This is excellent news:
From the BBC
: (emp add)
Rupert Murdoch 'not fit person' to lead News Corp, say MPs
The cross-party culture committee questioned journalists and bosses at the now closed paper, as well as police and lawyers for hacking victims.
Its report has concluded that Mr Murdoch exhibited "wilful blindness" to what was going on in his media empire.
And it said the News of the World and News International misled Parliament about the scale of phone hacking.
The committee of MPs began its inquiry in July 2011 in the wake of fresh newspaper revelations about the extent of hacking at the tabloid newspaper, with reported victims including the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler and the families of victims of the 7/7 London bombings.
It heard evidence from Mr Murdoch and his son James, and has now concluded that the notion that a hands-on proprietor like Rupert Murdoch had "no inkling" that wrongdoing was widespread at the News of the World was "simply not credible".
It noted that the newspaper mogul had "excellent powers of recall and grasp of detail when it suited him"
It was discouraging to watch John Burns of the New York Times
indicate that he was buying the Murdoch bullshit. Last week Burns said on the Charlie Rose show that the most telling moment was when Rupert "admitted" that he panicked when he closed down the News of the World
. It was not the panic of an old man. It was a cold, calculating move to destroy evidence. (Burns also sugar-coated Murdoch/NewsInternational by repeatedly saying that they were "very competitive", which is an oblique way of saying that they were ruthless and transgressing laws and norms.)
John Burns was fooled. The Brits were not.
I had a similar reaction to Burns on Charlie Rose. But check out Burns' NYTimes article today "Tough Questions for Cameron on Ties to Murdoch." Hard copy requires more care than chatting with Charlie Rose.
Wait---is this the same John Burns who pimped for Bush's great war?