I’m tired of the debt ceiling stuff because it’s probably kabuki that ends in a clean vote. The phone hacking scandal in the UK is much more interesting to me. I don’t know much about Peter Osborne (apparently he’s a conservative), but his writing on the scandal has been fascinating to me:
For more than three decades the most powerful man in Britain has not been a politician; it has been the brilliant but ruthless US-based media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, who burst on to the scene with the purchase of the News of the World in an audacious takeover bid in 1968. Within barely a decade he had built up a controlling interest in British newspapers.
But he did not just control our media. He dominated British public life. Politicians – including prime ministers – treated him with deference and fear. Time and again the Murdoch press – using techniques of which we have only just become aware – destroyed political careers. Murdoch also claims to determine the results of general elections.
Here’s my question: would Labour come after Murdoch this hard if they didn’t think could neuter him politically? Or is the calculation more complicated than that, i.e. they know that he’ll keep playing both sides no matter what?