>> i think take the higher one? >> two boxes, the one, the lower box and the infinitely higher one, is it your evidence that your son was told to take the lower box or the infinitely higher one. >> i don't know what all they were but the one that didn't involve the risk of an appeal and triple damages of god knows what else. >> if they were told there would be many more cases. >> i was never told that. >> you sure? >> yes. >> anyone who puts faith in confidentiality agreements with contingency lawyers is too naive to be true.

>> you knew there was a confidentiality agreement associated with the taylor settlement, didn't you? >> i was told that you. >> you might have assumed that wasn't worth the paper it was written on. >> if i thought about it. >> did you think about it. >> no. >> i have a lot of things to think about. i am sorry, i didn't give it enough attention. that wouldn't have changed anything. the real change came -- >> can we wait for that. we will come to the real change with the msc in july of 2011. >> i was going to come before that. >> just bear with me. these conversations with your son, any discussion about the need to avoid reputational risk to the company? >> not on those terms, no. i mean, anything that involves

ethical behavior unethical behavior, involved reputational. you don't have to state in those words. >> the conversation with your son perhaps along these lines looked and whatever he calls this guy was in effect blackmailing us, we had to pay a lot of money in the hope of keeping him quiet because if we didn't, there was a real risk of massive reputational harm to our company. >> no, he did not say that. >> or anything like that? >> no. >> did you suspect certainly by july 2009 that the one rogue reporter defense was wearing a bit thin? >> no, because that article in the guardian, very hostile.

[ inaudible ] put that aside was instantly designed within 24 hours by the police, and we chose to take the word of the police over the word of the guardian. you know, i just go a little further forward, and we rested on that until i think the beginning of 2011 to siena miller that then came forward. we immediately realized there was a great danger and we gave the police the name of mr. ian edmundson. >> mr. murdoch. >> i am getting ahead of you, aren't i. >> yes. >> can we just take five minutes. >> thank you. >> after a short break mr. murdoch continued his testimony and discussed ethical

considerations and why he now feels he should have had a more direct role in the phone hacking case. this is an hour. >> i have been asked to make it clear by the metropolitan police they never said that we are satisfied there is any one rogue reporter. that was news international's assertion, not theirs. do you understand? >> i understand what you're saying. it was not my understanding until then. >> evidence to this inquiry day 18 page 7, line 18, day 18, page 26, line 22, according to the news corps website the entry for the tenth of july, 2009, says this. news international has delayed making the detailed statement until all relevant facts being analyzed and checked internally and externally news international has completed a thorough investigation into the

various allegations made since the guardian broke the story on wednesday. news international claiming following the guardian article that they weren't relying merely on what the police said but carried out their own investigation. were you aware of that? >> yes. very true. i meant to mention it before. there was a committee set up, the corporate council, the corporate human relations executive, to make their inquiries, lewis, and they all seem to confirm what the police have said. >> was this communicated to you. >> and we relied on that that much. too much as it turned out. >> i think it was your son who used the term aggressive defense in relation to the guardian article, knee jerk reaction,

perhaps based on the visceral hatred that news international feel for the guardian. >> that's a little too high. >> is it a little too high? >> i 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. independents seem to be pretty active. >> who else would have brought this out? you certainly weren't investigating it. >> we were investigating it, indeed we were investigating it. i just explained we had an investigating committee and we had harbottle and lewis.

when we're talking two years later the guardian and the police, i agree with my son, the statement we made then was far too defensive. >> we know almost by definition that your own internal investigations yielded nothing. you have to accept mr. murdoch there weren't if it wasn't for the good work of the guardian, if i can be forgiven for putting it in those he remembers it, all of this would have remained concealed, wouldn't it? >> i don't think so. perhaps. >> can you tell me, just help me, how would it have come out? >> i don't know. there is plenty of investigative journalists around. i mean, maybe the police would have. the police were sitting on mr. maherkey's diaries all this time. still are. that seems to be the major source of information on

hacking. >> the major source on hacking was never anything that news international did. do you accept? >> oh, we looked, but we didn't find anything. >> in mr. watson's latest book, dial m for murder, you probably haven't read it yet. >> i am not planning on reading it. >> it has been read in our team. page 94, this allegation is made that the mr. brown called mr. watson to tell him that mr. murdoch had spoken to mr. blair and asked him to tell the mp's to back off. did you telephone mr. blair with that request? >> no. i think mr. brown says if you

