News of the World was 'reprehensible,' 'unethical' - Church of England

As the final edition of News of the World hits stands and the paper prepares to shutter itself in the wake of a phone-hacking scandal, the Church of England discloses its interest in the media property via press release and has something to say about it:

09 July 2011

The Church of England's Ethical Investment Advisory Group has written to News Corporation.

The following points were made in the letter, sent on Friday 8 July:

The behaviour of the News of the World has been utterly reprehensible and unethical.

While the EIAG welcomes the decision to close the News of the World, this action is not a sufficient response to the revelations of malpractice at the paper. Nor does it address the failure of News International and News Corporation executives to undertake a proper investigation and take decisive remedial action as soon as the police uncovered illegal phone hacking in 2006.

The EIAG Chairman has written to Rupert Murdoch today (8/7/11) to insist that the Board of News Corporation takes all necessary measures to instil investor confidence in the ethical and governance standards of News Corporation.

We cannot imagine circumstances in which we would be satisfied with any outcome that does not hold senior executives to account at News Corporation for the gross failures of management at the News of the World.

Note

The Church Commissioners for England, one of the National Investing Bodies, are the beneficial owners of 344,586 News Corporation A shares worth, at Thursday's close, $6m.

h/t Thinking Anglicans

Posted by Torey Lightcap on July 10, 2011 4:25 PM | |
Comments (2)

One could always say, "WT devil is the Church of England doing invested in a crummy bigoted, irresponsible organization like NewsCorp?" Or am I the only one who sees a problem with it?

Posted by Danny Berry [TypeKey Profile Page] | July 10, 2011 7:21 PM

As I posted on Thinking Anglicans:

They actually *welcome* the closure of NotW?! Notwithstanding that the closure scapegoats the innocent bulk of the employees, sacrificing their livelihood while sparing the top executives who actually bear the responsibility?

Confusing ethical calculus from this C of E body, this is -- although in recent years that is not entirely surprising.

Posted by David Cornell [TypeKey Profile Page] | July 13, 2011 9:53 AM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space