Rupert Murdoch.

News Corp. (which owns this Web site) said Sunday that Mockridge was leaving to pursue “outside interests.”

Mockridge was seen as a candidate for the top spot at News Corp.’s soon-to-be-spun-off publishing arm. However, that job appears headed to Wall Street Journal managing editor Robert Thomson.

The boards include that of News International, the holding company of News Corp.’s U.K. newspapers, said a person familiar with the situation. Other boards are in the United States, Australia and India.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Here’s the full statement the company (which also owns this Web site) just released:

“We are grateful for James Murdoch’s successful leadership of BSkyB. He has played a major role in propelling the company into the market-leading position it enjoys today — and in the process has been instrumental in creating substantial value for News Corporation shareholders. We look forward to BSkyB’s continued growth under the leadership of Nicholas Ferguson and Jeremy Darroch and to James’ continued substantial contributions at News Corporation.”

Murdoch is one of News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch’s sons and was, until recently, considered the likely candidate to run the company one day. But since the long-simmering phone-hacking scandal erupted last summer his reputation has been battered, and he has given up a series of leadership posts in the Murdoch empire. Last summer, he refused a $6 million bonus, citing the controversy, but kept the rest of his $11.3 million News Corp. pay package.

And here’s the BSkyB statement announcing Murdoch’s departure:

The Board of British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (‘BSkyB’ or ‘the Company’) today announced that James Murdoch has stepped down as Chairman and will continue to serve in his capacity as a Non-Executive Director of the Company.

Mr Murdoch is succeeded as Chairman of BSkyB by Nicholas Ferguson, who was appointed as a Director of the Company in June 2004 and previously served as Deputy Chairman and Senior Independent Non-Executive Director. Tom Mockridge, who joined the Board in February 2009, has been appointed as Deputy Chairman. Andrew Higginson, who has been a Director of BSkyB since September 2004, succeeds Nicholas Ferguson as Senior Independent Non-Executive Director.

In a letter to the Board setting out the reasons for his resignation, Mr Murdoch said: “I have been privileged to serve first as Chief Executive and then as Chairman of this outstanding company and I am proud of what we have achieved over this period.”

Mr Murdoch continued: “As attention continues to be paid to past events at News International, I am determined that the interests of BSkyB should not be undermined by matters outside the scope of this Company.” He added: “I am aware that my role as Chairman could become a lightning rod for BSkyB and I believe that my resignation will help to ensure that there is no false conflation with events at a separate organisation.”

Mr Ferguson commented: “On behalf of the entire Board, I would like to thank James Murdoch for the outstanding contribution he has made both as CEO and Chairman of BSkyB. With his vision, drive and strategic insight, the Company has performed exceptionally and continues to transform itself to take advantage of a broader growth opportunity in home entertainment and communications.

“The Board’s support for James and belief in his integrity remain strong. We understand his decision to step aside at this time and we both welcome and look forward to his continued contribution as a non-executive director. The entire Board and management remain fully focused on maintaining BSkyB’s strong progress, delivering an outstanding service for customers and creating value for all shareholders.”

In it, WSJ.com’s Markets Hub host Paul Vigna asked the (largely offscreen) media mogul some questions about online stuff, as the other two (terrified-looking) panelists watched.

What about buying into online gaming giant Zynga’s upcoming IPO? “No,” gruffed Murdoch. Does he play its flagship game, FarmVille? Of course not.

Murdoch is apparently on Facebook, though. Well, could Vigna be besties with his ultimate boss (News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns The Wall Street Journal, which owns WSJ.com, which also owns AllThingsD.com) on the social networking giant?

“No,” growled Murdoch.

Heh.

The spike in suits, which now total 65, comes as claimants faced a recent deadline by which they needed to file if they wanted to be connected to a group of cases that are scheduled to be heard starting in January. The alleged victims — who include celebrities, politicians, victims of crime and others — generally claim that the company’s now-closed News of the World weekly tabloid newspaper breached their privacy by intercepting their voice-mail messages.

The latest tally of suits was detailed during a hearing in a London court Friday related to the phone-hacking claims. The company also has agreed to settle more cases, with five of those 65 suits now having been settled or otherwise resolved.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Murdoch, who is Deputy Chief Operating Officer and until recently has been seen as the heir apparent to his father Rupert Murdoch, has also been one of the primary focal points during the scandal. He has been in charge of News Corp.’s British newspaper unit that has been accused of widespread, systemic phonetapping and other charges (News Corp. also owns this Web site).

Here’s his statement:

In light of the current controversy surrounding News of the World, I have declined the bonus that the company chose to award to me. While the financial and operating performance metrics on which the bonus decision was based are not associated with this matter, I feel that declining the bonus is the right thing to do.  I will consult with the Compensation Committee in the future about whether any bonus may be appropriate at a later date.

Murdoch is keeping the rest of his compensation, which includes a base salary of $3 million, $8.3 million in stock awards and other benefits including personal use of the company’s aircraft, which the filing values at $224,864 for the fiscal year.

