James And Rupert Murdoch Decline To Testify About Phone Hacking Scandal [UPDATE]

by Alex Alvarez | 9:12 am, July 14th, 2011

» 17 comments

Update: Rupert Murdoch and his son James Murdoch have changed their minds and agreed to testify before Parliament following a summons.

—

News Corp. head Rupert Murdoch and his son, James Murdoch, have declined to testify before the Commons Culture Select Committee on Tuesday, July 19th, the day the committee has selected that the two address their inside knowledge of News of the World phone hacking scandal. The two risk being held “in contempt of Parliament” should they refuse to appear. However, Rebekah Brooks — who was editor of the now-defunct paper at the time of the hacking — has agreed to speak, while sharing that she may not be able to answer some questions “in detail.”

Rupert Murdoch has said that he is willing to appear before a judge in a separate inquiry, and has stated publicly that he and his company have been doing their part to aid in the investigation. His son has said he would be willing to appear at a later date than proposed, such as August 10th or 11th. Committee Chairman John Whittingdale has said he particularly wants to ask James about his July 7 statement that News International executives “hadn’t told Parliament the truth during previous evidence sessions on phone-hacking.”

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has urged those involved to “do the right thing.” Reports Bloomberg:

My message to Rebekah Brooks and the Murdochs is just do the decent thing. You can’t hide away from this level of public anguish and anger and indeed interest. If you feel you’ve been wronged, if you feel you’ve been maligned…come out and set the record straight.

Brooks, for her part, has sent an apology to the family of Milly Dowler, the British teen whose voice messages were hacked into and deleted by a private investigator allegedly hired by NOTW. However, Brooks has said she was “on holiday” when the final story ran in the paper and had no knowledge about the hacking.

h/t NYT

James Murdoch, News Corp., News International, News of the World, Parliament, Phone Hacking, Rebekah Brooks, rupert murdoch

Just4thefax

Fact: No fishing for imformation with this guy! Put it up or shut up!
Just4thefax

fact: information=imformation
Gracie1705

Rosebud
skyfet

The Hacks declined to attend the hacking scandal question scene in the House of Parliament. What a surprise!
LOGICandREASON

This is ridiculous!

Would Jeffrey Bewkes, Chairman and CEO of Time Warner which is one of the world’s largest media conglomerates, be called to testify in Congress for the wrong doings of the tabloid journalists/writers or even editors of its “People (magazine)” which is once of its tiniest assets?

Actually Jeffrey Bewkes will not even be asked to testify in congress even if a scandal involved one of Time Warner’s bigger asset like: Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Group. There are employees of lower ranks that handle those sort of issues. I think the UK left-wing politicians like Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband are just envious of Rupert Murdoch and his media conglomerate; I mean it’s pretty obvious.
LOGICandREASON

Will Brian Roberts, Chairman, President, & CEO of Comcast or Jeffrey Immelt Chairman & CEO of General Electric be summorned to testify in congress for the wrong doing of members of staff of iVillage, Inc. which is a very tiny investment of NBC Universal?
Fokker News

“Brooks has said she was “on holiday” when the final story ran in the paper and had no knowledge about the hacking.”

Well played Rebekah. Systematic hacking over a long period of time, and she didn’t know about this particular incident.
Jim R

Maybe they agreed to testify only if Dick Cheney attends and it’s “off the record”. Oh, that wouldn’t work over there? Pity, worked for us.
Bill Huggins

I WANT TO WATCH THIS

Going to be SOOOOOOOOOO HILARIOUS
http://twitter.com/SailRabbits Magister

@LOGICandREASON: All kinds of executives are called before Congrass. When the marquee names show up, it generates some photos and press, plus it drives home the importance of the issue by asking some of the larger questions to an executive’s face and getting them personally involved.

I’m sure no one expects the Murdoch’s to have any real answers, but making them testify is a political maneuver that also gives them a from which they can make a statement.
valkyrie101

I am sure that the Murdoch legal team advised against sworn testimony. Way to risky.
emberglance

@LOGICandREASON: the answers to all your questions is a resounding yes, if their organisation was responsible for hacking the private numbers of over 3,000 people, lying to Parliament, bribing police officers on a regular basis, paying hush money to plaintiffs whose phones had been hacked by NOTW journalists to try to keep their lies to Parliament quiet, etc.

And I assume you’re aware that England has a Conservative government at the moment? And the chairman of the committee Murdoch will go before is a Conservative, who’s publicly stated that he’s concerned because the Murdochs’ employees have lied to Parliament.

This is serious stuff dude!
J Baustian

Mediaite: when you change the story and the headline is then 100% false, why not change the headline too?

Or just take down the incorrect story.

This is the same kind of stunt you pulled with the NewsCorp tax story — you “updated” the story but left the bad information and the incorrect headline in the story.
Skippy

Rupert was blabbering about “allegations” yet he and his son saw fit to shut down the sht stain of the world in order to quiet the outrage.

You know who does that?

Criminal a*holes. Because they don’t want to be asked about details.
J Baustian

As I noted in another thread, if Rupert Murdoch is criminally responsible for the actions of people at NOTW, a division of News Group Newspapers, a division of News International Ltd,, which is a division of NewsCorp… then Barack Obama is criminally responsible for the actions of a GS-9 at the BATFE office in Phoenix.
J Baustian

The wrong headline is still posted on this article.
J Baustian

The wrong headline is still posted on this article. (repeat)