this is an issue i will continue working hard to address outside the farm bill and assault. madame chair, ranking member of what think you and the members of your stuff to bring us where we are today. as was noted earlier there are lots of former chairman and ranking members on this committee. as you can see when you are at the end of the table it will be a long time before i will be a ranking member were chairman but i will be there just ahead of the center of south dakota.

just barely. but i look forward to continuing as we work this through the process across the floor of the senate on the president's desk before the deadline. thank you. >> thank you very much. let me note av load just started. we will have to votes in terms of process. we are going to come immediately back and move forward and get the bill done out of committee swine gracious to have everyone come back as soon as possible but we want to proceed now with senator john look brandt coming and i want to say to you your advocacy for crop insurance has been tremendous and it's in this bill and it's very important for the crop growers. we wouldn't have the help for them if it were not for your efficacy within the very title, and so we very much appreciate that as well as your ongoing strong voice for nutrition. thank you very much. >> thank you for your leadership and ranking member roberts for

your leadership. both of your dedication and extraordinary hard work has led us to today. i appreciate the great work you did in putting some of my amendments in the managers package and i particularly grateful for the investment in rural broadband the would make a huge amount like engine available for all of rural america. including the whole the foot initiative would make sure less believe could that kids can have access to fresh fruits and vegetables. i was very grateful for the crop insurance three we needed to reform that and i think the way you did that will make a difference of farmers don't lose everything if they have a catastrophic storm. and i do appreciate to the investments you've made in terms of trying to help long-term reform. i think the transparency that you added for the storage and voting rights is important and will help reform the industry. i also think th thtransition that you provided to allow a

better and safer and more reasonable chance for between now and the current draft of the very title was not only why is the extremely helpful, so i appreciate those efforts. i've been traveling all across the state since i've been in the senate over the last three years and i've listened intently to the farmers and to all those in theindutry's nse do a rethodydo making sre need to ealthy. and i knowtht arle mucmore tan mber towas ec growth,tords it very aou decit theonthee mk our ricuure inutr is a the mo olionehavet oumi tare at risk. so as we move forward to the dete this to issues i went to highlight because i feel strong about them and i have significant concerns. first of all, under the current draft families will lose about $45 a month in their food stamps, which means the third week of the month many families shalrell go to sho

hungry and that is a concern for me as a mother. not every state has a population that new york state has. we have 40 million people in the state. that means under the draft bill, 300,000 families are going to be affected. that's 300,000 families that may be more insecure now than they were before and that means less food on the kitchen table for children. and so i have very grave concerns about what that tells about us and what we are going to do. i want to bring three issues about food stamps. first it is such an extraordinary investment. for every dollar you put into the program you get out of dollar 79 and that is the statistics from the usda. second, there is so little fraud in food stamps it's less than 1%. a dollar, once and for every dollar. it's not a place people are taking advantage. it's a place families need the resources. fairer, as a mother, our children need food to grow. it's the most simple elemental

thing a family must provide for their children they need food to grow and learn and food to be able to reach their god-given potential. so i urge my colleagues who are looking at places we have to tighten our belts please, do not asset hungry children. it's the one place we shouldn't be tightening the belt. these are children who need food. i've been to food pantries, food banks, soup kitchens, and i can tell you they see that the increase is the families with children. so when we are looking at these balancing issues, we should be making the choice to increase our investments in food stamps. with every bit of belt-tightening that we do, and we are all proud of the fact that this bill is doing deficit reduction, i urge you this is the one place we shouldn't increase the cuts for every senator has an amendment to increase. this is the wrong priority for america and for the future. the second issue i care about it was what is the future of garrey in the country. new york is the number three

producer of dairy in the nation but we have had historical losses over the last decade, hundreds of dairy farms are going out of business every year. over 25% the last several years have been lost to new york state because of the policies and the volatility in the market. our cultural fancied keep rising but they haven't been preserved. so the concern i have the current title was very simple. right now we are asking if you want to have a safety net, you have to kaptur predilection. many of us share this concern about cuts in production because we want to export to bury so we don't love capita production so if you have a safety net you have to cut production that's a concern number one. concern number two if you are small. these payments are expensive, thousands a year to have the safety net and the return under the new program will be less than it's been before. so we've been inadequate largely because milc has never kept up

with the cost of production, the cost of the fuel so now we are taking a new program that will reduce the amount of money the will to a small dairy even if they agree to cap their production and by this new insurance program, so i'm very worried about more small farms coming out of business. i'm very worried about what happens to america if we consolidate milc production. once a consolidating industry the next stiffs outsourcing. i don't want to have to buy milk from china i want it produced an americas from the national security perspective, we should make sure we have good wholesome food production in all parts of the country so madame chairwoman, i will look forward to working with you on these issues and i know we will continue working on these with other amendments perhaps on the floor but i do want you to know where my concerns like the >> thank you very much. let me make a note to members we need everybody to come back for a quorum so please, come back. certainly last but not least we think you for your advocacy on

energy. he made a big difference working with senator conrad on behalf of not dakota to get a farm level program that makes sense. we appreciate your hard work on the floor and continue to work with you. >> thank you madam chairman. truly appreciate your work and willingness to work with us and also to the ranking member roberts thinks you, senator, for your patience and perseverance. not only your knowledge of agriculture but your love for agriculture certainly showed in this process. and i know everybody said it but i do have to commend the two of you for diligently working through this process. i think senator benet said it very well. as i've observed different aspects of what we do here, the challenge is always to find ways to bring people together. you know, you've done that. you're doing that. we have a product here that i believe we are going to be able

to move forward. and that means you listen to everybody, work with everybody coming and you've really got the fundamentals in place that's coming to give us might think the base to get to a good farm bill. there aren't many right now, but when they get back committed to getting this done because we recognize that's what serves the greater good. i want to emphasize up front the number one focus in the true form program portion of the bill which is about 18% of the total cost you've got nutrition to go to the farmers and ranchers in terms of the food production for this country and for a lot of the world, and the number one focus in those farm programs in the commodity title has been crop insurance and rightly so. it's the most cost-effective. it's what is enabling us to work with our farmers and ranchers and help them do what they do so

well for this country. highest quality, was cost food supply in the world which benefits every single american. a good farm policy benefits every single american. and when we go down to the senate floor, we need to continue to remind everybody of that. every bit the benefits from the good policies we've emphasized crop insurance which is the most effective which producers are telling us that is the heart of the safety net. that's what they need. that's what we have to do a good job on to be successful. but at the same time, saving more than $23 billion. now, show me somewhere else in the federal government where they are accomplishing that. they are bringing the program forward, making sure it serves our constituents, the american people come serves all of them and at the same time is stepping up and providing real deficit

reduction and that's the message we have to carry forward. and if you would 18% of the farm bill that truly affects farmers and ranchers, that's where the deficit reduction is coming from. so our producers are stepping up, and they are stepping up in a big way not just to provide this country and much of the world with food to do it as i say in the most cost-effective with the highest quality food supply in the world, but they are also stepping up and in this package they are the ones stepping up and providing the real deficit reduction. i want to particularly thank you, and i see the ranking member roberts is not here but i will thank him in person as well. in the shallow provision it's very important that we and put a farm level vital and what to think senator conrad and also

senator baucus for their work on that option and think ranking member roberts for your work on that option. and making sure that we both are the county level option election somebody can make a formal election and that they both work through because they will cover vital base is that formal adoption has to be in there. you've been willing to work with us as has senator robert. that is an absolute fundamental must in terms of providing the right kind of safety net coverage for farmers and ranchers and doing it in a truly cost-effective way will mention the program were and as you mentioned energy weren't our farmers and ranchers are living an amazing job for this country producing jobs, producing a

favorable balance of trade with and once again, providing the highest quality most cost food supply in the world it's vital that at the end here we recognize perfect is the enemy of good will we have a good product and need to make it the best product we can't and need to get it passed through. >> we will recess to vote and then come right back. thank you. >> [inaudible conversations]

during the second day of testimony before a phone hacking panel, news corporation chairman and ceo rupert murdoch continued answering questions on the details into the phone hacking and scandal at the now defunct tabloid paper news of the world. mr. murdoch also talked up the newspaper industry and the standards necessary for creating an ethical climate in the newsrooms. this is just under three hours.

