>> i think that, you don't want to take me forward, use of our response and we realize we have a major problem. then the select committee of parliament met and heard from some executives and accused them of collective amnesia. and i think that our response to

that was far too defensive, and what's more, worse, disrespectful of parliament. and then, of course, i think it was in july, last year, i appeared. and one of the members challenged me and said, are you the person to clean this up? and i said yes. the buck stops with me, and i pledge i will clean it up. and i did. i have spent hundreds of millions of dollars. mr. akers i think said they examined 300 million e-mails, which we chose 2 million, which ourselves examined, and anything that was suspicious was passed to the police.

that led to i think a dozen, to the midnight arrests. because it was my pledge, not because, they did not ask as to go to that extent. we went way beyond what they have asked us to do. i remain greatly distressed that people have been with me for 20 or 30 years, great journalists, some friends of mine, but, of course, my distress would be presumptuous to compare with the

immense disturbance, if you like, and hurt to the people who were arrested. and i feel responsible for that, but i'm glad we did it. we are now a new company. we have new rules. we have new compliance officers, and i think we are showing in "the sun" that you can still produce the best newspaper without the bad practices we disclosed. >> okay, mr. murdoch. might it be said that what that also demonstrates is that when the decision was taken in the summer of last year to clean out the stables as it were, that was almost argue that at least an overreaction? because you realize that the history's that fall between 2006

in last year demonstrated cover-up? therefore, it was necessary to go to accessible -- >> you use words like cover-up. certainly, disclosed not the committee but what was coming out, phone banking, plenty of hacking at the stage, although we went in and we went way beyond it. and way beyond anything that the police asked us to do, that i had made my personal pledge to parliament, and although this caused great pain, huge pain, to families, and as i say, distressed myself, but we did it. i'm glad we did it.

we are now a new company altogether. and mr. justice leveson rather reminded me are talking about hindsight, but if i may just for a minute. if i, again, had really got into it when mr. goodman read that letter in 2007 saying he shouldn't have been making accusations that other people were involved, we went through a lot of things, i should have been, i should have gone and seen mr. goodman one on one. he had been an employee for a long time.

if i have examined them myself and made up my mind, maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, was he telling the truth. and if i came to the conclusion he was telling the truth, i would have torn the place apart and we wouldn't be here today. i'm talking 2007. but that's hindsight, which, of course, is a lot easier than foresight. >> looking back on this, mr. murdoch, presumably you see the link between ethical misbehavior in legal misbehavior, don't you? >> no, yes. -- oh, yes. but i -- legal rules are

certainly devised to try to encourage, i think that's a fair generalization. although what i would call unethical behavior, if for instance, i have asked the prime minister's for favors in return, i would have said that would be very unethical, but doubt if it would've been criminal. but it would've been bad, bad. that's why i didn't do it. and i invite you to ask them. >> you may be right to take another five minutes. >> all rise.

>> a break in this hearing, investigating media ethics and practices at britain's news corp international, chair executive rupert murdoch testifying before the second of two days. we'll have more in about five minutes. you can see all our coverage of the leveson inquiry into the bridge for hacking scandal on our website, c-span.org. it includes testimony by number of public figures, actors and celebrities whose lives were impacted. go to c-span.org. more live testimony coming. while we wait, rupert murdoch was asked how much he knew and what he me regarding own hacking efforts at his company. this was from earlier today. >> prior to 170, page 03029, you say you recall being told probably by -- cooperation with

the police? >> yes. >> the evidence to the inquiry might be said to demonstrate that news international were not cooperating with the police? >> i don't agree with it. we, if i may differ, we appoint a special law firm to look into this. and 28 our cooperation with the police, and when the police, after the charging of, i think after the charging, said that was it, there were closing the file. and i can't believe they would have done that if they were unhappy with our cooperation. >> that's not the evidence we have at all, mr. murdoch. the evidence we've had seems to demonstrate the law from you mentioned produce just one document, which we know did not

represent the position at all. and one way or another "news international" being obstructed. does that not shock you? >> that shocks me deeply, and i was not aware of it and i've not heard of it until you just said that. >> "news international" was still claiming privilege in relation to advice given on a law firm as you mentioned, you know that, don't you? >> i'm not aware of the detail, but take your word for. >> it's a detail which emerged when you give evidence before the committee on the 19th of july last year. you knew positioned them. the one law firm -- >> i think i referred about a second law firm. >> privilege is not being waved. did you know why that is?

>> no, i don't know. you would have to ask them why they gave that advice. >> that's not quite the question mr. jay is asking. you appreciate the communications between a lawyer and his client are privileged? >> yes, sir spirit and the only way people can see what is said is if the client, not a lawyer, the client waives privilege, and in the spirit of openness, your firm, or your company, the company waives privilege in relation to the work that was done. so they were able to talk i think both to the select committee and, indeed, to this inquiry about what they did for "news international," and how they went about what they did. the other firm that were

involved, specialist, criminal law firm, were apparently very heavily involved but in respect of that firm, the company has not waives privilege. now, it's a matter for them. but that's the position. >> i was not aware of that. >> but it doesn't alter the fact that the police said they were satisfied this was a rogue come and were closing their file. >> that maybe one aspect to this, but "news international" would have the means of knowing to what extent, to use a term related to your evidence, to what extent it was probably in the organization. did it stop the one individual, the one rogue reporter, or wasn't more prevalent?

it was within "news international" power to obtain that, was in its? >> i think the senior executives were all informed, were all misinformed, and shielded from anything that was going on there. and i do blame one or two people for that. perhaps i shouldn't name, because you all i know that may be a risk, but there's no question in my mind that maybe even the editor, but certainly beyond that someone took charge of a cover-up, which we were victim, too, and i regret. you know, i'm getting ahead of myself now perhaps, or getting ahead of you. and i say that -- when i say

that, you know, we did take steps after the conviction and the resignation of mr. coulson, a new editor was appointed, with specific instructions to find out what was going on. he did i believe put in two or three new set of steps of regulation, if you like, but never reported back that there was more hacking. then we have been told. harbottle & lewis were appointed and given a file. now, it's argued that they were given a very specific brief, but i'm going to say that i have not gone through that whole file that they were given of e-mails, but i have, again, i cannot

understand a law firm reading that and not reading the chief executive of a company and saying, hey, you've got some big problems. >> it goes back to the question about whether "news international" would contemplate letting us see what burton koplan did, in fact, say -- >> we were not about harbottle & lewis. you mentioned the term cover-up -- >> but i regret this greatly, but let's go through the chronology before i tell you. >> mr. murdoch, you use the term cover. messages to you that throughout this story there is a consistence, would you please sit down?

