Or any evidence that Murdoch has some guilt in the matter, apart from the general theory that the master is liable for the acts of the servant?
Servant? Probably not. Servants? One has to wonder.
To paraphrase Lady Bracknell: to have one employee investigated for criminal behavior may be regarded as a misfortune; to have it happen to several looks like carelessness.
It’s known as “command responsibility”, and it’s a perfectly valid theory.
If he ordered it then he’s guilty of ordering it, if he didn’t order it but knew about it he’s guilty of not stopping it, and if he didn’t know about it he’s guilty of mismanaging his organization in such a manner that he was not made aware of this information.
Also, fishes usually start stinking from the head.
Yes, evidence! We don’t want to try him in the press or anything like that.
Well, that’s one of the reasons for the enquiries, as reports from inside the papers are saying that phone tapping and police bribery were endemic and sanctioned by the bosses (however far up those ‘bosses’ might go). Of course he will deny all til he’s backed into a corner, like at every other stage of this fiasco.
In fact, in Hugh Grant’s undercover taped interview, we get this statement:
You left out a relevant bit:
Puritanical perhaps, but also focused on business.
So theoretically Obama could implicate some US news companies of sleeze, and this would win him the election how?
Well, it’s a perfectly valid theory with limits.
Ordering someone to commit a crime is itself typically a crime. Learning that your company is committing crimes, and not reporting or stopping it, may well be criminal as well.
But merely mismanaging your organization so as to be unaware that others are committing crimes? Generally NOT a crime itself.
So for this to be true – to say that Murdoch should have been in jail already – we need to allege more than simply, “He’s guilty of mismanaging his organization in such a manner that he was not made aware of this information.”
ANd of course it goes without saying that we cannot send someone to jail simply because fish rot from the head.
SUre. But the point was not whether he’s focused on business, but whether he knew of the phone hacking.
Is there any evidence that says he did?
Of course.
And of course if he really didn’t know, he will ALSO deny it.
How will we know without an investigation?
Go Obama yourself.
Looks like we need to ban a new word on this MB. From now on, no more use of “Obama”.
Oh, I’m all in favor of an investigation.
I’m not in favor of statements like, “He should have been in jail a long time ago,” unless there are some investigation results that support the claim.
Taking for granted that Grant is a “second-rate actors” (a very disputable point), since when is it that “first-rate actors” have some kind of lock on involvement in matters of public interest? What if he had been a third-rate electrician? Or a first-rate pastry chef? Or a second-rate web developer? It’s pretty clear that Grant is a pretty intelligent guy, so maybe his profession and his relative achievement in that profession really doesn’t tell on the incident he’s gotten involved in.
I don’t know yet. Neither do you. That’s the point of the investigation.
I was merely pointing out that in the cite you offered which implied that Murdoch didn’t know about the phone hacking because he got upset about the Divine Brown story, there was another explanation offered which did not rely on Murdoch’s “puritanical” nature. I was addressing your quote, not offering proof.
Also, when someone says “X should be in jail,” it might be prudent to consider whether it should be interpreted metaphorically rather than be made subject to the rigors of criminal jurisprudence.
OK.
Maybe it should. I don’t know. I guess that point may be clarified by the person making the comment.
I think Great Debates should retain at least some measure of rigor, and other forums should be the home of more metaphorical flights of fancy.