Was the phone hacking the action of “rogue journalist” or something more systemic?
The phone hacking incident was more systemic. This kind of behavior wasn’t an isolated event or an action of one “rogue journalist”. There were many evidence in the case to prove that the incident was normal occurrence in Murdoch’s company. In 2006, Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator were caught to have hacked into senior aides to the Britain’s royal family as well as the princes’ phone messages. According to Scotland Yard’s investigation, there were evidence that this practice was widespread. Sharon Marshall, as well as other tabloid reporters hired by Murdoch publicly admitted that hacking is a common practice in Murdoch’s organization. …show more content…
I find this very hard to believe. James Murdoch was the Executive VP of News International, and as a leader, he will have to approve all activities that are going on within his organization. His responsibility as an executive member of his organization is to make sure that all his employed are doing things ethically. On December 2011, an evidence surfaced that he received a warning regarding the extent of the hacking and his response was “he had opened the email but because it arrived on the weekend, and he was taking care of his children, he did not read it all the way through” (Crawford, 2014). His response made him a very irresponsible executive as he stated that he did not pay attention to an email that were expressed in an “explosive language” according to the investigation. This was a very weak alibi on his behalf. If what he said was true and he neglected the email sent to him with the information of hacking because he was busy, it is his responsibility to inform his father, the CEO of the company, about the situation. Ignorance is not an excuse. He knew what was going on within his organization and that is why he decided to put in his resignation on February …show more content…
A manager is a person responsible for administering a company while a leader is someone who leads and inspire people. In the case of Murdoch and in the Parable of Sadhu, I believe that there were no leaders. Murdoch managed an empire but he did not “lead” his employees. He managed his employees through fear. His employees did not follow him because they like him, they followed him because they were afraid of him or they were afraid that they were going to lose their jobs. In the Parable of Sadhu, Stephen was trying to take charge however he did not have the right attitude to inspire and “gain adequate support to take care of the Sadhu” (McCoy). Stephen did not identify any purpose that everyone could have followed so every single groups in their journey just did what they think was right at the moment without proper
The phone hacking incident was more systemic. This kind of behavior wasn’t an isolated event or an action of one “rogue journalist”. There were many evidence in the case to prove that the incident was normal occurrence in Murdoch’s company. In 2006, Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator were caught to have hacked into senior aides to the Britain’s royal family as well as the princes’ phone messages. According to Scotland Yard’s investigation, there were evidence that this practice was widespread. Sharon Marshall, as well as other tabloid reporters hired by Murdoch publicly admitted that hacking is a common practice in Murdoch’s organization. …show more content…
I find this very hard to believe. James Murdoch was the Executive VP of News International, and as a leader, he will have to approve all activities that are going on within his organization. His responsibility as an executive member of his organization is to make sure that all his employed are doing things ethically. On December 2011, an evidence surfaced that he received a warning regarding the extent of the hacking and his response was “he had opened the email but because it arrived on the weekend, and he was taking care of his children, he did not read it all the way through” (Crawford, 2014). His response made him a very irresponsible executive as he stated that he did not pay attention to an email that were expressed in an “explosive language” according to the investigation. This was a very weak alibi on his behalf. If what he said was true and he neglected the email sent to him with the information of hacking because he was busy, it is his responsibility to inform his father, the CEO of the company, about the situation. Ignorance is not an excuse. He knew what was going on within his organization and that is why he decided to put in his resignation on February …show more content…
A manager is a person responsible for administering a company while a leader is someone who leads and inspire people. In the case of Murdoch and in the Parable of Sadhu, I believe that there were no leaders. Murdoch managed an empire but he did not “lead” his employees. He managed his employees through fear. His employees did not follow him because they like him, they followed him because they were afraid of him or they were afraid that they were going to lose their jobs. In the Parable of Sadhu, Stephen was trying to take charge however he did not have the right attitude to inspire and “gain adequate support to take care of the Sadhu” (McCoy). Stephen did not identify any purpose that everyone could have followed so every single groups in their journey just did what they think was right at the moment without proper