>> i would be grateful if you wouldn't do that again. >> throughout this story there is a consistent theme, until april 2011 of cover-up. cover-up in relation to the police. cover-up by burton & copeland, either on "news international"'s instructions or of their own motions, and then cover-up subsequently. where does this culture of, from where does this culture of cover-up emanate, mr. murdoch? >> i think from within the "news of the world," and one or two very strong characters their who i think have been there many, many, many years, and were

friends of the journalists, or the person i'm thinking of, friend of the journalists, drinking how. and clever lawyer, pay them to go see evidence, or statements reporter, that this person forbade people to go and report to mrs. brooks or two jacks. that is not to excuse it, on our behalf, at all, i take it extremely seriously. that that situation had arisen. >> may i move forward to janua january 2007, mr. murdoch? paragraph 172 of your statement, where you say ask -- after

mr. goodman pleaded guilty, i recall mr. coulson resigned and mr. hinton replaced them with mr. myler. do you see that? >> yes. >> were not directly involved in the decision to appoint mr. myler as editor of the "news of the world"'s? >> mr. hinton sent me, i suppose he spoke to me, i forget, but he certainly sent me an e-mail saying he propose this, did i agree your and i said yes. >> did you know mr. myler? >> yes, and you know, he would not have been my choice, but mr. hinton felt that he was someone who would never have any contact with the "news of the world," wouldn't be personal allegiances there. and he could look at it, and he could rely on him to report back

to mr. hinton. >> why would mr. myler -- [inaudible] >> well, i could think of some stronger people to run "the sun." >> is a your assessment that mr. myler was a weak individual and, therefore, the wrong man for this job? >> i would say that's a slight exaggeration. >> how would you put it then, mr. murdoch, in your own words? >> well, i would help mr. myler we do what he was commissioned to do, and certainly during the remaining seven or eight months of mr. hinton's regime, he did not report back to him.

>> may i ask you -- >> maybe he didn't find anything out. he certainly didn't report back. >> did you make it clear to mr. hinton that mr. coulson needed to resign when malkin and goodman were sent to prison? >> now. -- now. he came forward and said i knew nothing of this, but it happened on my watch, and i think i've got to go. i should go. >> did you have a conversation with mr. coulson about this? >> now. >> together conversation with mr. hinton about mr. coulson leaving the company? >> i think he called me and told me this. and thought that mr. coulson was doing the honorable thing.

and we, we all agreed the fact that somebody, we got one person, -- had engaged in hacking was a very, very serious matter. >> news corporation international boss rupert murdoch facing questions about the phone-hacking scandal and allegations of illegal payments by journalists. during the second attest to take me looking at the culture and media ethics at news corp international. we return now to live testimony in the british phone hacking investigation. >> clearly it may be serious breaches of the law, and certainly unethical.

but i think of other unethical things, which i would call unethical, and extremely serious, but which are not criminal. and i hope i am not guilty of either. i try my life, private and public, to be without that. >> by not criminal, also do you mean not giving rise to civil action? >> yes. i'm sorry. >> no, no, no. that's fine, because it does raise the question which is what mr. jay might be coming onto, about the whole question of regulation. we will see how mr. jay develops

this. >> trying to get you, mr. murdoch, to see this as all on a spectrum. ethical misbehavior, perhaps at the lowest end of gravity, overlapping into civil wrong, to the middle, and then criminal wrong as the most serious income but it's all part of a continuum of spectrum. do you see that? >> yes. i suppose so, yes. >> and i put this -- >> i me, there are a lot of personal unethical things one can do. but don't come very close to civil. yes, okay. >> if you were serious about managing the business risk of wrongdoing in itself, you would have to do so not of the most serious end, which is criminal behavior, but holistically by

instilling a strongly ethical culture, wouldn't you? >> would you put that they can? >> yes. if you're serious about managing the business risk of wrongdoing in itself, you would have to do that, not of the most serious and only, namely criminal behavior, but holistically by instilling a strongly ethical culture, would you agree to? >> yes. >> there are, however, business cost of doing that, aren't there? >> i think i explained minor compared to serious unethical or criminal things. >> you are right about that, mr. murdoch, but could not be said that your failure to ensure that they were proper systems of internal governance in place in

the "news of the world," demonstrates a cavalier attitude to the business risk i have referred to? >> now, i think it's unfair to put that to me. if you, i think i have explained that i'm guilty of not paying enough attention to the "news of the world" at anytime that i was in charge of it. but to say that is me around the world, trying to. >> i'm asking you to separate out in your mind, mr. murdoch, that which may be purely personal which i'm not actually talking about now. and that which may relate to system failure, at least so far as a personal responsibility, in relation to what i'm talking about now, which is a failure to

insist on proper internal systems of corporate governments been in place, particularly in relation to newspapers such as the "news of the world," the very being was to take risk, would you agree with that? >> no. it was not to take risks. it had a full-time law, legal officer there. he was meant to check every story. they proved inadequate, and i'm sorry about that. we have put in new systems, and it's small, almost new people, a few additional people, of the highest caliber.

i think we learned a lot about how to control compliance, which takes place pretty naturally in all our newspapers, but certainly not in the "news of the world." >> the only system in place in the "news of the world" at the time, which we are focusing, was the human personality of mr. crone, the legal manager, and the editor. there was nothing else, was there, mr. murdoch? >> no. well, there were corporate lawyers. >> the whole system -- >> with major responsibilities in this area. they were at the cutting edge, those to. >> the whole system --

[inaudible] by the personalities, benefits and qualities, myler and crone, and before mr. crone called the editors who were responsible for our we agree? >> yes, i think editors are all responsible for their papers. i certainly hope that. >> if you say that the cost of instore and proper systems i would suggest to you of internal governance was not that great, could it not be said that even greater force in the proposition that you showed swashbuckling or cavalier attitude to these matters? >> no, i don't think it can be said. i think we made mistakes but i think we should not have allowed it, not have had one legal officer at the "news of the world" for 20 years. i think those sort of things should be changed every five, or

the worst every 10 years. >> may i suggest this to you, that any claim that the paper suggests the news "news of the world," an agent of the public interest is in danger of seriously overstating the position, what the "news of the world" provided is either what the public wanted or what you believe commercial in the public wanted, is that not right? >> i think that's true of any newspaper. i certainly try to provide newspapers which i think will find a strong market and

loyalty. we had the greatest newspaper in america, doubled the circulation of its major competitor, and i received nothing but praise for it. we had a great staff. the "news of the world," quite honest, an aberration and it's my fault. >> mr. murdoch, i believe you want to share with this inquiry some ideas about the future of press regulation, not quite narrowly i think in the context of your concerns about the internet, is about right?

