select committee hearing on the murdochs essay

8/2/2019 Select Committee Hearing on the Murdochs Essay

1/12

ET970 TEXT AND DISCOURSE STUDENT I/D: 1163612

1

INTRODUCTION

I am going to analyse the House of Commons Culture, Media and

Sport Select Committee hearings into the issue of illegal phone

hacking, dated 19 July and 10 November 2011i. The text consists of

extracts from two uncorrected transcriptsii

(Whittingale, J. 2011b,

Appendix E; 2011c, Appendix F), which are publicly available. The text also includes early

correspondence sent between the two witnesses, James Murdoch, and his father, Rupert Murdoch,iii

and the chairperson, John Whittingale, MP.

I will analyse the texts from the perspective of different kinds of speech acts, specifically using

Gunnarssons (2009) development of Searles (1969) typology. I will go on to look at the potential

Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs) therein, using Brown and Levison (1987). In addition, I will investigate

to what extent politeness is used to mitigate FTAs during the hearings.

ANALYSIS

In looking at a Parliamentary Committee Hearing, I am recognising that there is little research

specifically in this area. There has been research into committee hearings (for example,

Kangasharju, 2002), although there appears to be substantially more research into legal settings,

such as turn-taking in courtrooms (Gnisci and Pontecorvo, 2003), facework and politeness incourtrooms (Penman, 1990) and the limitations of politeness (Tolmach-Lakoff, 1989). Bloor and

Bloor (2007:166-7) highlight examples of whether or not a certain speech act has taken place in a

court of law, while Gunnarsson (2009:99-141) has looked at the comprehension of legislative texts.

A speech act was first proposed (Austin, 1962/1975) as a way to uncover the pragmatic function of

utterances. Searle (1969) developed Austinsidea of illocutionary forceiv

into a typology of speech

acts which attempted to break down utterances at the micro-level. Using the chairs initial written

press statementv

, I will now analyse these using Searles typology:

In light of the extraordinary developments this week around phone hacking, (1) serious questions

have arisen about the evidence given to the Committee by a number of witnesses in its previous

inquiry into press standards, libel and privacy. In particular, (1) James Murdoch, has said that

Parliament was misled. (2) That is a very serious matter that (3) we will not allow to go

unquestioned. (4) We are therefore today calling James Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch, and Rebekah

Brooks to appear before us next week. (4) The committee expects a response by 14 July 2011.

Whittingale, J, statement of 12 July 2011vi


2/12


2

Representatives, such as shown in (1), are the most straightforward assertions, which express

simply what a person means. Here, the chair is publicly stating the seriousness of the situation. A

further representative is shown in (2), although this might be an expressive as it indirectly gives a

sense of the psychological state of the speaker. This is followed by a commissive (3) which

commits the committee to a future action. This is followed with a two directives (4), where the

chair calls upon three witnesses to give evidence in front of the committee and to respond by a

certain date.

After initially turning the invitation down (Appendix A), James Murdoch confirms his and his fathers

attendance (Appendix B). This follows a further, stronger directive from the chair, reported as a

summons (Whittingdale, 2011a). Murdoch outlines a specific commissive beyond appearing at the

select committee:

I hope that it is clear that we are committed to ensuring that the issues that have affected

the News of the World are fully investigated and dealt with appropriately and robustly. To that end

we have committed to full cooperation with the police inquiries that are underway and with the

Public Inquiry to be by Led Justice Leveson that will begin its work shortly. (James Murdoch: 14 July,

Appendix B)

Murdochs intention to show cooperation is clearly stated, albeit instigated by the summons. This

strongly prompted involvement is more adequately defined by Gunnarssons (2009) development of

Searles expressive category. Murdoch continues by raising a doubtful, expressive concern about

the committee hearings purpose:

In the course of the investigations and inquiries now envisaged, all the relevant issues will

undoubtedly be fully and effectively reviewed and, no doubt, many questions will be asked. I am,

however, very much concerned that we are now being asked to answer yet further questions in a

different forum. (ibid, 14 July)

Gunnarssons (2009) development allows for more precise definitions than Searles. In addition, it is

more appropriate because of her analysis of acts based upon professional discourse. The closest

area of her data-driven analysis to a parliamentary select committee is that of legislative discourse.

