The Men Who Killed the News

This book by Eric Beecher is long -or it seems long – and it may not tell us much that is new – but we should read it.  I may have missed it, but the subtitle could be the aphorism ‘Power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot through the ages.’

We get all the moguls.  They are devoid or style and humanity.  They are in it for power – bought with money.  The main villain is of course Rupert Murdoch – and the book makes it clear that he could not give a bugger. 

It also makes it clear that things could get worse under the presently nominated successor, Lachlan Murdoch.  If his action against Crikey is any indication, Lachlan has no judgment at all.  In a lifetime in the law, much of it involving the press, I have never seen anything like it.

His sad case raises another point.  None of these moguls shows any sign of contentment.  If life involves the pursuit of happiness, each is a pathetic failure.  And that goes for those who kowtow to them.  I have no idea what it may have been like to work in an Ottoman harem, or Oriental knock shop under the Red Guards, but that is how the well-paid tributaries of Rupert and Sons look to me. 

Rupert is just frankly vicious.  He knows no other way.  And he doesn’t even look like leaving us soon.  He may have time to claim the record of Henry VIII as a retail terminator of his wives – although not even Harry – what an awful rock to build a church on – could do so by email.  When Rupert goes, there will be a massive funeral, but not one mourner.  The damage he has wrought to the governance of Australia and the U S is beyond assessment.

As is the damage he has done to the profession of journalism – that he has devoted his life to perverting.  People in a profession do so as a vocation that serves a public purpose.  The public need for the functions of journalists is as clear as that for doctors and lawyers.  All of them have to put food on the table, but when money becomes paramount, as it does in the Murdoch world, professionalism goes clean out the window, and you are left with tits, lies, and downright hit jobs.

One chapter is called ‘Give ‘em what they want.’  There is a remarkable resemblance between the moguls and people like Trump, Boris, Farage, and now Musk.  They know how to fish the gutter – the contents of which they regard with contempt.  And the people so hooked think it is Christmas – so that the working people of the U S thought they may be better off under a government of billionaire egomaniacs.

All this is so cold that Michael Corleone could have blushed when he replayed the primal sin of murdering a brother.  Rupert sacked the guy who published the Hitler diaries after he, Rupert, had personally ordered their publication – the sort of thing Hitler avoided – and as the truth came out, said ‘nothing ventured, nothing gained – after all, we are in the entertainment business.’  (The German victim at Stern said ‘I couldn’t believe that anyone would have gone to the trouble of forging something so banal.’  That brought to mind Hannah Arendt, and my reaction to scammers posing as bankers – they were so banal, they had to be real.)

And when Rupert said ‘this is the most humble day of my life’, he butchered the language, but he was humiliated because he was caught with his hands in the till.  As was everyone at Fox when they were caught despising Trump.

And in the course of my legal practice, I have seen with my own eyes people very high up in the Melbourne community quail at the prospect of Rupert coming after them.

Mr Beecher quotes a remark of Edmund Burke I could not recall- ‘the world is governed by go-betweens’.  That is so true – and so many wheedling ratbags.  And the press is forever in danger of joining the swill.  It is very sad, because public trust is evaporating in almost every aspect of our communal life. 

Possibly the most potent quote comes at the start – from Janet Malcolm, who is about as respectable as you can get on this subject.

Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows what he is doing is morally indefensible.  He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people’s vanity, ignorance or loneliness, gaining their trust, and betraying them without remorse. 

Mr Beecham says: Journalism is by nature an exercise in manipulation. 

Well, so in some ways are those who practise medicine or the law.  But the problem for journalists is that they have to spend so much time in dealing with people in politicsor business who are on the make.  And manipulators work on manipulators and whole industries evolve to murder the very idea of truth and to salute evasion.  And they do for lucre, the potential pollutant of every profession.

And then along came AI.  Can anyone trust anyone now?  Mr Beecher concludes by saying that ‘he never imagined that the intervention of machines, controlled by another group of human beings behaving badly, could usurp the moguls and make things worse.’

Perhaps I should insert a form of disclaimer.  In my time in the law I acted for and against the press and have a settled view on where the power lies, but in dealing with journalists on a daily basis about issues I was involved in, I had hardly ever any complaint about dealing with them in confidence.  Which is more than I could say for my lot.