>> i think it goes beyond that, but yes. i would say that the laws that you have seen in forced in the last few months, the consequences are still being felt, perfectly adequate. it's been a failure of enforcement of the laws. i asked made another papers i don't know. i certainly haven't heard, i've heard admissions but not in cory's. but -- but inquiries. you said that i had the very beginning, a great, and i should have corrected you, understanding of technology. i don't. i'm not a technologist. i can't run, i can't write

computer code or anything like that. but the fact is that the internet came along, slowly developed as a source of news, and now is absolutely in our space. and i think it's been responsible for and lots of loss of circulation. i don't know, i should ask the judge, this inquiry i presume is for the press in this country, not just -- [inaudible] we are seeing everybody under extreme pressure. we are seeing only this week announcement of three newspapers ceasing publication as dailies, becoming weeklies, at a high

price. now, there's a reason for the. there's a disruptive technology. certainly to be done i think to control the major players. but in the long run it is just too wide. you know, people can send their blogs in beijing, the cayman islands, and whatever you do, you can't regulate that. i think you carry danger of regulating, putting and regulations in place, which there will be no press in 10 years to regulate them. and i honestly believe that they have all made mistakes and qualities, a huge benefit to society. what we have here, and i take

some, i don't want to sound boastful, some credit for it, the industry was on its knees before the craft unions, 20 years behind the rest of the world, and i took a very unpleasant painful strike for a year. and as a result, every newspaper has had a very good run. it's coming to an end as a result of these disruptive technologies. and i could go on a great deal about it. we're spending a great deal of money trying to, in succeeding, representing every word of our newspapers on tablets. it will be, i will be very confident in saying that in a very short time, less than five

years, there will be billions of tablets in the world. furthermore, i think there will be more, maybe twice as many, what we call smart telephones. already some of our newspapers, but other people present the news on a smart telephone. now, there's very little cost of entry to the. there's a great deal of cost of entry to newspapers. old enough, old-fashioned enough, i don't know about you, i understand that you're one of of the few people who like the lawn, but that's another matter. he also paid a very nice comment -- sorry.

i like, and probably a lot of other people in this room prefer a tactile experience of reading a newspaper, or a book. i think we will have both, for quite a while, certainly 10 years, some people say five. i would be more inclined to say 20, but 20 means very small circulations. and the day will come we'll just have to say it's not working, we can't afford it, can't afford huge presses and so on. and we will be purely electronic. now, as i say, for the city -- privacy, if you have a telephone, if you have my telephone number of my iphone, you could find out, if you're here in london, you could find

out wherever i was, anywhere in the world, anytime of the day, within 10 feet. i think the tablets do, i'm not sure, but a little chip were three or $4. called a gps. now, as far as the president goes, that's only part of it -- as the press goes, that's only part of the. it's used for espionage, it's used for law enforcement, and it's not going to go away. particularly industrialist espionage, which is conducted internationally. and i think that what can be done, certainly with the big players, it is perfectly possible and practical to say no pornography, no provision of

links to confidential intellectual property. it's not a hollywood silicon valley fight, which has been presented of course by silicon valley. it's an argument drug companies, people who do research, or whatever. it doesn't take much to click on the google. or other people i'm sure. now, that can be stopped. it would take legislation, but, and i would encourage it. i'm not saying that there are other people, beyond the jurisdiction of the law who wouldn't try to do it. but it is a very, very serious thing. i would say one more thing, if i

may, about the internet. not only is it a major source of information, in this country we have the bbc, which we haven't mentioned but it is by far the greatest force in the media in this country. it doesn't great broadcasting it it's a very important organization. but it also has gone on line as a new source, which 12 million people in this country watch it, i don't believe every day, but at least every week, probably several days. until they've had enough news. that must be impacting one of the reasons why newspaper circulations are in decline. i think more seriously, my criticism as a taxpayer, have to put up with, but it has started

over the years very good websites with local news in all the major cities of britain. those newspapers depended almost entirely, or and very largely on their classified advertising. the internet, you can do anything about that. employment sites, real estate sites, car sales, et cetera. but to have, the one thing they had, some of them have been great newspapers, great histories, have been, only this week, three newspapers i believe were announced ever giving up a daily publication.

there will be more, and there's nothing more serious. and i think, i don't think it's really added to the diversity of information of the press. and because -- very, very slightly, but the local media in this country, local level press, local newspapers, have a great history of contribution to our democracy. and i think it will be a very sad day if the major ones, if all of them, disappear. so, i don't know that they could

be saved. they could be saved for the bbc, but that wouldn't be enough, possibly. we really have enormous disruptive technologies, which is the history of the world, and it's fine, but we have to meet that challenge and try and turn it into an opportunity. for instance, the times, the problem is -- it was good enough. there's a lot of really aggregated to a large extent around top news services for free. i don't know how long they can do it. they are -- their advertising is rising. and contact there's more -- in

fact, there is more. there's more advertising opportunities occurring every year, even than there are websites. so the rates stay very low. but it's a fact of life. and we have to treat it as an opportunity. for instance, "the times of london," seven days a week. we put on the ipad, we charge for it. unfortunately apple takes 30%, but that's another aggregate. that could be seen in a corner of the world. so maybe there is an opportunity there.

[inaudible] there's just, as i say, i think there are some opportunities. they are not easy. we have a lot of people working at them, to make attractive versions of our newspapers. you know, for instance, "the wall street journal," every single word of "the wall street journal" is a challenge, is there every day. but we have more photographs, which are extraordinarily corny on the ipad. it will get better. but we are dealing in a very complex world with disruptive technologies. and we are suffering at the hands of those, so when it comes

to regulation, i just beg for some care because it is really a very complex situation. the press today guarantees, the very press guarantees democracy. and we want democracy rather than autocracy. i think we would all agree with that in this room. >> i equally agree with you that the whole question of regulation requires very great care when one tries to ensure that one isn't nearly regulating -- isn't merely regulating what leveson talked about work produced on dead trees, and one doesn't

encompass going out digitally. but therein lies a number of problems, which i'm sure i don't need to mention to you. but i want to take you back to your recognition that the whole framework runs from that which is unethical, or inappropriate, doesn't really matter what word you use, but not necessarily a civil or criminal wrong, through the simple to the criminal. now, you may say that the problems of the "news of the world" an issue of enforcement as much as anything else, although i might say that external enforcement by the police must be the very, very last one, because the police have all sorts of other things to do and, therefore, some

enforcement must come internally, and i don't think you disagree with that, because of what you said. but there also must be some mechanism for resolution of complaints. you don't need -- [inaudible] that are complicit what is published, which are sort of passionate short of claims and viable or claims in breach of a civil wrong, or criminal wrong. there has to be some mechanism to resolve them, and one would want to encompass as many as possible, including those who decide only to publish but for-profit online within the scheme. have you considered how that could be organized? and maybe you haven't, but given that i had the opportunity -- >> i'm not aware am i should be aware, i know the number of

complaints that we have received, the number that have been dismissed, the number that have been mediated or resolved, and the final complaints that we have had to address it and apologize. which over a number of years very minor. now, did this take a very long time? i don't know. we should perhaps think of staff for something. but i don't think this is not the same problem. if you only make profit of organizations, you believe -- [inaudible] >> instead using the word prophet i should've said they are doing for money. in other words, there in the course of a business. >> i think everyone is there for them money, including the

bloggers. they are trying to sell advertising. they are trying to go to their audience. you have a thing like the huffington post which started, i think a political pamphlet with advertising, and broadened itself, quite cleverly. but mainly just the same stories as existing newspapers but they have a few reporters and blogs and a few individual people. but it's a very big -- they have a british edition as well as an american edition. and i don't believe that they're making profit yet. but they are read by many millions of people. the mail online, which is unrecognizable as part of "the daily mail." i think mr. david doesn't have a computer. that just steals, they have their own gossip.

they steal gaza from everybody. it's a great gossip site. or bad, whichever way you look at it. and right up to the barrier of what is being used of other people's materials, they change it. but it has tens and tens of millions of followers around the world. but there's no profit in it, according to their public statements. yet. their hope is for-profit. motive perhaps but i think that would include everybody. >> i'm sorry, it is a very difficult subject. >> you have my sympathy. spank your son after said it was above his pay grade. >> it's a above mine.

