Alan Austin,

Who is News Corporation but an army of vagabond pen-pushers feasting on the mass of people they of subdue with a daily diet of misinformation and silence?

It is easy to say “Time to go”.

But is there a place for them go?

No Mr. Austin.

Your diagnosis is OK but you have no medicine.

Let’s hope they won’t finish crowding Online Opinion. It has already too many of them as it is now

In 2002, "Rebekah Brooks was present at a meeting with Scotland Yard when police officers pursing a murder investigation provided her with evidence that her newspaper was interfering with the pursuit of justice. They gave her the name of another executive at News International, Alex Marunchak. The meeting, which included Dick Fedorcio of the Metropolitan police, told her that News of the World staff were guilty of interference and party to using unlawful means to attempt to discredit a police officer and his wife. She was told of actions by people she paid to expose and discredit David Cook and his wife Jackie Haines so that Mr Cook would be prevented from completing an investigation into a murder. News International were paying people to interfer with police officers and were doing so on behalf of known criminals.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jul/06/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-live#block-57

More here -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/06/news-of-the-world-rebekah-brooks

If this has gone on for 9-10 years, what else has gone on? Who else has Brooks "worked" for?
.

So you've worked for the ABC and World Vision? Let me guess - that probably makes you a bleeding heart leftie and therefore you don't like opinions that contradict your comfortable assumptions. And have you been knocked back for a job by News by any chance?

If you stick to watching the ABC and reading Fairfax publications, your assumptions won't be questioned. There is a bit of a problem though - a lot more people are giving up on Fairfax than on News. And I am certain many would stop paying for the ABC if they had a choice too.

It would be good to see the Murdoch rags go.Just don't buy any of his papers.

Yes David L bet you would be pleased if your daughter was murdered and NEWS LTD hacked her phone and then deleted messages so you kept hope she was still alive,or a relative of the 7/7 bombing and NEWS LTD was listening in on your calls.
I bet you were first in line when The Australian was saying the head of the NBN because he was CEO during a corruption scandal he should be sacked,but bet you don't think the same rules apply to Murdoch.
As this scandal rises up the Food chain at Murdoch I wonder who will go down first on the Australians thinking and the Liberal party it should be James as he was CEO,but as Dad tends to micro manage maybe he should follow.

Sadly these scandals will not make a scrap of difference to what Australians think of the disgraceful Murdoch publications as the readers of his offerings are well represented here in these columns as you will have noted and who probably enjoy reading the Australian articles written by tame hacks like Greg Sheridan and Janet Albrechsen.

His whole operation is geared around fitting in to the expectation of the viewers in the US of the Fox fictions, now a part of everyday life and the major contributor for the low levels of awareness in the great majority of Americans who voted in Bush, TWICE, accepted Cheney, Rumsfelt and any number of misfits that have seriously contributed to the erosion of respect for the US and anything American in 2011.

The world's #1 criminals.

Murdoch is old and can’t last much longer and any change then will have to be for the better. They just cannot be two likeminded Murdoch’s in this world. This one sold his soul to international moneylenders for profits and an ongoing obligation to his financiers to support their claims for middle-eastern ownership as he expanded into a world conglomerate, years ago. He hasn’t failed them and uses the likes of Sheridan to keep punching out that line of Israeli pap, ad nauseum.

What these scandals might do is to show him he is morally bankrupt by stopping him from owning all the shares in yet another network in the UK. Let’s see if they have the courage of their convictions. However, from what we have seen of Cameron to date, such a stance is unlikely as Murdoch gave him support during his election and as we all know, the game is called 'quid pro quo' and it’s as old as the hills.

Gillard is not the favourite lady with Murdoch. But then she is not the favourite lady with anybody except the tame hairdresser and if it wasn’t for the grand lifestyle, even he may have had enough.

Not supporting Gillard is about the only time I have agreed with Murdoch.