According to his answers at the live committee hearing, Murdoch didn’t have a clue about anything ever in his organisation, particularly not criminal behaviour. So there you go.
ETA Bricker, according to the Parliamentary Committee, Rupert M was “responsible for corporate governance” throughout the entire organisation. Not sure of the niceties of UK corporate law to back this up, mind you.
Obama is particularly bright for manipulating this crisis in England. He had 10 people in Rupert’s empire and Scotland Yard fired and they are not even on this continent. Good job Obama.
I think Rupert has less to fear from actual criminal prosecution than from his company’s stockholders. They’ve lost, what $8 billion in the last few weeks? It will be interesting to see how long he holds out.
IIRC, the Murdoch family owns a controlling share of NewsCorp, so I doubt he’ll be ousted. I guess he might announce his retirement to keep the value of shares up, though.
I don’t like it. It’s doubleplus Obamagood.
So you premise away the case before the trial. Nice.
But he hired the people and established the tenor of tabloid journalism. If he had been a serious news person, this crap might not have happened. He is responsible, but the company is large enough for him to hide. But he still is responsible. He set up Foxian ethics and news that pushes a viewpoint rather than reporting the news. In this case, he is more responsible than the regular exec who gets caught.
Yeah, I would imagine he’ll be forced out either because of his apparent lack of control (his answers at this morning’s hearing seem to imply he was completely out of touch) or to fend off shareholder lawsuits alleging his mismanagement cost them money.
I wonder how far this can go.
Imagine there is a Mafia boss. He never actually directly orders anyone killed. He does not “know” what specific acts his lieutenants are ordering. He merely expects a certain outcome, indeed demands it, and if people opposed to him have a habit of dying well…he didn’t order it. Is the mafia boss off the hook? A wink and a nod to the actions of his underlings is sufficient to buffer the mafia boss from culpability?
Certainly a boss should not be held liable for the actions of an employee here and there. The boss cannot be everywhere and individuals may do stupid things on your behalf. That said the tone of the organization comes from the top.
In the case of Murdoch’s news empire these allegations are not new and they are alleged to have been a pervasive practice and not merely the actions of one rogue employee. Can Murdoch shirk responsibility when the corruption was as pervasive as it seems to be? Did he do anything to send the message to his organization that such acts will not be tolerated when they first became apparent? Is being willfully ignorant sufficient insulation? Being Chairman and CEO of an organization does not demand some accountability be laid at his feet?
Son of Obamitch!
Somehow that sneaky Kenyan just pied Murdoch at the hearing in the UK. It’s like he’s got super powers or something.
I think you mean Obamapied.
Obamagards,
Jas09
And you get him and a pink hooker pawn in the back of your car when you land on the space.
Obamaing A!
This thread is turning into yet another Obamaing joke thread!
Obama, obama, bo-bama
Banana-fana fo-fama
Fee-fi-mo-mama
Obama!
(Traditional Kenyan song)
Yes. Obama was also behind the Greek austerity riots, the Chinese earthquake, the Japanese victory in the Womens’ World Cup, and the protests in Tunisia.
Can a shareholder sue a corporate executive on the grounds that he’s a poor mamanger and the stock has lost money as a result?
I don’t think so, although I’m willing to be educated on the point. A shareholder can sue because of fraud, or illegal activity, or a breach of the fiduciary duty owed to the shareholders, but I don’t believe that extends to simple failure to manage well.
Of course, this comment presumes that “shareholder lawsuits” was meant literally and not metaphorically.
If I thought that you
(a) had a genuine interest in the answer, and
(b) would believe me when I gave the answer
I would answer this question.
I believe so, depending on what you mean by “poor manager” - I was including “breach of fiduciary duty” in there.
There is already one suit filed: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107110018
I’m merely a layperson in these matters, but I know I’ve heard of similar suits in the past. It is rather tricky to get a decision in your favor, because you have to be able to show that the business decision was bad at the time it was made, not merely in hindsight, IIRC.
I just think that the threat of litigation at a larger scale might be enough to push Rupert into retirement.
Ok, in general, to what extent would Murdoch be civilly or criminally responsible for the acts of his managers which cannot be established as authorized? Does it matter if the acts are clearly prohibited or simply not approved?
You could limit it to US law, since it might be difficult to answer for all the jurisdictions where Murdoch does business.