>> i will challenge that the way i challenge the statement by your son. you did say when mr. jay ask you about ethical standards and its expense that failure to maintain ethical standards can be immensely expensive got and i would like to expand on this. now, maybe a sense that you all want to say on it but i did want to give you an opportunity for saying anything else you wanted to say on the subject. >> no, no, i think i wanted to say through the of the goals synapses, the world that we discovered, i have been through the whole of news corporation. i spent hundreds of millions of dollars in london alone, way beyond anything the police asked. we have examined 300 million e-mails. i didn't believe that many existed, but 309, of which

2 million were given close, or were chosen for closer examination. and it led, i think other than that, it led to the arrest and terrible distress of a number of families of journalists who had been with me many, many years, who were friends of mine, and it caused me a lot of pain. but we did it. >> and i'm sure you would want to say, because you have said, and i wouldn't want it to be thought you didn't get the opportunity to say here that it's recognizing of course distressed that upset you, of course your own staff, former members of your staff. you also recognize -- >> now, they were not my staff until proven guilty. >> some of them were no longer because they were "news of the

world." >> yes. >> i wasn't seeking to make any judgment. >> thank you spent but also you would recognize the position in relation to those who have legitimate claims that their privacy is being intercepted, that -- >> with regards to "news of the world," i think that is true. i drew a line yesterday, very vague line about privacy. who deserves it, who doesn't. we want to live in a transparent, open society. but, and, therefore, people who pay public relations agents to make themselves, you know, politicians or people with great responsibility, i don't think there's privacy. >> i wasn't talking about them.

i was talking about those who have, in fact, legitimate complaints that their voicemails, whatever, were intercepted by somebody -- >> oh, yes. it was against the law. quite far from the ethical side. it was terribly wrong. i regret it, and i said it, it's going to be blood on my reputation for the rest of my life. >> i know, but i wanted to give you the opportunity just to add that, as you spoke about your son. right. is there anything else, there may be some question in light of some the things you say, there may well be some questions, is there anything else you want to say that you have not had the opportunity to say? >> no. i think i've spoken about the state of the printed word of the moment. made some remarks about the bbc

pursuing local newspapers, the danger it was to the press, generally, and to the profession. our best journalists have been trained and have always been. i don't think i have anything add to the privacy. >> thank you very much. yes, well let's start with -- >> if i could ask one question with relation to what was said this morning. mr. murdoch, i'm representing a newspaper. there's a number of matters i guess but i'm going to restrict myself to one matter, please, which is what you said this morning concerning mr. baker come and i think you told the inquiry that you were very surprised to read recently that he had said a new editor policy

was driven by commercial interest, to remember that? >> yes. >> i'm going to its just you made a mistake in reading something i'm going to ask place for document be put on the screen gives -- [inaudible] and mr. murdoch, this in fact is -- [inaudible] >> bringing you live coverage of news corporation international boss, rupert murdoch, facing questioning about the phone-hacking scandal and allegations of illegal payments by journalists drink this, the second day of testimony. this committee looking at the culture and media ethics of news corp. international. having technical issues. we hope to return to live coverage shortly.

>> now back to more live testimony in the british phone hacking investigation. >> still having technical issues with our coverage of the british phone-hacking scandal. by the way come you can see all of our coverage of the leveson inquiry on our website, c-span.org. it includes testimony by a number of public figures, actors and celebrities whose lives are impacted by questionable practices at news corp international. again, go to c-span.org.

>> coming up on c-span3 today. >> where's the national public radio table? [cheers and applause] >> you guys are still here.

[laughter] >> that's a good. [applause] i couldn't remember where we landed on that. [laughter] >> this weekend on c-span, the 98th annual white house correspondents dinner. president obama and late-night talk show host jimmy kimmel headlined the event before an audience of celebrities, journalists and the white house press corps. coverage starts with the red carpet arrivals live at 6:30 p.m. come and watch the entire dinner only on c-span. you can also sync up your expense online at c-span's dinner hub. find a celebrity guest list, highlights of past dinners, plus blog and social media post at c-span.org/w. hcd, the white house correspondents dinner live saturday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs, weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. i nightwatch key public policy

events. every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on book tv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website, and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> and now earlier testimony from today from "news corp. international" chair and chief executive rupert murdoch being questioned about how he responded to allegations of criminal behavior within his media company. this is day two of his testimony before a committee looking into practices and ethics at his company. >> before you start, i'm grateful to correcting one of the exhibits. >> i think it is two of the exhibits. >> to the exhibits. >> twenty-seven and 29. and that's one of the points come mr. murdoch, i'm going to start off with. yesterday we were talking about the day, this is labour lost it

when "the sun" switched it support to the conservative party. that was september 2009. i understand that you were in new york on that day, and, therefore, could have been in was no meeting on that day? >> no. >> thank you. so the exhibits have been revised now to bring those facts into line. u..

>> can i take it in stages? do you remember a conversation with mr. brown over that matter? >> over? >> over that matter? namely, um, the letter he wrote to the mother of a british soldier killed in afghanistan? >> i don't remember a conversation with mr. brown about that, although at the time i think i spoke to the editor, and i thought it was too hard on mr. brown, that he had taken the trouble to write to the mother, obviously, in a hurry, his handwriting wasn't very good, but it seemed to be very cruel because he had taken the trouble. but i don't think i rang him personally to apologize or

personally to apologize, which i may have. i said very carefully yesterday under oath, and i stand by every word of it, and i would just point out you didn't count on it yesterday that in the materials you put to me questions. mr. mandelson or lord mandelson who was then the most senior member of the cabinet charged news international with having done a deal with cameron. and i think i pointed out in my answer which i would like to do now on the record that mr.-- lord mandelson in his book said he did this under order from mr. brown knowing it to be false. that's if his own autobiography.