continue that quote as it has been read to me, mr. brown says he doesn't remember it either. >> that's right. >> you don't remember it? >> i am certain it never happened. i would never do that. >> when you were interviewed by your own company fox news in 2009 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. >> yes, i was in sem i valley, i believe, i think that's what you're referring to, and fox business news, a start up, had a little booth there, begged me to go for 10 minutes and asked me that and i said i can't talk about that. i just didn't know. i didn't -- i wasn't up to date. i wasn't thousands of miles away

in idaho to get into a discussion about phone hacking. >> though you had discussions with your son about it, hadn't you? >> i don't think so he called me in sun valley. he may have. i don't remember that. >> why did you say, mr. murdoch, when you were here in july of last year when asked what your priority was this one pointing to rebecca brooks? >> i don't know whether you have seen the video of that. >> yes. >> walking across the street. from my apartment to hotel, and mobbed by journalists and paparazzi and microphone stuck in my mouth, said what's your main consideration and i said her here. >> yes. and? >> that's all i said. >> are you suggesting you were acting under duress in any way?

>> no. if you got 30 journalists and paparazzi and microphones in your mouth, yes, you are under duress. >> are you suggesting that -- >> i think we might come back to discuss that later. >> right. >> my question was are you suggesting, mr. murdoch, that this pack of journalists and paparazzi were acting in any way inappropriately? >> i think it was part of a game. >> what's the game? >> harass people. i was being harassed. i was trying to walk all of ten yards across the street. >> i had 20 outside my apartment this morning.

>> 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? >> i think they're very competitive. a lot of them don't work for anybody. ge get the images and make a living that way and that would be true every corner of the world. >> i may come back to that. why wasn't your instink active response when the microphone was thrust under your nose as were instead of saying this one, pointing to rebecca brooks, we need to clean up my company?

>> because i was concerned for rebecca brooks who was seeking to resign and under great pressure and i was seeking to keep her confidence. i mean, her self-confidence. >> i ask you please about the -- >> i think before we get into ms. brooks, it is only fair to leave that subject until we have heard from her. >> mr. murdoch, we're not getting into mrs. brooks. >> thank you. >> we're getting into another topic, the brand, the term you use in relation to the sun and the news of the world, can i ask you please to look at paragraph

73 of your witness statement? page 03006, fourth line, reference to the brand definition of the news of the world that you say was fairly consistent over the last 30 years. do you see that? >> yes. >> how would you define the brand definition of the news of the world.

>> campaigning newspaper, i think i when i first there, interested more in covering the courts and over the country which were not covered by other newspapers then except very quickly the data telegraph which covered them in greater and grimier detail but smaller type. yes, we did, went from more of a court coverage to being more of a campaigning. >> you were careful want 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 of the like, and salacious tilgts

tattle. >> i am not careful to exclude that. i would say that's a vast exaggeration. it is very easy for you to stand there and say that, but that is not the case. certainly was interested in celebrities just as the public is, and much greater investment went into covering the weekend soccer. >> these aspects of the brand, not saying they're definitive of the brand, just aspects of it, contribute to the commercial success of the paper, don't they? >> well, the aspects i just mentioned, yes. >> what about the aspects i just mentioned? >> i don't agree with you. coverage of celebrities, yes.

salacious gossip meaning gossip as meaning unfounded stories about celebrities, no. i certainly hope not. >> john major said in his auto biography page 359 reading over night, read it out to you and see whether you agree with it. one was the circulation war at a time when overall newspaper sales were falling by a million a year. across fleet street sensational and exclusive stories sold extra copies, straight reportering did not. accuracy suffered, squandered for something, anything new, reconstruct and had leaks and splashes abounded and confidentiality was not respected, and reputation sacrificed for a few days hysterical splash. >> he may have been talking about other newspapers.

>> is that a serious answer, mr. murdoch. >> yes. >> the news of the world not being embraced by that statement. >> he didn't say news of the world. he said fleet street. i would agree with you, read that circulation, they were falling then, still falling for various reasons which i would like to discuss later, and i just -- there was great competition when they were selling many millions more. it has always been -- we have a great vibrant press here. 10, 11 newspapers. i don't know why because only three or four of them could be possibly making money, but -- >> mr. murdoch, we're slightly off the topic.

>> there is great competition and but i don't think it leads to lying. >> i get all of that, mr. murdoch. i want to understand whether you're saying sir john majors comments only applied to non-news international newspapers is that your evidence? >> that may be too broad. they don't suddenly do that exclusively. there has been great competition between us. i mean, you ought to see the front pages of the daily mirror when mr. piers morgan was there. had me there full page pictures with horns out of my head. >> this is fully understood, mr. murdoch. i just want to understand whether you think that the son of the news of the world over the years performed better or worse than other newspapers in terms of the sort of matters sir john major is referring to.

