you're reading...
Alex Salmond, corruption., David Cameron, Leveson inquiry, Metropolitan police, Rebekah Brooks, Rupert Murdoch

Riding for a fall with the Murdoch hunt.

Why do they do it? Why do political leaders, even in Scotland, worship at the tawdry court of the Sun king Rupert Murdoch? What to they think they’ll gain? Murdoch is the most toxic brand in British public life, his crude right wing publications a byword for bent news and illegal practices like phone hacking. Yet there he was, the “Dirty Digger” as Private Eye calls the boss of News International,  sneaking into Bute House by the back door on Wednesday for tete a tete with Alex Salmond. Even as the claims of a “network of police corruption” by the Sun,were still reverberating across the Leveson inquiry. And on the very day that James Murdoch resigned in disgrace from his post as chairman of NI. How many votes does Alex Salmond want to lose?
Of course the First Minister insists Murdoch was just there to talk about jobs over “tea and Tunnocks caramel wafers” as one of Scotland’s leading employers. But if he thinks Scottish voters will believe that then he is out to lunch. Salmond also says that he made his views clear about Leveson and newspaper ethics. But this came rather hollow from a politician who had just leaked the date of the Scottish independence referendum – 18th October – to give the super soaraway Sunday Sun a front page splash for its first edition. Is that really the kind of behaviour we expect from our First Minister?  That he sells his referendum for a sycophantic tweet from Rupert Murdoch? It’s not even as if the Sunday Sun actually supported independence. It won’t unless and until Murdoch becomes convinced that the referendum is a certainty. The Sun doesn’t lead opinion – it follows it. Why don’t politicians understand that.
The new Scottish Labour leader, Johann Lamont, made a spirited attempt to embarrass Salmond at First Minister’s Question time. But it rebounded badly, not least because of Labour’s own record of cosying up to Rupert. Salmond read out the guest list for Murdoch’s summer champagne party, which included Ed Miliband and Ed Balls. He might also have reminded Lamont about that summer sleepover party that Gordon Brown’s wife Sarah organised for Rebecca Brooks when she was editor of the Sun – at the Labour Prime Minister’s official residence at Chequers. Wonder if she brought her gift horse from the Met?
I vividly remember Labour leaking the date of the 2001 general election to the Sun – twice, because it was postponed over foot and mouth. Labour’s reputation for obeisance to Murdoch is far more abject than anything the SNP has had time to acquire. In 1996, Tony Blair didn’t just have tea with Rupert Murdoch. He flew half way round the world to the Australian Hayman Island to reassure the press baron that he wasn’t going to do anything to upset his media empire if he won the 1997 general election. The former Labour spin doctor, Lance Price, says that Rupert Murdoch was “the 24th member of Tony Blair’s cabinet”.

