Unlock Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, editor-in-chief of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
“This is the most humbling day of my life,” Rupert Murdoch told MPs in 2011 as the full horrors of phone hacking of his newspapers emerged. Luckily for the media mogul, his sack days didn’t last.
On Monday, he took his place among the privileged guests at Donald Trump’s inauguration. This summer, as the British election approached, Sir Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak rushed to pay tribute to his summer party. The intervening years would not normally be considered rehabilitation years. Murdoch has had to pay well over a billion dollars in costs and damages to victims of crime, industrial intrusion or poor practices of his news organizations on both sides of the Atlantic.
Wednesday saw the last-minute settlement of the ongoing phone-hacking trial against his company in Britain, a case involving a victim with the means and status to insist on appearing in court. Prince Harry pushed him to the brink, but he too settled, supposedly for enormous damages, with an unprecedented apology and admission of historic illegal activities by private investigators working for The Sun – without to accept the guilt on the part of senior leaders.
Murdoch’s Press group newspapersa subsidiary of News UK, used its financial might to prevent at least 1,300 cases from going to trial, sparing itself damaging revelations or questions. The UK’s civil courts exist to grant relief, not to discover information. The rules encourage a settlement by shifting potential costs to the victorious plaintiff if they go to trial and get no more than the settlement offered up front. Those who wish to continue fighting expose themselves to impossible risks. Last year, the actor Hugh Grant reluctantly settled, saying failure to do so could cost him millions of dollars in legal fees.
For the Duke of Sussex – and his co-plaintiff, former Labor deputy leader Lord Tom Watson – it wasn’t really about the money. They hoped a trial would reveal Murdoch executives to new revelations about the illegal use of private investigators and the company’s efforts to contain the scandal. This possibility is now denied. The Duke claimed a “monumental victory”, but the NGN strategy worked. A lot of money has been spent to keep these cases from going to trial. In the end, even he couldn’t brave the financial risks.
Speaking after the settlement, Prince Harry’s lawyer David Sherborne said NGN had “deleted over 30 million emails and made false denials”. They had incurred “more than £1 billion in compensation and costs”. Sherborne added that the claimants had been “forced to settle without being able to discover the truth”. NGN’s lawyers strongly dispute suggestions of a cover-up and have always said the deletions were part of a broader administrative process.
The same modus operandi of paying to avoid the light of a legal case is applied in the United States. In 2023, Fox News paid $787 million to settle a defamation lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems over the channel’s perpetuation of false claims that it was involved in voter fraud in the 2020 election. At the heart of the defamation were fears within Fox that the not endorsing Trump’s fraud claims would cause viewers to turn to more conservative channels. After the deal, Fox hilariously said, “This settlement reflects Fox’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards.” »
That Murdoch is still welcome in Trump circles is not surprising. But he is still courted in the United Kingdom. The Conservatives abandoned the promised second part of the public inquiry into media malpractices and opposed state regulation of the press. Starmer followed this line and courted Murdoch while in opposition. The Sun supported Starmer in the election – probably because his victory seemed inevitable.
Murdoch has since handed over formal management of his companies to his eldest son Lachlan and sold his stake in Sky TV. Rebekah Brooks, acquitted of phone hacking but former editor of the Sun and News of the World – and chief executive of the company when the scandal broke – is now CEO of British parent company News UK.
Many despise Murdoch for his politics and influence, although few can dispute his talent as both a businessman and a journalist. But what matters here is that the regulations have stifled uncomfortable questions about the company’s actions. Nick Davies, the journalist who exposed the scandal, has carefully detailed the issues raised by the memos.minutes, emails and documents communicated to the court before the cases now settledwhile emphasizing that they represent only one side of a story.
Murdoch’s companies have spent a fortune to avoid further public scrutiny. Their bet is that the maximum danger has passed and that this latest fury will subside. Now the only hope for full transparency is for police to reopen questions of accountability at the top of the company raised in the new documents and by Sherborne and others, including former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Police have been inconclusive in initial investigations and there are still questions to be resolved. Only if a new investigation is carried out can it truly be called a victory.
Otherwise, there can only be one conclusion. Like the Buchanans of The Great Gatsby, Murdoch’s companies have succeeded in destroying lives and reeling in their money. He and his leaders remain undefeated; celebrated and adored. The warrior prince gained more than anyone else, but, in the end, even he could not pay the full price of justice.