>> before you start, i am grateful for correcting it one of the exhibits. >> to of the exhibits. >> that's one of the points mr. murdoch was great start off with. remember yesterday you were talking about the case of the headlines. when the funds party the was the 30th of september, 2009 and you were in new york on that day and therefore there couldn't be a meeting with mr. cameron. >> thank you. stacks of the exhibit has been revised now with to bring those facts into line no. may i be clear, mr. murdoch, on one thing you said yesterday in

relation to the conversation you had with mr. gordon brown, which is either on the 30 of of september, 2009 or shortly after coming in you remember that conversation about it. it has been as it were real time commentary about mr. brown and he strongly denies that there was any such conversation. and he said the only conversation he had with you to place in relation to another of a soldier killed in afghanistan. do you remember a conversation with mr. brown of for that matter? will for that matter, namely the letter he wrote to the mother of a soldier in afghanistan. >> i don't remember a conversation with mr. brown about that, although at that

time i spoke to the editor and i thought it was too hard on mr. brown that he had taken the trouble to write obviously in a hurry, and writing wasn't very good, and seemed to be very cruel because he had taken the trouble. but i don't think that i ran personally to apologize to talk about that. as to the other conversation which is denied, i said very carefully yesterday under oath and i stand by every word of it and you didn't touch on it yesterday but in the materials you put me in questions, mr. mendelson warlord mendelssohn who was then the most senior member of the

cabinet which charged news international for having done a deal with cameron and i pointed out in the answer to another record that lured mendelssohn and his book that he did this from mr. brown and his autobiography with that he reluctantly went out and did what he's told and that just reflects on mr. brown's state of mind at that time. >> on the 12th of november, 2009 and the conversation i referred to train you and mr. brown relating to this story were about the mother of the soldier killed in afghanistan has been reported in the financial times,

and it's not a huge point, mr. murdoch, but are you sure that conversation didn't take place? >> i'm not sure, but i certainly didn't defend it. i might have apologized for it but i didn't defend it. with respect to mr. brown or anyone else about i don't know. i spoke to you were on various viewpoints from time to time -- the books reported in the house of lords communication first

[inaudible] for their perspective if i may add that they may or may not be consistent do you remember him at the sun and the late 1990's? >> yes. >> in an interview he gave to the evening in 2010 there is a very small that he interfered in his editors share? they go on a journey they end up agreeing but you don't admit to yourself that you're being influenced? the week up in the morning, switch on the radio come here that something has happened, and think what what rupert think about this? it's like a mantra inside of your head. you look at the world that lies to do because -- had advised. do you see the point? >> i understand what you are saying.

it's just i think it's nonsense and you should take it in the context of the very strange autobiography. >> when, if you want to judge my thinking on look at the sun, the son of tolino you're thinking either because you directly told them about it, or because the editors on the source that we see coming through. >> certainly i don't flinch from my responsibilities. that is my job. spec i'm not saying it isn't,

mr. murdoch, but the point that i was gently pushing to do is that you said if you to judge my thinking, look at the sun. >> the editorial. >> there are two ways the editors could logically know you're thinking either because you told them or because they were get out. >> i think i rest talking about the politicians. >> the direct quote is page 36 of the transcript if she wanted judge my thinking, will get the sun. that's what you said. >> yes. >> it's not parallel to every detail and it's not but generally speaking. the issues that we get interested in coming you will

find them in of the sun in most of them, if not all. >> there are details i don't agree with -- >> tel would a workout? are there any to possiblities. >> then they shouldn't talk to me or i would call and say do this or do that. there are conversations pretty constantly. >> overtime your enemies would get to know you very well because you are not shy -- >> talking about the sun, yes. >> or click "the new york post." >> you look at this as to what happens to your advisers and

confidants. the position is exactly the same they can assess your thinking because they get to know you well and talk about important issues, don't they? >> what you mean by confidence? connect -- >> people that we will come to in just a moment. >> in my opinion that they don't have to agree with it. we can have very vigorous discussions and agreed they were right and i was wrong. >> i'm sure your discussions were vigorous, chester murdoch. >> thank you. >> not really, but i accept your impression. >> with regards to your relations with politicians, has it occurred to you that they might know what you want or what

you're thinking by exactly the same process, either because you have discussions with them about your views, or because they get to know you. >> a lot less than 10% of my time except in the last immediate period. and, yes, i think they know my philosophy, yes. >> fair enough. may i ask mr. gove, is he a politician that is close to you? >> i wish he was. i don't say that other than to say he worked and had a good

distinguished career at times for a long time. i have met him very occasionally then, walking through the times. i think he and his wife, who's also a distinguished journalist, they've come to dinner once in the last two or three years. that's what his wife. then i think there was another occasion where mr. joel klein was with me, and he came over because he was to do a conference with mr. gove on education. that was -- he was invited when he was -- long before joining me, when he was a chancellor of the new york city school system. and there might have been another one. i mean i like to get a few people around me have different interests and different -- different fields not just politicians. but on education, i want to say very clearly if i can take this

opportunity, 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. the dropout three years early and are committed to the underclass 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 we believe that there are a lot of issues here, the sort of society at 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 had 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 coming keep hammering at it. so i'm sorry to divert from the business of the inquiry, but it's just an example of -- i mean, it's not for profit, and it's not for us to sell papers off, but to try to get people involved in this issue. >> thank you, mr. murdoch. may i move on now to the bskyb please? the paragraph 33 of the witness' statement clearly denies that you have any discussion with mr. cameron or mr. osborn about the bid; is that right? >> yes. >> did you have any discussions with mr. sharon hunt -- jeremy

hunton about the bid? >> i don't believe i'd ever met him, but i'm not sure he didn't come to dinner once a couple of years ago but i don't know. i certainly didn't discuss it. ..

>> has your son spoken to you about mr. hunt? >> no, he told me when mr. cameron removed cable and put in mr. hunt but i don't believe he commented on it. we were shocked by both what's mr. cabell said and the unethical means in which that was deleted from the story in the telegraph. they were clearly running the paper for their own partial interest. >> when your son told you about the replacement of dr. cable, did he tell you to this effect, well we have got someone better now? >> i don't think he used those words. we could not have had anyone worse but i am sure i am

communicating the chest of an idea. >> surely you are concerned. we have dr. cable and he was dead against news international. >> we didn't know that. >> but he did on the 21st of december because it all came out. >> came out in the peep -- bbc. >> boxer crossed your mind dr. cable is being replaced by dr. hanft. what is dr. hot like? >> i may have. >> you must have done that. >> i mustn't have done anything. i explained to you yesterday, i never saw anything wrong in what we were doing. it was a commonplace transaction a live on but a commonplace one. >> that wasn't the question mr. murdoch. >> why would i be worried about the politics of that? >> well you were worried about the politics because dr. cable had it demonstrated that there

was a political dimension and moreover in anti-murdoch dimension that it come out. >> yes i am zero we had seen all of our competitors in the newspaper industry very publicly and higher a lot of public relations people to lobby, again to see if they could stop it. so, i think they felt that if we have the cash flow up, they said this very clearly, we would be a more for medical -- formidable competitor to them. >> is that your evidence that when mr. hunt replace dr. cable you were quite oblivious to whether mr. hunt would be on-site or off-site? >> no, we just --

on-site or off-site. we will probably get a fairer -- >> didn't hear some explain to you that mr. junta is very much on side. for example he would not put it up on his web site that is the cheerleader of news international. >> i did not know that. >> you didn't? >> no. >> as the months wore on, by which i mean the early part of 2011, you are presumed to be concerned by all the delay, weren't you? >> not intentionally, but i

don't remember my exact feelings then. but, this wasn't, this was a very big move by our company. i was a lot more concerned about in 2011 about the unfolding hacking scandal. >> we will come to that mr. murdoch, but here we had a multibillion pound did. you are very keen to acquire the remaining publicly owned share and bskyb. you must have must have been concerned about that. as a businessman, weren't you? >> we didn't have to have it. we didn't have to have the money now. >> it was something you wanted, was that? >> we did indeed and we thought it was a good investment. >> did not your fund give you in general terms of progress report as to how the bid was going off? >> not on a daily or probably a weekly basis but yes, i don't

remember it but i have no doubt. >> and was along these lines? it's going well for us, it's not going so well for us. was at that sort of conversation? >> no. 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. marbach there was a coalition arranged against you who had been lobbying dr. cable. were you aware that you had your own lobbyists who wear as it where on the other side lobbying

government? >> i don't know would date you are talking about, but no, it was only much more recently that i learned of the extent of mr. michel's i think you call that lobbying. certainly his seeking of information on the progress of events. >> that is something you have only discovered recently when the 163 pages of e-mails were disclosed. is that right mr. murdoch? >> i knew of mr. michel's existence a few months before that. >> now when you became acquainted with these 162 pages were you surprised by the extent of mr. michel's at to these?

mr. michel's activities? >> i did not 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 at your surprise only on this when it should have happened much sooner, namely we should've gotten a bit much sooner? >> no, i was just surprised at the success of 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. michel been lobbying with mr. hunt's

department? >> i don't think there was success. they were made to make very big concessions for reasons which i can't understand. >> were you not surprised by the degree of apparent closeness between mr. michel and mr. hunt's office? >> no, and i don't want to see -- say anything against mr. michel but i think there's a bit of exaggeration there. >> well maybe you weren't surprised that you would or you might assume that mr. hunt's office would be on side of news international in which case there would be nothing in the

163 pages which would cause you surprised. >> i have not read the 163 pages, i'm sorry, but i've certainly i have certainly tasted them if you well. >> what about an answer to my question mr. murdoch? >> did ism that mr. hunt was on our side? no, i assume that any responsible minister would be responsible and deal with a completely unbiased way. i thought the doctor cable was an exception. >> we understand is dr. cable -- but certainly turning it the other way around, that must have been something --

>> is a true that the longer this went on the higher the price might have to be? >> no, the longer it went on the hedge funds got in their big talk. that was their way of negotiating. it always is. >> is it your feeling mr. murdoch that were it not for really the apogee of the hacking scandal, the millie dollar

scandal you would have gotten the bskyb. >> ida wouldn't put it down to the millie dowler scandal but the hacking scandal, yes. i mean the hacking scandal was not a great national thing until the millie dowler disclosure, half of which, and i'm not making any excuses for it at all, but half of which has been somewhat designed by the police but not for many weeks afterwards. we didn't have any information because the police had under lock and key they mulcaire diary. still do and we still have had no access to it and we have been limited in our inquiries at all times without. >> can i ask you this direct question mr. murdoch? i told you that mr. hunt was in new york until the fourth of september of 2009 and the

meeting between your son and mr. cameron in a private club called the george was on the ninth of september, 2009. is there any connection between those two events? >> i should make it absolutely clear that it was the ninth of september mr. cameron was told. >> what date is this? >> the fourth of september. >> what you're? >> 2009. >> mr. hunt had nothing to do with it at that stage. that is my understanding. mr. cameron wasn't even prime minister. >> i am not sure you're talking about the same matter. i think you are turning to a different subject beyond -- i think you are. try it again.

>> may i come back to that? >> yes. >> may i move on mr. murdoch to the phone-hacking. are you with me? bes. >> tell us and your witness statement of paragraph 169 and 170 -- page 03028. you learned of the arrest of mr. goodman. >> i'm sorry, excuse me.

in my witness statement, paragraph 160? >> 169. >> oh. yes. >> we are just getting our bearings here in the chronology. you say that you think you believe that you learned about the arrest and the telephone call with levinson which may have been, when do you think that was? september 2006? >> i think i have said here and certainly to my family in august, i was not in london. mr. hinton could reach me at any time. wherever i was in august. >> the top of paragraph 170, page 03029, you say that you had been told probably by les hinton by news international that we are core operating with the

police. the evidence to the inquiry and might be said to demonstrate that news international were not core operating with the police. >> well i don't agree with that. if i may differ. we appointed a special law firm to look into this and to aid our corporation with the police and when the police, after the charging, not just the arrest but the charging, that was said and they were closing the files. i can't believe they would have done that if they were unhappy with our cooperation. >> that is not the evidence we have had. the evidence we have had a pierced to demonstrate that the law firm you mentioned produce just one document which we know does not represent the position

at all and one way or another news international being obstructive. does that not shock you? >> that shocks me deeply and i was not aware of it and i have 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, which is hurt and copeland. you know that, don't you? >> i am not aware that detail but i will take your word word for. >> it was a detail which emerged when you gave evidence before the committee on the 19th of july last year. it was your position then that one law firm -- >> i think i spoke about a second firm. >> harbottle and lewis and burton copeland which is not being weight.

do you know why that is? >> no, i don't know. you may have to ask them why they gave that of vice. >> that is not quite the question mr. jay is asking. you appreciate the communications between a lawyer and his client are privilege. yes, sir. >> and the only way people can see what he said is if the client, not the 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 by harbottle and lewis so harbottle and lewis were able to talk 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 was

involved, burton copeland, specialist criminal law firm, were apparently very heavily involved but with respect to that the company is not waived privilege. that is the position. >> sir, i was not aware of that. >> but it does not alter the fact that the police said they were satisfied this was a rogue reporter in reclaiming their file. >> that may be one aspect of this but news international would have the means of knowing to what extent this cancer, to use a term related to your son's evidence, to what extent this cancer was prevalent in the organization. did it stop at one individual, the one rogue reporter, or was it more prevalent?

>> i think the senior executives were all informed and we were all misinformed and shielded from anything that was going on there, and i do blame one or two people for that. perhaps i should not name, because for all i know they may not have been arrested yet. there is no question in my mind that may be even be -- but certainly beyond that someone took charge of a cover-up, which we were a victim too and i having done. i am 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 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 sort of steps of regulation if you like, but never reported back. there was more hacking. that we had been told. subwar or and lewis were appointed -- harbottle and lewis were appointed and given a file. they were given a very specific brief but i have got to say, that i have not gone through that whole file that they were given but i have again paste

them and i cannot understand a law firm reading that and not bringing in the chief executive of the company and saying, hey you have got a big problem. >> that goes back to the question about whether news international would contemplate letting you see what erred in copeland did in fact say. >> they were wrong about burton copeland but not about harbottle and lewis. mentioned the cover of. >> i regret this. let's go through the chronology. >> mr. murdoch you use the term cover-up. may i suggest to you that throughout this story, there is a consistent -- would you please sit down?

it would be great if you wouldn't do that again. without this story, this analogy with the consistent theme until april 2011 as a cover-up. cover-up in relation to the police, cover-up by burton copeland either on news international's instructions to call for a motion and then cover-up subsequently. where does this cover-up emanate mr. murdoch? >> i think from within the "news of the world". and one or two very strong characters there, who i think have been there many, many, many gears, friends of the

journalists or the person i am thinking of, a friend of the journalist, a drinking pal and a clever lawyer who paid them to go and see the statements reporter that this person for bait people to report to mrs. brooks or two jacks. that is not to excuse it on our behalf at all. i take it extremely seriously but that situation had arisen. >> may i move forward to january 2007 mr. murdoch and page 172 of your statement, where you say mr. goodman pleaded guilty.

i recall mr. coulson resigned and mr. hansen replaced him with mr. myler. do you see that? >> yes. >> were you not directly involved in the decision to appoint mr. marler to news of the news of the road? >> mr. hansen said to me, i suppose he spoke to me but he certainly send 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. hansen felt that he was someone who had never had any contact and there 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 not have been your choice? >> well i can think of some stronger people. >> 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 mr. murdoch in your own words? >> well i would hope 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 that, no.

>> maybe he didn't find anything out. he certainly did not report that. >> did you make it clear to mr. hinton that mr. coulson needed to resign when mulcaire and whitman -- >> no. i said to mr. coulson that he came forward and said i knew nothing of this, but it happened on my watch and i think i have got to go. >> 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 felt that mr. coulson was doing the honorable thing.

and we all agreed to the fact that somebody, we thought one person, the police thought one person, had engaged in hacking and it was a very very serious matter. >> were you aware of any aspects of mr. coulson's settlement package? >> no. >> told told the select committee that mr. myler was appointed to find out quote what the hell was going on. >> yes. >> well, given that, what steps did you take to see whether mr. myler was discharged in his brief? >> nothing. i relied on mr. hinton. he had been with me for 50 years.

>> told us that this was a very serious matter. he was capable of affecting the whole reputation of news international and the united kingdom and capable -- just wait mr. murdoch. was not this an issue which required your personal attention? >> in hindsight, as i said later, i said that the buck stops with me. so i will have to agree with you. >> we have got to be clear mr. murdoch. in one sense the buck always stops with the chairman of the holding company. that is axiomatic and doesn't tell us a huge amount but i was

talking more directly about why are you, given it was such an important issue, did not find out whether mr. myler had been discharged in the 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 with mr. hinton about this? >> no. not at the time. >> some might say that all this is consistent with one of a desire to cover up rather than the desire to expose. do you agree with that? >> yes, perhaps. i'm sorry, i take that back. excuse me. >> i am very thick-skinned. you do not need to worry. ..

the question might be asked in this way here was a newspaper those in your family.

to be the largest selling newspaper in the u.k.. >> i think it was. estimate in the last more than half a second. >> it's quite apart from the commercial side of it you really want to know as you yourself put it what the hell was going on because the news media was running through your veins having some things about you that is the question mr. j was trying to asked.

this is the core of your being so that's why i think you're being asked we are not intensely concerned to know what was going on apart from everything else. >> i have to admit some newspapers and others i have to say that i failed. >> that may be, and i recognize that, but i understand you've made that clear and not just to the increase 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 i don't need to understand what's going on. it's over. let's just move on. that's the question. >> i think when the police said we are satisfied this is over we are closing our file. but i have to admit that with hindsight, hindsight is always

very good, very easy. >> my point is, the question i wanted to come to is this wasn't just a question of 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 but this was quite apart from how you got away with it and that's a second question the speaker would be prepared to let this happen, would be prepared to go that extra mile to get the

story. is that is quite apart whether it is one group and goes to what is going on in the paper, not just the people. do you see what i mean? >> i think and newspapers reporters to that very much on their own. they protect their sources. they don't disclose to their colleagues what they're doing that didn't reflect the news room at the times, and this might have reflected the news room. i think i suggested that the nine guilty of not having paid

enough attention to the news of the world throughout all the time that we've earned it. i was more interested in the excitement of building a newspaper and the challenges the sunday times it was a mission by me and what i've been doing is a polis do a lot of people including people news of the world who lost their jobs. but as a result of that. estimate of the article in the guardian in 2009 do you recall

whether there was brought to the attention at the time? >> i think the same moment as it descended and said it was wrong. >> kurson told us he had discussions with you after the guardian article was published and the settlements. do you remember anything about that? >> he did explain that the was a year after. >> in 2,009 you get to learn of the settlement. does that not surprise you? >> it didn't surprise me. >> why?

i didn't know if he had really been hacked or what it was but it seemed corrupt. >> did you ask why have we paid so much money? >> yes. >> what was his answer? >> he said i was given a short time like to boxes. which one do you take? one for a relatively low sum of money, relatively low, or one infinitely bigger? and that's his advice was to take the lower one and that's what happened. he was pretty inexperienced at the time and he'd just been there a few months and he came to him in a relatively short conversation.

estimate it seems to me -- vlore box and the infinitely higher one is your evidence that your son was told to take the lower box or the higher one? >> take the one that didn't involve the risk of an appeal on the triple damages. estimate the - box was the one that said we don't settle this case there's a risk there will be any more cases. >> i was never told that. estimates are you sure? >> yes. i mean, anyone who puts faith and confidentiality agreements with contingency lawyers is too naive to be true. >> so you knew there was a

confidentiality agreement associated with the settlement. estimate didn't you think about it? >> i'm sorry i didn't give enough attention but it wouldn't have changed anything. if the real change came. >> it comes in july of 2011. >> just bear with me. >> these conversations with your son is that any discussion about the need to avoid a reputation will to the company. >> not in those terms.

you don't have to state in those words. estimate is a conversation with your son on these lines to not look down wherever he called he was in effect blackmailing us. we have to pay a lot of money in the hope of keeping him quiet because there would be a risk of the harmon that company. >> anything like that? >> no. >> did you suspect surgeon by july, 2009, the reporter was wearing a bit thin? >> no because they would get in the guardian infinitely designed

within 24 hours we chose to take the guardian and, you know, we rested on that until i think the beginning of 2011 with seattle miller and we immediately realized that there was a great danger and we gave the police. >> i'm getting ahead of you. >> should we just take five minutes? >> thank you.