but he reluctantly went out and did what he was told. and i think that just reflects on mr. brown's state of mind at the time. >> according to a piece in the guardian on the 12th of november, 2009, the conversation i refer to between you and mr. brown relating to the story about the letter to the mother of the soldier killed in afghanistan had been quoted in the financial times. and it's not a huge point, mr. murdoch, but are you sure that that conversation didn't take place? >> no, i'm not sure. but i certainly didn't defend it. i might have apologized for it, but i didn't defend it. my thoughts at the time about it, but whether i spoke to

mr. brown or anyone else about it, i don't know. >> fair enough. and yesterday, mr. murdoch, i put to you various viewpoints of your editors from time to time, sir howard evans viewpoint, the charismatic authority as his book's viewpoint reported in the house of communication first report. and mr. neil's viewpoint in full disclose your, the sun king. there's one further perspective, if i may, and they may or may not all be consistent. this is mr. david yellen. did you remember him? he was editor of "the sun," i think, in the late 1990s. >> yes. >> in an interview he cave to the even -- he gave to the evening standard in 2010, there's this very small paragraph: did murdoch interfere in his editorship? and this quote, all murdoch

editors, what they do this is, they go on a journey where they end up agreeing with everything rupert said, but you don't admit to yourself you're being influenced. most editors hear that something has happened and think what would rupert think about this. it's like a mantra inside your head, it's like a prism. you look at the world through rupert's eyes. do you see the point, mr. murdoch? >> i understand what you're saying. mr. jay, i think it's nonsense, and i think you should take it in the context of mr. yellen's very strange autobiography. when he said he was drunk all the time, he was at "the sun." which we didn't notice. >> when you said yesterday, mr. murdoch, if you want to judge my thinking, look at "the sun," "the sun" would only know your thinking either because you

directly told them about it or because the editors went on the sort of thought process we see coming through mr. yellen's piece, would you not agree? >> yellen's nonsense. but certainly i don't flinch from my responsibilities. and i certainly do take part in the policy decisions of "the sun." i think that's my job. >> i'm not saying it isn't, mr. murdoch, but the point i was gently pipting to you is that -- putting to you is that you said if you want to judge my thinking, look at "the sun." >> look at the editorials in "is the sun." >> either because you tell them or because you work it out? do you agree with that? >> i wasn't talking about the editors, i was saying -- i think i was talking about the politicians.

but -- >> no, you were talking about -- the direct quote, it's page 36 of the transcript in the morning, line 11516. if you want to judge my thinking, look at "the sun." that's what you said. >> yes. >> you were saying -- >> i don't get absolutely parallel in every detail, but it's not. but generally speaking, well, the issues that we get interested in, that we fight for you'll find them in "the sun," and you'll find that i would agree with most of them, if not all. there are details which i don't agree with only recently -- >> which is how they work out what your thinking is. there are only two possibilities. you either tell them -- >> they sit and talk to me, or i call them.

i don't call them and say do this or do that. there are conversations pretty constantly. daily. >> over time your editors will get to know you very well. because you're not shy about -- >> well, if we're talking about "the sun," yes. or, you know, papers like the new york post. >> you look at the status to what happens with your advisers and con my adapts, the position is exactly the same. they can assess your thinking because they get to know you well, and they talk to you about important issues, don't they? >> what do you mean by confidants? >> well, people like mr.-- [inaudible] or even people like mr.-- [inaudible] but we'll come to him in a moment. >> they might know my thinking,

but they don't have to agree with it. we can have very vigorous discussions. and i can often have to agree that they were right and i was wrong. >> i'm sure your discussions were very vigorous, mr. murdoch. [laughter] >> thank you. not really, but i accept your -- [inaudible] >> as regard to your relations with politicians, has it occurred to you that they might know what you want or what you are thinking by exactly the same processes? either because you have discussions with them about your views or because they get to know you and work it out? >> i don't really see where -- i'm only in this country a lot less than 10% of my time, except in this last immediate period.

yeah, i think they know my philosophy, yes. >> fair enough. may i ask you about mr. goe? is he a politician who was close to you? >> no, i wish he was. i don't say that anything other than to say that he worked at the -- had a very distinguished career at the times for a long time. i might have met him very occasionally then working for the times. i think he and his wife is also a distinguished journalist, and they have come to dinner once in the last two or three years. that's with his wife. then i think there was another occasion when mr. kline was with

me, and he was to do a conference with mr. goe on education. he was invited when he was chancellor of the new york city school system. and there might have been another one. i like to get a few people around me of interest and different, and different fields. not just politicians. but on education i want to say very clearly if i can take this opportunity, we, i -- we are passionate about it. we believe that it's an absolute disgrace, the standard of public education here and in america. in america nearly 30% of children do not get through high school. they dropout three years early and are committed to the under

class forever. and there are being efforts in different states to try and tackle this, but it's very difficult. not for lack of money, but for lack of teacher cooperation. and i believe that there are a lot of issues here. the society and the way it's going and our civilization is going. but from being in the first, i think, two or three or four recognized best education systems in the world both britain and america have dropped into the mid 20s. and i believe this is a crime against the younger generation. and we want to do something about that. we keep, keep, keep, keep hammering at it. so i'm sorry to divert the business of the inquiry, but it's just an example of it's not

for us to sell papers of, but to try and get people involved in this issue. >> okay, thank you, mr. murdoch. may i move on now to the bskyb bid, please? paragraph 33 of your witness statement clearly denies you had any discussion with mr. cameron or mr. osborn about the bid, is that right? >> yes. >> did you have any discussions with mr. jeremy hunt about the bid? >> i don't believe i've ever met him, but i'm not sure he didn't come to a dinner once a couple of years ago, but i don't know. i certainly didn't discuss it. >> you know that he was new york between the 30th of august and the 4th of september, 2009, did you meet with him on that occasion, mr. murdoch?

>> i don't think so, no. why? why would i? >> according to the registry of parliamentary interest, he met representatives of news corp., quote, to discuss local media ventures, but did he meet with you? >> i don't think. i don't think so. i have no memory of it. >> have you had any telephone discussions with him in. >> no. >>s has your son spoken to you about mr. hunt? >> no. he told me when mr. cameron removed mr. cable's responsibilities and put them to hunt, but i don't believe he commented on it. we were shocked by both what mr. cable said and the means in

which that was deleted from the story in "the telegraph." they were clearly running the paper for their own commercial interests. >> when your son told you about the replacement of mr.-- sorry, it's dr. cable, did he tell you words to this effect: well, we've got someone better now? >> i don't think he used those words. we couldn't have had anyone worse, but -- >> i'm sure he didn't use those words precisely, i'm communicating to you the gist of an idea. surely, you were concerned, look, we have dr. cable, he was dead against news international -- >> with we didn't know that. >> no, but you did because it all came out. >> came out on the bbc, yes. >> well, it must have crossed your mind, well, dr. cable's being replaced by mr. hunt, what's mr. hunt like? didn't you ask your son about

that? >> i may have, i don't i don't . >> you must have done -- >> no, i mustn't have done anything. i explained to you yesterday, i never saw anything wrong in what we were doing, that it was a common place transaction. a large one, but a common place one. >> that wasn't the question, mr. murdoch. >> so why would i be worried about the politics of it? >> well, you were worried about the politics because dr. cable had demonstrated on your hypothesis that there was a political dimension, moreover, an anti-murdoch dimension. that has come out, hasn't it? >> yes. well, we'd seen all our competitors in the newspaper industry form a sponsor shut up very -- form a consortium to lobby against it and see if they could stop it. so it had a -- because i think

they felt that if we had the cash flows up, bskyb, and they said this very clearly, we would be a more formidable competitor to them. which, of course, is quite wrong. >> isn't your evidence, mr. murdoch, that when mr. hunt replaced dr. cable you were quite oblivious to whether mr. hunt would be on side or offside? >> no, we just -- it wasn't onside or offside, we just, well, we'll probably get a fairer go from anyone other than dr. cable. >> didn't your son explain to you that mr. hunt was very much onside, for example, see what he put up on his web site? he was cheerleader for news

