The latest episode in the Murdoch Crucifixion saga leaves one with an unpleasant aftertaste. Oddly, der Knecht Ruprecht emerges with his dignity and composure intact. I don’t think the same can’t be said of Tom Watson – referred to in today’s Times as ‘accuser-in-chief’.
According to the official transcript Watson asked Rupert Murdoch “…Mr Murdoch, at what point did you find out that criminality was endemic at the News of the World?” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/19/james-rupert-murdoch-live-transcript)
Was it?
It’s no secret that there’s little love lost between Watson and News International, but is there any evidence that criminality WAS endemic at the News of The Screws? I’d welcome any helpful pointers here. But if – as seems likely – there is none, I can think of no clearer example of political grandstanding and headline-grabbing than this. And what of the decent and ethical journalists working there and throughout the profession?
Then, there’s a little sideshow… immediately after his interrogation, Watson checked his mobile phone and left the room. He subsequently returned and posed further questions. Similar behavious was repeated later when questioning Rebekah Brooks. At best this is tacky; is it legal and proper, though? Was he being fed further questions, and if so by whom, why, and is it proper for him to do so?
Maybe he just stepped out for a tommy tank – the dizzying feeling of power and requited desire for vengeance having been just too much to ignore?
The report goes on to say it appears odd that Watson’s Twitter feed had gone uncharacteristically silent (this for a man whose expertise and prolonged usage of this type of media is well-documented). But of course, that means only for the time being. And even if his twitter and blog remain silent, who knows how or where else he might be briefing or being briefed?
The point is, while he condemns journalistic practices on a public platform against long-standing enemies, ought he not to take care to be seen as whiter than white himself? It’s all rather unedifying.