[inaudible conversations] >> i've been asked to make it clear by the metropolitan police that they never said we are satisfied that there's only one road reporter do you understand? page 26, line 22. according to the new score west side the entry for the tenth of july, 2009 says that news international has delayed making the detailed statement for all relevant facts analyzed internally and externally news international has completed a federal investigation into the various allegations made in the

guardian broke the story on wednesday. news international claiming following the guardian article that there were not what the police said they can read up their own investigation. were you aware of that? >> yes. i meant to mention that before. there was a committee set up with mr. myler, the corporate counsel and the corporate human relations executive to meet their increased. there was harbottle and lewis and they all seemed to confirm what the police has said. >> was this communicated to you that time? >> and we rely on at too much as it turned out. >> i think it was your son, you use the term aggressive defense in relation to the guardian article, the knee-jerk reaction,

perhaps based on the visceral hatred if i can put it high as that, news international feel for the guardian. >> of often expressed admiration for them. i think they look after their audience pretty well. >> were it not for the guardian, do you accept the phone hacking story would never have entered the public domain? >> i don't know. the independent seemed to be pretty active. >> i don't know. independence seemed to be pretty active. >> you certainly were not investigating yet. a six-point we are in an investigative committee and we

had harbottle and lewis. the guardians of the police disowning the whole thing i agree with my son the statement we made was part to defense that we estimate we know almost by definition that you're own internal investigations yielded nothing. you have to accept, mr. murdoch, if it wasn't for the good work at the guardians and people getting it in those terms all of this would have remained concealed, wouldn't it? >> i don't think so, but perhaps. >> can you tell me, just help me, how would it have come out? >> i don't know. there's plenty of investigative journalists around. maybe the police would have. the police were sitting on the diaries all this time. that seems to be the major source of information.

islamic the major source the was never anything but news international do you accept? >> no we don't. >> and mr. watts and's latest book, we certainly haven't read yet since it just came out. it has been read. page 94 this allegation is made that mr. brown called mr. watson to tell him that mr. murdoch had spoken to mr. blair and asked him to tell them to back off. did you telephone mr. blair with that request? >> no. if you continue the quotas has

been read to me she says he doesn't remember either. >> and you don't remember it. >> i'm certain that never happened. i would never do that. >> when you were interviewed by your own company fox news in 2009 which was after the guardian article, you apparently refused to talk about the issue of phone hacking. why was that? >> when are you referring to? >> 2009, after the publication of the guardian article >> i was in sun valley i believe, i think that is what you were referring to come and fox business news, which was a startup, had a booth. they begged me to go for ten minutes and they asked me that. i said i can't talk about that. i just didn't know. i wasn't up to date. i wasn't -- thousands of miles away and i get into a discussion

about phone hacking. astana although you had discussions with your son about that haven't you? >> i don't think he called me in sun valley. he may have. i don't remember that. >> when did you say, mr. murdoch, when you were here in july of last year when asked what your priority was, this one, pointing to rebekah brooks? too i don't know whether you've seen the video of that. i was walking across the street from my apartment or hotel. we were mauled by journalists and paparazzi. i had a microphone stuck in my mouth, said what's your main consideration? and i said her come here. >> yes, and? >> that's all i said. >> are you suggesting you were acting under dress in any way?

>> nope. >> if you've got 40 journalists and proper nazi and microphones in your mouth, yes, you are under duress. >> are you suggesting -- >> i think we might come back to discuss that later. [laughter] >> my question was are you suggesting, mr. murdoch, this pack of journalists and popper nazis were not acting in the way inappropriately? >> i think it's part of the game. estimate and what's the game? >> harass people. when i was being harassed i was all of 10 yards across the street. i had another 20 or so outside my apartment this morning. it's been a part of the game as harassment, intrusion, these are

recurring themes in the behavior of the press for decades. would you not accept that? >> yes, it can take many forms, but yes. >> why is this the case? >> well, i think they're very competitive. you know, a lot of these pauper nazi don't work for anybody. they're trying to get photographs the canceled agencies like getty images and so on and make a living that they come and there would be true every corner of the world. >> i may come back to that. >> why was it your instinctive response, when the microphone was thrust under your nose, as it were, instead of saying this one, pointing to rebekah brooks, we need to clean up my company? >> because i was concerned for rebekah brooks, who was seeking to resign under great pressure and i was seeking to keep a

confidence. i mean, her self-confidence. >> can i ask you, please come about the -- >> i think before we get into this rebekah brooks, it's only fair to leave this subject until we've heard from her. >> welcome mr. murdoch, we're not getting into -- >> thank you. >> mrs. rebekah brooks. >> we are getting into another topic. the brand. it's, i think, a term you use in relation to the sun and the news of the world. can i ask you to look at 73 of your statement. page 03006.

>> icg 73. >> fourth line, there's a reference to "the brand definition" of the news of the world, which you say was fairly consistent over the last 30 years. do you see that? >> yes. >> how would you define the brandt definition of the news of the world? >> it's a campaign in newspaper. i think i -- when i first went there, it was more interested in covering the courts all over the country, which were not covered by other newspapers then, except very quickly at the daily telegraph, which covered them in

much greater and grimy year detail but infinitely smaller type. but yes, we did -- it went from being more of a court coverage to being more of a campaign. >> you're careful not to include within the parameters of that an interest in celebrity gossip, kiss and tell stories, intrusion into the sex lives of celebrities, sports persons and the like, and the salacious

turtle -- tittle-tattle. should that not be included -- >> i was not careful to exclude that. i would say that you just exaggeration. it's very easy for you to stand there and say that but that is not the case. certainly it was interested in celebrities, just as the public is, and a much greater investment went into coverage -- covering the weekend soccer. >> these aspects of the brandt -- i'm not saying that they are definitive of the brand, they're just aspects of its -- contribute to the commercial success of the paper, don't they? >> welcome the aspects i just mentioned, yes. >> what about the aspects i just mentioned? >> no, i don't agree with you, because i don't agree that they were never there. coverage of celebrities, yes. salacious gossip?

meeting -- i take calls it as meaning unfounded stories about celebrities, know. i certainly hope not. >> something sir john major said in his autobiography, page 359, i was just reading it overnight, i will read it out to you to see whether you agree with that. "one routt on the press hostility was a circulation war at a time when overall newspaper sales are falling by a million-a-year. across fleet street, sensational and exclusive stories sold extra copies. st reporting did not. accuracy suffered, squandered for something, anything new. quotes were reconstructed, leaks and slashes abounded, confidentiality was not respected, and reputations sacrificed for a few days' hysterical speculation." >> he must have been talking about other newspapers. >> is that a serious answer,

mr. murdoch? >> yes. >> the sun and the news of the world are not being increased by the statement -- >> he didn't say news of the world. he said fleet street. >> yes -- >> but i would agree with you that circulations for falling then, they are still falling for various reasons, which i can discuss later, and i just -- and there was great competition between -- but there was great competition when they were selling many millions it has always been -- look, we have a great, vibrant press here, ten, 11 newspapers. i don't know why, because only three or four of them could be possibly making money. >> mr. murdoch we are slightly off the plight --

>> effect of life there is great competition and i don't think it leads to lightning -- >> i get all that, mr. murdoch. i just can't understand whether you're saying that mr. john major's comments only applied to the non-news international newspapers. is that your evidence? >> no, that may be a little too broad, but they will certainly apply -- to that exclusively. >> is it -- >> there has been great competition between us. i mean, you want to see some of the front pages of the daily mirror when mr. pierce mortem as there. he had me there, full-page picture, with horns out of my head. this is fully understood, mr. murdoch. i just want to understand whether you think that the sun or the news of the world over the years performed better or worse than public newspapers.

>> i think in the matter is he's referring to or what is he referring to come he's referring to the falling circulation and i really want to distinguish and try to distinguish the sun and news of the world. you lump them together all the time and i think that's unfair to some. >> for the ethics of the press. >> it relates to fleet street.

>> bitter about the press and his treatment became an unpopular prime minister, lost a by-election it's very natural but he would make sweeping allegations about the press in the alleged of truth. 0362. you remember this don't you, mr. murdoch? it's going to come up on the screen a moment.

>> i was out of town or something and my assistant of news international. [inaudible] estimate of the fact that he's making in the judgment given all of the building prefer to blackmail being committed to journalists employed by the news of the world you are aware of the comments, aren't you? >> i am aware now with great

respect one of the ladies in the picture had been offered again, with great respect i'm not at shocked to see this, i much more shocked by the behavior of not telling him the truth on a lot of things. >> have you read mr. justice's judgment? >> no. estimate in a careful considered judgment having analyzed all of the evidence oral and written, come to the conclusion some would say the only conclusion he could possibly have reached,

that your journalists, or at least one of them come had perpetrated blackmail of these women. is it really -- >> to women or one? >> yes. is it really your position -- we don't have to worry about what he says? >> no, it's not my position at all. i respect him and i accept what he says, i just simply saying that a journalist doing a favor for someone, returning for favor back is pretty much every day practice. well -- >> i'd just like to go in for that for just a moment, please, mr. murdoch. first of all, i think it ought to be made very, very clear that mr. justice eady rejected the allegation that there were nazi overtones to this incident. but i merely identify that fact.

it's not what i want to ask about. >> do u.s a -- from all your experience of journalists and journalism, that it's inappropriate to say to a member of the public we have this photograph of you, we can do this two ways colin kobe can embarrass you by an pixilated your photograph, even though there may not be a public interest in identifying who you are, and that's what we will do, or alternatively, will give you some money and you tell us the inside story? is that inappropriate way for a journalist to be a? >> i don't know that she was offered money but it happens. >> she certainly was offered money. >> well, i accept that, sir, if you say so, and by police -- >> look, mr. murdoch, i wasn't there. i've only read the judgment. >> yes. >> and i heard the evidence about it. but i ought to make it very clear to you i would be very grateful for your help on the

topic, that i find that approach somewhat disturbing, because i don't think mr. justice eady is using to strong of a word if he described as it as a form of blackmail. and therefore, if it is the culture and the practice of the press that this is acceptable or justifiable, then i would like to know that, i really would. >> look, i apologize, sir. i have not read mr. justice eady's sing. >> yes. >> and i may well agree with every word of it if i read it. but it's a common thing in my life, we beyond journalism, for people to say i'll scratch your back if you scratch my back. >> yes -- >> to seek to go beyond that, i

disagree. >> that's the point. >> and i accept your words. on mr. justice eady's words, but i have not read it, i'm sorry. >> no, but you can see why this is at the record of part of what i am doing it? >> yes. as the mcginn therefore, without asking you to return, i think i would ask you, if you don't mind, to look at that judgment and let me know whether you think mr. eady their describes, if it the right -- and i don't ask you to reach a judgment on right or wrong, the newspaper could have appealed the judgment, they didn't -- reveals

a culture and practice that you think is accurate in the sense that it's more widespread, and therefore everything everybody does, or inappropriate. do you understand the question? >> i understand it, sir, and i will be very happy to read it and to write to do it to submit a document. >> that's perfect, that's fine. but i would like your considered view on that question. stat yes. i'm sorry that i haven't got one. >> no, no, that's quite -- to cut more than enough to cope with, although one might ask whether the fact that a high court judge in england had reached his conclusion about one of your papers would itself be brought to your attention, but i rather gather it wasn't. >> nope. >> yes, mr. jay. >> well, you said there was a common thing in life, i'll scratch your back you scratch my back, and that's true, that's human nature. but it's interesting that you

say that's no part of the implied deal in your relations with politicians over 30 years, mr. murdoch. is their right? >> wouldn't you say that's the path of an implied with politicians over 30 years mr. murdoch is the right? yes, i don't ask any politician to scratch my back. it has a nice twist but, no.

>> probably in the 1980's who asked about princess diana and elton john. >> i saw that allegation a few days ago. i have no memory. i'm sorry. i'm too remote from this country perhaps. >> the point she made is simply this. your newspaper she said were ruining some people's lives and how did you feel about that and how could you sleep at night knowing what was going on and she said you brushed aside a trip to answer every question that's put to me.

i may have, but i don't think so. >> the claim is also made that you then decided in collusion with your editors to target turkoman is the right or not? >> that's completely wrong. i know who made that claim, and was my housekeeper, a very strange bird indeed. the we did keep it clean. >> another quote from lord why it. did several newspapers bring anybody down just for the hell of it these days they find it shows their power, titillates the leaders and help sell the newspapers. is he right on the mark? >> yes, i think that is a very

unkind thing. of course he felt when he wrote a column for the news of the world he was the most powerful man in the country and greatly resented when the editor wanted to stop it, but this was many years later when he wrote that. but let's be serious about this. only yesterday -- maybe the day before, the daily mail had all of its page one, had a double page inside attacking google for not deleting porn from its servers. maybe i'm old-fashioned but i happen to agree with every word of it. but that was very, very strong attack and i think that's fair. i think the newspaper the company is doing wrong to think

it's fair if to debate it in strong terms. >> equally of if another is the bursting wrong its right to expose it and debate it in strong terms? because one of the problems is that whereas the prez hold all of us to account, politicians, even judges, there's nobody actually often holding the press of to account. >> i must say, i don't feel that. i feel that i held to account every day. >> i think that might be so at the moment -- >> and held to account by the british people every day. they can stop buying the paper. i stand for reelection every day as i said yesterday, but i'm constantly attacked. they love attacking me. whether it's the daily mirror, whether it's the guardian or whatever. and i've developed a pretty thick skin over the years. and i'm under strict

instructions by lawyers not to say this, but i'm going to. i feel -- >> i think you just cost three coronaries. [laughter] >> but i was really shocked by the statement of mr. dacre the other day, that his editorial policy is driven by commercial interests. i think that eight is about the most unethical thing i've read for a long time coming and what's more, from the most surprising source, as i have great respect for his abilities. indeed, many years ago when he was editor of the evening standard, she agreed to leave them and cut and edit the times and i was extremely pleased and associated quickly made him editor of the daily mail, and i have no doubt at a vastly increased summary where -- some

friends of mine may disagree with this strongly, but i think he's been a great success. but i was shocked when he said that his policies now, the editorial policy of the male is driven by commercial launchers. that's on the record here somewhere. >> i think to be fair to him, mr. murdoch, that was set in the context of the alliance which was forming against the bskyb coming and he made it clear, quite frankly, that the philosophy underpinning the alliance was commercial consideration rather than legal consideration. he wasn't making a broad statement as regards the daily mail more widely -- >> no, he said that they were going to do just the sort of thing he'd been attacking -- alleging that i do. that he was going to be driven by commercial interests in his

editorial policy. the words are very clear. and i might expect it of other newspapers. i didn't expect it in the mail. >> well, i'll stand to be corrected, or probably affirmed by those behind me, but i'm pretty sure i'm right on this, but let's not debate, mr. dacre today, and mr. murdoch. would you agree that the -- >> i will look at the transcript. i can -- but go ahead. >> would you agree that maintaining high ethical standards in newspapers' costs money? >> no. i don't. i agree that failure to maintain ethical standards can be immensely expensive, as i hear witness of today. >> yes. that's certainly true. we'll come to that. but in order to have proper systems in place internally, to ensure that ethical standards are installed in the first place and then maintained a preserved, there is a commercial cost, isn't there?

