re: #562 Obdicut

No, he didn’t. He didn’t answer it. I have no idea why you feel he hit it out of the park. He simply said that it showed leadership to resign, but didn’t explain why.

You’re coming at this from a very odd angle. I have no interest in whether he’s scathed or not. I don’t know why you think that’s my interest.

I’m pointing out that he’s said that Mr. Yates was his channel of information about the NOW stuff, Yates was good friends with a NOW editor, there turns out to have been tons of evidence not reviewed in the original investigation, and that the sum total of that is that the original investigation was not, actually a complete one, nor was the review a good one. Stephenson’s entire testimony was basically “You’ll have to ask Mr. Yates”.

I’m not alleging that Stephenson is being untruthful, or that he should have been more involved. At most, I’m pointing out that saying he has full faith in Mr. Yates while heavily implying that any mistakes that were made were done by Mr. Yates— which I find two-faced of him.

As far as I am concerned, all of this is theater. The Stephenson/Yates business buys time fro the main event, IMO.

What counts is what Brooks, Murdoch Junior and and other close confidants have to say.

Will they back Murdoch or will they fold and sink him?