Brown and Levison (1987) themselves note that the courtroom is an interesting context for exploring

the politeness perspective because ofthe formal protocol that regulate*s+ potential conflict

(ibid:51). This select committeevii

is not a court of law, however, and subsequently has to position

itself in such a way as to not unduly jeopardise an ongoing police investigation or a public inquiry

which could lead to criminal prosecutions, as already stated.


3/12


3

The definition of position mentioned is not the same as that oftaking a position. A speaker may

position their views in the statements they make or the evidence they give. Furthermore, the

speaker may take a stance which could be explicit or hidden (Bloor and Bloor, 2007:33). At all times,

Murdoch wishes to give the impression of being co-operative and overt. However, the hearings

themselves reveal some interesting speech acts. Murdoch, for example, begins with a whole-

hearted expressive:

First, I would like to say as well just how sorry I am, and how sorry we are, to particularly the

victims of illegal voicemail interception and to their families. It is a matter of great regret to me, my

father and everyone at News Corporation. These actions to not live up to the standards that our

company aspires to everywhere around the world, and it is our determination to put things right, to

make sure that these things do not happen again and to be the company that I know we have always

aspired to be. (James Murdoch, 19 July: Appendix E:2)

When this Committee took evidence in 2009, we heard from [various former employees of

the News of the World]. All of them told us that there had been a thorough investigation and no

evidence had ever been found that anybody else [other than one rogue reporter] was involved. That

clearly was not correct. Were any of them lying to this Committee? (Chair, Appendix E:3)

The chair reminds Murdoch, here and elsewhere, of argumentative (Gunnarsson, 2009) claims that

only one rogue reporter had been involving in phone hacking. The committee had concluded this to

be inconceivable (chair, ibid:1). The accusation that one or more of the former senior employees

were lying is phrased as a polite interrogative, which mirrors the earlier argumentative that

Parliament had been misled (chair, ibid:2). The whole hearing can be seen as one of News

International needing to save positive face (Brown and Levison, 1987) in light of damaging external

evidence since the original 2009 inquiry. This question, as well as numerous others, intrinsically

threatens the face of the hearer. News International had already received substantial, highly critical

media coverage in the preceding weeks and, indeed, James Murdoch had taken the significant action

of closing the newspaper concerned, on 7 Julyviii

, admitting wrongdoing. Murdoch replies, indirectly,

with a series of legalistic explicative representations about the company, describing and explaining:

The company relied upon [a number of facts] and for the company in 2008 and 2009, it was

not clear that there was a reason to believe that those matters were anything other than settled

matters, and in the past. (Murdoch, Appendix E:3)


4/12


4

Furthermore, Murdoch frequently uses the term company to distance himself personally from

blame and his own non-involvement at the time. He frequently asserts to not having knowledge or

evidence earlier and expresses:

real regret that the facts could not emerge and could not be gotten to my understanding

faster (ibid:3).

A substantial portion of questioning revolves around what both James and his father, Rupert, knew.

Despite, or perhaps because of, obvious signs during the hearing that James testimony is

unquestionably more lucid and detailed than his fathers, one Member, Tom Watson, feels it

necessary to threaten the positive face of the CEO of News Corporation, with a series of direct

questions, whilst using respectful address:

Mr. [Rupert] Murdoch, I do accept that you have many distinguished people who work for

your company. You are ultimately responsible for the corporate governance of News Corp, so what I

am trying to establish is who knew about wrongdoing and what was involved at the time. (Tom

Watson, July 2011, Appendix E:5)

Do you agree with Mr Justice Easy, when he said the lack of action discloses a remarkable

state of affairs at News International? a judge found a chief reporter guilty of blackmail. It was

widely reported. (ibid:6)

I will come to you, Mr [James] Murdoch, but it is your father who is responsible for

corporate governance Who was aware of the Harbottle & Lewis findings at News International?

(ibid:7)

A parliamentary inquiry found your senior executives in the UK guilty of collective amnesia

and nobody brought it to your attention. I do not see why you do not think that this is very serious.