In News Corp.’s annual proxy statement, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission today, the company said it considered the following factors in awarding him his $6 million bonus:

“Mr. J.R. Murdoch played an important role during fiscal 2011 in developing the Company’s key businesses and investments in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, including the development of the Company’s content and distribution strategy. He led the success of STAR India, which delivers market-leading content, and he led the Company’s ongoing deployment of satellite television in Italy (with Sky Italia achieving its highest ever subscriber base), the UK, Germany and India, where we operate, or are key investors in, industry-leading pay television platforms. Under his leadership, the Company expanded its presence in the Middle East through a key strategic partnership and optimized its European asset portfolio through the disposition of News Outdoor. Mr. J.R. Murdoch also successfully transitioned into his new role as Deputy Chief Operating Officer and Chairman and CEO, International, expanding his responsibilities.”

In retrospect, it should have been easy to predict that Rupert Murdoch wouldn’t use an extended interview with Wall Street and the press to make any news today.

That’s because:

• Wall Street (or at least the portion of Wall Street that provides analyst coverage for News Corp.) seems wholly uninterested in the PhoneGate scandal. That didn’t change during today’s call: The only questions from the investor sector that had anything to do with phone hacking were some mild ones about Murdoch’s interest in selling off his newspaper business. No surprise: The media mogul who grew up in newspapers, loves newspapers and thinks newspapers have a bright future in the digital age said he has no interest in selling his newspapers.
• And if the U.K. Parliament and a pie-thrower couldn’t get Murdoch to say much last month, then how could the lowly press? Murdoch (who, as I note below as well, is ultimately my employer) was prepared for the PhoneGate questions he got from my fellow scribes: No, he wasn’t going anywhere soon, and if he did, COO Chase Carey would run the ship, he told a reporter who asked about James Murdoch’s chances to succeed his father. Yes, he was committed to “total transparency” when it came to making sure there were no other News of the World scandals brewing in his empire. But he didn’t want to say anything else about it. And no, his board of directors was not jam-packed with his cronies, he told a reporter who asked about that. It would be interesting, in a setting that allowed for follow-up questions, to follow up with some of those questions, but today’s format wasn’t going to allow that.

Meanwhile, the people whose opinion Murdoch really cares about — News Corp. investors — took a look at the company’s earnings and shrugged their shoulders, leaving the company’s shares more or less unchanged after hours. (During the day, News Corp. shares were slaughtered along with everyone else.) Perhaps they have other stuff on their minds these days.

—————

EARLIER:

You can read about News Corp. earnings (pretty good) here. But odds are that most of you want to hear what Rupert Murdoch has to say about PhoneGate and its fallout. Pretty sure you’ll get to hear a bit about it this afternoon.

For those of you who haven’t tuned in to News Corp. earnings calls before: Wall Street gets to tee off first, starting at 4:30 New York time. Then reporter types, some of whom may work for Murdoch, will get their shot around 5:15. I’ll be here for the duration (here is where I note that News Corp. owns this Web site). So come on in and take a load off.

4:33 pm: Welcome! Introductory remarks coming up. On the call: Murdoch, COO Chase Carey, CFO Dave DeVoe.

4:34 pm: Rupert, reading from script. Our financials this quarter were “exceptional.” Full year “very good.” Proud of team and *all* our businesses.

4:35 pm: That said, we have some “challenges” re: News of the World. “The kind of behavior that occured in that newsroom has no place in” our company. Also: “Make no mistake, Chase Carey and I run this company as a team” (i.e. I’m not going away any time soon).

4:37 pm: Joel Klein’s on the case, etc. “There can be no doubt about our commitment to ethics and integrity.”

4:37 pm: And like we said before, PhoneGate has nothing to do with the rest of the company.

4:37 pm: “Our position is strong, and our future is promising.”

4:38 pm: Bummed about the BSkyB deal, though.

4:38 pm: Now that we have all that extra cash on hand, though, we’ll think hard about what to do with it. “Re-examining our near and long-term opportunities” on top of that $5B stock buyback we announced.

Now here’s DeVoe, reading from script. Will tune out on most of this, but if you’re into it, again, you can see it here.

4:42 pm: Scanning Twitter, I see that the FT’s Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson pronounces Murdoch’s script reading to be “forceful.” Agreed! Much more at ease than when he was sitting in front of Parliament this month. Then again, no cameras, or pie.

4:45 pm: Speaking of Twitter, my stream has a whole lot less Murdoch-chatter than we saw last month during his UK appearance.

4:46 pm: Myspace generated $230 million in operating losses over the last year. Amazing. That’s separate from the $254 million writedown the company took (I believe).

4:48 pm: The money News Corp. won’t lose from Myspace next year will be offset, in large part, by the money it won’t see from News of the World.

4:49 pm: And here’s Carey, who wants to talk about “operating priorities” and balance sheet plans.

4:50 pm: Hey, look at that! Chase Carey stressing digital distribution. That’s a new one.

