The Crown Prosecution Service says eight people will be charged on 19 counts of  conspiring to intercept communications intended for 600 recipients. They are Brooks (ex News International CEO), Coulson (ex editor), Stuart Kuttner (ex managing editor), Glenn Mulcaire (private investigator), Greg Miskiw (ex news editor), Ian Edmondson (ex assistant editor), Neville Thurlbeck (chief reporter) and James Weatherup (assistant news editor).

All are former editorial staff, so the Murdochs, Les Hinton and Tom Crone are off the hook in this phase.

What was ‘phone hacking’?

And how does someone commit it? Legally, that could depend on a couple of interesting arguments, including whether the law is trumped by mobile networks’ own embarrassing part in the controversy…

The relevant law here is the UK’s Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which provoked digital libertarians’ outrage when it was introduced in 2000 for allowing spying on citizens’ communications by police and intelligence agencies but not by others, like journalists.

RIPA outlaws “interception” of telecommunications systems. To be convicted of this “interception”, people facing charges would have to either had “monitored” their targets’ voicemails or modified their voicemail systems.

A decade ago, mobile networks left the voicemail door open when they issued only default access PINs to customers. For example, anyone could telephone a Vodafone customer and, upon a non-answer, could enter Vodafone’s default, network-wide PIN to gain access to the recipient’s mailbox. This is what journalists are accused of.

The networks had left the back door ajar – and no authority, whether regulatory nor any mobile industry body, ever told the networks to close it, though individual carriers have now stopped issuing default PINs.

Where does this security oversight leave a prosecution? If anyone entered the open door in the early 2000s, would that still break RIPA’s law on “interception”? A prosecutor may argue listening to voicemails whilst logged in to the mailbox could indeed constitute “monitoring”, that deleting any voicemails whilst there could indeed constitute “modification”.

On the other hand, to satisfy a rigid definition of “interception”, would eavesdroppers have had to listen to voicemails before their intended recipients ever did? If so, we could see some prosecutions succeed and others fail, depending on who dialled in first.

The wider impact

Although business executives besides Brooks are not being charged with actual phone hacking, News Corp, of course, is not exempt from collateral damage from the former journalists’ upcoming trials.

Having already shut News Of The World, the company is now splitting its news publishing and broadcast/movie assets. If completed before trials begin, the split could shield Fox from any further death spiral in which News Corp finds its papers.

Brooks was already amongst those facing a charge for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, relating to an alleged cover-up of the “hacking” itself.

The report stopped short of accusing Rupert or James Murdoch of mis-leading the committee but accused the father of “turning a blind eye” to News Of The World’s phone hacking and the son of “astonishing” lack of curiosity in investigating it.

Here are the key players and what the report concluded about each:

Les Hinton

Ex-News International executive chairman. Ex-Dow Jones CEO (resigned, July 2011). Friend of Rupert Murdoch for 50+ years.

• “Les Hinton misled the Committee in 2009 regarding the extent of the pay-off to Clive Goodman and his own role in making it happen.”
• “Les Hinton was complicit in the cover-up at News International, which included making misleading statements and giving a misleading picture to this Committee.”
• “Les Hinton’s unwillingness to be explicit over the payment of legal fees was a deliberate effort to mislead the Committee over News International’s payments to Clive Goodman after he was charged and convicted.”

Tom Crone & Colin Myler

Crone: News Of The World’s ex-legal manager

Myler: News Of The World’s ex-editor (currently New York Daily News editor)

• “Both Tom Crone and Colin Myler deliberately avoided disclosing crucial information to the Committee and, when asked to do, answered questions falsely.”
• “Both Tom Crone and Colin Myler attempted to downplay the significance of the ‘for Neville’ e-mail and made no mention of the legal opinion that they had obtained (which suggested hacking was wider-spread). In itself this amounts to an attempt to mislead the Committee about the import of a crucial piece of evidence and the failure of the company to act upon it.
• “In 2009, Tom Crone and Colin Myler asserted that they had investigated the ‘for Neville’ e-mail and that there was no concrete evidence to support the allegation that journalists other than Clive Goodman had been involved in phone-hacking … They clearly did not tell truth to us then.”

