• No products in the cart.
  • No products in the cart.
Back To Top
Image Alt

First Stones

First Stones

The shaving cream pie thrower invading the Murdoch questioning could easily have had more lethal intent (at which point I’d guess Mrs. Murdoch would have pulled out her uzi). Did the members of Parliament hold themselves responsible for this gaffe? Was it the fault of the head of the police assigned to the inquiry? Was it the Prime Minister’s fault? Is it the Queen’s fault, since she heads the empire?

Of course not. Then how is it that they expect Murdoch or his (extremely underwhelming) son to be cognizant of and responsible for some employees within his own empire hacking phones?

Written by

Alan Weiss is a consultant, speaker, and author of over 60 books. His consulting firm, Summit Consulting Group, Inc., has attracted clients from over 500 leading organizations around the world.

Comments: 2

  • July 22, 2011

    I’m not sure the analogy holds, Alan. This security breach was a single incident. Murdoch’s reporters (and editors) engaged in repeated, unethical and illegal behaviors over a long period of time, working in an environment that encouraged and rewarded such behaviors.

    If the were a pattern of repeated security breaches in Parliament over many months because of a culture of laxity, I would expect that higher-ups–although not the PM or the queen–would be held accountable.

  • Alan Weiss

    July 22, 2011

    The complicity of the police at Scotland Yard was over a similarly long time. So what’s the difference? Should the Prime Minister resign for not having seen it, until the head of Scotland Yard had to throw himself on his sword? There is a point where you assign competent people and trust them. That’s what Murdoch senior claims he did. I see no evidence at this point to the contrary, though I can’t say that about his unpleasant son.

Post a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.