Skid marks? News Corp refuses to backtrack on Saddam Hussein's underpants
Saddam Hussein (Image: mpac.org)
Click here to add Bush as an alert
Disable alert for Bush,
Click here to add Federal Bureau of Investigation as an alert
Disable alert for Federal Bureau of Investig ...,
Click here to add Graham Dudman as an alert
Disable alert for Graham Dudman,
Click here to add New York Post as an alert
Disable alert for New York Post,
Click here to add News Corp as an alert
Disable alert for News Corp,
Click here to add Rupert Murdoch as an alert
Disable alert for Rupert Murdoch,
Click here to add Saddam Hussein as an alert
Disable alert for Saddam Hussein,
Click here to add The Sun as an alert
Disable alert for The Sun,
Click here to add U.S. military as an alert
Disable alert for U.S. military
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has defended its decision to publish pictures in 2005 by British tabloid The Sun and the New York Post of Saddam Hussein in his underpants after being warned that News Corp could face an investigation in the United States over payments made to obtain them.
The image was printed on the front page of both papers in May 2005 which received a complaint from President Bush’s spokesperson. Graham Dudman, The Sun’s managing editor revealed that the papers did pay for the pictures of the Iraqi dictator in captivity which were rumored to have come from the U.S. military.
In 2005, The Sun’s headline read “The Tyrant’s In His Pants” and the New York Post opted for “Butcher of Sagdad” alongside an image of Saddam Hussein in a pair of Y-fronts. Murdoch's U.S. tabloid credited The Sun on its front page for images that were thought to date back to between January and April 2004.
News Corp have said that they stood by their decision to publish, stating that efforts to highlight the story and link it to ongoing anti-corruption investigations in the U.S. and the UK were a “lame attempt to regurgitate old news.”
Statements made by The Sun’s managing editor, who at the time stated News Corp had said the issue had been widely reported on, a spokesman added: "We didn't believe then, and certainly don't believe now, that it was wrong to acquire and publish newsworthy photographs of a notorious war criminal."
The Sun did not dispute paying for the photographs; Dudman stated that in 2005 the newspaper paid a small amount to secure the images which was in excess of £500 ($795) already paid. Having paid the extra they acted aggressively to defend its copyright.
Payments to public officials are illegal in the U.S and the UK. Since the scandal, 21 journalists at The Sun have been arrested as part of the long-running investigation into corrupt payments in Britain. The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act bans U.S.-owned companies from bribing public officials, and the company is under investigation by the FBI.
Do you think News Corporation is right to defend its decision? Leave us your comments below!
- Queen Rania hosted baptism of Tony Blair's Goddaughter, Murdoch's child
- Vote for Saddam! Jordan bans elections list named after late Iraqi dictator
- More chaos to come? French magazine to publish new Prophet caricatures
- I pledge allegiance: Kuwaiti proud to have named his son George Bush
- Pictures: Israeli female soldiers post edgy pics on Facebook