(ibid:8)

Mr Watson asks a series of interrogatives, which alternate between premeditated legalistic

questioning and negatively criticizing News Corporation for not being aware of certain facts. He

deliberately uses a directive of prohibitingMurdoch juniors interruptions, which are offers to

clarify, because he believes that Murdoch senior has ultimate responsibility and his limited, sporadic

responses could undermine the companys case. Murdoch senior rebuffs by similarly distancing

himself from the accusations:


5/12


5

I didnt know of it The News of the World is less than 1% of our company. I employ 53,000

people I am spread watching and appointing people whom I trust (Rupert Murdoch: Appendix

E:5)

We could claim that Watsons accusations significantly threaten the witnesses face wants (Brown

and Levison, 1987:62). Watson knows this and deliberately plays with the self-image that the

witnesses wish to maintain. The witnesses wish to comply with the committees questions, despite

the negative face associated with the imposition of having to answer questions. The consequence

of not doing so would result in loss ofpositive face their self-image. In addition, they want to

escape the questioning personally unharmed.

According to Brown and Levison, certain speech acts intrinsically threaten face:

namely those acts that by their nature run contrary to the face wants of the addressee

and/or the speaker. By act we have in mind what is intended to be done by a verbal or non-verbal

communication, just as one or more speech acts can be assigned to an utterance (Brown and

Levison 1987:65)

I have already touched upon these Face-Threatening Acts and I will shortly explore this further,

focusing on the second hearing. An FTA can be performed on record if it is clear to participants

what communicative intention led the actor to do it. It is, therefore, unambiguous. (Brown andLeivson:68). In contrast, if an FTA is to be performed off record, there is ambiguity about the

intention of the act. This would be performed, for example, with hints, rhetorical questions and

understatement (ibid:69). Select Committee meetings are intrinsically on record, both in the sense

that they are published and that all questions and potential FTAs are unambiguous. That doesnt

mean that all answers are necessarily unambiguous.

The chairs original summons and subsequent re-call of James Murdoch had the potential of

threatening negative face i.e. there was an imposition placed upon him but little is done to

mitigate this. In that sense, a power relationship exists where this committee wields an obligatory

power, indirectly supposing the negative consequence of non-compliance. The sociological variables

of power, distance and ranking of impositioncan all affect the weightiness of an FTA (ibid:74).

Here, two people with enormous media power, are being held to account, by a cross-party

committeeix, who report to the UK Parliament. This committee can create solidarity (Holmes, 1995;

Scollon and Scollon, 2001) with the witnesses by expressing a shared interest, such as finding out the

truth. There is also significant use of the inclusive we, showing the committees collective purpose,

as well as the use ofweby the witnesses to show responsibility for the corporation:


6/12


6

We hope that all that you would wish to say will come out during the course of questioning

(chair, Appendix E:1)

how sorry I am, and how sorry we are standard that our company aspires to our

determination to put things right be the company I know we have always aspired to. (James

Murdoch, Appendix E:2)

We had broken our trust with our readers, the important point was that we had broken our

trust with our readers. (Rupert Murdoch, Appendix E:10)

The apparent solidarity that the witnesses show towards the committees objective is explored

through a collective criticism of former employees of the company, who also gave evidencex. Hidden

beneath the formal politeness is a need for the speakers to save positive, corporate face, by

distancing themselves from previous senior employees statements to the same committee. This is

later confirmed when two of these employees question the veracity of Murdochs testimony

(Appendix D), and, on 6 September, give evidence to the committee. This leads to James Murdoch

being recalled.

In the second hearing, on 10 November (Appendix F), James Murdoch gives further evidence. I have

mentioned speech acts and how FTAs were used in the first hearing. I will now focus more

specifically on FTAs from this second hearing and principally the exchange with Tom Watson. Weneed to remember that whilst this is not a legal courtroom there is still substantial potential for loss

of corporate face.

At times, the questioning in the second hearing shows a power relationship similar to a teacher-pupil

or parent-child interaction:

Last time I asked you if you were familiar with the phrase, wilful blindness. You stalled for

so long that your father had to interrupt and answer for you. Have you had time to consider the

phrase and tell the Committee what you think it means? (Adrian Sanders, Appendix F, Q1477:5)

This elicits a reflective response, where huge politeness to the questioner is paramount:

I think you described to me at the time, Mr Sanders, what it meant. What I have reflected

on is really . It was the tendency for a period of time to react to criticism or allegations as being

hostile or motivated commercially or politically .. [We did not] reflect as dispassionately as we might

have, among the dim and clamour at no point do I think the company suffered from wilfull

blindness of my part (James Murdoch, Nov 2011, Appendix E:5)