An entire generation of politicians has been corrupted – yes, corrupted – by association with this sinister oligarch, who should never have been allowed to acquire such monopolistic influence over the UK media. Murdoch owned the Sun, The News of the World, The Times, Sky News and had his finger in other media pies. Such cross media ownership by a foreign national would never have been allowed in America, where they take press freedom rather more seriously than we do. Or France, or any other country with any concern for public ethics. Murdoch was, is, a cancer in British public life, a malignant presence at election time and at moments of national emergency. On the eve of the Iraq invasion, Tony Blair spoke three times to Murdoch.
And of course the Tories have been just as supine before the Sun king. The revelations about the Prime Minister riding to a fall with Rebekah Brooks and the Chipping Norton set have been embarrassing. But David Cameron’s reputation as a political leader was severely, perhaps irreparably damaged by  decision to appoint the former editor of the News of the World, Andy Coulson, as his communications, even after he had resigned over the phone hacking allegations. Why did Cameron do it? Because he felt this might give him influence over the Murdoch media empire. How can politicians be so naive? They don’t control the Sun; the Sun controls them.
And of course the stench of real corruption now hangs heavy over the Metropolitan Police following the astonishing revelations  from the Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Sue Akers at the Leveson inruiry. Brave woman! for taking on her own senior colleagues as well as the Murdoch snoops. Akers spoke candidly about she called the “network of illegal payment” to senior police officers and officials by the Sun. Of course, these remain allegations, but you can rest assured that she would not have made them had she not been  sure of her ground. For this is infinitely worse than the hacking of celebrities’ mobile phones. If hundreds of thousands of pounds really have been handed to police officers, or their conduits, to secure stories, then the integrity of the police will have suffered an even greater blow than that suffered by MPs following the revelations about their expenses.
Just think of it: police actually handing criminal intelligence for money to an outside organisation. Selling confidential information gathered through their privileged position as officers of the law who have the power to question any citizen suspected of any crime. This is truly shocking – the Leveson inquiry has inadvertently uncovered one of the biggest scandals in police history. The public will conclude that this explains why the police were so reluctant to investigate the phone hacking scandal in the first place. They didn’t want to bite the hand that fed them.
But why did the police feel they could act this way? It was reckless beyond belief, and apparently sanctioned, or condoned, at the highest level. Perhaps because the police saw that politicians were already hand in glove with the Murdoch empire and believed that this was just how things were in the ‘real world’.  They believed that Murdoch was indeed above the law, a sponsor of government, confidant of prime ministers, immunised from prosecution by virtue of his constitutional role as the man who decides who is suitable to win British general elections. Truly, we live in the Murdoch State.
And now we even have our own Scottish First Minister worming his way into Rupert Murdoch’s unsavoury offices, sending him cosy notes and free tickets, meeting his agents 26 times since 2007. Trying to win favours from Murdoch’s disreputable rags. Politicians always excuse this kind of ingratiating behaviour on the grounds that the have to keep the press onside; it’s just how things are. Well, the First Minister of Scotland needs to be reminded that this is not how things are here. Salmond should disown Rupert if he doesn’t want to hear Scottish voters saying: “Ach, politicians. They’re ALL the same”.

About @iainmacwhirter

I'm a columnist for the Herald. Author of "Road to Referendum" and "Disunited Kingdom". Was a BBC TV and radio presenter for 25 years - "Westminster Live" and "Holyrood Live" mainly. Spent time as columnist for The Observer, Guardian, New Statesman. Former Rector of Edinburgh University. Live in Edinburgh and spend a lot of time in the French Pyrenees. Will that do?


5 thoughts on “Riding for a fall with the Murdoch hunt.

  1. I think its because the media in Scotland is both shallow and predictable. It is predicable in its heavy bias toward unionism and the SNP get a poor reward for their good electoral progress with political journalists so they must think "why not" go with Murdoch. Is the Record or the Mail or the Telegraph going to be fair, come the referendum? Or the BBC? As for shallowness, Scotland must have the lowest journalistic standards in the western world, and this in a country that used to consume more newsprint than any other. We have a major story of international importance in Al- Megrahi's rigged trial and the Scottish Media wont touch it. All they seem to be interested in is embarassing the SNP because the guy hasnt died yet. Its pathetic.

    Posted by gavin | March 6, 2012, 8:05 pm
  2. I have to agree with Gavin.The media of Scotland should hang its head in shame at the distortions it presents as "news" to the people of Scotland.You raised the question surrounding Mr Megrahi and his inability to die to order of the Scottish media.Apparently Sarkozy had a vested interest in Lybian funding – at least according to the DM http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113910/Colonel-Gaddafi-gave-French-President-Nicolas-Sarkozy-42MILLION-fund-2007-election-campaign.htmlMakes one wonder who else might have been subsidised by the " dictator"

    Posted by Disgusted Dorothy | March 13, 2012, 9:35 am
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    Posted by Auld Bob | April 27, 2012, 12:24 pm
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    Posted by CWH | May 5, 2012, 6:00 pm
  5. the subject of politics is very difficult to know who is and who is not until the day of voting looks can be deceiving

    Posted by sports handicapping software | June 11, 2012, 5:48 pm

Twitter Updates

  • RT @Jonathon_Shafi: This is the official prospectus for Scottish independence: NATO will dictate the foreign policy, the City will dictate… 1 day ago

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 57,078 other followers

Follow Iain Macwhirter on WordPress.com



%d bloggers like this: