I must confess that I enjoyed watching Rupert Murdoch and his scion being grilled by a committee of Parliament about the cell-phone hacking scandal that forced the closing of the 168-year-old tabloid, News of the World.

For decades Murdoch has been buying up media outlets across the globe and spreading his gutter-level brand of journalism like some kind of Johnny Rotten Appleseed. His style of journalism, which relies on sensationalism, innuendo, and information massaged to fit an agenda, has degraded the profession. 

Murdoch has always played by his own rules. He uses his media empire to reward politicians he likes and ruthlessly crush anyone who opposes his social and political agenda. Ethics, morals, and fairness apparently aren’t part of his lexicon. And facts, well, why let facts get in the way of becoming a media baron.

But when a news organization plays fast and loose with facts, it leaves its readers, listeners, and viewers lost. They don’t know who or what to trust. Yes, there is bias in journalism. But Murdoch media formula goes beyond bias. 

Reporters and editors are human (it’s a scientific fact that you can look up) and humans have likes and dislike. Still, I can say that 99.9 percent of the reporters I know are honest, hardworking people who do their best to keep personal bias out of stories. Their job, they would tell you, is to report the facts. To wit, a recent report said people are having a hard time sorting through the debt ceiling debate mainly because journalists are doing such a good job of telling both sides of the story.  

There have been rogue journalists who have fabricated quotes, intentionally misinformed people, or plagiarized, all of which are journalistic mortal sins punishable by banishment from the profession (signing a lucrative book contract is not covered by the ban but should be). The difference between those people and the cell-phone hacking charges leveled against the reporters and editors at the News of the World and other News Corporation newspapers is that one is an individual act, the other institutional.

And that is what so worrisome about the reach of Murdoch’s media holdings. It doesn’t matter to him if the reporters and editors at News of the World broke the rules of journalism, not to mention the laws of a nation. Those weren’t, after all, his rules.

The only thing that matters to Murdoch is his money/influence formula. He could care less about the bond of trust with the reader. And facts – forget about it.

So where does this leave us? Look to our current political environment for the answer. By manipulating, ignoring, or groundlessly attacking facts you coarsen public discourse. Civility suffers and people become polarized, which makes it easier to dismiss anything that doesn’t fit into your belief system. Ludicrous or clearly wrong statements – death panels in the Healthcare Reform Act, the president is a Muslim – are allow to gain traction as fact. Try challenging or correcting those statements and you’re shouted down, called names, or physically threatened. If you are part of the media you disparaged as part of the “lame stream media.’’

I can’t place all the blame for the sad state of things at Murdoch’s feet. He’s had plenty of help from sycophants, politicians currying favor, law enforcement authorities on the take, and the journalism profession. Still, a crisis will reveal a lot about the quality of a person and their character. Murdoch performed down to expectations.

When asked by a committee member if he would take responsibility for the cell-phone hacking scandal, Murdoch tersely said, no. Rather, he said, it was the people he trusted and the people they trusted who should be held accountable. This from a man who is legendary for micro managing the company and renown for telephoning his editors regularly to ask about what stories they were working on.

This is the man who would have his newspapers and television news networks set the tone and tenor for our society.

What a prince.