4:51 pm: Even *more* digital talk from Carey. Very unusual. Talking about the eight-day window/authentication plan it just rolled out for Fox.com and Hulu. Promises “many more” digital plans.

Also! Will be vigilant about programs that threaten our product, like $1 rentals. (Did I just hear that correctly? Would mean that Apple deal is over, if so.)

Q&A Time:

4:55 pm: Analyst wants to know cable TV pricing, wonders if company won’t be able to raise affiliate (and eventually your) prices.

Not a problem, says Carey. More growth coming next year in U.S., and then lots coming internationally. “We feel very good” about cable in general. It’s matured, and the economy is rough, “but the demand for this bundle out there in the United States continues to be, you know, strong.”

As Chase talks up cable business and TV business, Rupert chimes in to talk up ratings.

4:59 pm: Q: Your ad dollars looked much stronger than other people’s. What’s up with that?

Carey: Advertising is good because our ratings are good. American Idol, Fox News, etc. Looking forward, national business is great. Figures broadcast ads flat for next year, cable up a lot. Local business “not as robust” as national. “Looks like it will be a better for us in September.” That is, he’s not allowing that the whole possible economic collapse thing might chip away at the ad biz.

Q: For Rupert: August 2008, you were asked about buying back stock, and it was much cheaper then than it is now, and you didn’t want to do it. So why are you buying back shares now?

Rupert: “It’s a question of relative values.” In 2008, I was “coy about it, and of course I couldn’t say so openly” because we were saving for our giant BSkyB bid.

[Missed q, sorry]

5:04 pm: How’s the local TV business doing? Also, with the new eight-day delay “authentication” deal, do you have those in place with most distributors (so far just Dish announced) and aren’t you losing some eyeballs by doing it piecemeal?

5:06 pm: Missed first part of answer. On authentication, Carey is explaining justification for the plan, but not answering Q, which is about how many of these deals he has done, and what rolling them out piecemeal does for this business.

“I’m not going to get too deep into all our negotiations” but this will become standard for our deals.

Carey still explaining why authentication isn’t bad. “We think it’s a really great experience.” But yeah, in short term, may be some “sacrifice” by not chasing a quick buck.

Q: On Fox Biz. WTF happened to that? “You don’t even mention it as an undermonetized asset.”

Rupert: We’re doing okay. Sometimes during the day we beat CNBC. We’re at cash break-even. We need more distribution, though.

Carey: “I could have put it on the list” of assets we like. I just didn’t include everything. Don’t read anything into it. “We think this channel really is an exciting growth area for us as well.”

Q: Boring question about print operations in Australia. Skipping.

Rupert still talking about Australian print newspapers. It’s his roots, after all.

5:14 pm: For Carey: Are your return on capital projections reasonable?

Carey: Yup.

5:15 pm: And here I’ll just note that there have been zero questions from Wall Street about PhoneGate so far. That’s not a surprise — Wall Street buys the argument that PhoneGate has nothing to do with most of News Corp.’s biz — but figured someone might want to toss them a lay-up.

5:16 pm: Q for Rupe: We’ve asked you about spinning of newspapers before. What about now?

“I’m feeling very confident” about newspapers. “Shocked and appalled” about NOTW, but that was a “tiny corner.” Everything else good, WSJ doing great.

5:18 pm: Sorry, missed this one again. About writedowns in TV. Also, a question about operating income for film business. Rupert says it’s a “very very dangerous thing” to predict movie biz.

5:20 pm: DeVoe (I think) goes back to the buyback question, says buying back stock makes more sense now because “we’re in an entirely different place today.”

5:21 pm: Are you factoring in NOTW closing costs into your guidance?

Murdoch: Nope. “First we have to get to the bottom, exactly, of what happened. Were there a dozen guilty people, or were there two dozen?”

5:23 pm: One last Wall Street questions: Will you consider more structural changes at company? If not, why not?

Rupert: “I think we’ve got a very good mix.” We’ve got one or two … things we would sell, “but no major restructuring.” Chase: Right. What he said.

Rupe on digital: “We’ve learned a tremendous amount.” Have good people working digital now — our newspaper apps are great. “That will expand, and the money from that will expand as more people have tablets, and what is interesting is we’re getting tremendous takeup [?], not just from the iPad, but on the Kindle.”

Time for press questions. Do your best/worst, fellow wretches.

Q: Recently you said you wanted your kids to run the company. Do you think BOD will still support James running the company in the near future?

Rupe: “I hope the job won’t be open in the near future” [much laughter] … but “I have full confidence in James.”

And now my line is dead. Bear with me as I try an alternate route …

5:29 pm: Sorry, missed at least one there, back. Appears to have been about Hulu, and it appears to have been a non-answer from Carey. But I’ll backfill if I can.

5:30 pm: For Rupert: What are you doing to look at the rest of the business to prevent NOTW-style scandals?

Rupert: “We’re absolutely committed to total transparency” throughout the company but don’t want to get into it.

Yikes. One last question. Superfast Q&A: You said board said it makes sense for you to stay as CEO and chairman. But everyone says your board is not really independent.

5:32 pm: Murdoch cuts him off. “That’s not true.” Viet Dinh is a “completely independent” director. “We are in compliance with good governance.”

Annnnnnnnnnd that deflated balloon sound you hear are the sighs of my fellow media watchers, who got nothing of value from Murdoch today.

Going to sign off for now, thanks for listening/watching.

News that the top official at a public company will be present for a quarterly earnings call wouldn’t normally qualify as … news.

But prior to the company’s crisis, Murdoch had been absent from the last couple of News Corp. earnings calls, so this wasn’t a given. (Disclosure: News Corp. owns this Web site.)

And News Corp. earnings calls aren’t like other companies’ earnings calls. When Murdoch is on them, he tends to be much less disciplined than other public company leaders, and is more likely to stray off script, or freelance an answer that his lieutenants weren’t expecting.

Just as important: In addition to fielding questions from Wall Street analysts, News Corp. has traditionally offered up Murdoch and his executives to questions from the press, and I’m told that is in the works for today as well.

So today’s call, which kicks off at 4:30 pm, New York time, ought to be interesting at the very least. Taking questions from Wall Street and journalists isn’t quite the same as answering queries from British lawmakers, so he’ll likely feel more comfortable in the setting. I won’t be surprised if Murdoch simply declines to respond to some questions, for one thing. Also: Very, very, very low odds that he’ll have to duck a pie.

But it will all be on the record, and very well documented. I’ll be making my own contributions via a liveblog this afternoon, so check back then for a play by play, or listen in for yourself.

At $4 a pop — via Amazon’s Kindle or Barnes & Nobles’ Nook stores — “Rupert Murdoch, The Master Mogul of Fleet Street” costs less than a single copy of the print magazine.

It’s also a bargain if you’re a fan of Murdoch biographer (and non-baseball expert) Michael Wolff, whose work accounts for 20 percent of the copy here.

In other PhoneGate news, News Corp. has told employees at its New York Post tabloid to “preserve and maintain” any documents related to phone hacking.

News Corp., which also owns this Web site, has maintained that none of the systemic voicemail hacking that has come to light at its News of the World tabloid occurred in the U.S., but investigators will be looking into the matter, regardless.

Still, Stewart did spend eight minutes on the story last night. Here he is on Rupert Murdoch’s visit to Parliament. And, of course, Wendi Deng’s pie-deflection.

Which segued to this bit on some News Corp. properties’ … restraint in covering the story.

And for good measure, here’s Colbert’s contribution from last night — a chat with the New York Times’s David Carr, who does most of the heavy lifting.

Yahoo turned in another weak performance in the second quarter, with yet another decline in revenue.

This time it was five percent, compared to last quarter’s six percent. In other words, at least things are looking up as they go down!

While earnings per share rose smartly, Wall Street is still looking for strong sales growth from the Silicon Valley Internet giant, which seems unable to provide it.

Blamed most this time for the revenue fall: Yahoo’s changes in its display sales operations in the key Americas region, reasons for which were largely unspecified in the initial company press release. (You can see the damage in this slide deck from the company here.)

Maybe Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz will explain it all in its upcoming conference call with analysts (or she could try the I-don’t-know approach taken by News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch in PhoneGate hearings in Britain earlier today!).

2 pm PT: It starts with the usual regulatory blah-blah, which I always enjoy.

Bartz gets right into it, opening with the key problems with China’s Alibaba Group, as well as its display and search revenue weaknesses.

The fight with Alibaba is over its Alipay payments unit, which was spun out of the Chinese company without Yahoo’s say-so. Yahoo is a big shareholder.

Bartz says that the company was working on a settlement night and day.

But she quickly gets onto how display did not perform as expected in its key Americas arena. “Obviously, I am not happy,” she said.

Obvi! Neither are shareholders, Carol.

She says it was not about new competitive development. It was not about the economy. It was not about engagement.

So what was it? Changes in its sales leadership and organization, says Bartz, which has included talent walking out the door in droves.

A lot more than Yahoo expected, but no surprise to anyone who has been paying any attention to the brain drain at the company.

Bartz promises a new approach to sales, part of its endless turnaround, which is beginning to feel like a digital version of “Waiting for Godot.”

Search revenue, though, says Bartz, was better than expected.

2:11 pm: CFO Tim Morse is on now, running through the numbers and the display shortfall in the Americas region.

“We simply did not have appropriate coverage,” says Morse, noting consumer products, tech and autos as weak spots in the advertising market.

Thank goodness, then, for the guarantees from search revenue in the Microsoft partnership deal.

More numbers and then it is back to Bartz to talk about search, which is going better than the last quarter, when it was the culprit for the revenue decline.

She says that Microsoft and Yahoo were working together to improve the issues.

“We’d like to be further down the road,” says Bartz about the goal of search revenue per search growth, as well as settling all the other problems, such as the Asian issues.

And, by further, I am presuming she means actual forward movement, which is what roads are actually for.

2:27 pm: Q&A time, the part of our program where Wall Street analysts do not ask the questions that need asking (and where I win fancy journalism awards for pointing this delta out!).

Therefore, Bartz is first thanked for providing “color” about the display disaster and is not asked about more specifics of the disaster itself.

The second question still does not get to it either, but she does note Yahoo’s sales force has to sell beyond “Gee, we’re big” and come up with better ad solutions.

“The issue is we did not have enough sales people in front of the big clients,” says Bartz.

That’s because all those former Yahoos are now working at Groupon, LivingSocial, Facebook and on down the line and now in front of big clients for those hotter companies.

2:34 pm: Question about its Asian assets. Yahoo’s talks with Yahoo! Japan and Alibaba are separate, says Bartz, although I would add that they have non-movement in common.

And also a question about Yahoo’s interest in the acquisition of the Hulu premium online video service.

Bartz winks verbally and says nothing, which translates into: Of course, it is interested.

More on the reasons for the display fall-off, which Bartz makes clear is not due to big competitive threats, but internal issues.

Maybe she’s saving big competitive threats as the reason for a revenue decline in the third quarter!

I look forward to the quarter I get the finger pointed at me for causing revenue to fall, due to my snarky posts.

Now, we are into softball questions about improvements in engagement. It’s up, but no one asks why Yahoo is still not doing anything very cutting edge in product innovation compared to competitors.

I believe Google has launched at least 14 new social networks since this Sunday, along with its strong quarterly performance last week. And Apple, well, blew away its quarter today as it is about to release more cool new stuff later this week.

And that might be the crux of the issue for Yahoo, which might not solve its woes by throwing a more focused sales army at the issue.

That’s because Yahoo’s products are simply not nearly has social as Facebook or even Google right now, which might be the true problem as old customers move on to new advertising solutions.

Whatever the reason, Yahoo clearly needs a refresh of its ad products and how it sells them, especially in its fast-growing mobile, video and communications products.

Bartz talks about getting better expertise, a tighter regional focus and other issues of going to market, which is perhaps something she might have realized many, many quarters ago.

After all, she’s been in charge for a while, and these issues are not new.

In fact, in an earlier quarter, Bartz was stressing “tentpole” events and anchor media properties and the power of the size of Yahoo as a selling point.

This was in April, in fact, in the first quarter of this year.

As I wrote then:

“CEO Carol Bartz excited was the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s traffic gusher for big tentpole events such as the Super Bowl and the Oscars. In fact, Bartz practically sounded like a gushy “Entertainment Tonight” flunky when talking to Wall Street analysts about Yahoo’s Oscar news, games and other offerings. She proudly noted the site’s efforts generated more than a billion pages views.”

Now big is out! Moving on!

The last question is another about Yahoo’s talks with its Asian partners.

“It’s complex,” says Bartz.

You can say that again.

Worth noting that NWSA shares appeared to tick up a bit after the pie attack, and that the hearings restarted a few minutes later. And of course, we need to point out that this site is owned by News Corp.

Here’s a couple versions of the clip, in case one goes down:

This morning, News Corp. CEO and majordomo Rupert Murdoch, his son James (who is also a top company exec) — as well as former employee and full-time lightning rod Rebekah Brooks — march on down to the British Parliament to answer questions from a committee there about the ever-growing PhoneGate scandal.

For those living under a rock, News Corp. is embroiled in ever more serious controversy about who knew what and when (also where, why and how much) in the hacking of phones of a myriad of well-known people in the U.K. by its News of the World tabloid newspaper.

Besides celebrities and politicians, that has included the voicemails of a murdered girl, an appalling act that has galvanized public opinion and the weak spines of legislators into action in this inquiry.

It’s sordid, it’s ugly and it makes for what could be an explosive event, starring the man who brought you “Titanic,” Glenn Beck, “Glee” and, most recently, the sale of Myspace.

There’s no question, getting the 80-year-old Murdoch on the ropes will be the aim of the committee members holding the hearing, and how one of the world’s most famous and legendary media moguls performs — or does not — will be a big deal to both interested observers and News Corp. shareholders.

By way of full disclosure, that’s not me, but this site is owned by Dow Jones, which is owned by News Corp. In other words, somewhere up the corporate food chain, Murdoch is my boss.

In any case, that has never stopped me or AllThingsD.com from telling it like it is, so here is the liveblog of what is sure to be a doozy of a media event:

6:36 am PT:: It all starts for the Murdochs, as soon as the former Scotland Yard head John Yates has completed questioning about the police’s obvious bungling of the various investigations over the years.

Rupert Murdoch and his son, James Murdoch, are on, looking grave and dressed in grey.

Sitting behind them are Rupert Murdoch’s wife, Wendi Deng, and his top adviser at News Corp., Joel Klein, who is heading up the phone hacking scandal internally at the company.

The hearing — in a room that looks like a high school debate could take place there — starts off politely enough.

But the first question is directed toward James Murdoch about his clearly incomplete investigation when phone hacking allegations were first made many years ago. He begins with an apology.