James Murdoch

Ex-News International executive chairman

• “Surprising as it may seem that James Murdoch did not ask to see this crucial piece of evidence, nor the independent Counsel’s opinion, his lack of curiosity—but wilful ignorance even—subsequently is more astonishing.”
• “We are astonished that James Murdoch did not seek more information or ask to see the evidence and counsel’s opinion when he was briefed by Tom Crone and Colin Myler on the Gordon Taylor case. Even for a large company, £700,000 is a not inconsequential sum of money, and it is extraordinary that the Chief Executive should authorise its payment on the basis of such scant information. If he did, indeed, not ask to see either document, particularly the counsel’s opinion, this clearly raises questions of competence on the part of News International’s then Chairman and Chief Executive.”
• “If he did not read the e-mail chain, there is no good excuse for this and it betrays an astonishing lack of curiosity on the part of a Chief Executive.”
• “It was as late as December 2010 that James Murdoch—and Rupert Murdoch—realised that the one ‘rogue reporter’ line was untrue. This, we consider, to be simply astonishing.”

Rupert Murdoch

CEO and chairman, News Corp

• “Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications.”
• “This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International. We conclude, therefore, that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company.”
• “Rupert Murdoch told this Committee that his alleged lack of oversight of News International and the News of the World was due to it being “less than 1% of our company”. This self-portrayal, however, as a hands-off proprietor is entirely at odds with numerous other accounts, including those of previous editors and from Rebekah Brooks, who told us she spoke to Rupert Murdoch regularly and ‘on average, every other day’. It was, indeed, we consider, a misleading account of his involvement and influence with his newspapers.”

Rebekah Brooks

Ex-editor, The Sun & ex-CEO, News International

• “None of these scenarios casts Rebekah Brooks … in a positive light: either they should have been more frank or else they should have been better informed.”
• “For those actions, and the culture which permitted them, the Editor should accept responsibility.”

News International

• The company “wished to buy silence in this affair and to pay to make this problem go away”.
• “News International repeatedly made misleading and exaggerated claims regarding the ‘investigations’ it had purportedly commissioned following the arrests of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire.”
• “Senior executives at News International undoubtedly extolled the thoroughness of the reviews rather too fervently.”
• “Evidence given by News International executives (until August 2011) had been vague and at times incomplete.”

News Corporation

• “The whole affair demonstrates huge failings of corporate governance at the company and its parent, News Corporation.”

His interrogator Robert Jay was careful, almost ginger at times as he tried to get at News Corps.’ transgressions, perceived, real or accused, and the patriarch’s role. (As a viewer, I occasionally wanted to yell “just pull off the scab; don’t pick at it.”) Jay also has a penchant for assuming and assigning intent or feelings.

Murdoch, whose son James doesn’t have nearly the range, was alternately straightforward, passionate, defensive, assertive, irked, and a tad bemused. Expecting an octogenarian Darth Vader? Murdoch competitor the New York Times picked up last summer’s cartoon comparison: “engagingly modest, self-deprecating, charming and funny, a balding, bespectacled Mr. Magoo lookalike.”

Murdoch is a charming guy. He can be shy in a crowd and instantly authoritative. He’s clearly having fun with his direct-to-consumer Twitter feed — using it for jabs and comments he wants heard but then turning dismissive when people listen. Take this exchange with Jay to open the festivities Wednesday:

Q. Some recent tweets of yours betray a hostile approach to right wingers and toffs. Who were you referring to?

A. That was rather a load — don’t take my tweets too seriously. I think I was really saying that the extremists on both sides were piling in on me.

Twitter is public but it isn’t under oath. Everything Murdoch said on the stand, as well as any written statements, could be actionable if Lord Justice Leveson or others think he has lied. He quickly came under fire from outside the Inquiry, which was convened by Prime Minister David Cameron — with former Prime Minister Gordon Brown in the lead.

At the same time, Murdoch came off — to me, at least — as genuinely sincere in his regrets over phone hacking, particularly the hacking of young murder victim Milly Dowler’s cellphone — although he also took time to mention that some of the Dowler allegations were inaccurate and to try to shield his son James and protege Rebekah Brooks.

He channeled a little early Ali:

I should have gone there and thrown all the damn lawyers out of the place and seen Mr Goodman one-on-one — he’d been an employee for a long time — and cross-examined him myself and made up my mind, maybe rightly, maybe wrongly: was he telling the truth? And if I had come to the conclusion that he was telling the truth, I would have torn the place apart and we wouldn’t be here today. I’m talking 2007. But that’s hindsight, which, of course, is a lot easier than foresight …

And he channeled his inner conspiracist, claiming that unidentified people at now-defunct News of the World deliberately blocked senior News Intl. execs — most notably people named Brooks and Murdoch –from learning that hacking wasn’t the work of Clive Goodman alone:

… There’s no question in my mind that maybe even the editor, but certainly beyond that someone took charge of a cover-up, which we were victim to.

Jay parried, suggesting Murdoch and News Corp. were the ones covering up.

Q. Some might say that all this picture is consistent with one of a desire to cover up rather than a desire to expose. Would you agree with that?

A. Well, people with minds like yours, yes, perhaps.

That clever riposte almost got him into trouble and he quickly walked it back.

LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Oh, oh.

A. I’m sorry, I take that back. Excuse me.

MR JAY: I’m very thick skinned, Mr Murdoch.

A. You seem to be.

Q. Do not worry one moment.

But Murdoch should be worried about it all.

He is unlikely to face any personal legal jeopardy — he was careful. Brooks already does and James Murdoch might yet. But the hits are going to keep coming. He can be called again, he may face inquiries in the U.S. and the Murdochs and News Corp. are likely to be singed by the Leveson report.

His reputation has taken a huge hit – over hacking and the fallout but also because of his machinations to deny being a powerbroker and the unveiling of the UK version of the smoke-filled room.

This round of testimony is over. The story is not. (The transcript is here.)

News Corp. Chief Digital Officer and Chairman/CEO, Digital Media Group Jon Miller will be appearing at paidContent 2012, May 23 in New York City.

As managing editor until his resignation in July 2009, Kuttner was in charge of finances at the now-defunct tabloid.

Kuttner, 71, was described at the time of his resignation by the last editor of the newspaper, Colin Myler, as a man whose “DNA is absolutely integrated into the newspaper which he has represented across the media with vigour”. Kuttner reportedly did not know he was going to be taken into custody when he arrived by appointment at a police station in London on Tuesday at 11am for questioning over the phone-hacking scandal.

Police from both Operation Weeting and Elvedon, the investigation into allegations of inappropriate payments to police, are understood to have arrested Kuttner who is suffering serious health problems and recently returned from the US for treatment.

Kuttner is believed to have been arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications, contrary to Section1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977, and on suspicion of corruption allegations contrary to Section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906.

They are the same allegations that Rebekah Brooks, the former News of the World editor and ex-News International chief executive, faces since her arrest last month.

When Brooks faced a Commons culture, media and sport select committee hearing last month she told MPs that payments to private investigators were the responsibility of the paper’s managing editor’s office.

Brooks admitted using private investigators during her time as editor of the now defunct tabloid between 2000 and 2003 for, she claimed, “purely legitimate” purposes. When asked whether she had ever discussed individual payments to private investigators with Kuttner, she admitted that “payments to private investigators would have gone through the managing editor’s office”. But, she added: “I can’t remember if we ever discussed individual payments.”

Kuttner’s role as the public face of the News of the World proved to be key to the tabloid under the editors, Rebekah Brooks – then Rebekah Wade – and her replacement, Andy Coulson, both of whom were reluctant to talk to the media.

When Brooks’s “Sarah’s Law” campaign caused public hysteria in some towns and cities across the UK, prompting some Portsmouth residents to burn the homes of suspected paedophiles, it was Kuttner who faced the cameras.

He also played a role in the paper’s dealing with Sara Payne in the years after her eight-year-old daughter, Sarah, was abducted and murdered in July 2000.

The Guardian revealed last week that Payne’s mobile phone had been targeted by Mulcaire at a time when key members of the newspaper’s executive staff were working hard to forge what Payne believed to be a close and genuine friendship. Kuttner was one of those who attended the funerals of her parents.

No reason was given for Kuttner’s departure from the newspaper two years ago, shortly before the Guardian exclusive that blew the phone-hacking story wide open. At the time, News International said he would continue to work on “specialised projects”, including its Sarah’s Law campaign.

In February 2008, he appeared on Radio 4′s Today programme and claimed the News of the World was a “watchdog” which guarded against corruption among those in positions of power: “If [the use of private investigators] happens, it shouldn’t happen. It happened once at the News of the World. The reporter was fired; he went to prison. The editor resigned.”