>> nope. we have compliance officers, we have now more as a result of this, but the cost -- even though they are highly paid people and distinguished lawyers, it's peanuts compared to what this whole scandal and inquiry has cost us. i mean, i'm talking now hundreds of millions. >> i did -- well,. islamic there was a commercial cost, was in there? >> nope. we of compliance officers now to resolve in this. with distinguished lawyers and it's peanuts compared to what this whole scandal in the inquiry has cost us talking

hundreds of millions estimate you may want to go through a couple of instances first before i would like to just expand on that ed some stage. stickney i point 22 mr. andrew and said in an interview she gave to cnn and just as your reaction come please mr. murdoch. he said "of course rupert murdoch can't be held responsible for every individual walked, just as when i was editor of the sunday times i couldn't be held responsible for every individual act that might tens of scores of journalists would take, then you create a climate in which people think it's all right to do certain things, and i would argue that

rupert murdoch, with his take no prisoners attitude to tabloid journalism, the end will justify the means, do whatever it takes, that created the kind of news room climate in which hecky and other things were done within can be on and industrial scale. i may not be of no every journalist is riding but it certainly the duty of the editor >> the second part of the quote. >> d.c. nit jury profitable.

several people. an industry i hope has dispelled a lot of the mess. we have given hard evidence to show that a lot of these are just myths. i take that they will go up in your web site in time. >> is that clear to less than? >> mr. murdoch, if i can proceed. >> i have an answer. >> i don't get answers to the questions. i just ask them. >> the evidence that you have presented and the exhibits to your statements will be placed

on the web site. >> thank you very much, sir >> does want to get some of the loaded language in the interview and put it in this way it's not the ethical tone of a newspaper or group of newspapers set by the chairman, particularly the chairman of for decades. >> i hope it had that effect. we employ 6,000 journalists are around the world. as a result of this week not only spent hundreds of millions here, we've been through every e-mail check possible of all of

our australian newspapers and the justices, we want to be absolutely certain that it's only here in london and i think we've satisfied ourselves. we have great journalists who've done amazing worker a month a week or three years. all over the world, different countries. we expose the old chinese

scandal days ahead in public and china. >> me i asked about stopping regulation although this was some years ago now. we have some evidence from mr. pierce's morgan when he was signing news of the world which was 1994, 95. and what happened was the complaint commissioner had a complaint over the profit photograph with his wife publicly supporting the commission and up greeted mr. morgan she would save the 22nd of may, 1995, that you called him into your office and said this, i'm sorry about all that complaining thingamajig to

read did you say that? >> nope. >> did you say anything like that? >> i might have set look, i said i have confidence in you as an editor. let's put that behind us. but remember it and get on with it. >> he also has you saying -- >> "we had to deal with it the way we did were there have been banging on about the privacy law again. we don't need that right now. might you have said that? >> i don't think so. generally i don't believe in a privacy law, of what we discussed privacy yesterday. i think it's their -- privacy laws our role is proposed for the protection of the great and the good and not for the mass of people who make up our democracy

i've been asked to put these questions to you by another court participant, mr. murdoch. have you ever instructed or encourage your editors to pursue stories which promote your own newspapers, tv channels or other business interests? >> i don't have any other business interests. i certainly would ask or suggest -- i don't think it needs adjusting, the editor at the sun it could be good to mention there is the promotion of newspapers when it goes back years ago on the daily express

we've been promoting the joys of the expressed. >> i'm not sure that the question is being addressed at all. >> i was telling journalists to promote other business interests. i'm saying i have no other business interests. >> you're other business interests are within other newspapers and tv channels, aren't they? >> yes, but i certainly do not told journalists who promoted tv channels or tv shows or films. you are to read the critics in the post. >> have you ever instruct are encouraged editors to pursue negative stories about

competitive businesses or rifle individuals? >> no. i can't think of any. stickney. who, for instance? >> i just asking these general questions, which have been put. have you ever asked newspapers to make lives on comfortable for regulators such as ofcom of the competition commission when they're considering action that might be used to the detriment of the news core's business is? >> nope. >> why did you close the news of the world rather than tough it out, mr. murdoch? >> well, i think it's explained in my statement, but i could put it in a little more six simply cannot win the milly dowler situation was first given a huge publicity, i think all the newspapers took this as the

chance to really make a really national scandal. it -- it made people all over the country aware of this, who hadn't been falling. you could feel the blast coming in the window almost. and, as i say, i would say it succinctly, i panicked. but i'm glad i did. >> it's obvious that closing it was a disaster both -- >> i'm sorry i didn't close it year before and put a sunday sun in a. the light volume with helpless back the news of the world leaders only half of them ever read the sun. then you have a quarter --

>> it certainly hasn't stopped the excellent sales everyday of the sun and other newspapers. >> would you agree that -- let me agree with you. i did that hysterically this whole business of the news of the world is a serious blot on my reputation. >> would you agree, mr. murdoch, that reputation is a vital commercial asset, which needs actively to be managed in any business? >> yes. i think it's what keeps the public relations business going.

>> did your business register the risk of a compound commercial disaster of these proportions? >> could you ask that again? did our -- >> did your business register the risk of a compound commercial disaster of these proportions? >> nope. it was a decision taken very quickly by my son -- >> sorry comegys nist -- >> -- i think mrs. rebekah brooks was still there and myself. it was done like that. >> i think he misunderstood the question, mr. murdoch. i'm not looking now at the decision you took, i think on july 7 -- >> did we sit down and write out the costs and how many millions?

>> no. .. >> people are thinking well of our company and thinking well of our newspapers.

>> do you expect that the evidence demonstrates that your company managed to -- the legal risks by covering it up? >> no. >> even though you said -- >> there was no attempt either at my level or several levels below me to cover it up. we set up inquiry after inquiry. legal firm after legal firm, and perhaps we relied too much on the conclusions of the police and you know i think that, you may not take my word for it but

just in dates, we realized we had a mage or problem. then, the select committee of parliament met and heard from some of our executives and accused accuse them of selective amnesia, and i think that our response to that was hard to intensive and once more disrespectful of parliament.. and then of course there was july of last year when i appeared.peared. and one of the memberse challenged me and said, are you the person to clean this up? and i said yes. the buck stops with me and i've pledge i will clean it up. and i did. i spent hundreds of millions of

dollars. ms. akers said i think h telephonically we examined 300 million e-mails which wee chose, 2 million which we ourselves examined a slightly wa suspicious -- and p that led to i think a doz, midnight arrests because of mywa pledge, not because thecause, police -- they did not ask us to go toxt that extent or code we went way beyond what they asked us to do and i remain greatly distressed

that people who have been with me for 20 or 30 years, some friends of mine, but of course it would beep resumption is to compare it with the mess, disturbance if you like, and the herd 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 they are showing in "the sun" which still produces the bestd t newspaper with the fair practices that were disclosed.

>> okay mr. murdoch, might it ba said that when that decision was taken in the summer of last year tomm clean out the stables as it were, that was almost ant l overreaction because you realiz? that the history before between 2006 and last year, demonstrated a cover-up. therefore was necessary to go to to -- >> your professional word is cover-up. certainly it disclosed not before the committee but what was coming out, hacking, hacking at that stage although we went in and we went way beyond it and way beyond anything that the police asked us to do. i had made my arsenal pledged to

parliament, and this caused great pain, huge pain from families and as i say, distressed to myself, but we dii it. did it.d we we are now a new company altogether, and mr. leveson is mad at me for talking about hindsight but if i may just for a minute. if i again had really gotten into it with mr. goodman in 2007 saying he should not0 be makingl

accusations of other people involved, we appointed harbottle and lewis. i should have been, i should have thrown the lawyers out of place and seen him one-on-one, him eating an employee for along long time and cross-examined him myself andme made up my mind, maybe rightly, maybe wrongly,o was he telling the truth. if i came to the conclusion than he was telling the truth i would have torn the place apart and we would not be here today. but that is hindsight which of course is a lot easier than. foresight. >> looking back on this

mr. murdoch, presumably you see the link between ethicalethic misbehavior and legal misbehavior, don'ts you? >> oh yes. but legal rules are certainly devised to try and encourage ethical behavior. i think it's a fair generalization, although what i would call unethical behavior, p would ask prime ministers forfa favors. i would have saidoe that what te fairly unethical, but it would have been criminal.