7/12


7

Soon after, Mr Sanders asks:

which do you think is worse knowing what was going on, but being wilfully blind to it, or

not knowing what was going on, when you should have known what was going on? (Sanders, Q1482,

Appendix E:6)

James Murdoch does not reply to the question directly, instead circumnavigating the essence of his

own, personal defence. By that, I mean that the hearing generally exposes that wrongdoing took

place but that the people at the very top, Mr Murdoch and his father, were apparently unaware of

this. Compare Murdochs legalistic ambiguities compared with his fathers earlier blunt, often

monosyllabic answers and his admission about [the first hearing] being the most humble day of

my life (Rupert Murdoch, July 2011, Appendix E:2).xi

The committees collaborative attempt to embarrass James Murdoch occurs elsewhere in the

transcript, for example:

But you are family. You do speak to your father now and again, I suppose. So you would

not think to say to your father, as any normal son would do (Jim Sheridan, Appendix F: Q1472/3:4)

Your father expressed his view that he was extremely humbled by the whole event. Do you

feel the same way about your position? (ibid, Q1474:4)

Tom Watsons second exchange with James Murdoch, following the first hearing, is bookended with

an expressive from the latter that certain questions are inappropriate, again due to matters of

criminal investigation or individuals who are currently arrested, on bail or under criminal

investigation (Murdoch, Nov 2011, Appendix F:7). Watsons questions all have a positive Face-

Threatening potential, attempting to get Murdoch to apologise, admit guilt or lack of competence

(Brown and Levison, 1987). Both are fully aware of the public nature of the hearing, if not an actual

public inquiryxii

. While there was the very on-record apology given at the beginning of the first

hearing, no further apology is forthcoming in the second. While speakers positive face is directly

damaged by apologies, Mr Murdoch himself never resorts to admitting any guilt or lack of

competence himself, regularly insisting that many actions discussed happened before his time in

charge.

In politeness theory (ibid), there are several strategies that can be employed to mitigate FTAs.

Examples include the following: a person can be indirect, offer choices, be willing to threaten ones

own face rather than the addressees, and to use address terms to show respect. With the

exception of the latter, there is little evidence to show these strategies are employed by the


8/12


8

committee members. Questions are mono directional; the witnesses only answer questions and

they only ask questions themselves to seek clarification or permission, in order to comply. Indeed,

as Tolmach-Lakoff (1989:1) suggests in an analysis of courtroom discourse, non-polite behaviour

can be systematic and normal.

The tone of Mr Watsons enquiry, in particular, resembles that of a courtroom prosecutor, with a

series of leading questions, requiring simple yes or no answers.

The whole exchange (Appendix F, Q1485Q1547:7-17) resembles that found in a courtroom. Watson

deliberately avoids politeness strategies, using previously undisclosed evidence, of a meeting with a

key figure, Neville Thurlbeck (Appendix F, Q1535-9:15-16). Murdoch meticulously maintains his own

politeness for possible fear of positive face loss, preferring to let Watson appear impolite. The

exchange culminates with a very bold positive FTA, by Watson, deliberately inviting Murdoch to

agree with him on a number of comparisons with Murdoch being a mafia boss. Again, this is done

without redressive action or mitigation and, furthermore, Watson deliberately pursues his quarry

by seemingly ignoring Murdochs responses:


9/12


9

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

I have looked at two Parliamentary Select Committee hearing transcripts, focusing on speech acts,

FTAs and the extent to which politeness is shown therein. I have analysed the discourse used and

already begun to discuss some of the issues of this particular setting. As always in determining

whether a particular speech act has occurred, the context has to be taken into account. I would

argue that this particular setting has a high level of formality, which requires a certain level of

necessary politeness. It does, however, resemble a courtroom in the manner of its delivery. The

horseshoe arrangement of the furniture (see below), the lengthy and seriousness of the

interrogation and the deliberate attempts to threaten the witnesses all lead to a courtroom

comparison.

To develop a theory of how Select Committees operate and the discourse used within them, I would

need to look at further examples. I deliberately avoided looking at the macro-level, or possible

genre of the committee as this would require additional analysis. Needless to say, the common

purpose for which the committee is organised and proceeds does not seem, beyond normal terms of

address, to require the level of politeness that might expect in such a setting.

