dominion v. Fox

Proof t[he people running the country’s most popular news network knew Mr. Trump’s claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election were false but broadcast them anyway in a reckless pursuit of ratings and profit] would help Dominion clear the high legal bar set by the Supreme Court for defamation cases. To prevail, Dominion must show not only that Fox broadcast false information, but that it did so knowingly. A judge in Delaware state court has scheduled a monthlong trial beginning in April.

  NYT

New court filing: Rupert Murdoch deposition transcript.

Murdoch not only admitted the hosts were pushing lies about the election, he suggested it was helping Fox make money. [...] One of Dominion’s lawyers asked Murdoch if he could have ordered people like Giuliani and Powell off the air. “I could have,” Murdoch responded. “But I didn’t.”

[...]

He was more explicit as to why when discussing Mike Lindell, the election-denying pillow salesman.

[...]

“The man is on every night. Pays us a lot of money,” Murdoch testified of Lindell. “At first you think it’s comic, and then you get bored and irritated.”

Murdoch said he wants to keep Lindell’s advertisements on the air, and when asked why Fox continues to give Lindell a platform, said, “It is not red or blue, it is green.”

  Rolling Stone

The document also described how Paul D. Ryan, a former Republican speaker of the House and current member of the Fox Corporation board of directors, said in his deposition that he had implored Mr. Murdoch and his son Lachlan, the chief executive officer, “that Fox News should not be spreading conspiracy theories.” Mr. Ryan suggested instead that the network pivot and “move on from Donald Trump and stop spouting election lies.”

[...]

On Jan. 5, 2021, the day before the attack at the Capitol, Mr. Murdoch and Suzanne Scott, the chief executive of Fox News Media, talked about whether Mr. Hannity and his fellow prime-time hosts, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, should make it clear to viewers that Mr. Biden had won the election.

  NYT

January 5, huh? Gee, you don't suppose Murdoch and Scott knew what was going to happen on January 6 do you?

According to the filing, Ms. Scott said of the hosts, “Privately they are all there,” but “we need to be careful about using the shows and pissing off the viewers.” No statement of that kind was made on the air.

Dominion details the close relationship that Fox hosts and executives enjoyed with senior Republican Party officials and members of the Trump inner circle, revealing how at times Fox was shaping the very story it was covering.

[...]

At one point, Dominion’s lawyers accuse Ms. Pirro, who hosted a Saturday evening talk show, of “laundering her own conspiracy theories through Powell.” The filing goes on to say Ms. Pirro bragged to her friends “that she was the source for Powell’s claims.” Dominion notes that this was “something she never shared with her audience.”

[...]

Dominion also describes how Mr. Murdoch provided Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, with confidential information about ads that the Biden campaign would be running on Fox.

Do I smell a new lawsuit coming?

The filing on Monday included a deposition by Viet Dinh, Fox Corporation’s chief legal officer, who was one of the many senior executive cautioning about the content of Fox’s coverage.

[...]

When asked in his deposition if Fox executives had an obligation to stop hosts of shows from broadcasting lies, Mr. Dinh said: “Yes, to prevent and correct known falsehoods.”

I wonder if he's still the chief legal officer. Or employed by Fox at all. I also wonder what his legal basis for that opinion is.

“There appears to be a pretty good argument that Fox endorsed the accuracy of what was being said,” said Lee Levine, a veteran First Amendment lawyer who has defended major media organizations in defamation cases. He added that Fox’s arguments were stronger against some of Dominion’s claims than others. But based on what he has seen of the case so far, Mr. Levine said, “I’d much rather be in Dominion’s shoes than Fox’s right now.”

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 09:14 am:

No shit.

As any spoiled toddler would do

As you’ve probably heard by now, the “red wave” or red tsunami or red blowout that Republicans (and the media) had been predicting for the months leading up to the midterms did not come to pass. While control of the House and Senate is still up in the air as of early Wednesday afternoon, the fact that the GOP did not come anywhere near close to thrashing the opposing party—despite historical trends—has been hugely humiliating for the right.

[...]

According to multiple reports, Donald Trump is in the midst of an hours-long meltdown, given the number of candidates he endorsed who have lost, and the fact that a GOP sweep would have positioned him well to announce a 2024 run for the White House. “Trump is livid” and ”screaming at everyone,” an adviser to the ex-president told CNN’s Jim Acosta Wednesday morning.