He went on to argue that British journalism is “a very honourable profession” and that newspapers such as the News of the World had to act as watchdogs because “we live in an age of corrosion of politics and of public life – degradation”.

His role as the public face of the News of the World continued when he visited Soham in 2002, following the disappearance of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, to defend the tabloid’s decision to offer a reward of £150,000 in conjunction with the Sun newspaper for information that could lead to their safe return.

He also appeared on the BBC’s Breakfast with Frost, responding to criticism of the reward and saying the man leading the investigation into the girls’ disappearance, Detective Superintendent David Hankins, had welcomed it.

The managing editor was also an influential presence behind the scenes. When Gordon Brown and Tony Blair gave their first joint newspaper interview for more than 10 years to the tabloid in April 2005, Kuttner’s byline was on the story, along with that of Ian Kirby, the paper’s long-serving political editor.

The arrest of Kuttner, who was news editor at the London Evening Standard before moving to the NoW in 1987, is the 11th by Operation Weeting police, who are conducting the current investigation into phone hacking.

After being questioned by police – a process that lasted 12 hours in the case of Brooks – he is expected to be released on bail until October.

Others arrested and bailed have included Brooks, ex-NoW editor Andy Coulson, ex-NoW assistant editor Ian Edmondson, ex-NoW chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck, senior ex-NoW journalist James Weatherup, freelance journalist Terenia Taras, an unnamed 63-year-old man, and ex-NoW royal editor Clive Goodman.

Operation Elveden was also involved in Kuttner’s arrest. Officers from Elveden are being supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

This article originally appeared in MediaGuardian.

Some of the highlights:

– Apology: As with the Murdochs, Brooks kicked off her testimony with an apology for all the pain this scandal may have caused. From her later remarks, though, it looks as if she is making those comments from her former position as chief executive taking responsibility, rather than as someone directly involved with the acts in question.

– On the use of private investigators: She dodges the question a bit before admitting they were used by some journalists, as they are by other newspapers.

– On the Milly Dowler story that sparked the scandal: She was editor at the time of News of the World, and so she admits that she would have been involved, but in no way directly relates that to the hacking. She even at one point notes that she was not working on the days that the key story in the hacking allegations ran. (She says that her holiday time was not recorded.)

– On the newsroom: Much has been made of ex-NoTW journalists who have described a culture of competitiveness, deception and stress over getting a scoop at whatever cost.

So does one believe that, or the evidence given by Brooks? “The newsroom of newspaper is based on trust,” she said. “If you think about the way a story gets published… you rely on the people that work for you to behave in a proper manner, and you rely on clarity of information that you are given at the time.”

– On her relationship with government figures: More putting the opposition Labour Party into the hotseat, and an attempt to lighten the image that she is close friends with David Cameron and therefore there is a conflict of interest from the government here. “On Prime Minister David Cameron, I read the other day that we had met 26 times. I don’t know if that is absolutely correct. I can do my best to come back to you on an exact number. I am sure that it is correct if that is what the Prime Minister’s office say. The fact is I have never been to Downing Street while David Cameron has been Prime Minister, yet under Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Prime Minister Tony Blair, I did regularly go to Downing Street.”

– Old habits die hard: Although Brooks is now no longer a part of News International, she did work there for more than 20 years. In her testimony, something that caught my ear was her repeated references to the company as if she were still working for them today. One example: “As you know we have this management and standards committee that we set up after the police reopened their investigation in January 2011. Obviously, it was our investigation that led to the opening of that inquiry-the information that we handed over to the police,” she said in reference to the route that led to the discovery of emails from Harbottle & Lewis. That may have been just a slip of the tongue but it also underscores where Brooks still sees her allegiances to lie, when she gives her side of the story.

We have a summary of the Home Affairs Committee’s findings, written before the report was made public, here.

And if you would like you read the report for yourself, you can download it directly here.

Included in it is a informative timeline

The significance of this report, and the attention from the HAC, is that it is potentially more pertinent to some of the more criminal aspects of the investigation, and how it involved the police, government and other businesses such as phone companies (the chief executives of all of the UK’s major mobile operators were among those interviewed for the report).