The texts as a whole achieve their communicative function of publicly holding two people in positionof power to account for their corporate governance and management of one of the worlds largest

media conglomerates. In addition, both committee and witnesses show the apparent common goal

of uncovering the truth, which is a positive politeness strategy. The reality, however, is that both

positive and negative politeness is often disregarded by the committee. The questioning is direct, it

consistently expects the witnesses to comply and only minimal mitigation is employed. Individual

speech acts are framed by this wider goal.


10/12


10

iAs of 26 November 2011, sixty separate pieces of written evidence (correspondence) have been published by the Culture,

Media and Sport Select Committee, alongside six transcripts from the committees hearings in 2011.

iiThe transcripts of the first and second hearings are uncorrected. This means that neither witnesses nor Members have

had the opportunity to correct the record. It is not an approved formal record of these proceedings. For the purposes of

this paper, however, it does provide a reasonably accurate account of what was said and that any minor errors do not

significantly change the meaning of what was said. The original texts are 76 pages and 50 pages respectively.

iiiAlthough a former editor of the News of the World, Rebekah Brooks, gave evidence on the same date as the first hearing

(19 July), she gave her evidence after James and Rupert Murdoch. Although her name appears on the extract of the first

transcript, Appendix E, her evidence came later on.

ivA locutionary act, Austin claimed, might have an Illocutionary force associated with it. This Illocutionary force may have

a separate perlocutionary effect. Whether the second and third exist depends very much on the situation. Only a sense

of the situation can make the speech act become clearer. See Austin, 1975:99.

vThis statement is taken from the Parliamentary web page. The actual written correspondence, dated 12 July 2011,requesting the witnesses to appear, has not been published.

viStatement as appears on Commons Select Committee web page. Available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-

committee/news/call-for-rupert-murdoch-james-murdoch-and-rebekah-brooks-to-give-evidence/. Accessed 14 November

2011.

viiDepartmental select committees are cross-party groups of MPs (Members of Parliament) responsible for the scrutiny of

governmental departments. Select committees have been used by the House for centuries for many different purposes. A

small group of Members can gather information and produce detailed reports much more easily than the House as a

whole.Committees determine their own subjects for inquiry, gather written and oral evidence (and sometimesinformation from visits in the UK or overseas) and make reports to the House which are printed and placed on the Internet.

The Government must subsequently reply to any recommendations within two months.Source: House of CommonsInformation Office factsheet, 2010.

viiiThe evidence, which came to light, that the murdered schoolgirl, Millie Dowler, had her phone hacked, appeared to be

the final revelation which prompted this action. Seehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733.

ixThe full Culture, Media and Sport Committee, as appointed on 12 July 2010, consisted of the following members of

parliament: Mr John Whittingdale (Conservative Party, chair), Dr Therese Coffey (Con), Mr Damian Collins (Con), Mr Philip

Davies (Con), Mr Paul Farrelly (Labour Party), Mr Alan Keen (Lab, co-operative) who died in November 2011, Mrs Louise

Mensch (Con), Mr Steve Rotheram (Lab), Mr Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat), Mr Jim Sheridan (Lab) and Mr Tom

Watson.

xFor example, Tom Crone, former Legal Manager, News Group Newspapers and Colin Myler, editor of the News of the

World when it closed down, who gave evidence on 6 September 2011.xiRupert Murdoch was physically assaulted towards the end of the first hearing, and as a direct result, was permitted to

read, in full, a lengthy explicative statement (p47-48) which had earlier been first denied by the Chairs directive and then

permitted, but only as a written submission (p1). It is possibly the only example where the committee felt obliged to

apologise wholeheartedly to Mr Murdoch, and therefore mitigate a FTA, for this being allowed to happen.

xiiThe Leveson public inquiry followed the hearing. This was referred to on many occasions in the transcript, as well as

ongoing police investigations, in order to frame the terms of reference for these Select Committee Hearings. This industry-

wide inquiry did not begin until after these hearings had taken place and were still ongoing at the time of writing. Inquiry:

Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Pressavailable at:http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/call-for-rupert-murdoch-james-murdoch-and-rebekah-brooks-to-give-evidence/http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/call-for-rupert-murdoch-james-murdoch-and-rebekah-brooks-to-give-evidence/http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/call-for-rupert-murdoch-james-murdoch-and-rebekah-brooks-to-give-evidence/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/call-for-rupert-murdoch-james-murdoch-and-rebekah-brooks-to-give-evidence/http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/call-for-rupert-murdoch-james-murdoch-and-rebekah-brooks-to-give-evidence/


11/12


11

References:

Austin, J.L. 1975 (orig. 1962). How to Do Things with Words. Also reprinted in Jaworski A and

Coupland N (eds) The Discourse Reader(ch2:2nd

ed). 2006. London: Routledge.

