Timeline: What the WSJ's Publisher Knew About Phone Hacking -- and When
How credible is the insistence of Les Hinton, the former News Corp. (NWS) tabloid chief, that he did not believe phone hacking occurred beyond one reporter at the News of the World? Not very.
In a letter to MPs published today, Hinton -- also a former publisher of the Wall Street Journal -- stood by his testimony in 2007 to the House of Commons, in which he said reporter Clive Goodman was "the only person" involved in phone hacking. But a look at the timeline of what Hinton knew and when he knew it suggests that his insistence that he did not lie to parliament relies on the most illogical interpretation of events possible.
Here's how it went down, according to documents provided by News Corp.'s own lawyers and other sources:
- Aug. 6, 2006: Goodman and a private detective, Glenn Mulcaire, are arrested in phone hacking investigation. Hinton engages law firm Burton Copeland to conduct a "substantial" internal probe into hacking at the News of the World.
- Nov. 29, 2006: Goodman pleads guilty and is later sentenced to four months in prison.
- Feb. 5, 2007: A month after Goodman's sentencing, Hinton writes to Goodman describing his severance package: a full year's salary, worth £90,502, plus £140,000 in compensation and £13,000 to cover his lawyer's bill.
- March 2, 2007: Goodman appeals his dismissal to News HR chief Daniel Cloke in a letter that says hacking occurred "with the full knowledge and support" of several executives, and lists their names. The names have been redacted due to the ongoing police investigation but Goodman makes it clear that the practice was "widely discussed" at the daily editorial conference and that "the Editor" (Andy Coulson, at the time) knew. Cloke shows the letter to Hinton.
- March 6, 2007: Hinton is asked in testimony to the U.K. parliament:
Q:... you are absolutely convinced that Clive Goodman was the only person who knew what was going on?
Hinton: Yes, ... I believe he was the only person, but that investigation, under the new editor, continues.
- Today: Hinton tells MPs, "I answered all questions truthfully and to the best of my knowledge."
It's a classic case of the coverup being more serious than the crime. Hinton could have emerged unblemished from the scandal if he had only told the truth: That he knew one person was definitely involved, and that that person had named others, but didn't know if the allegation was true, and his lawyers were still looking into it. Instead, he used words that misled the committee. Today, with his reputation in tatters, he just looks sleazy.
Related: