Coulson

“There will be plenty of people hoping that Coulson's departure will be an end of the matter, but of course it isn't. There are too many unanswered questions about too many important people, companies and institutions. Confidence in the police has undoubtedly been sapped by the drip-drip escalation of the story, with journalists and lawyers painfully dragging out of the Met the full details of what they know and when they knew it. To many, it has looked as though the police have been playing elaborate games – earnestly searching for "new" evidence, when they know that most of the evidence has been sitting in their own files all along. The police are now running out of road. There are too many questions about their original handling of the case and their behaviour at every subsequent turn of events. Why did they treat recent whistleblowers as suspects rather than witnesses? Why did they fail to inform the vast majority of suspected victims? Why do they continue to be so stubbornly unco-operative in their response to victims' lawyers and to other FoI requests? Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary could well order independent scrutiny of the Met's behaviour, as it did with public order policing. Now that the Crown Prosecution Service has commissioned a full assessment of the case, the time may have come for the Met to stand aside altogether.

And then there is the behaviour of News Corporation. It has an impressive code of governance and array of independent directors – including President José María Aznar, the Georgetown law professor Viet Dinh, Rod Eddington from JP Morgan and Andrew Knight from J Rothschild Capital Management, a former Economist editor. Its website promises "integrity, honesty, forthrightness and fairness" and protection for company whistleblowers so that people can speak out "without fear of retaliation". Its chairman has said the company has a "zero-tolerance" approach to wrongdoing. This is fine-sounding stuff, especially when it comes to offering editorial guarantees or some form of independent board oversight, if only the government would agree to the Sky deal.

But, speaking of oversight, there are some awkward governance questions for the distinguished grandees on News Corp's board. Did they know of, or approve, the "silence money" payments to victims of phone hacking such as Gordon Taylor or Max Clifford? Was it good governance to suppress evidence of criminality by employees with cash payments and by the sealing of court files? As directors, have they ever asked to see those files? Do they know whether their company is currently paying the legal fees of Glenn Mulcaire, the former £100,000 a year private investigator who is even now fighting court orders to reveal the names of the NoW journalists he dealt with? If they are paying Mr Mulcaire's fees, how does this sit with a commitment to uncover the truth of what happened? Are they satisfied that no attempts are currently being made to "dissuade" litigants from pursuing their civil actions?

These governance issues would matter anyway. They matter even more given the attempts by News Corp to persuade the government to wave through approval of the Sky deal, which would make them easily the most dominant UK media company in history. The fact that the prime minister is on such easy social terms with News Corp executives means that transparency is essential. It also suggests that Cameron's lack of judgment over Coulson is even more striking.”  Guardian leader article 22/1/2011

“What this saga reveals is the ominously dominant position of Rupert Murdoch's News International media empire in our national life. An iron triangle consisting of Downing Street, News International (owner of the News of the World) and the Metropolitan Police attempted to rubbish this investigation and tried to sweep wrongdoing under the carpet. Yesterday's resignation must be the start of accountability, not the end.” Independent 22/1/2011

On the Today programme this morning, a lawyer representing several celebrities made it clear that the NoW were not acting alone. The phone hacking culture spread across many more tabloids (and broadsheets?) than revealed so far. 

As the item finished, the journalist giving the report said that not one tabloid had this story on their front page this morning.