OLBERMANN: Humorist Andy Borowitz was the unexpected real victor at the annual News Corp.’s stockowners meeting, tweeting a fictional quote from Rupert Murdoch, “I know our shareholders are happy because I’ve heard their voicemails.”
In our number-one story — for the first time since his appearance in front of the British Parliament, Rupert Murdoch appeared in front of News Corp. shareholders, and — just like his appearance in front of Parliament — British lawmaker Tom Watson was there to question Murdoch on the hacking-and-spying scandal that may yet topple him. Mr. Watson joins me presently.
As we mentioned, Occupy LA setting up outside of the Fox lot on Pico Boulevard, one protester accused Murdoch of destroying American democracy. This, as news comes of the settlement in the hacking of the voicemail of the murdered school girl Milly Dowler, with News Corp. to pay $4.8 million, a third of that going to charity.
Things were not going much better for Rupert Murdoch inside that meeting. Several large groups of shareholders pledge to vote against re-electing his board, specifically Rupert and his son James. News Corp. has announced tonight the board was re-elected, but it refused to release the tally, saying it would do so next week.
NPR’s David Folkenflik tweeted from the meeting, “According to Bloomberg’s Edmund Lee, News Corp. PR is desperately trying to stop the questions, gesturing to staff.”
They could not stop the questions quickly enough. As the British member of Parliament Tom Watson got to the microphone and presented Mr. Murdoch with more evidence of News Corp.’s spying.
(Excerpt from audio clip) TOM WATSON: As you pointedly said, you are cooperating with the phone-hacking scandal in the U.K. that has got 200 police officers on the case as we speak, but they’re also looking at other allegations, that range from conspiring to pervert the course of justice, executives committing perjury and bribery of public officials, including police officers. You haven’t told any of your investors about what is to come, and I have to say, Mr. Murdoch, that if I know about this, then — with all of the resources you’re putting into clearing up the scandal — you must know about this, too.
OLBERMANN: Joining me now from the British Parliament and — today, anyway — from the News Corp. shareholders’ meeting, Mr. Tom Watson MP. This is an unexpected pleasure sir, thanks for your time tonight.
WATSON: The honor is mine, Keith, good to be on your show.
OLBERMANN: Why didn’t they release the vote count? That seems awfully strange.
WATSON: It’s very curious, and — at the end of the meeting — I’m sure I heard Rupert Murdoch say the results will be announced within a couple of hours. So, I can only assume that some of the key votes were pretty close and they didn’t want to wrap that up into the news coverage of the meeting today.
OLBERMANN: How did you happen to be in there in the first place?
WATSON: Well, I was invited to come out. I did a teleconference with investment advisors in Australia, the U.S. and the U.K. about three weeks ago, I explained the investigation that we’ve had in the U.K. Many of them were shocked and suggested that I come over to the meeting, because they felt that a lot of the shareholders were not conscious of just how deep and wide the scandal in the U.K. was, and what kind of liabilities it might open the company up to.
OLBERMANN: You have suggested, and you suggested today in front of Mr. Murdoch, that there’s an extra — or new — aspect, certainly, to the hacking scandal and the spying scandal, opening up. A second private investigator, perhaps, involved in this, other techniques. What details did you give at that meeting and are there any you can share with us here?
WATSON: Well look, the remarkable thing about this scandal is it — it — it centers around the evidence file for one convicted private investigator. We know, now, that actually there were at least three other private investigators being investigated by the Metropolitan Police. I very strongly suspect that computer hacking was involved. I raised it with the board today. I wanted to leave every individual member of the board in no doubt about the seriousness of that, and what the consequences would be for the civil liabilities of the company, but also for the reputational harm that that might have going forward. And, you know — in a sense, I have discharged my duty now. The board know how strongly the views are of the U.K. parliamentarians and the shareholders know as well.
OLBERMANN: Did you get a sense from any of those shareholders that they listened to you, rather than to Mr. Murdoch’s version of events?
