"Cameron denies deals with Murdoch; Calls conspiracy talk ‘unjustified’" by Alan Cowell and John F. Burns | New York Times, June 15, 2012
LONDON - Testifying at Britain’s long-running inquiry into media standards on Thursday, Prime Minister David Cameron rejected suggestions that he traded favored treatment for electoral support by Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers, calling talk of a conspiracy “specious’’ and “unjustified.’’
That wor in my paper definitely drew my attention.
“The idea of overt deals is nonsense,’’ he said, also dismissing the idea that there had been what he called “a nod and a wink’’ covert arrangement with Murdoch in return for a decision to switch editorial support to Cameron’s Conservatives in 2009, months before a general election.
Given the wideness and depth of the phone-hacking by Murdoch's papers the case is more likely a you will do what I say situation -- or else.
Despite the denial, British media commentators seized upon a text message, read to the inquiry by lead counsel Robert Jay, suggesting that its author, Rebekah Brooks, who was at the time the chief executive of Murdoch’s British newspaper subsidiary, believed that “professionally, we’re in this together.’’
The disclosure of the previously unpublished message was particularly embarrassing for Cameron since it echoed a slogan - “We’re all in this together’’ - in the Conservatives’ campaign for the election the following year that brought him into office. But, rather than evoking a broad social inclusiveness, as it was designed to at the time, its newest iteration will almost certainly be taken by Cameron’s critics as a sign of his intimacy with the Murdoch elite.
The exchanges went to the heart of central questions confronting the British leader after months of debate over the phone-hacking scandal that inspired the inquiry, which Cameron established last year: Was the prime minister too close to Murdoch executives and editors who have been implicated in the scandal; and, as a corollary, did the relationship reflect poor judgment, or sway policy, as the Labor opposition maintains?
“Of course I wanted to win over newspapers,’’ Cameron said, referring to his approach to the British press after he took over the leadership of the Conservative Party in 2005, five years before he became prime minister. But, he said, he did not try to win favor by offering to shape media policy in Murdoch’s favor “overtly or covertly’’ in return for favorable coverage.
Cameron took issue with testimony by his Labor predecessor, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who had suggested that the Conservatives had made a compact with the Murdoch family to win its endorsement.
“He has cooked up an entirely specious and unjustified conspiracy theory,’’ Cameron said.
Translation: He's touched on the truth.
Also see: Gordon Brown says Murdoch paper undermined war effort
After they helped gin it up?
Cameron appeared confident and unruffled by the inquiry’s initial questioning. But his tone sharpened when Jay implied that the Conservatives’ media policies had been influenced by the Murdoch family. Those polices “weren’t dictated by anyone else,’’ Cameron said.
And there were moments later when the disclosures about his friendship with Brooks seemed to provoke what some British commentators depicted as some awkwardness and hesitancy.
A sign of guilt.
--more--"
Related: Cameron defends self on Murdoch bid
Britain’s ex-leader Major testifies on rift with Murdoch
Also see: UK’s Cameron, wife left 8-year-old daughter in pub
Isn't that child neglect?
Doesn't matter who the PM is over there, all a bunch of Bliars:
"Tony Blair says he ducked fight with British media" Associated Press, May 29, 2012
LONDON - Tony Blair, former prime minister, testified Monday he never challenged the influential British press because doing so would have plunged his administration in a drawn-out and politically damaging fight.
Translation: he was a cowardly wimp
Blair led Britain from 1997 to 2007, and his Labor Party government has been criticized by many - including some of Blair’s former colleagues - as having been too close to the country’s powerful newspapers.
Blair, speaking under oath at an inquiry into media ethics, said the issue wasn’t that he and Britain’s journalistic elite were too cozy, but that he had to manage them carefully....
Blair’s testimony was briefly interrupted when a heckler burst in through a secure corridor behind inquiry leader Lord Justice Brian Leveson, shouting, “This man should be arrested for war crimes,’’ before being removed by security.
God Bless 'em!!!!
Whatever happened to Iraq war inquiry anyway?
What do you mean they don't even have a draft written yet?
Leveson, looking ruffled, said he would investigate how the man sneaked in.
Blair’s time in office was marked by a contentious relationship with the country’s press, particularly after his deeply unpopular decision to invade Iraq alongside President George W. Bush.
But it was also marked by unusually warm relations between the left-wing Labor Party and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. - a company whose holdings include the populist newspaper The Sun and the right-wing Fox News network.
No wonder Tony didn't take him on!!
--more--"
Related: Tony Blair: Military Option on Iran 'On the Table'
Why isn't he in a Hague jail cell?
Also check: Murdoch is Mad
Britain's Shadow Royalty
Why Bother Voting in Britain?
Can't Read British Text Message
British Phone Booth
Sun Setting on Murdoch's British Empire
British Newspapers Publish Bulls***
Britain's Tabloid Testimony
Hacking Away at the U.K.
The Fall of Another English Empire
Sunday Globe Special: Stop the Presses!
Slow Saturday Special: No More News of the World
Wow, that's a lot of text messages I left you to get through.