international. >> i did not know of that. >> you didn't? >> no. >> and as the months wore on by which i mean the early part of 2011, you were presumably concerned by all the delay, weren't you? >> not intensely, but i don't remember my exact feelings then. no, this wasn't -- the a very big -- it was a very big move by our company, but i was a lot more concerned about, in 2011, about the unfolding hacking scandal. >> well, we'll come to that. >> i'm sure. >> mr. murdoch. but here we had a multibillion pound bid. you were very keen to acquire the remaining publicly-earned

shares in bskyb. it wasn't happening, there was delay. you must have been concerned about that as a businessman, weren't you? >> yes. we can't have to have it. we're doing other things with the money now. it's fine. >> well, it's something you wanted, isn't it? >> we did, indeed. we thought it was a good investment. >> did not your son give you in general terms a progress report as to how the bid was getting on? >> not on a daily or probably even a weekly basis, but, yes. i don't remember it, but i have no doubt. >> was it along these lines, well, here are the likely time scales, it's going well for us, it's not going so well for us? was it that sort of conversation? >> no. >> what was it -- >> i don't remember any conversation, to be honest with you. but i'm assuming that he kept me up-to-date to some extent. you know, i delegated the

situation to him, left it to him , and he had a lot on his plate, and he did not report, perhaps, as often, but we did talk, of course. >> now, you mentioned, mr. murdoch, there was a coalition raged against you who had been lob bying dr. cable. were you aware that you had your own lobbyists who were, as it were, on the other side lobbying government? >> i don't know what date you're talking about, but, no, it's only much more recently that i've learned of the extent of mr. michelle's, i think, you call it lobbying, certainly his

seeking of information and the progress of things. >> that's something you've only discovered recently when the 163 pages of e-mails were disclosed, is that right, mr. murdoch? >> oh, i know of mr. michelle's existence a few months before that. >> now, when you became acquainted then with these 163 pages, were you surprised by the extent of mr. michelle's activities? >> i didn't see anything wrong with his activities. was i surprised? that it had gone on so long and there were so many e-mails? yes. >> was your surprise only on this, quoting, well, it should

have happened much sooner? namely, we should have got the bid much sooner. >> no, i was just surprised at the success of the, our competitors' lobbying and, of course, they would never have succeeded if it hadn't coincided with the hacking scandal. >> were you not surprised by the success of mr. michelle's own lobbying with mr. hunt's debarment? >> i don't think there was success. we were made to make very, very big concessions. for reasons which i can't understand. >> were you not surprised by the degree of apparent closeness between mr. michelle and mr. hunt's office?

>> no, and i don't want to say anything against mr. michelle, but i think there could have been a little bit of exaggeration there. >> well, maybe you weren't surprised because you would or you might assume that mr. hunt's office would be on side in supporting news international, in which case there'd be nothing in the 163 pages which would cause you surprise or -- >> i didn't read the 163 pages, i'm sorry. but i certainly tasted them, if you will. >> what about an answer to my question, mr. murdoch? [laughter] >> did i i assume that mr. hunt was on our side? >> yes, that's right. >> no. i assumed that any responsible

minister would be responsible and deal with it in a completely unbiased way. i thought that dr. cable was an exception. >> we understand dr. cable anti-murdoch, but surely turning the other way round mr. hundt, pro-murdoch. >> i don't think -- [inaudible] >> is it true that the longer that this went on, the higher the price might have to be? >> no. well, the longer it went on, the breedier the hedge -- greedier the hedge funds got and the big

talk which was just starting. that was their way of negotiating. it always is. >> is it your feeling, mr. murdoch, that were it not for the, really, the -- [inaudible] of the scandal, you would have got the remaining shares in bskyb? >> well, i don't know whether we can put it down to -- [inaudible] but the hacking scandal, yes. i mean, the hacking scandal was not a great national thing until the milly dowler disclose your, half of which -- i'm not making any excuses for it at all -- but half of which has been somewhat disowned by the police.

but not for many weeks afterwards. we didn't know -- we didn't have any information, because the police had under lock and key the mallcare diary, and we've been limited at all times from our inquiries of that. >> can i ask you this direct question, mr. murdoch, that i, i told you that mr. hunt was in new york until the 4th of september, 2009. the immediating between your son and mr. cameron in a private club called the george was on the 9th of september, 2009. is there any connection between those two events? i should make it absolutely clear that on the 9th of the september, mr. cameron was told that -- >> what date was in? >> 4th of september mr. hunt

left new york -- >> what year in. >> 2009. >> mr. hunt had nothing to do with the matter at that stage. it's my understanding. and mr. cameron wasn't even prime minister, so -- >> i'm not sure you're talking about the same matter. your at cross-purposes. i think you're turning to a different subject beyond -- i think you are. try again. [laughter] >> my comeback to that. may i come back to that. >> where yes. >> may i move on, now, mr. murdoch, to the issue of phone hacking. you with me? >> yes. >> you tell us in your witness statement in paragraphs 169 and

170 -- bring those up. >> on page 73028. you learned of the arrests of mr. goodman and -- >> i'm sorry. excuse me. in my witness statement, paragraph 160? >> 169. >> oh. yes. >> just getting our bearings here and chronology. you say that you think, you believe that you learned about arrest and the telephone call which may have been -- or when

do you think that was? september 2006? >> i think i've said here, i traveled with my family in august and not in london. i mean, mr. hinton could reach me at any time, it may well have been where i was. >> top of that paragraph, 170, page 03029, you say that you recall being told probably by les hinton from news international we're in cooperation with the police. >> yes. >> the evidence to the inquiry might be said to demonstrate that news international were not cooperating with the police. >> well, i don't agree with that. we -- if i may defer -- we appointed a special law firm to look into this and to aid our cooperation with the police.

and when the police after the charging of, i think after the charging not just the arrest, the charging of mr. goodman said that was it, they were closing the files. and i can't believe they would have done that if they were unhappy with our cooperation. >> well, that's not the evidence we've had at all, mr. murdoch. the evidence we've had conclusively demonstrates that the law firm you mentioned produced, i think, just one document which we know not to represent the position at all, and one way or another, news international were being obstructive. does that that not shock you? >> that shocks me deeply, and i was not aware of it, and i'd not heard of it until you just said that. >> news international is still claiming privilege in relation to advice given by the law firm you mentioned, this is berth and

copeland. you know that, don't you? >> i'm not aware of that detail, but i'll take your word for it. >> well, it's a detail which emerged when you gave evidence before the flat committee on the 9th of july last year. you knew the position then. one law firm -- >> i think i spoke about a second law firm. >> [inaudible] privilege was waived. burt and copeland, privilege has not been waived. do you know why that is? >> no, i don't know -- i'm going to have to ask them why they gave them that advice. >> that's not quite the question mr. jay's asking. you appreciate the communication is between a lawyer and a his client are prejudiced. >> yes, sir. >> and the only way people can see what is said is if client -- not the lawyer, the client -- waives privilege.

