J Murdoch's BSkyB fate in MPs' hands
Has a report by a select committee of MPs ever before decided whether a business person kept his or her senior job?
I am not sure.
But I am told by sources at British Sky Broadcasting that the report due in a month or so by the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee on phone hacking will determine whether James Murdoch remains chairman of BSkyB.
If the committee's MPs were to explicitly challenge his testimony, on what he knew and when about phone hacking by the News of the World, and about other alleged illegal activities by journalists working for News International (including the Sun), it would be difficult for James Murdoch to retain the support of BSkyB's independent non-executive directors - or so I am told. Any suggestion that he was not a reliable witness would not gild his reputation.
Equally if the committee felt minded to unambiguously criticise his stewardship of News Int, again those non-execs would probably feel obliged to ask Mr Murdoch to step down.
Thus if the MPs were to conclude that they were misled in their earlier enquriy by News International employees about the extent of phone hacking carried out by the News of the World, they would have the locus to reflect on what this implied for Mr Murdoch's competence or intentions, since he ran News International at the time of the earlier enquiry.
What it comes down to is not just whether MPs believe Mr Murdoch when he says he was in the dark about the extent of illegal and allegedly illegal activities by News International staff till the end of 2010. What also matters is what reflections they make about his ignorance, if they accept it.
So will the MPs be damning and will Mr Murdoch therefore quit the chairmanship of BSkyB?
I am told that the committee has not yet come to its conclusions - and won't do so for some weeks yet. As I understand it, the MPs would like to publish the report before Easter, but if the Leveson Inquiry were to uncover more information relevant to the MPs' assessments, then there could of course be a further delay.
Right now the MPs are assessing the implications of the disclosure to Leveson of a 2006 email from the News Int lawyer Tom Crone to the then editor of the News of the World, Andy Coulson - which says that the police had told the then editor of the Sun, Rebekah Brooks, that there were between 100 and 110 victims of phone hacking - far more than News Int admitted to in public at the time.
James Murdoch became chief executive of News Int in December 2007. Just a few days ago, he quit as chairman of News Int, to return to New York, where he will concentrate on his other position, deputy chief operating officer of News Corp, the parent of News Int.
If Mr Murdoch were to vacate the BSkyB chair, that would not amuse his father - since a Murdoch has always been chairman or chief executive of BSkyB, which is 39% owned by News Corp.
Would Rupert Murdoch fight to keep a Murdoch as chairman of the company? Difficult to know. The obvious success to James Murdoch is BSkyB's senior independent non-executive director, Nick Ferguson.
BSkyB without a Murdoch as chairman or chief exec? It's an intriguing thought.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~09~RS~)




Hollande signs gay marriage bill
Sick art
Tweets of the week
Clocking out
Most wanted
Story of the S-Class
Fast Track
Comment number 1.
Ecksfreelunch8th March 2012 - 10:02
Either way, I'm afraid Murdoch junior is toast. After all there are outside investors who will have their way and that will be to drag Sky towards the norms of wider corporate life. We shouldn't shed any tears for him.
Link to this (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
BobRocket8th March 2012 - 10:08
Not that I give much of a monkeys about BSkyB and the Murdochs, but why doesn't he install the daughter as Chairperson, the youngest Murdoch doesn't seem up the the job.
(I think they should all be in jail anyway but that is a different issue)
Link to this (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
Whistling Neil8th March 2012 - 10:15
I am discomforted by this post, is this reporting news , analysis of news or creating it? MPs are yet to finalise the report and these words could yet be changed or hardened to reach an outcome some desire for purely political reasons.
This smacks more of creating news.
(and I say this as someone who sees no place for Junior in UK business life)
Link to this (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
JunkkMale8th March 2012 - 10:15
'Has a report by a select committee of MPs ever before decided whether a business person kept his or her senior job?
I am not sure.
But I am told by sources..'
--
'Sources' who, though un-named, are sure, or at least more so, presumably?
Whilst emulating a Robinson phone-in might seem attractive, scoop wise, to stick with the trusted reporting reputation, maybe best to wait for known facts?
Link to this (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
thefatladysang8th March 2012 - 10:26
In the perverse times that we live the committee has an over-riding agenda, and will use obfuscation as their major weapon in the concealment of the extensive spread of the rot and connivance throughout past governments. Jimmy will probably be awarded a medal.
Link to this (Comment number 5)
Comments 5 of 48