The scandals surrounding Rupert Murdoch and his media empire have, over the past month, taken on the look and feel of a classical Greek tragedy.
Revelations followed revelations, and high-profile resignations quickly became a daily occurrence. In addition to the British allegations, investigations are also under way in the U.S. to determine if illegal activities occurred in those News Corp. properties. News outlets, pundits and politicians have taken advantage of these developments to grandstand and throw proverbial rocks at the media tycoon.
What has kept up the momentum in Britain are actually larger and more pernicious concerns over how modern media influences the political process. Questions have been raised as to possible police bribery and corruption. In addition, there is a lingering sense that British political leaders, including prime ministers, have been drawn into too close an orbit around the Murdoch media empire.
Accessing voicemails of murdered children, victims of terrorist attacks and dead soldiers is illegal and morally reprehensible. But paying bribes and illicitly courting high-ranking government officials are much more damaging, and damning, allegations.
To date, Murdoch has paid a hefty price. Closing down the News of the World, the tabloid where the British scandal erupted, suspending News Corp.'s attempts to buy out the remaining shareholders from BSkyB, the U.K.'s largest commercial broadcaster and being made to testify before a parliamentary committee each has been a significant blow to the prestige, and legacy, of Rupert Murdoch. And then there was that attempt to throw a cream pie at him during his testimony, the "most humble day" of his life, which wasn't very nice.
Importantly, Murdoch papers were not alone in illicitly accessing phone messages. The practice appears to have been widespread on Fleet Street. The parent company of the left-leaning Daily Mirror, a competing tabloid to Murdoch's Sun, has announced this week that they will be conducting a widespread internal investigation. Piers Morgan, a former Mirror editor and current CNN celebrity interviewer, awkwardly mentioned the practice of "phone hacking" in his bestselling autobiography.
But the spotlight of international media focus continues to shine primarily on Murdoch, his family, and his longstanding love of newspapers and the newspaper business.
Putting aside questions about his political views and business practices, the newspaper industry, which has suffered horrendously in the Internet age, would have been much, much smaller without the contributions of this one man. Although his other media properties, including Fox News in the U.S., make him much higher levels of profit, his heart remains in newspapers. He has succeeded in operating print publications at a time when many other publishers are going bankrupt or stopping the presses for good. But in doing so, he has made his share of enemies.
After his three-hour performance before the parliamentary committee, many commentators were quick to declare the end of the reign of King Rupert. He looked his 80 years, and in doing so may have inadvertently gained some measure of sympathy from his global audience. He was clearly not the image of the take-no-prisoners tycoon that he was so commonly caricatured as by his critics. Perhaps it is this realization that Murdoch is simply a human being, and not some malign force of nature, that will be the closest thing to a benefit for him that comes out of these developments.
Unfortunately, questions continue to circle Rupert's son and heir-apparent, James Murdoch, who testified alongside his father last week. Allegations quickly began to circulate after the hearing that James may have lied before Parliament. Even though his testimony was not under oath, as would have been the practice before Congress, James could still be criminally liable for contempt of Parliament.
To date, however, Rupert has passionately defended his son. And James's sharp and polished performance under questioning from members of Parliament was in stark contrast to Rupert's less-eloquent responses. Further, supportive voices, including large investors in Murdoch companies, have publically backed James, which may enable him to withstand the critical onslaught.
But beyond succession planning at News Corp., what will be the lasting impact of theses scandals?
British newspapers have historically played a much different role than their American counterparts. Assertive and opinioned papers lead the way in Britain when complex or controversial issues are debated. Readers have a wide variety of papers, each with their own political and social demographic, to choose from.
It would be very unfortunate if, as a result of these scandals, newspapers in Britain become timid and reluctant. Clearly, when laws and ethical rules are violated, those responsible must be sanctioned. But an effective press, willing to pursue potential stories through thick and thin no matter how unpopular, can play an invaluable role in helping a society understand and police itself.
Interestingly, the U.S., with its First Amendment protections and lenient libel laws, must look across the pond to Britain to see what a vibrant journalistic culture looks like. Hopefully, that culture will survive the current Murdoch meltdown, and American newspapers can continue to learn a little more from their bolshie British cousins.