[...]

According to [reporter Maggie] Haberman, the 45th president “is blaming everyone who advised him to back Oz” and, hilariously, that blame apparently extends to Melania Trump.

  Vanity Fair

They made him do it, apparently.

Continue reading.

His ass will be burning over this [Murdoch property] NY Post cover:

DeSantis will be filling the nickname Trump gave him the other day:  DeSanctimonious.  Maybe Trump can try to flush the paper down a Mar-A-Lago toilet.  Surely, he has the best toilets that can handle it.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  Another Murdoch property is dissing him as well.

There'll be ketchup on the walls of Mar-A-Lago tonight.  You think he'll be hiding from the guests?  I do.*

And, typical Trump, he pulls out the mafia boss routine:

On Tuesday, Trump told reporters DeSantis “would be making a mistake” to run in two years and that “the base would not like it.” Then he threatened to reveal incriminating information about the guy, saying: “If he did run, I will tell you things about him that won’t be very flattering. I know more about him than anybody other than perhaps his wife, who is really running his campaign.”

  Vanity Fair

And who advised him to post this?

(Not calling him Ron DeSanctimonious?)

UPDATE:  Trump responds as you would expect:

UPDATE:  The Post is still at it...

UPDATE:

*UPDATE: I was wrong. He wasn't actually hiding. He was just being quiet.  But I will say, I bet the guests were giving him a wide berth.

The former US president appeared uneasy about underwhelming Republican performance in the midterms at an election watch party he hosted at his plush Mar-a-Lago resort on Tuesday night, after it was clear there would be no “red wave” that he had implored his supporters to deliver.

The election night gathering, organized in the large ballroom at his Florida property, was not an event where the often talkative Trump seemed particularly interested in addressing guests or even speaking to reporters after he delivered a short and solitary speech.

[...]

The close races for Trump-endorsed candidates appeared to confound the former president, whose only formal remarks came early in the evening, when he delivered a clipped speech standing in front of a row of American flags at the head of the ornate white-and-gold ballroom.

Trump had entered to rapturous applause after top aides from his political team and political action committees – some of whom had been ordered to spend the evening at Mar-a-Lago – and donors had filled the room in anticipation of what the crowd regarded as the main draw of the event.

But in an indication of his unease, Trump simply said it had been an “interesting evening” before praising the Republican Senate candidate Katie Britt, whose win in Alabama was considered a foregone conclusion.

[...]

After his remarks, Trump sat entrenched at a large table near the front of the ballroom as he watched the results of the election flash across a television tuned to Fox News.

[...]

[A]s a storm descended on to West Palm Beach, lashing rain against Mar-a-Lago from all sides, and the results became clear, the ballroom emptied within an hour of Trump’s speech while advisers retreated upstairs to Trump’s office or simply left the property.

The former president finally rose from his table shortly after midnight – but only after reporters had been strategically ushered out.

  Guardian

It's Sunday

Proof once again that religious people are great for business.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Thanks for nothing

Now take Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham, et al. off the lineup and tell those Fox & Friends hosts to get with the program.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Rupert Murdoch gets vaccine

Yes, Tucker Carlson is an ass for scaring people away, but why is Rupert Murdoch among the first people to receive the vaccine?

As Murdoch is over 80, he falls into the second tier of priority groups in the United Kingdom, along with frontline health and social care workers.

[...]

Carlson, who said he personally supports vaccines, [...] warned his large audience that the campaign to inoculate the public was an attempt by the government and elites to exert control over their lives.

  Daily Beast

And none of his audience found that contradictory, no doubt.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

About that Post story

The New York Post’s front-page article about Hunter Biden on Wednesday was written mostly by a staff reporter who refused to put his name on it, two Post employees said.

Bruce Golding, a reporter at the Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid since 2007, did not allow his byline to be used because he had concerns over the article’s credibility, the two Post employees said, speaking on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation.

  NYT

So.....why did he write it?

Coming late in a heated presidential campaign, the article suggested that Joseph R. Biden Jr. had used his position to enrich his son Hunter when he was vice president. The Post based the story on photos and documents the paper said it had taken from the hard drive of a laptop purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden. Many Post staff members questioned whether the paper had done enough to verify the authenticity of the hard drive’s contents. [...] Staff members also had concerns about the reliability of its sources and its timing.