and in the spirit of openness, your firm or your company, the company waived privilege in relation to the work that was done by harbaugh and lewis. so harbaugh and lewis were able to talk, i think both to the select committee and, indeed, to this inquiry about what they did for news international and how they went about what they did. the other firm that were involved, burt and copeland, a specialist criminal law firm, were apparently very heavily involved, but in respect of that firm the company has not waived privilege. now, they don't have to, it's a matter for them. but that's the position. >> sir, i was not aware of that. but it doesn't alter the fact

that the police said they were satisfied this was a rogue reporter and were closing their file. >> well, that may be one aspect to this, but news international would have the means of knowing to what extent this cancer -- to use a term, um, related to your son's evidence -- to what extent this cancer was prevalent in this organization. did it stop with one individual, the one rogue reporter, or was it more prif lent? it was within news international's power to ascertain that, wasn't it? >> i think the senior executives were all informed, and i -- were all misinformed and shielded from anything that was going on there, and i do blame one or two people for that. perhaps i shouldn't name because

for all i know, they may be arrested yet. but there's no question in my mind that maybe even the editor, but certainly beyond that someone took charge of a cover up which we were victim to and i regret. and, you know, i'm getting ahead of myself now, perhaps, or getting ahead of you when i say that, you know, we did take steps after the conviction and reservation of mr. coulson, a new editor was appointed with specific instructions to find out what was going on. he did, i believe, put in two or three new sort of step of regulation if you like. but never reported back.

there was more hacking than we'd been told. harbaugh and lewis were appointed and given a file. now, it's argued that they were only given a very specific brief, but i've got to say that i have not gone through that whole file that they were given of e-mails, but i have, again, tasted them, and i cannot understand a law firm reading that and not ringing the chief executive of a company and saying, hey, you've got some big problems. >> that goes back to the question about whether news international, um, would contemplate letting us see what burt and copeland did, in fact, say -- >> well, we were, perhaps, wrong about burt and copeland, but we

were not about harbaugh and lewis. >> you mentioned the term -- >> and i regret this greatly, but let's go through the chronology before i tell you. >> yes. well, mr. murdoch, you used the term "cover-up," may i suggest to you that throughout this story there is a consistent -- >> would you, please, sit down? i'd be grateful if you wouldn't do that again. >> without this, throughout this story, this narrative, there's a consistent theme until april 2011 of cover-up, cover-up in relation to the police, cover-up by burt and copeland either on news international's instructions or of their own doing, and then cover-up

subsequently. where does this culture -- >> i don't -- >> where does this culture of cover-up emanate, mr. murdoch? >> i think from within "the news of the world," and there were one or two very strong characters there. who, i think, had been there many, many, many years and were friends of the journalists. the person i'm thinking of was a friend of the journalists, drinking pal, and a clever lawyer and had paid them to go and see as evidence -- there'd been statements reported that this person forbade people to go and report to mrs. brooks or to

james. that is not to excuse it on our behalf at all. i take it extremely seriously. that that situation had arisen. >> may i move forward to january 2007, mr. murdoch. in paragraph 172 of your statement where you say that after mr. goodman pleaded guilty, i recall learning mr. coulson resigned and that mr. hinton replaced him with mr. myler. do you see that 1234. -- do you see that? >> yes. >> were you not directly involved in the decision to appoint mr. myler as editor of "news of the world"? >> mr. hinton, i suppose he spoke to me, but he certainly sent me an e-mail saying he proposed this and did i agree. and i said, yes.

>> did you know mr. myler? >> yes and, you know, he would not have been my choice, but mr. hinton felt he was someone who had never had any contact with "the news of the world," there wouldn't be the personal allegiances there and that he could look at it, and he could rely on him to report back to mr. hinton. >> why would mr. myler not have been your choice? >> well, i could think of some stronger people who at "the sun." >> is it, is it your assessment that mr. myler was a weak individual and, therefore, the wrong man for this job?

>> i would say that's a slight exaggeration. >> so how would you put it then, mr. murdoch, in your own words? >> well, i'd hoped that mr. myler would do what he was commissioned to do, and certainly during the remaining seven or eight months of mr. hinton's regime he did not report back to him. >> may i ask you. -- >> maybe he didn't find anything out. he certainly didn't report back. >> did you make it clear to mr. hipton that mr. coulson needed to resign when mulcaire and goodman were sent to prison? >> no. i've got to say for mr. coulson that he came forward and said i knew nothing of this, but it

happened on my watch, and i think i've got to go, i should go. >> killed you have a consideration with mr.-- did you have a conversation with mr. coulson about this issue? >> no. >> did you have a conversation with mr. hinton about mr. coulson leaving the company? >> i think he called me and told me this, and thought that the then the honorable thing. and we all agreed the fact that somebody -- we thought one person, the the police thought one person -- had engaged in hacking was a very, very serious matter. >> were you aware of any aspects of mr. coulson's settlement package? >> no.

>> you told the select committee that mr. myler was appointed to find out, quote, what the hell was going on. that's right, isn't it? >> yes. >> well, given that was his brief, what steps did you take to see whether mr. myler was discharging his brief? >> nothing. i relied on mr. hinton who'd been with me for 50 years. >> you told us that this was a very serious matter. he was capable of affecting the whole reputation of news international in the united kingdom. and if poison was capable of seeping -- >> well -- >> just wait, mr. murdoch. the poison was capable of seeping quite further. was this not an issue that required your personal attention?

>> in hindsight, as i said later later -- which i thought we'd come to -- >> we will. >> -- i did, but the buck stops with me. so i have to agree with you. >> well, we've got to be clear, mr. murdoch. there's, in one sense, the buck always stops with the chairman of the holding company. that's axiommatic. it might not tell us a huge amount. but i was talking more directly about why you, given it was such an important issue, did not find out whether mr. myler was discharging his brief. do you see that point? >> i don't know what else i was doing at the time, but i trusted mr. hinton. i delegated that responsibility to mr. hinton. >> did you have discussions at least with mr. hinton about this? >> no.

not at the time. >> some might say that all this picture is consistent with one of a desire to cover up rather than the desire to expose. would you agree with that? >> well, minds like yours, yes, perhaps. i'm sorry, i take that back. but -- excuse me. >> i have very thick skin, mr. murdoch. >> you do. [laughter] >> you do not worry one moment. >> just to put the point slightly differently, it is very, very clear, mr. murdoch, that among the vast commercial interests that you've developed over your life, you have a particular interest in the print media. >> yes. >> and, if i may say so, you have shown that interest as more

than just a commercial interest, it's more than just, um, an intellectual interest, it is an interest that is within your being, if i could put it like that. >> thank you, sir. >> well, i'm only trying to summarize what i think you've said to us. >> yes. >> therefore, the question might be asked in this way: here was a newspaper that was in your family that you had built up to be the largest-selling newspaper in the u.k., as i think "the news of the world" was? >> i think when we bought it, fs. >> yes. >> and it lost more than half of circulation by the time we got the this stage, but, yes. >> yes. >> as had everybody else. >> but quite apart from the commercial side of it, you would really want to know as you

yourself put it what the hell was going on. because the news media was your -- print ink was running true your veins, i think somebody said about you. >> yes, sir. >> well, then, that's the way i might ask the question that mr. jay was trying to ask and, indeed, did ask. [laughter] that this wasn't just a matter of commercial interest for you, this was the very core of your being. so that's why, i think, you're being asked, well, were you not really intensely concerned to know what was going on quite apart from everything else? because this was you -- >> you know, i have to admit that some newspapers are closer to my heart than others, but i also have to say that i failed.

