Where to watch Murdochs’ testimony to Parliament

New York Times
CNN, BBC, Current TV, Bloomberg TV, C-SPAN, WSJ.com and Fox News plan to air the testimony of Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch, and Rebekah Brooks live beginning at 9:15 a.m. ET. MSNBC won’t cover the appearances “gavel to gavel” but will stay with the coverage “depending on the content,” reports Bill Carter. CNN will provide mobile coverage. The hearings will be live on Parliament TV online, too. || The testimony is being live-blogged by the New York Timesand Washington Post.
> WSJ: Showdown time for Rupert Murdoch | James Murdoch profiled
> “I don’t see how [Murdoch] can survive,” says ex-NYTer Raines
> “There’s something undeniably rich about seeing the tables turned like this”
> News Corp. mulls promoting COO Carey to Murdoch’s CEO post
> News of the World demise boosts Sunday Mirror circ by 700,000
> More News Corp./Murdoch posts at Poynter’s @notwfallouot feed

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504633504 Dan Mitchell

    There’s no arguing it — this is a huge story. But I’m astonished at how this morning’s testimony has hijacked my (vocational) morning news consumption — feeds, twitter, etc. Is it really necessary for journalists who don’t cover News Corp., or even media in general, to be live-tweeting this? (It’s probably not even necessary for media reporters to do so, but I’ll give them a pass.) Why are general business columnists and bloggers, technology journalists, political writers, etc. spending their time tweeting every detail of the hearings? After all, the testimony is unlikely to generate any real news, and it’s not like we’re hurting for access to what news does come out of them.

    I invite any journalist who doesn’t cover News Corp. as part of their beat to explain here why they felt it necessary to live-tweet or live-blog the testimony. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504633504 Dan Mitchell

    There’s no arguing it — this is a huge story. But I’m astonished at how this morning’s testimony has hijacked my (vocational) morning news consumption — feeds, twitter, etc. Is it really necessary for journalists who don’t cover News Corp., or even media in general, to be live-tweeting this? (It’s probably not even necessary for media reporters to do so, but I’ll give them a pass.) Why are general business columnists and bloggers, technology journalists, political writers, etc. spending their time tweeting every detail of the hearings? After all, the testimony is unlikely to generate any real news, and it’s not like we’re hurting for access to what news does come out of them.

    I invite any journalist who doesn’t cover News Corp. as part of their beat to explain here why they felt it necessary to live-tweet or live-blog the testimony. 

  • Anonymous

    I paid $32.67 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for $94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by FedEX. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores. I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get all this stuff, GrabPenny.com