[...]

The article named two sources: Stephen K. Bannon, the former adviser to President Trump now facing federal fraud charges, who was said to have made the paper aware of the hard drive last month; and Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, who was said to have given the paper “a copy” of the hard drive on Oct. 11.

Those two paragons of virtue? Why would anyone be suspicious?

Giuliani said he chose The Post because “either nobody else would take it, or if they took it, they would spend all the time they could to try to contradict it before they put it out.”

JFC! Right out loud, Rudy!

As deadline approached, editors pressed staff members to add their bylines to the story — and at least one aside from Mr. Golding refused.

[...]

Headlined “BIDEN SECRET E-MAILS,” the article appeared Wednesday with two bylines: Emma-Jo Morris, a deputy politics editor who joined the paper after four years at the Murdoch-owned Fox News, and Gabrielle Fonrouge, a Post reporter since 2014.

Neither of whom wrote it.

Ms. Morris did not have a bylined article in The Post before Wednesday, a search of its website showed. She arrived at the tabloid in April after working as an associate producer on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show. [...] Her Instagram account, which was set to private on Wednesday, included photos of her posing with the former Trump administration members Mr. Bannon and Sarah Huckabee Sanders, as well as Roger J. Stone Jr., a friend and former campaign adviser to Mr. Trump.

Eager to debase herself wherever she goes, apparently.

Ms. Fonrouge [...] learned that her byline was on the story only after it was published.

Say again?

Last month, two Republican-led Senate committees investigating the matter said they had found no evidence of wrongdoing by the former vice president.

“The senior editors at The Post made the decision to publish the Biden files after several days’ hard work established its merit,” Mr. Allan said in an email.

The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal have reported that they could not independently verify the data in the Post article, which included hedging language, referring at one point to an email “allegedly sent” to Hunter Biden.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Incitement to violence

The White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) on Sunday called on President Trump to denounce a video reportedly shown at a conservative conference that depicts him gunning down media organizations.

WHCA President Jon Karl issued a statement following a New York Times report that said the video was shown at an American Priority even over the weekend at Trump's Doral resort in Miami.

"The WHCA is horrified by a video reportedly shown over the weekend at a political conference organized by the President’s supporters at the Trump National Doral in Miami," Karl said. "All Americans should condemn this depiction of violence directed toward journalists and the President’s political opponents.

"We have previously told the President his rhetoric could incite violence," Karl continued. "Now we call on him and everybody associated with this conference to denounce this video and affirm that violence has no place in our society."

  The Hill

If he didn't denounce Nazis in Charlottesville, it's hard to imagine he's going to actually denounce this. He'll have it running on a loop on one of his bedroom TVs.  I wouldn't be surprised to see him Tweet it like he did the one where he knocked down CNN in a wrestling ring.

The video, which has been uploaded to YouTube and Twitter since The Times first reported on it, is taken from a clip of the film "Kingsman: The Secret Service," and shows Trump's head superimposed on the body of a character going on a violent rampage inside the “Church of Fake News."

He is depicted gunning down and stabbing people with the faces of his critics and media organizations' logos superimposed onto them. Among the outlets featured in the video are Politico, The Washington Post, NPR and The Hill.

[...]

Donald Trump, Jr., former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) were among those scheduled to speak at the American Priority conference. The event's organizer denounced the video and said his organization was looking into how it was shown at the event.

Meanwhile...

President Trump complained about coverage of himself to Fox News Chief Executive Suzanne Scott in a phone call late this summer, The New York Times reported Sunday.

Three people with knowledge of the call told the Times that Trump said on the call that Fox News was not covering him fairly.

Scott reportedly urged Trump to sit for an interview with Bret Baier, the channel’s chief political anchor.

  The Hill

And sent Barr to hound Rupert Murdoch.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:  And, oh, gee.  Guess what...

Barr meeting with Murdoch

Nice little news organization ya got there.  Be a shame if something happened to it.

On Thursday morning, Mr. Trump lashed out at Fox News over a poll it commissioned on attitudes about the impeachment inquiry.