Finally.  I have very much enjoyed many summer schools at Oxford and Cambridge, but those drongoes at Oxford who established the Rupert Murdoch Chair in Communications should be utterly ashamed of themselves.  Alan Bennett said: ‘If the University thinks it’s appropriate to take Rupert Murdoch’s money, perhaps they ought to approach Saddam Hussein to found a chair in peace studies.’ 

Or they could cross the channel to see the sluts in white boots at Pigalle.

The Boeing Pact

In 2018, a Boeing aircraft for no apparent reason plunged to the earth killing all on board.  Less than a year later, another Boeing of the same model suffered the same fate.  More than three hundred people died in these crashes.  In each case, the fault was found to be a failure in the computerised mechanisms that resulted in the pilot not being able to over-ride the robot driving or flying the plane. 

Boeing struck  a deal  with regulators and was then prosecuted for fraud for reneging on it.  So they struck another deal – and with no apologies to Groucho Marx. Federal prosecutors gave Boeing the choice last week of entering a guilty plea and paying a fine as part of its sentence or facing a trial on the felony criminal charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States. The families of the victims are outraged by the deal.  The reasons are obvious.  The court will be asked not to approve the settlement.

The origins of our laws come down to us from the forests of Germany that the Romans looked down on – until the Germans sacked  Rome.  In the first lecture in The Common Law, O W Holmes said that Roman law started from the blood feud and all authorities agreed that the German law started in the same way.  The law of criminal and civil wrongs  ‘started from a moral basis, from the thought that someone was to blame’.

Vengeance imports a feeling of blame, and an opinion, however distorted by passion, that a wrong has been done.  (Little Brown  and Co, 1881, 3,37.)

The first object of the law was to deal with vengeance – the vendetta. 

As it happens, more than one hundred years before Holmes published his lectures, the Scots philosopher David Hume had looked at this .  He set out a short extract that ‘contains the history of the criminal jurisprudence of the northern nations for several centuries’.

Hume describes two phases of the emergence of the  ancient Germans from ‘the original state of nature.’  The vendetta remained ‘an indispensable point of honour for every clan’, but –

….the magistrate had acquired a right of interposing in the quarrel, and of accommodating the difference.  He obliged the person maimed or injured, and the relations of one killed to…accept a compensation for the injury, and to drop all further prosecution of revenge….A present of this kind gratified the revenge of the injured family by the loss which the aggressor suffered.  It satisfied their pride by the submission which it expressed.  It diminished the regret for the loss or injury of a kinsman by their acquisition  of new property, and thus general peace was for a moment restored…

Then the intervention by the ruler stepped up a notch.

The magistrate, whose office it was to guard public peace and to suppress private animosities, conceived himself to be injured by every injury done to any of his people; and besides the compensation to the person who suffered, he thought  himself entitled to exact a fine, called the Fridwit, as an atonement for the breach of the peace, and as a reward for the pains which he had taken in accommodating the quarrel.  (A History of England, Liberty Classics, 1983, 174-176).

And this is precisely what we got with the common law of England after 1215 when the writ of trespass alleged a breach of the peace of the king by force of arms – contra pacem regis, vi  et armis.  That allegation was essential to the process on which the English developed so much of their law dealing with civil or criminal wrongs.

We see immediately why the Boeing family victims are outraged by the second proposed Boeing settlement.  They have suffered most grievously. Their reaction starts from a moral basis, from the thought that someone is to blame – a wrong has been done.  What others call vengeance, they call justice.  Their felt needs are as primal as you can get.  If our law cannot accommodate them,  have we gone backwards or, worse, sold out?

People trust airline manufacturers with more than money – they trust the manufacturers with their lives.  Boeing  breached that trust and many people died.

If the court is to find that someone was to blame, it will not be the corporate legal entity, but a real person.  Instead, lawyers for the government and the corporation strike a commercial bargain.  Shareholders will be mulcted for the benefit of the government treasury.  The people responsible will walk away untouched.  And the victims  will not get to see due process of law.

A prime object of that process is to deter others from committing the harmful acts complained of.   There too the law is mocked, but we see it all the time.  It is as if there is one law for rich companies, and another for the rest of us.

But what we do know is that the  sight of one executive behind bars will offer more deterrence than all these cosy club deals done behind firmly closed doors .

Open justice – regulators – criminals.