BSkyB/Murdoch: Reverse ferret is a term coined by The Sun, one of the Murdochs' UK newspapers, to refer to an abrupt U-turn in editorial line. This article is a reverse ferret, or at least a partial one.
Last week I wrote that James Murdoch should not be kicked out of his position as chairman of BSkyB. I admitted that he hadn't covered himself with glory in dealing with the scandal at the News of the World, which he indirectly managed. But I argued this was a separate business and his record at BSkyB was good.
Since that article appeared, Murdoch has given evidence to a committee of the UK parliament about the hacking scandal.
Subsequently, part of his testimony was challenged by two former senior employees. If what the former employees say is correct, Murdoch would appear to have given false evidence.
Although Murdoch is standing by his testimony, there are enough puzzles for BSkyB's independent directors to quiz him before confirming him as chairman, as planned later this week. It could be argued that there are so many other probes going on that the directors hardly need to launch their own. But this whole story has been bedeviled by people failing to ask tough questions when they had a chance.
Moreover, the BSkyB directors are in a unique position to grill Murdoch. He can hardly brush them off.
The key question is how Murdoch explains the discrepancy between his evidence and that of the former employees on whether he was aware of a key email when he agreed a pay-off for one of the hacking victims. The email appeared to suggest that hacking was not confined to a single rogue reporter.
More From This Section
The follow-up question is why Murdoch authorised a payment, thought to be £425,000, given that outside counsel had advised that the victim would receive £250,000 if the matter went to court. The select committee asked this question but didn't get a satisfactory answer.
Murdoch may give perfectly good answers if BSkyB's directors ask him. But if he is evasive, they should ask him to step aside.