Schadies. It's a new word and I have coined it. Okay it's me trying to slang-say schadenfruede and sound cool. You know ... like the kidz.
Anyhoo, why am I riven with the schadies? Because Murdoch, the greatest purveyor of yellow journalism in the world today, just copped one in his aged likely-chemically-enhanced-to-stave-off-death neck.
Here's what the UK parliamentary committee looking into the phone hacking said of the octogenarian influence machine's conduct at the helm of the company that hacked a dead school girl's phone;
On the basis of the facts and evidence before the Committee, we conclude that, if at all relevant times Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications. This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International. We conclude, therefore, that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company.
Now, of course, all sorts of troubles are coming his way. Such as investigations into whether the British foetid crap his company unleashed on innocent people in the UK also happened in the US arm of his vast, vast, vast media empire.
This judgement couldn't happen to a more repellent person. Actually it couldn't happen to another human being as he has the most concentrated media ownership or effective control thereof in the entire world. He's an unliving example of why diversity of media control (1) is needed.
Tom Watson, a British MP member of the committee, himself was targeted by News Limited. He's just released a book (along with author Martin Hickman) titled Dial M for Murdoch: News Corporation and the corruption of Britain where Watson talks about what happened to him, or others, as a result of taking on Murdoch. For example when Chris Bryant managed to get then News editor Rebekah Brooks to admit in an inquiry her paper had paid plods for info the paper then went after Bryant with a vengeance with mocking articles about Bryant's sexuality.
You stay classy, various hideous iterations of the News empire.
(1) As opposed to ownership. It's not that someone necessarily owns a thing that makes them bad. It's what they do with it in the process. Murdoch was a very hands on owner. Unless, of course, he was in front of an inquiry. In which case then he knows nothing, NOTHING!