“These actions do not live up to the standards of News Corp.,” says the younger Murdoch.

He is interrupted by his father, Rupert Murdoch, who notes rather dramatically: “This is the most humble day of my life.”

The questioner quickly asks the obvious query, after James Murdoch claims News Corp. was not in full possession of the facts when execs had told a previous committee there was no reason to believe there was more widespread hacking.

Were News Corp. execs lying?

James Murdoch continues to insist that the bulk of evidence came out — “real evidence” — in later civil trials. And also, that News Corp. is now investigating the situation fully.

He throws around words like “proactive action” and “transparency,” which is probably cold comfort now to those hacked when things were less clear to News Corp.’s senior management.

Now up, Rupert Murdoch, who is asked quickly about statements he made about not tolerating wrongdoing and who had lied to him at News Corp. about the phone hacking.

Apparently, he “didn’t know” a lot about the hacking that took place, while also defending the non-hacking employees of his company.

But the questioner is still on him about exactly what he did know about the situation, which seems to be — at least according to his testimony — a lot of I-don’t-knows.

6:53 am: It continues about what Rupert Murdoch knew and when he knew it and what he did. Or not.

As Rupert Murdoch keeps up with this tone of not being clued in to what have turned out to be critical events, James Murdoch wants to keep jumping in with the details, which he is eager to impart.

“At what point did you find out criminality was endemic at News of the World?” asks the questioner.

Rupert Murdoch does not like the word endemic, but stresses that he was “shocked, appalled and ashamed” by the case of the murdered girl, Milly Dowler.

The questioner seems frustrated by Rupert Murdoch’s answers, which are, for the typically razor-sharp media mogul, unusually slow.

Like a persistent terrier who wants to perform, James Murdoch is back again offering to serve up the deets.

7:04 am: Now, it is onto the closing down of News of the World: Was the tabloid shut down because of the criminality?

“We had broken our trust with our readers,” says Rupert Murdoch. “We felt ashamed for what had happened.”

A new questioner is on, with a bizarre query about why Rupert Murdoch came in the back door of the Prime Minister’s house at 10 Downing Street on a recent visit there.

It’s a cloddish effort to show him as a powerful puppetmaster to pols, but only serves as a punch line.

Back on track, with questions about whether there was hacking in the U.S., which Rupert Murdoch said he could not believe had happened.

More questions about how badly the company acted, which came down to the questions about whether he was “ultimately” responsible for the hacking.

“Nope,” says Rupert Murdoch, who keeps insisting he relied on others, some of whom apparently “misled” him.

It’s an astonishing admission and, really, excuse, given he has been chairman, CEO and a very strong leader of News Corp. for more than a half-century.

7:16 am: A new questioner, who asks who decided to close down News of the World. It was Murdoch himself, his son and other execs.

Next up, why did News Corp. pay off a victim of hacking, which James Murdoch did without informing his father or the News Corp. board.

James Murdoch essentially points out that it is typical to do this in companies of the global scale of News Corp.

These are apparently very busy, busy, busy people, who do not seem to have time to notice how such juicy and best-selling scoops might have been magically produced by News of the World.

Onto ethical conduct guidelines, which News Corp. has in a pamphlet form, says James Murdoch, but pages which some at the company have obviously never cracked.

Rupert Murdoch is asked again about his culpability in the case, which he continues to maintain he does not shoulder the blame.

James Murdoch does note that the company “will think more forcefully … about our journalism and ethics.”

Given the situation, in which every day brings a new revelation of bad acts by News Corp. employees, this promise of better behavior seems to be a case of much too little and very, very late.

Rupert Murdoch still uses the opportunity to stress the need for a free press, despite its excesses.

7:31 am: More about the payments to settle with phone hacking victims and how soon the company realized the problems were more widespread.

James Murdoch talks about how he might have acted differently had he known more then as he does now.

“If we knew now what we knew then,” says James Murdoch, “we would have taken more action and moved more aggressively.”

But what else is he going to say? It’s a could-have, would-have, should-have line of questioning that is eliciting very little in the way of true information.

Finally, a good point about “willful blindness,” which is a term from the Enron scandal about avoiding knowing about problems you really should have known about.

“Is that a question?,” asks James Murdoch. It is a statement, actually, and a decent enough one.

“We didn’t do that,” says Rupert Murdoch firmly this time.

Still, soon enough, Rupert Murdoch is insisting he was not as involved as people have imagined him to be with the management of his newspapers.

A new questioner is pressing this important point, but Rupert Murdoch is not biting on a query about his legendarily hands-on managing style.

“I’d say, ‘What’s doing?’” he explains about his conversations with editors, but adding he might not have been told about payoffs to phone hacking victims.

The questions are in the deep weeds here, but it’s still interesting that Rupert Murdoch continues to maintain that his life was too busy to wallow in the details, however controversial and important those details might be.

7:55 am: More and more don’t-knows pile up and up in a giant mountain of acts perpetrated by someone somewhere, but not the Murdochs.

