do not publish what we know if we know the facts that are in the public interest and are of importance and do not publish them, then we do not deserve our freedom. The great newsman's empty record Well put -- and on the record, thoroughly specious. Murdoch's  commitment to disclosure has been intermittent always, though not randomly so. It long blended into the Newscorp business model, and when the Fox network suppressed Strange Justice -- giving a break to Clarence Thomas, furthest right on the Supreme Court bench and a US political heavyweight -- it ran counterpoint to the redtop treatment of British actors with large celebrity but no political clout. The evidence for Justice Thomas' sexual eccentricity was well above the standard needed for showbiz exposs in the News of the Screws or the Bizarre section of the Sun . And a similar pattern is visible in The Times' interludes of silence about Chinese repression when Murdoch was the Communist Party's loyal, much-flattered friend. Newscorp acts as if a sheen of CEO ruthlessness enhances the corporate image. And it often obscures the fact that Rupert Murdoch has never exclusively, personally brought home a significant revelation for his public (a 'scoop', as reporters still call it, thinking presently of the Guardian's Davies). Though not unique among the corporate-media elite, it remains a striking negative achievement after sixty years' engaging with page-proofs and rushes, while being celebrated by financial masterminds as a 'great newsman' with 'ink in his veins'. Like