In contrast, the evidence given to the culture, media and sport committee will also have a bearing on how the scandal is treated, but potentially more on a media-regulation level. As noted in the report:

We were aware that our sister committee, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, had had a longstanding interest in the ethics of reporting and reporting methods, and were repeatedly taking evidence on this issue. Whilst the role of the media was clearly part of that Committee’s remit, questions were being asked about the response of the police to the original allegations in 2005–06, and there appeared to be some confusion about the interpretation of the legislation governing hacking which had the effect of making it unclear who precisely might be considered a victim of that crime. Accordingly, early in September 2010, we launched an inquiry into ‘Unauthorised tapping into or hacking of mobile communications…

Among the useful things you can find in this report is a concise timeline of events, from to the original investigation up to now.

The HAC was understood to be interested in getting this report out by today, in time for David Cameron’s appearance before Parliament. Cameron is updating the House of Commons on how he is proceeding with his own investigation into the hacking scandal, which has a wider remit than just News International and looks at other publishers as well as police involvement. You can watch Cameron here.

Rupert Murdoch won kudos from the committee for carrying on after an assailant came at him with a “pie” towards the end, finishing up in his shirt sleeves. Rebekah Brooks went solo a few minutes later. Catch up on all of it with the tweets of Staci D. Kramer (@sdkstl) and Ingrid Lunden (@ingridlunden). Those tweets and more embedded below:

Getting Rupert Murdoch, CEO and chairman of News Corp (NSDQ: NWS). James, his son and deputy COO; and Rebekah Brooks, the now ex-chief executive of News International, to agree to appear today is a big deal. But now the focus is on what questions the MPs will ask, and how those three will answer that interrogation. (Links for watching below the break.)

In the face of what is sure to be strong and emotional questioning, the three of them will have been well-rehearsed to reveal as very little as possible, yet in the most credible manner possible.

Brooks has already left her role, but has a future career and potential criminal investigations to consider.

Meanwhile, the sentiment from many observers has been that the Murdochs will essentially be, in the words of News Corp’s Fox show The X Factor, singing for their lives. The outcome may potentially influence the views of investors and the board of News Corp, who have, according to some reports, already started to line up a succession plan involving Chase Carey.

“Taking the Fifth,” to borrow from the U.S., could result in a stonewall effect for those of us watching the action, leaving us none the wiser. But we could be in for some surprises, if the MPs have done their homework and manage to work in some lines of argument that catch the Murdochs and Brooks off guard.

Here is a selection of questions that we might see asked, taken from a list created by the Guardian journalist Nick Davies, who originally broke the hacking story two weeks ago:

For Rupert Murdoch:
– Several public disclosures have been made by News Corp executives related to illegal practices — for example Rebekah Brooks telling MPs that her publication did pay police for information. Did you ever ask about these disclosures? And if so why didn’t you act on it? If not, why not?

For James Murdoch:
– Why is News International paying for private detective Mulcaire to appeal against a court ruling that he should answer questions about the hacking he did for the News of the World?

– Why is News International spending millions of pounds settling the civil actions being brought by public figures before evidence can be used in open court? Why not allow the facts to be disclosed in the public domain before settling?

– There will also be a lot of scrutiny of how much James really did or did not know about the details of the many cases in question. In Davies words: Why did James not make any attempt to go back to parliament, to the Press Complaints Commission and the public to warn them that the company’s previous statements were false?

For Rebekah Brooks:
– When you were editor, did you know of any of the payments being made to investigators, and did you at any point question them?
– What did you do when Scotland Yard approached you with allegations that one of your editors was commissioning people to spy on the people investigating a murder case?
– You have said you were unaware of the hacking, but when News of the World published the Milly Dowler stories (when Brooks was editor of it) how did you think the paper obtained that information about private messages?

Watching the proceedings:

At 12:00 pm UK time (video link here) the Home Affairs Committe of the House of Commons will be interrogating members of the Met Police on the phone hacking scandal. Appearing with both Paul Stephenson and John Yates, who resigned from their respective positions as chief and assistant chief of the Metropolitan Police; and Dick Fedorcio, head of public affairs for the Met.

At 2:30 pm UK time (video link here) will be the biggie with the Murdochs and Brooks.

Lawyer Stephen Parkinson, speaking on behalf of Brooks this morning, noted that while she was in custody, Brooks was not told what allegations there were against her:

“In time [police] will have to give their account of their actions, in particular their decision to arrest her with the enormous reputational damage this has involved… She is not guilty of any criminal offense.”