The poll showed that 51 percent of people surveyed believe that Mr. Trump should be impeached and removed from office. Another four percent said he should be impeached but not removed, and 40 percent said they are against impeaching Mr. Trump.

  NYT

Who told him that?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Assassination plot foiled

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Murdochs Marching Away from Trump

First, Rupert Murdoch allows his outlets to slam Trump and intimates that he has dirt that Trump might want to consider when refusing to take Murdoch's "advice" and fire Bannon. Now, son James Murdoch tightens the screws.

James Murdoch, the chief executive of 21st Century Fox and the son of a frequent ally of President Trump’s, condemned the president’s performance after the violence in Charlottesville, Va., and pledged to donate $1 million to the Anti-Defamation League.

In an email on Thursday [...] the Fox scion gave an extraordinarily candid statement against the white supremacist sentiment that swept through Virginia last weekend.

  NYT

I notice he's not donating any money to black organizations trying to fight racism.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

"Trump Mafia Connections"

This is no doubt in Mueller's file.

US President Donald Trump was denied the chance to operate in Sydney, Australia’s first casino in the eighties because a report by the New South Wales Police Board concluded he had “Mafia connections,” according to newly released documents obtained by The Australian newspaper on Tuesday.

[...]

But it also found fault in the Trump/Kern bid’s numbers, concluding that “projected casino revenue estimates” were “not soundly based” and that the tender was “not financially viable.”

  Casino

Somebody said this is a Murdoch paper. I guess old Rupert (CEO of Fox) isn't too happy with The Rump since he hasn't fired Bannon yet like Murdoch told him to. This may be Murdoch's way of impressing upon The Rump that he might want to rethink that decision.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Is the Fox Turning?

Rupert Murdoch speaks regularly by phone with President Trump. But Murdoch also makes his views known to Trump through his newspapers and television networks. Lately the messages in those outlets have not been altogether positive for the president.

The conservative media mogul's papers have run a series of critical editorials and stories, spurring speculation among observers that Murdoch is trying to get through to the president.

  CNN

What's Rupert's beef with Trump? Not building that wall fast enough? Not bombing enough shit out of ISIS?

Murdoch's most prestigious outlet, the Wall Street Journal, ran an eye-popping editorial in its conservative-leaning opinion pages on Tuesday.

Titled "The Trumps and the Truth," the editorial scolded the president's family for withholding information about Russia-related meetings and discussions.

[...]

It was the latest in a series of eyebrow-raising editorials. Last week Murdoch's New York tabloid, the New York Post, labeled Donald Trump Jr. an "idiot" and "criminally stupid."

Ouch!

President Trump grew up reading the Post and still has it delivered at the White House, so the editorial may have caught his eye.

I would have expected a tweet calling the Post "Fake News" if it had. The staff probably told him the dog ate it.

It came on the heels of another blunt assessment by the Post's editorial board last month.

A three-word editorial about Trump's Twitter habits at the end of June said, simply, "Stop. Just stop."

Ate that edition, too.

Murdoch's Fox News Channel is a reliable source of pro-Trump boosterism from morning until night. But some critical voices have gained attention on Fox, too, including Charles Krauthammer, who recently said "bungled collusion is still collusion."

Krauthammer, too? Damn.

I can't get to the Wall Street Journal article without a subscription, but this isn't the first time the editors have criticized Trump.  Here's the NYT on a WSJ op-ed dated March 21, titled "A President's Credibility."

The editorial was an extraordinarily harsh rebuke of President Trump, calling him “his own worst political enemy” and asserting that he was damaging his presidency “with his seemingly endless stream of exaggerations, evidence-free accusations, implausible denials and other falsehoods.”

[...]

“Two months into his Presidency, Gallup has Mr. Trump’s approval rating at 39 percent. No doubt Mr. Trump considers that fake news, but if he doesn’t show more respect for the truth, most Americans may conclude he’s a fake President.”

[...]

In particular, the editorial board pointed to Mr. Trump’s unsubstantiated claims that former President Barack Obama had tapped his phones. “The President clings to his assertion like a drunk to an empty gin bottle,” the editorial said.

  NYT

Double damn!