WATSON: I think they were shocked. Look, I didn’t go in expecting there’d be a big, radical change to company structures today, although there were some very positive reformist motions on the meeting agenda. They obviously all fell. But, you know, a company that doesn’t take heed of these things — this is a $32 billion, complex, transglobal media empire that’s run like a dysfunctional family firm — and I don’t think Rupert Murdoch can put his hand on his heart and say “We put in measures that will stop executives covering up criminal wrongdoing on an industrial scale like what happened in the U.K.,” and they’re leaving themselves open to potential disaster in the future.
OLBERMANN: Since this scandal began to unfold, Mr. Watson, there has certainly become a new element involved in this, at least in this country — the Occupy protests. I know that you saw them and you spoke to them. Do they have a role in this process, in this investigation?
WATSON: Well, I think they’re a remarkable phenomenon for politicians throughout the Western world. You know, these groups can come together really easy using social media now. And politicians and big companies like News International — News Corporation — that don’t respond to the legitimate concerns of these organizations, I think are not going to do themselves much good. So look, they provided an amazing backdrop to the entrance and the start of the AGM today. And I’m sure they’re not going to go away in really difficult and uncertain economic times.
OLBERMANN: What do you think happens next in Britain’s investigation of Rupert Murdoch? Because obviously, that is a subject that is of considerable interest here, since the investigation domestically is so — embryonic, I would say is probably a good word for it. Where does your investigation go next?
WATSON: Well, I think the focus will be on James Murdoch — he’s the chairman of BSkyB, they’ve got there AGM at the end of November, and there will be similar moves to remove him as chairman of that company. He’s likely to be in front of my committee in Parliament in November before the AGM. There was some remarkable testimony from the external counsel only this week, where they essentially said “the lawyers made the company aware that criminal wrongdoing was — there was a powerful case that others were involved in criminal wrongdoing — as early as 2008.”
So, there’s been a cover up, Parliament is getting to the truth on it, the police are conducting a criminal investigation and then the shareholders and the activist groups will be focusing on the AGM on the 29th. It’s not going to be an easy month for News Corp. in the U.K.
OLBERMANN: When you put all of this together — what you heard firsthand, what you saw today, what, perhaps, you read in Rupert Murdoch’s face as you stood there and talked to him — what — does he understand, does James Murdoch understand, the trial they’re facing and the enmity that has been built up over these years, that is beginning to weigh against them?
WATSON: I think he must understand that now. It was telling to me that they didn’t put any of the Murdoch children on the top table today. They were sitting in the front row. There’s clearly some embarrassment about James Murdoch’s presence there. What I find curious about Rupert Murdoch is — he’s a curiously charismatic man, who’s also incredibly arrogant. We came out of the meeting with no change at News Corp., the status quo prevails. Rupert Murdoch is still chairman and chief executive of the company, with no additional reforms to protect corporate governance. And so — he wasn’t listening, but he gave the impression of humility. He manages to pull the trick off at the same time. It’s a remarkable feat.
OLBERMANN: He may have been studying with some of his newscasters here in the United States, that’s one of my theories about him. Lastly, this is absolutely trivial — and I only have about 40 seconds left, so this is the right about of time to devote to it — I read this, repeatedly — all people attending this meeting were asked if they had cameras and what other thing were they worried about?
WATSON: Pocket knives. There was a big guy at the door, asking me if I was carrying a knife, which is the first time I’ve been asked that as a U.K. politician.
OLBERMANN: And I understand this is — this was universal? This was — everybody who went in that room was asked that question?
WATSON: Well, they — I’m not sure if they were targeting me or not, but they certainly asked me. And then they kept giving me the rules of engagement, what — the questions I could ask and how long I could speak for. It was a peculiar event.
OLBERMANN: Again, sounds like an audition for Fox News. Mr. Tom Watson, member of the British Parliament. Our greatest thanks for your time, and best of luck with the inquiries. And thanks you for being with us tonight.
WATSON: All the best.
