It was the Times wot won it

John Steeples

Much of this is true. But he has corrupted democratic politics in this country, and misused his influence, as most proprietors seek to.

RCE

Your example indeed shows that the News Int 'debate' is not as Manichean as many would have us believe.

Here's another example of why that is so:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations-osama-bin-ladens-dna

I wonder if Alan Rusbridger will keep a toll of, and accept responsibility for, all the children who will suffer, as suspicious governments restrict vaccinations from US aid organizations on the back of such poorly-founded, irresponsible tittle-tattle.

Torontory

Hopefully this is the start of the pendulum swinging back from the close to hysterical anti-Murdoch commentary that has taken place in many places including Parliament, BBC, newspapers outside the News International stable and some of the general public.

Certainly some of the practices were illegal at News International, but there is no evidence to the contrary that this was not happening elsewhere – indeed evidence beyond the previous Information commissioner’s reports and the recent suggestions about Piers Morgan engaging in such activities begin to emerge.

I do not believe that the Rupert Murdoch or any other members of his family are mass-murders, child molesters, terrorists or have committed any criminal felonies. What they have done in the UK is revolutionise television; supported through cross-funding the Times; been at the forefront of legal (as well as unfortunately it appears) illegal investigative journalism and through taking on a beating the print unions in The Times Wapping dispute liberated the whole of the UK press.

Wholly good, no – wholly bad, equally no. It is only fair to give credit where it is due.

I await the inevitable reaction to the above from the left wing ‘intelligentsia’!

Chris lancashire

Good article Mr Blackburn. Sadly, don't expect any reasoned debate of it in today's lynch mob, febrile atmosphere.

Liz Brown

John Staples - our substandard politicians were only too happy to be "corrupted" by Murdoch and et al not neccessarily started under New Liebour but whole heartedly endorsed by first Bliar and then McBruin - do not forget that when Murdoch payed a visit to No 10, he then had to go next door to bow at the court of McBruin in No 11
I am v concerned that the there will be no outlet for the voice of reason - who now can take on the might of the Biased BBC? From whence will come the plurality that Britian so desperatly needs.........

Verity

John Steeples - "But he has corrupted democratic politics in this country, and misused his influence, as most proprietors seek to."

Certainly, corruptible people circle powerful people, as a pilot fish swims under the shark, alert for the bits of food that drop out of the feeding shark's mouth.

But Murdoch hasn't corrupted anyone.

People who were already corrupt and just waiting for the right opportunities are the ones who sought ways to please Mr Murdoch and his organisation.

Verity

Chris Lancashire - thanks your lofty alert to David Blackburn. Pass the port, there's a good fellow!

Chris lancashire

Verity: Clockwise old thing.

Baron

I hear you but am afraid if it came about the Senior is another mother Teresa in disguise, those opposing him a bunch of muggers, it would do a fat lot of good to him, his businesses, those who see him as a devious, single minded, often ruthless operator, but as much a necessary part of the media as hurricanes are a part of nature, the forces against him ain’t in the business of backing plurality, openness, fair debate, but brainwashing, social engineering, regulatory despotism, the malevolent BBC, the leading hyena of the pack, is fully aware that only a full dismantling of his empire will ensure their long-term survival, the continuation of the license, their £200k sinecures, gold plated pensions, but also their free reign in brainwashing the unwashed on global warming, immigration, law and order, the EU….

will buy you a round of drinks if you’re right though, clockwise or not.

Tom B

Well said on the issue about Murdoch's victory over the thugs of the old print unions. The Independent, for instance, was made possible by such changes. I hope those who are trying to destroy Murdoch's papers understand that. (Many of course don't care).

In the US, for instance, much of the media had, until Fox News arrived, been dominated by a centrist-liberal mix of news channels: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc. Apart from talk radio (Rush Limbaugh), and the blogs, there was nothing else. The newspapers in the US, apart from the WSJ, were solidly liberal (in the US usage of that word), such as the Boston Globe, Miami Herald, LA Times, Washington Post, NY Times, etc. Murdoch has crashed the party, and via Fox, has injected something different, more openly opinionated (unlike liberal channels, which don't realise how biased they actually are). Fox still accounts for a relatively small share of the total TV audience overall in the US. And yet I heard a guy on a BBC radio phone-in programme frothing about the supposed "evils" of Fox. Some people are simply demented about Murdoch.

Unlike the BBC, Murdoch is not financed from a licence fee (a tax), which is collected on pain of imprisonment; he is not granted privileges for broadcasting by a government. Yes, the abuses that have come to light are appalling, and those guilty must be punished harshly. But we must lower the barriers to entry of new media entrepreneurs, not, as seems the case today, to raise them and create an even more rigidly controlled media.

Bill G

What nonsense!

The Times isn't the only paper to successfully campaign for something and get a result. Pretty much all the main newspapers have done this at one time or another.

They simply choose which battle will resonate with their readers, fight that one and ignore the rest - no matter how just a cause they may be.

Bill G

And to all those who say that the other papers also use NOTW tactics - where's the evidence?

Until we see any evidence, you can't assume that they're all as bad as each other.