Today was the day Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks testified before a parliamentary hearing. Short version: nobody knew anything. And they are really sorry. And about halfway through it there was a pie.
- Rupert says it is "the most humble day of my life." Good for you.
- Both Rupert and James Murdoch argued that they had felt no need to investigate further after the original investigation into News of the World activities had been concluded, because they trusted its results. James further noted that if he had previously given incorrect information to Parliament before, it was because his company had been given bad legal advice.
- Rupert said he blamed "the people I trusted to run it and the people they trusted." I imagine he didn't mean James, there, but ... just sayin'.
- Rupert said he was "shocked, appalled" when he found out about the phone hacking of the young murder victim. James doesn't know why his company paid the legal fees of an investigator convicted of hacking in 2007. But that he did know about and settle a civil suit brought by a separate hacking victim.
- Rupert said he knew nothing about allegations that News of the World attempted to hack into 9/11 victims' phones. He also said that he doesn't pay much attention to his British operations, because they are "1 percent" of his business.
- As for Rebekah Brooks, her testimony basically was made up of two parts. She didn't know anything, but every paper does stuff like this. You may see this as a contradiction. Silly public!
- She also said she didn't know about the hacking of the young murder victim at the time. And she also blamed bad legal advice (by an independent law firm) for not investigating the previous accusations further.
- Video of the pie incident here. I'm not a fan of antics like this, because instead of concentrating on what Brooks, Murdoch and Murdoch said, it allows a good deal of the press coverage to be diverted into "Hey, everybody, someone threw a pie!" The media doesn't really need more reasons to avoid substance, so why give it to them?
There you go. Whether any of that (aside from the pie) makes bigger news depends in large part on whether any of their statements proves to be ... not intended as factual statements, I guess, is the phrase we use now? It may seem cynical to be suspicious of the trustworthiness of company executives whose operations are embroiled in charges of phone hacking, evidence tampering, police bribery, impeding investigations and the like, but, you know ... that stuff I just said.
There will be a special meeting of Parliament tomorrow to discuss the widening scandal. You know your company is in trouble when Parliament is called into session specifically to discuss how much you suck.