“I can tell you I was surprised as you were,” says James Murdoch about certain payments to various hackers and those who were hacked.

Was it Les Hinton, who then ran News International and later Dow Jones, from which he recently resigned?

Could be! Maybe! Mistake were made! Who knows!

Well, someone does!

It moves onto Brooks, the tarnished News International exec and editor whom Rupert Murdoch does note he still trusts. Finally, some certainty!

Brooks is definitely one of the more compelling characters in this drama, although the media focus on her striking red hair color seems odd and vaguely sexist, as if she is some flame-haired she-devil from media hell. She might certainly be guilty in this mess, but her fabulous hair has nothing to do with it.

(Rupert’s mane is grey, by the way, and James’ is brown, if you really need to know.)

Fascinatingly, Murdoch’s backing of Brooks has been strong and consistent, despite intense criticism of her by many in this scandal.

The payment of legal fees of perpetrators and payments to the victims in the hacking seems to obsess one questioner, who wants News Corp. to stop doing it.

Murdoch says he’d like to if contracts did not preclude that, which essentially means News Corp. will keep up forking over the legal fees and payments.

8:12 am: The attention turns to how James Murdoch found out about the various emails that showed there was more evidence of hacking than was first thought about and what he felt about it.

He says very little, noting that the matter is under police investigation. It’s not don’t-know now, but can’t-say.

The hearing is beginning to feel a little rope-a-dope, with the Murdochs apologizing and taking blows, saying very little — either claiming lack of knowledge or lack of ability to comment about the ongoing police inquiry — and tiring out the questioners.

It is a classic tactic of the boxing champion Muhammad Ali and it works in the ring.

Whether that will be the case with PhoneGate remains to be seen, but it certainly has made what could have been a more explosive hearing much less so.

Instead, it seems to have turned into a what didn’t the Murdochs know and when didn’t they know it hearing.

On questioner gets this irony. “That’s frankly unsatisfactory,” he says about the Murdochs continuing shock and surprise at the thorny situation they find themselves in.

Maybe it seems a little hard to believe, but the persistent story from James Murdoch is that they were told by their lawyers, the police and others that nothing was awry once the initial phone hacking investigation was complete and only found out about the larger problem in later civil lawsuits.

But, asks the questioner to Rupert Murdoch, should his editors and managers at News of the World have known about it?

Of course, they should have.

But, once again, the legendary media baron, who made his fortune and fame in disseminating news and information across the world in newspapers, on television, on satellite and on the Web — at least for now — can’t say.

So, was he “kept in the dark” about the situation? Rupert Murdoch acknowledges he might have asked more questions, although he noted his British newspapers were only a small part of his massive empire.

But, he adds, “Anything that is seen as a crisis comes to me.”

Well, not the phone hacking crisis, it seems.

But, they’re sorry. So sorry. And, of course, humbled.

8:54 am: Suddenly, there is a disturbance, in which someone seems to have possibly attempted to accost the Murdochs.

But it is not clear what has happened, as the hearings are suspended for 10 minutes.

James Murdoch leaps up quickly to protect his father, which he has been doing in this hearing verbally already, where the strategy seems to be to let him largely do all the talking.

Even faster on her feet and with arms raised toward a man in a plaid shirt and carrying a pie plate with shaving cream is Rupert Murdoch’s wife, Wendi.

The man seems to have managed to get some of the foam on Rupert Murdoch, but Wendi Deng appears to have partially thwarted her husband from receiving a full pie in the face.

It’s the first striking visual of this hearing, protecting the patriarch and the king of the empire from harm, no matter what.

Here is a video of the incident:

According to Britain’s Channel 4: “As the man was being led away in handcuffs escorted by a single police officer, he refused to give his name, saying: ‘As Mr Murdoch himself said, I’m afraid I cannot comment on an ongoing police investigation.’”

9:09 am: The room is cleared, so it is only the Murdoch crew behind James and Rupert Murdoch, and now the committee is even more solicitous.

Rupert Murdoch is without his jacket and his wife is being commended for her most excellent left hook.

Still, it’s back to business and the questioner does zero in on a major disconnect over how two media execs as famously aggressive and involved as the Murdochs were so passive in this hacking situation.

It “was a terrible shock,” says James Murdoch.

The same is said about what would be even more disturbing and recent allegations of the hacking of the victims of the 9/11 bombings.

Both father and son say there is no evidence of this so far, but they were surely looking into it.

While it certainly did not come through in what have largely been feckless questions from the committee, the final questioner does correctly ask the pair if they might want to pay more attention.

The last question is for Rupert Murdoch and finally gets to the real query everyone wants to ask.

Noting Murdoch is “captain of the ship,” she asks if he has considered resigning.

“No,” answers Murdoch firmly.

“Why not?” she presses.

“People let me down and it’s for them to pay,” says Rupert Murdoch. “But I think, frankly, I am the best person do clean this up.”

He finishes up with a statement about being sorry, how he was also betrayed and how phone hacking and bribery is wrong.

“Saying sorry is not enough, things must be put right,” he says.

Finally, something we do know.