BBC News 7 July 2011.News of the World to close amid hacking scandal. Available at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733.Accessed 7 November 2011.

Bloor, M and Bloor, T. 2007. The practice of critical discourse analysis: an introduction. London:

Hodder Arnold.

Brown P and Levinson S 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in Jaworski A and Coupland N (eds) The Discourse Reader(2nd


Goffman, E. 1955. On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Reprinted in

Jaworski A and Coupland N (eds) The Discourse Reader(2nd


Gnisci A and Pontecorvo C. 2003. The organization of questions and answers in the thematic phases

of hostile examination: Turn-by-turn manipulation of meaning in Journal of Pragmatics. 36: 965-995

Gunnarsson, B-L. 2009. Professional Discourse London: Continuum.

Holmes, J. 1995. Women, men and politeness: agreeable and disagreeable responses. Reprinted in

Jaworski A and Coupland N (eds) The Discourse Reader(2nd


House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee Press Standards, Privacy and Libel (2nd

report) .http://tiny.cc/3dt0q. Accessed 18 November 2011.

House of Commons Information Office factsheet. 2010. Available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p02.pdf.

Kangasharju, H. 2002. Alignment in disagreement: forming oppositional alliances in committee

meetings inJournal of Pramatics. 34: 1447-1471.

Leveson, Lord Justice (to be published)Inquiry: Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Pressavailable at:http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/.

Penman, R. 1990. Facework & Politeness: Multiple Goals In Courtroom Discourse.Journal of

Language and Social Psychology (9:15) Available at:http://jls.sagepub.com/content/9/1-2/15.Searle, J 1969.A Typology of Speech Acts. In Levison, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Sabbagh, D. 2011.Times Editor criticises Tom Watson over mafia commentsin The Guardian,

accessed 26 November. Available at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/14/phone-

hacking-times-editor.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733http://tiny.cc/3dt0qhttp://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p02.pdfhttp://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/http://jls.sagepub.com/content/9/1-2/15http://jls.sagepub.com/content/9/1-2/15http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/14/phone-hacking-times-editorhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/14/phone-hacking-times-editorhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/14/phone-hacking-times-editorhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/14/phone-hacking-times-editorhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/14/phone-hacking-times-editorhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/14/phone-hacking-times-editorhttp://jls.sagepub.com/content/9/1-2/15http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p02.pdfhttp://tiny.cc/3dt0qhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733


12/12


12

Scollon, R and Scollon, S. 2001. Intercultural Communication(2nd

edition). Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing

Tolmach-Lakoff, R. 1989. The limits of politeness: therapeutic and courtroom discourse.Journal of

Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication. 8/2-3: 101-130 published online 2009. Availableat:http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.101#.

Whittingdale, J. 2011a. Chair of House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.

Published Correspondence and timeline. Available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-

and-sport-committee/inquiries/phone-hacking/. Accessed between 13-15 November 2006.

Whittingdale, J. 2011b. Chair of House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.

Uncorrected Transcript HC903-ii dated 19 July 2001:http://tiny.cc/ocnrz Accessed 13 November

2006.

Whittingdale, J. 2011c. Chair of House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.

Uncorrected Transcript HC903 vi dated 10 November 2001:http://tiny.cc/vthrv.Accessed 13

November 2006.

Word count: 4606

172 cover sheet

1172 direct quotes/author names & dates

639 notes

449 references/word count= 2174.
http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.101http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.101http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.101http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/phone-hacking/http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/phone-hacking/http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/phone-hacking/http://tiny.cc/ocnrzhttp://tiny.cc/ocnrzhttp://tiny.cc/vthrvhttp://tiny.cc/vthrvhttp://tiny.cc/vthrvhttp://tiny.cc/ocnrzhttp://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/phone-hacking/http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/culture-media-and-sport-committee/inquiries/phone-hacking/http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.101

select committee hearing on the murdochs essay

Documents