it would have been bad. that is why i didn't do it. do . and i invite you to ask them. function of the magnitude of ethical misbehavior within a government? >> no.

clearly, it may be serious breaches oof the law and certainly unethical, but ik think -- i can think of other and ethical things, which i would call things 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 >> they said at the time in their public statement that they felt in some commercial danger if you like if we succeeded in

having 100%. something which i might say, something that i would say i'm sorry, judge, i am very very proud of. i nearly went broke and i'm not talking about the company. i'm talking about myself. one night in the hands of the bank i mortgaged my own apartment in new york but we got through it and we gave great plurality to the british public. we now have 600 channels of television, some very good, some better than bbc, and a lot worse but there we are with it. i feel you have given me the opportunity. i'm sorry. but i did want to say, whatever might have happened with "news of the world," i have contributed to the plurality of the press.

they wouldn't be here with 10 papers today. i don't know that. some papers have been financed independent, but or the purpose, but if i hadn't beaten the old craft unions, who i am sure mr. dayton remembers, we went through agony. we didn't know every night while what happened. there wouldn't be such a good democratic press. >> can i just please, to be fair, to be fair to mr. baker, just come back to. >> i thought i was very

complementary to an. >> you are and i'm very grateful for what you said that when but when you said this editorial interest was driven by commercial interests, i had in mind is his e-mail which is solely concerned and in mr. michel's words with the campaign about the bskyb. that is what this is about. >> yes i am a i think he was referring to his advisor that all the editors had been called about his decision and that's mr. baker said that it was made clear that the campaign was purely motivated by commercial reasons and fears about battling. >> in that context, you had to say what you said this morning. thank you very much.

>> i represent the international union of journalists. [inaudible] the evidence that you heard in the inquiry, so i gave notice to the areas that i wanted to raise to mr. jay. you took one of them up mr. murdoch but not the others and i also gave notice to mr. davis on behalf of news international. mr. jay indicated that he was not going to pursue various aspects since they are not refined by questions. matches indicate what the five are? the first is what might be thought to be the unethical treatment of journalists and photographers, a factor which we say contributed to the unethical newsgathering, which you have been investigating. secondly, allowing the national union of journalists to

represent members wouldn't be a, good protection against unethical behavior in the future. thirdly, where the news international was involved and the insertion of a particular provision in the industrial relations legislation which would appear to be detective of news international. four, whether a conscience clause which the nuj has campaigned for, would not be a sensible protection for journalists for the future and finally, the role of the management standards committee and what we say is the absence of protection of journalists in relation to its activities. >> while i don't mind you asking about the first topics that you have identified. quite briefly, the last however

is not it is not in my judgment fall within it. that is part of what mr. murdoch has described as, if you like, the cleanup operation and i'm looking at the custom practice and operations of the press. if you are not up to that moment if it were, rather than putting insight to what he is now established -- but you have to do it twice. >> i would have welcomed the chance to answer that. >> do you want to answer that one as well? badges? badges want to see the -- say that the msc did not disclose any sources of any journalists at all.

>> i think this was the same questions given to him. what they are really is a statement because there are statements with question marks. >> you will beam making statements with question marks. features as questions, i would stop them. thank you much. questions briefly on the topic that you mentioned the. >> we know that the news international setup, the manager standards committee and indeed you said this morning you set up an 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 practices in the treatment of journalists and

photographers by news international? >> let the answer this. i don't believe there is an eight 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 whenever they wish. >> that is not quite the point. >> this is the point. if they were unhappy or being treated unethically -- has the i'm sorry mr. murdoch. the evidence i'm referring to is described by missed status judge as overwhelming commercial pressures which are allowed to dictate what is published in the overweening power and control of editors over their journalists and employers over their editors. it is that sort of thing and she gave evidence to this inquiry of allaying in the words who were

too scared to tell them about that. >> who said this? >> ms. stanistreet gave the evidence as they general secretary of the nuj. that has not been drawn to your attention? >> certainly not. our general eras -- journalists are trained to make complaints and feel free to join the nuj. >> i think stanistreet was very careful she was not implementing this to anyone, this inquiry. >> absolutely, sir. >> it it is anonymous and therefore the title is therefore not. it's a general point that mr. murdoch you may not be aware of it but i did hear evidence from a gentleman by the name of driscoll have most certainly gave evidence of bullying and

one a very large settlement from one of your titles in relation to the way that he was treated. is that right mr. jay? maybe you don't know much about the case. we will move on. >> let me just give you two sentences from evidence which she recorded from the journalist this is paragraph 1.1. this is a journalist, i worked for the "news of the world" for over three years. there was tremendous pressure. everyone talked about the byline counts. they needed to do if they need to get the story and another journalist was six years experience, paragraph 1.14, during my time at "news of the world" i experienced pretty much constant bullying by section editors who would find fault. clear evidence that the "news of the world" at least, there was a culture of allaying. >> why didn't she resign?

>> i think the problem with that might need that she needs a job, and that is actually some of the evidence i received but if you have not seen this evidence, i don't think it's necessarily sensible that you be asked to comment on it. but it may be an and light of what mr. hinton has pointed to, if you wanted to you could come if you wanted to say something about you can and if you don't, you don't need to. >> i will certainly look at it. >> and i just ask you this? as far as you are where there've been no investigation within news international of allegations of allaying of staff? >> i have never heard of it. they always struck me as a happy crowd. say i'm sorry?

>> a happy crowd. >> in terms of the second topic in relation to the nuj itself, everybody knows that news international does recognize all of its unions in 1986 and the reasons for that are well-known. if it is the case that the national union of journalists indeed no independent union is permitted to represent journalists are any other staff to this day on and the united kingdom news international title. that's right, isn't it? >> the majority of our journalist who wanted to join the nuj, we would have no choice. >> but you say you would have no choice. by law you have no choice to accept their democratic decision. >> i would accept the democratic decision but we didn't throw out the nuj.

there was a particular person from the an yue jay who worked at "the sun" and "the sun" overwhelmingly decided to walk through the printer's picket line, he resigned. that sort of thing happened in the papers. it was an aero majority but they had no interest in the an yue jay. >> do you accept that the absence of the nuj having any form of recognition whatever news, international means, that journalists has got no independent place to go to be represented should they wish to make complaints about bullying or indeed any other thing. >> i believe the internal staff association, which i am sure they are very welcome to write

whatever issue they want to. >> that staff association was set up by news international itself and indeed funded by news international, wasn't it? >> probably. we felt it was good to have staff association somewhere am aware the staff could talk to us if they wanted to as a hold. and we could report to them on the company. >> that staff association made an application to the public official who deals with these masses for it declaration of certificate of independence which filed because the certification found that the organization was under the influence of the employer. is that right? >> i don't know. >> do you accept that were the nuj -- permitted to represent members in news international titles, that would be at least one step towards beer

eradication or prevention of the unethical story gathering practices, which lord justice leveson has heard about? >> no. >> why not? >> i'm sure the people who were arrested were once members of the nuj. it did not stop them from doing what they did. >> but at the nuj had a presence, it would be somewhere for a journalist to turn should they feel they were under pressure to do something unethical. >> it didn't work out that way when the an yue jay was there. >> and indeed one of the journalist who gave evidence through ms. stanistreet said that the absence of the nuj