>> well, that may be, and i -- >> i'm very sorry about it. >> i recognize that. and i understand that you've made that clear not just to the inquiry, not just in your statement, but on a number of your public appearances discussing this matter. it doesn't actually quite answer the question whether you really did try to understand what was going on or whether you felt, well, i don't need to understand what's going on, it's over, and let's just move on.

that's the question. >> well, i think when the police said we're satisfied this was a rogue reporter, we're cloagzing our file -- closing our file, i think mr. hinton did that. probably if i'd been in his place, i to -- i have to admit that i'd close it too. but with hindsight -- >> hindsight's always very good, mr. murdoch. >> very, very easy. i can only say what i should have done. >> my point is, the question i wanted to come to is this: this budget just a question -- this wasn't just a question of a reporter doing what the reporter did with the private detective, i wonder whether you wouldn't

want to know what was the atmosphere or the climate within your newspaper that had encouraged the reporter to think that this was a correct way to proceed, that this was justifiable? quite apart from how he got away with it. that's a separate question. but that's actually the paper would be prepared to let this happen, would be prepared to go that extra illegal mile to get the story. so that's quite apart from whether it is one rogue reporter that goes to what's going on in the paper, not just with the people. do you see what i mean? >> i think in newspapers reporters do act very much on their own, they do protect their sources, they don't disclose to their colleagues what they're doing.

i think you had innocent -- a really rogue reporter when you came across the times in the night jack case. that didn't reflect the newsroom of the times, and this might have reflected the newsroom of "the news of the world." and i think i said yesterday that i am guilty of not having paid enough attention to "the nudes of -- "the news of the world" probably throughout the entire time we've earned it. i was more interested in the excitement of building a new newspaper and did not -- and that's, and the challenges at the times and the sunday times, and it was an omission by me,

and all i can do is apologize to a lot of people including all the innocent people in "the news of the world" who lost their jobs. but as a result of that. >> the article in "the guardian" in july 2009, mr. murdoch, can you recall whether that one was brought to your attention at the time? >> it was, indeed, but i think the same moment probably as the police totally disowned it. and said it was wrong. >> your son told us that he had discussions with you after "the guardian" article was published. and about the gordon taylor settlement. do you remember anything about that?

>> yes, he probably did explain that. but that was a year after the gordon taylor settlement. >> yes, indeed. >> and i didn't know anything in 2008 about the gordon taylor settlement. >> no. so in 2009 you get to learn of the gordon taylor settlement. did that not surprise you? >> it did, indeed, surprise me. >> why? >> the size of it. >> the size of it? >> yes. i didn't know who had hacked him or if he had really been hacked or what it was, but just the size seemed -- [inaudible] >> did you ask your son words to this effect, why the hell have we paid him so much money? >> yes. >> and what was his answer? >> he said i was given a short time, the like being given two

boxes, which one do you pick? one with a relatively low sum of money or one infinitely bigger? [inaudible] and that's what happened. he was pretty inexperienced at the time, and he'd just been there a few months, and mr. crone and mr. myler came to him and put it to him in a relatively short conversation. >> yes. can i just understand that, mr. murdoch? >> i think mr. murdoch meant take the higher one. >> well, there are two boxes, the one, the lower box and the infinitely higher one, is it your evidence that your son was told to pick the lower box or the infinitely higher one? >> what order they were, pick the one that didn't involve the risk of an appeal and triple damages, god knows what else.

>> weren't you told that the much higher box was the one which said if we don't settle this case, there's the risk that there'll be many more cases? >> no, i was never told that. >> you sure? >> yes. i mean, anyone who puts faith in confidentiality agreements with contingency lawyers is too naive to be true. >> but you knew there was a confidentiality agreement associated with the taylor settlement, didn't you? >> i was told that, yes. >> is so you might have assumed that that wasn't worth the paper it was written on -- >> if i thought about it, yes. >> didn't you think about it? >> no. i had a lot of things to think about. i'm sorry, i didn't give it enough attention. but, you know, that wouldn't have changed anything. the real change came --

>> can we just wait for that, mr. murdoch? but we will come to the real change with the msc in july of 2011 -- >> oh, that, i was going to come before that. >> if you could just bear, bear with me. these conversations with your son, was there any discussion about the need to avoid reputational risk to the company? >> not in those terms, no. i mean, anything that involves ethical behavior, unethical behavior involved reputational behavior. and you don't have to state it in those words. >> did you have a conversation with your son perhaps along these lines, look, dad -- whatever he calls you -- this guy was, in effect, blackmailing us. we had to pay a lot of money in the hope of keeping him quiet

because if we didn't, there was a real risk of massive reputational harm for our company? >> no, he did not say that. >> or anything like that? >> no. >> did you suspect earnly by july 2009 that the -- certainly by july 2009 that the one rogue reporter defense was wearing a bit thin? >> no, because that article in "the guardian," very hostile -- [inaudible] put that aside, was instantly designed within 24 hours by the police. and we chose to take the word of the police over the word of "the guardian." and, you know, i'd just go a little further forward, we rested on that until, i think,

the beginning of 2011 with sienna miller who then came forward. we immediately realized there was a great danger, and we gave the police the name of mr. ian edmunds. >> well, mr. murdoch, can we -- >> [inaudible] >> should we just take five minutes? just take five minutes. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> testimony from just a few hours ago from rupert murdoch. we do have more now on this second day of questioning about his british newspapers and phone hacking. here he answers questions from media and newspaper attorneys regarding the impact of the media inquiry into phone hacking. he also responded to a question about bullying inside of news of the world organization. it's about 15 minutes and, by the way, all of our coverage is available on our web site, c-span.org.

>> statements with question marks, who'll be asking questions because if he doesn't ask questions, i'll stop him. >> thank you very much. >> questions, mr. hendry. briefly on the topics you've mentioned. >> mr. murdoch, we know the management standards committee was set up, and indeed, you set up inquiry after inquiry in response to the unethical practices in gathering material for publication. are you aware that the inquiries heard significant evidence of unethical practice in the treatment of journalists and photographers by news international? >> no, and let me answer this. i don't believe there was any or has been any. we have a very large staff of very, very well-paid journalists, and they are perfectly free to join the nuj

when are they wish -- whenever they wish. >> not quite the point. >> it is the point. if they're unhappy or being treated unethically -- [inaudible conversations] >> sorry, mr. murdoch. the evidence i'm referring to is described by ms. stand street as endemic bullying, huge pressure to deliver stories whatever the means, overwhelming commercial pressures which are allow today dictate what is published and the overwaning power and control of editors over their journalists and of employers over their editors. that sort of thing, and she gave evidence to this inquiry of bullying in the words of journalists who had spoken to her who she said were too scared even to come here and tell lord justice leveson about that. >> who said this? >> i'm so sorry? >> who said this? >> ms. stanistreet as general