It all seems a bit fishy to me. Why does James Murdoch seem so vehement in his defence of Rebekah Brooks? Brooks, who was editor of the News of the World when they supposedly hacked into Milly Dowler’s phone, and while the newspaper got up to their other fraudulent activities, seems as if she will keep her job. It’s fair enough for her to heap the praise for all the good things that the paper did right during her tenure as editor, but why doesn’t she take responsibility for all wrong as well?
Brooks must have been complicit – to some extent at least – in the phone hacking scandals. Whether she vaguely knew what was happening within the paper but chose to turn a blind eye, or whether she ordered it directly remains to be seen. What is likely, however, is that if she did order her journalists to undertake such despicable actions, she – as Chief Executive of News International, would have got permission from her boss, James Murdoch – to do such a thing. Unless, of course, she thought she could get away with the whole thing unnoticed.
If it transpires that James, and even his father, Rupert, knew about the hacking they would immediately become implicated. This is why it is imperative for them to protect Rebekah at all costs. For if they fire her from her position, and she, say, snitched them up, they could face a possible jail sentence.
I can’t say I’m unhappy to see the collapse of Britain’s most popular Sunday newspaper, for there is more to life than sex stories and celebrity gossip. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the old man rebrands the paper and launches something new. He always seems to have something up his sleeve.