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Oh My

Roger Ailes will be dismissed from Fox News, the network he built almost singlehandedly, in the wake of multiple reports that he sexually harassed his female subordinates over a period of decades and a high-profile lawsuit from former top anchor Gretchen Carlson, according to a new report.

[...]

Ailes is currently the chairman and CEO of Fox News and Fox Television Stations..

[...]

Ailes is currently the chairman and CEO of Fox News and Fox Television Stations.

[...]

Ailes will be asked this week by James Murdoch to resign or face dismissal if Murdoch has his way; his father Rupert Murdoch and brother Lachlan are advocating to hold off until the end of the Republican national convention, an event Fox News covers zealously. The three agree that Ailes’s time at the network is over, according to Sherman.

  The Guardian

If high profile Gretchen Carlson hadn't come forward, the others would have never been heard.

I would say this is good for everyone, and particularly news seekers, but I'll need to wait to see who replaces him.

..but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

A Little Help from Her Friends

Of course Rupert Murdoch is not on trial for his news agency's phone hacking crimes, but one of his chief executives, Rebekah Brooks, is. And somebody decided it was time to bring another name into the mix: Tony Blair. 

According to emails between Brooks and James Murdoch, once the hacking scandal came to light, Tony advised Brooks (by phone - surely the NSA will have the call data) to chill and take sleeping pills, to launch their own investigation of themselves which would, of course, have the aim to clear them of wrongdoing (it always works for government), and to use him as an advisor, but keep that on the hush-hush.

Oops to that last part.

Uh Huh

In answer to the question: what can they do about it? Nothing.

WASHINGTON — Rupert Murdoch faces stepped up pressure over control of News Corp. following a blistering report from British lawmakers on a hacking scandal but his grip on the firm is not in immediate danger, analysts say.

That is because Murdoch holds the reins of the New York-based global media group through a stock structure which gives him and family members most of the voting shares in News Corp.

“It’s impossible for shareholders to oust the management of the company,” said Columbia University law professor Robert Jackson, who studies corporate governance and ethics.

  Raw Story

Not Fit

A British parliamentary report has said that media mogul Rupert Murdoch showed "willful blindness" over phone hacking at his News of the World tabloid and is not fit to run a major company.

"We conclude, therefore, that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company," the cross-party culture committee said in its long-awaited report on the scandal on Tuesday.

[...]

The panel said it was now for parliament's lower House of Commons to decide "what punishment should be imposed" on those it thinks have treated the committee with contempt.

Murdoch has apologised for the scandal but told the Leveson inquiry into press ethics last week that senior staff at his British newspaper publisher had hidden the hacking scandal from him.

The 39-year-old James has also apologised for failing to get to the bottom of the scandal but said he was kept in the dark by staff at the paper.

Both Rupert and James Murdoch have put the blame on the journalists.

  alJazeera

But of course they did.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

NYPD - to Protect and Serve the (Murdoch Empire)

When Occupy Wall Street protesters marched past media tycoon Rupert Murdoch’s posh 5th Avenue penthouse during the “Millionaires March” on October 11, they were accompanied by a “very light police presence” according to a reporter at the scene. But down at Rupert’s News Corp. headquarters on Sixth Ave.–which has never been a terrorist or protest target of any significance–the media empire is guarded by a 24-hour-a-day New York Police Department security detail seven days a week, a patrol that one security expert estimated costs the city at least half a million dollars a year.

[...]

CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC [...] contract security guards from private vendors, employ their own security staff and, in some cases, hire a paid detail of off-duty or retired police officers, whose cost is incurred at the network’s expense.

[...]

A security guard inside the lobby of the News Corp. building said that the police presence out front “has nothing to do with Fox News,” and is there simply because it’s a “high-profile” area. Yet cops who spoke with The Daily Beast said that they are posted at the site to protect Fox News as part of a counterterrorism initiative.

[...]

No other news network gets comparable NYPD protection. [...] As best we could decipher a rationale for this extraordinary sentry at the gates of the Fox empire, it appears to be fueled by the security obsession of Fox News chief Roger Ailes.

[...]

Accounts vary as to how long the NYPD security detail has been stationed in front of the two-million-square-foot tower. One police officer said it’s definitely been more than a year. An ex-Fox News employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the NYPD presence has been there since the network got underway in the mid 1990s.

  Daily Beast

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.