There are people we know who've mentioned to us over the last few days, "What does all this hoopla with 'hacking phones' and 'Fox News' and Rupert Murdoch really mean?"
For those who don't work in news media or communications, we can understand how someone might question the value of the Murdoch corruption story dominating the news. Other than the ongoing drama of the U.S. debt & budget battle, this story seems to be taking up the other fifty percent of headlines right now.
It is an important story, however, both in the U.S. and abroad - and not just from the standpoint of media and ethics, as we pointed out yesterday.
By the time you read this on Tuesday morning, Mr. Murdoch, his son, and the former News Corp. executive Rebekah Brooks may all be in front of the British Parliament, their version of Congress, for hearing on this matter. While it's not expected that any of the three will say anything shocking, it's entirely possible that one of them could say something which could incriminate them - and not necessarily just in the U.K.
In the U.S. for some time now, authorities have been investigating American corporations for growing levels of international corruption. IBM paid a $10 million fine over selling illegal materials to China and South Korea earlier this year. Maxwell Technologies, a California company, also paid nearly $15 million earlier in 2011 to settle both criminal and civil complaints of dealing products to China illegally. The French-American company Alcatel-Lucent settled their own corruption suit in 2009, after getting caught red-handed giving illegal benefits to Chinese politicians. All of these cases were prosecuted by either the U.S. Dept. of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or both - and all were prosecuted under the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
The reason the hearings in front of Parliament today are so crucial is that the U.K. implemented its own anti-corruption act just this month - one that mirrors the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in many ways. Other countries have also been following the lead of the U.S. in this regard.
Any company that wishes to gain the benefits of doing business primarily in the United States faces certain legal restrictions, including the FCPA - in part, because the business they may be working on might involve the U.S. government or military secrets.
If that idea seems farfetched, remember that not too long ago, Apple Computer company was not allowed to sell its desktop computers to certain governments, because their computers were so fast (for the time) that each unit was considered a supercomputer. Even the sale of one such computer would have violated international laws and sanctions against countries like North Korea and Iran.
The ethical implications of toppling governments with propaganda that we cited on Monday are not the only reasons Mr. Murdoch and his now-former employees need to be investigated, and if guilty, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
In a world where timely and sensitive information can be more valuable than gold, a company that deals almost exclusively in information, yet cannot be trusted to acquire that information legally, becomes a security risk of massive proportions.
In an interconnected world, where a device in one's hands can connect a person to the farthest corners of the planet instantly, following the law isn't just a matter of ethical or moral correctness in the media. It's a matter of security, both for the countries that company does business in, as well as the safety of the company's bottom line.