The News Corp. CEO, along with his son James and former employee Rebekah Brooks, head to British Parliament today to answer questions about the still-mushrooming PhoneGate scandal.

You’ll be able to watch the event, which begins at 9:30 am Eastern time, on just about any U.S. news channel you’d like: CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN and the Current will be broadcasting the hearings. So will Fox News Channel, which — like this Web site — is owned by News Corp.

You should also have multiple opportunities to watch the event live via Web video. British broadcaster ITN, for instance, is offering up a live stream via its Facebook page. I believe, but haven’t confirmed, that C-SPAN will stream live, too.

And we’ll be liveblogging the event ourselves, courtesy of AllThingsD’s Kara Swisher. (I’m biased here, but I’m quite sure Kara will provide entertaining coverage — this is a woman who won an award for liveblogging Yahoo earnings calls.)

Meanwhile, some context. You can find plenty of news outlets telling you what’s at stake for the Murdoch men today, but Staci Kramer at paidContent does a concise job. A reminder: This isn’t a trial, and no matter what the men say, they’re not going to appease outraged Britons.

So in some ways, today’s event is most consequential for the way it plays out for News Corp. shareholders. Rupert Murdoch needs to show that his company would be better off if he remains chief executive; James needs to demonstrate that he’ll still have the ability to run the family company down the line.

A couple more thoughts before the show gets underway:

• Rupert Murdoch is used to performing in public, but under very different circumstances. Until recently, Murdoch has used his quarterly earnings calls as an extended public interview, taking questions from both investors and the press. That’s a rarity for public company CEOs, and has made for some very entertaining moments (at least by the standards of paint-drying earnings calls). But those questions were never really that pointed. And while Murdoch tended to answer the queries with imperial certitude, the stakes were always lowish — if need be, his investor relations or public relations could usually reel a stray answer in after the fact. Today he’ll face hostile questions, and will be operating without any kind of net at all.
• Rupert Murdoch’s great love for newspapers is now a liability. The corporate scandal playbook calls for an embattled chief executive to take responsibility for his company’s missteps, while explaining they’re the result of a few bad actors working in isolation. But Murdoch’s affection for his newspapers, and his hands-on approach to many of them, will make it much harder for him to do that. In the words of New York magazine’s Gabriel Sherman: “Rupert will have to demonstrate that, after a lifelong passion for the newsroom, he detached himself from his journalists’ activities. It will be a hard sell.”

This morning, News International head Rebekah Brooks apologized for her role in the mess and resigned. Now News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch is apologizing to the general public via print ads signed in his name. Here’s the full text of the ad, via Sky News producer Tim Gatt, and Gatt’s photo of one of the ads. Note that Murdoch’s apology only deals with his now-shuttered News of the World tabloid, and doesn’t address allegations of wrongdoing at other News Corp.-owned papers. (News Corp. owns this Web site.)

The News of the World was in the business of holding others to account.
It failed when it came to itself.
We are sorry for the serious wrongdoing that occurred.
We are deeply sorry for the hurt suffered by the individuals affected.
We regret not acting faster to sort things out.
I realise that simply apologising is not enough.
Our business was founded on the idea that a free and open press should be
a positive force in society. We need to live up to this.
In the coming days, as we take further concrete steps to resolve these issues
and make amends for the damage they have caused, you will hear more from us.

The last one means Wolff is particularly in demand these days, which is why he showed up to the BBC’s satellite studio in New York today.

The Beeb had other (unintentional) plans. You must watch this clip:

As Sky News reminds us, this is not the first time the BBC has brought the wrong dude on camera. Here’s a clip of Guy Goma, who had shown up to a BBC studio for a job interview in 2006, and was instead put on air and asked about Apple.

(Not terribly necessary disclosure in this case: Both Sky News and this Web site are owned by News Corp., the company at the center of the scandal that prompted Wolff to go on air today.)

“It has become clear that it is too difficult to progress in this climate,” News Corp. COO Chase Carey said in a statement, referring to the ever-widening PhoneGate scandal that has already forced the company to shut down its News of the World tabloid.

The paper’s closure was a huge news event in Britain, but the BSkyB deal, which would have seen News Corp. buy the 61 percent of the company it didn’t already own, would have been much more meaningful for Rupert Murdoch’s company.

It’s unlikely that this is the last shoe to drop at News Corp. (which also owns this Web site). Murdoch, his son James and News Corp. executive Rebekah Brooks are all scheduled to appear in front of the British Parliament next week to answer questions about the scandal.

Meanwhile, News Corp. has discussed selling off or spinning out its News International unit, which runs its remaining British papers.

And preliminary reports indicate that a scheduled debate about the News Corp. BSkyB deal will still take place today in the House of Commons.

Yesterday News Corp. announced a $5 billion stock buyback program, designed to allay investor fears. But it didn’t do much good, as shares drooped from $16.25 to $15.48. For now, it seems, investors are happier that News Corp. has moved on from BSkyB, and are pushing shares back a few cents toward the $16 mark.