Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
“This is the most humble day of my life,” Rupert Murdoch declared to MPs in 2011 as the full horrors of his newspapers’ phone-hacking emerged. Happily for the media tycoon, his days of sackcloth did not last.
On Monday he took his seat as one of the select guests at Donald Trump’s inauguration. In the summer, as the UK election neared, both Sir Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak rushed to pay homage at his summer party. The years between would not normally be considered rehabilitative. Murdoch had to pay well in excess of $1bn in costs and damages to victims of his news organisations’ criminality, industrial intrusion or malpractice on both sides of the Atlantic.
Wednesday saw the last-minute settlement of the outstanding phone-hacking lawsuit against his company in Britain, a case involving one victim with the wherewithal and status to insist on his day in court. Prince Harry took it to the very brink but he too has settled, purportedly for huge damages, an unprecedented apology and admission of historic unlawful activity by private investigators working for The Sun — though not an acceptance of culpability by senior executives.
Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers, a subsidiary of News UK, has used its financial might to keep at least 1,300 cases out of court, sparing itself damaging revelations or questions. The UK’s civil courts exist to deliver redress not uncover information. The rules incentivise a settlement by loading potential costs on to the victorious plaintiff if they go to trial and do not secure more than the settlement that was offered in advance. Those who wish to fight on face impossible risks. Last year the actor Hugh Grant reluctantly settled, saying that not doing so could leave him facing millions in legal expenses.
For the Duke of Sussex — and his co-plaintiff, the former Labour deputy leader Lord Tom Watson — it was not really about money. They hoped a trial would expose Murdoch executives to new revelations about the unlawful use of private investigators and the company’s efforts to contain the scandal. That possibility is now denied. The duke claimed a “monumental victory” but the NGN strategy has worked. A lot of money has been spent keeping these cases from trial. In the end even he could not defy the financial risks.
Speaking after the settlement Prince Harry’s barrister, David Sherborne, stated that NGN had “deleted over 30mn emails and made false denials”. They had incurred “more than £1bn in payouts and costs”. Sherborne added that claimants had been “strong-armed into settling without being able to get to the truth”. NGN’s lawyers strongly dispute suggestions of a cover-up and have always said the deletions were part of a wider housekeeping process.
The same modus operandi of paying to avoid the daylight of a court case applied in the US. In 2023, Fox News paid $787mn to settle a defamation lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems over the channel’s perpetuation of false claims it was involved in electoral fraud in the 2020 election. Central to the libel were fears within Fox that failing to endorse Trump’s fraud claims would see viewers leave for more conservative channels. After the deal, Fox hilariously declared: “This settlement reflects Fox’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards.”
That Murdoch is still welcome in Trump’s circles is unsurprising. But he is also still courted in the UK. The Tories shelved a promised part two of the public inquiry into media malpractice and opposed state regulation of the press. Starmer has followed that line and courted Murdoch while in opposition. The Sun backed Starmer at the election — though probably because his victory looked inevitable.
Murdoch has since passed formal leadership of his businesses to his eldest son Lachlan and sold his stake in Sky TV. Rebekah Brooks, acquitted of phone hacking but a former Sun and News of the World editor — and chief executive of the company when the scandal broke — is now CEO of the UK parent company, News UK.
There are many who despise Murdoch for his politics and his influence, though few can dispute his brilliance as both a business and newspaper man. But what matters here is that settlements have muffled awkward questions about the company’s actions. Nick Davies, the reporter who broke the scandal, has painstakingly detailed issues that arise from the memos, minutes, emails and documents released into court ahead of now-settled cases, while stressing they are only one side of a story.
Murdoch’s businesses have spent a fortune to avoid further public scrutiny. Their bet is that the maximum danger has passed and this latest furore will abate. Now the only hope for full transparency is for the police to reopen the issues of accountability at the top of the company raised in the new documents and by Sherborne and others, including former prime minister Gordon Brown. The police did not distinguish themselves in the original inquiries and there are questions to resolve. Only if a new investigation is secured can it really be called a victory.
Otherwise there can be only one conclusion. Like the Buchanans of The Great Gatsby, Murdoch’s businesses have been able to wreck lives and retreat into their money. He and his execs remain unbowed; feted and fawned upon. The warrior prince won more than most but, ultimately, even he could not pay the full price of justice.
robert.shrimsley@ft.com
Read the full article here