Brooks was in custody for nine hours until she was released on bail, writes Bloomberg.

Until last Friday Brooks had been chief executive of News International, the UK newspaper division of News Corp. Before then she had been editor of News of the World, with her tenure covering the period when some of the alleged illegal activities occurred.

The lack of charges will mean that Brooks has a strong case for bringing her own suit against the Metropolitan Police over the event for the damage that it might do to her reputation. Over the weekend, the PR firm Bell Pottinger was appointed to manage affairs on her behalf, with chairman David Wilson acting as her spokesperson. Last week, Edelman was appointed to handle crisis PR for News Corp.

Her lawyer confirmed that she still plans to appear tomorrow before the Commons Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which is planning to question her, James Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch over the hacking scandal.

Meanwhile, today brought yet another resignation in the hacking/corruption affair: assistant police commissioner John Yates has resigned. Looks like he jumped before he was pushed: The Guardian notes that the Met’s disciplinary committee this morning had signaled its intention to suspend him over allegations of his connection to Neil Wallis, the ex-reporter who has also been arrested in connection with the scandal.

The editorial in Monday’s Journal doesn’t use the term “shut the f* up” or quote Cee Lo Green but the 1,046 carefully chosen words are written for the choir and aimed squarely at News Corp. critics.

The gist:

Don’t blame us; the Journal is better off out of the hands of the Bancrofts; not investigating hacking is worse than hacking; fear media regulation; the BBC; the Guardian and liberal politicians have their own agendas; and anyone who backs Wikileaks should look in the mirror.

It is a masterpiece as far as defensive editorials go — and the Journal and its journalists would be better off if it had been spiked.

It is also so transparent that it should be published and read. [Full text.]

The editorial is unsigned but Paul Gigot has been editorial page editor since 2001. (Note: I woke up Monday morning to a reminder from WSJ PR that Thomson oversees news, Gigot oversees the editorial page and the two have a church-and-state wall. I’ve moved up the reference to him.)

Some choice quotes from the editorial, headlined “News and Its Critics: A tabloid’s excesses don’t tarnish thousands of other journalists”:

On phone hacking and the police:

Phone-hacking is illegal, and it is up to British authorities to enforce their laws. If Scotland Yard failed to do so adequately when the hacking was first uncovered several years ago, then that is more troubling than the hacking itself.

On ‘competitor-critics’ Guardian and the New York Times:

We also trust that readers can see through the commercial and ideological motives of our competitor-critics. The Schadenfreude is so thick you can’t cut it with a chainsaw. Especially redolent are lectures about journalistic standards from publications that give Julian Assange and WikiLeaks their moral imprimatur. They want their readers to believe, based on no evidence, that the tabloid excesses of one publication somehow tarnish thousands of other News Corp. journalists across the world.

(Schadenfreude also made it into a headline in Monday’s paper for a story about Max Mosely, who won a suit against News of the World and is bankrolling others: For Murdoch Foes, Sweet Schadenfreude. The implication is that he is behind some of the negative reports.)

On ProPublica, the Pulitzer-winning non-profit news outlet headed by ex-Journal editors, and the Bancrofts:

The prize for righteous hindsight goes to the online publication ProPublica for recording the well-fed regrets of the Bancroft family that sold Dow Jones to News Corp. at a 67% market premium in 2007. The Bancrofts were admirable owners in many ways, but at the end of their ownership their appetite for dividends meant that little cash remained to invest in journalism. We shudder to think what the Journal would look like today without the sale to News Corp.

On calls for the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to be invoked against News Corp.:

Applying this standard to British tabloids could turn payments made as part of traditional news-gathering into criminal acts. The Wall Street Journal doesn’t pay sources for information, but the practice is common elsewhere in the press, including in the U.S.

Had the Journal gone the safe route, the editorial would have emphasized the statement it ends with more than the flames aimed at others:

Phone-hacking is deplorable, and we assume the guilty will be prosecuted. More fundamentally, the News of the World’s offense-fatal, as it turned out-was to violate the trust of its readers by not coming about its news honestly.We realize how precious that reader trust is, and our obligation is to re-earn it every day.

Disclosure: Our publisher ContentNext is a wholly owned subsidiary of Guardian News & Media.