>> i think in the sort of matters he is referring to, well, what is he referring to? he is referring to falling circulation, being very competitive, telling lies, no, and i really want to distinguish -- i tried to distinguish throughout this the difference between the sun and the news of the world. you lump them together all the time. i think it is grossly unfair to the sun. >> this inquiry is into the culture, practice and ethics of the press. sir john majors comments relate to fleet street. >> all press, yes. >> yes. which i suppose is reference to

everyone, isn't it. >> i don't think he needs to be bitter about the press and his treatment. he became an unpopular prime minister and lost an election and it is very natural that he would make sweeping allegations against the press and which there may be an element of truth. >> can i ask you, please, about the letter max mosley wrote you the 10th of march, 2011, mod 10031562. i think you remember this letter, don't you, mr. murdoch? it is going to come up on the screen in a few moments, i hope. we can find it for you. >> no. i have looked at the question of correspondence with mr. mosley.

and did not read, i was out of town or something and my assistant sent them to whoever was the chief executive for news international to handle, and i received an e-mail, a coded e-mail only yesterday about it from him. i passed again to mr. marker, the chief executive, to handle. >> the point, mr. mosley was making, accurately, mr. justice e.d. in a judgment given out of this building referred to blackmail being committed by journalists employed by the news of the world. are you aware of the comments, weren't you? >> i am aware now, and with

great respect to mr. justice. i think he suggested one of the ladies in the picture of this nazi orgy had been offered to have her face pixeled out if she would cooperate with the story. 1 i am not as shocked as he is. i am more shocked by the behavior of mr. brett in not telling him the truth of a lot of things. >> don't worry about mr. brett, mr. murdoch. have you read just eddie's judgment. >> no. >> in a very careful and considered judgment having analysised all the evidence came to the clear conclusion, some may say the only conclusion he

could possibly have reached that your journalists or at least one of them had perpetrated blackmail of these two women. now, is it really your position -- >> two women? >> yes. is it really your position we don't have to worry about what he says. >> not my position at all. i respect him and i accept what he says. i am simply saying that the jurjist doing a favor for someone in return for a favor back is pretty much every day practice. >> well, i just like to go into 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 with the over terms to this incident but i identify

that fact. it is not what i want to ask you about. do you say through all of the experience of journalists and journalism that it is appropriate to say to a member of the public we have got this photograph of you, we can do this two-ways. we can embarrass you my unpixel ating your photograph even though there may not be public interest in identifying who you are, and that's what we will do, or alternatively we will give you some money and you tell us the inside story. is that an appropriate way for a journalist to behave? >> i don't know she was offered money, but -- >> well, she was.

she certainly was. >> it happens. >> i accept that. if you say so. >> mr. murdoch, i wasn't there. i only read the judgment. i have heard the evidence about it. i ought to make it very clear to you, and 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 too strong of words if he describes it as a form of blackmail. 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, a apologize, sir. i had not red mr. justice eady's, and i may well agree with every word if i read it. it is a common thing in life, way beyond journalism, to people to say i will scratch your back if you scratch my back. >> yes, that's the point, sir. >> beyond that, i disagree and i accept your words or mr. justice eady's words and i have not read it, i am sorry. >> you can see why this is the very corps of part of what i am doing, and therefore, without asking to return if you have

mind to look at that judgment and let me know whether you think what mr. justice eady there describes if it be right, and i don't ask you to reach a judgment on right or wrong, the newspaper could have appealed judgment that didn't. reveals a culture and practice that you think is, a, accurate in the sense that it is more widespread and therefore everybody does or, b, inappropriate. do you understand the question? >> i understand it, sir. i will be very happy to read it and write you a bit of -- >> that's perfect. that's fine. >> thank you. >> i would like your considered view on that question. >> yes, i am sorry that i haven't. >> that's quite -- you have had more than enough to cope with. although one might ask whether

the fact that a high court judge in england had reached this conclusion about one of your papers would itself be brought to your attention but i rather gather it wasn't. >> you said it was a common thing in life. i will scratch your back if you scratch my back, and that's true. that's human nature. it is interesting that you say that's no part of the implied deal in your relations with politicians over 30 years, mr. murdoch. is that right? >> yes, i don't ask any politician to scratch my back. >> okay. >> no, i am not fall for it.