Was it a case of wilful blindness? Silence.

Raymond Snoddy: It was most unfortunate that James Murdoch could not deal adequately with such a tricky question at yesterday’s select committee (a compelling drama that told us almost nothing new in any factual sense but almost everything about the key players involved) because in the mildest of ways it went to the heart of the matter…

It was the question that completely floored James Murdoch at the commons select committee yesterday.

After MPs had heard repeated claims that no senior executive had known anything about all the dreadful things happening at the News of the World and how everyone had been let down by the bad guys James was asked: Was it a case of “wilful blindness?” Silence.

If the young American has been asked culturally specific questions such as – “Was a Nelsonian telescope applied deliberately to his blind eye?” – you could have understood and forgiven a little bit of bamboozlement.

But put such common English words as “wilful” and “blindness” together one after the other and there should be no confusion.

The man in charge of all News Corporations interests in Europe and Asia and who once contributed to the Harvard Lampoon had never heard of the phrase. Oxford-educated Rupert Murdoch acknowledged that he had indeed heard of the concept.

It was most unfortunate that James Murdoch could not deal adequately with such a tricky question because in the mildest of ways it went to the heart of the matter.

We may be a bit sceptical that all those high-powered executives knew so little, virtually nothing really, but we really would have liked to know whether this was a deliberate ploy. Don’t tell me about any of the dodgy things that are going on. I may have to deny all knowledge one day in front of a commons select committee.

As things stand we are being asked to believe that all the rather expensive illegal hacking and with it payments of £100,000 to private detectives were handled at managing editor level and that Rupert Murdoch was not involved in compensation payments of more than £700,000.

Maybe Rupert doesn’t get involved in the petty cash any more but in the not-so-olden days he would have been very interested indeed in how and why sums of more than £700,000 were being spent.

So what did we learn from the select committee drama yesterday that we didn’t know before, apart from the fact that Portcullis House security isn’t able to pick up cardboard plates
and cans of shaving foam.

We learned that when people reach the age of 80 they begin to look and sound rather elderly.

All the personal trainers in the world, or indeed a wife who is 38 years younger, can do very little about that.

The papers today made much of the issue – how old, vulnerable and halting in his delivery the chairman and chief executive of the News Corporation was.

Partly it is his manner. He has always paused and thought, sometimes for a minute or more before answering a question. But as a result of such a public appearance the question will now inevitably be asked is it time for Rupert Murdoch to relax a little and become non-executive chairman of the vast enterprise he created and make room for a non-Murdoch such as Chase Carey to take over the day-to-day running of the company.

It is not clear who would be the person to approach and say Rupert we were thinking…

It would make great sense and some of the American institutions which own News Corp shares would clearly like such a thing. It’s not going to happen anytime soon unless Murdoch were to become ill.

And for investors who complain about Murdoch paying so much attention to declining assets such as newspapers the answer is simple. They have always known what they were buying – the Rupert Murdoch company not an orthodox public corporation. Murdoch still is able to control 39% of the voting shares.

We also learned yesterday that we were wrong to believe that Murdoch over the past week had finally taken a grip on the crisis and shown the door to Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton because the scandals had happened on their watch.

If Murdoch is to be believed, and he sounded very sincere and truthful in front of the committee as far as anyone can tell, then it was Brooks and Hinton who had insisted on resigning rather than being offered their daggers by Murdoch.

So once again both his management skills, judgment and legendary ruthlessness were called into question.

He has demonstrated within the past two years that he really didn’t get it by telling his Wall Street Journal that only “minor” mistakes were made in the internal investigation and that his priority was saving Rebekah Brooks – a much filmed commented that he affected yesterday not to remember.

Murdoch senior at least managed to arouse some sympathy by saying it was “the most humble day of my life” though perhaps “humiliating” might have been a better word to chose.

As for James Murdoch it was not a happy occasion. He may be in charge of businesses across Europe and beyond but the number of times he had to say he was not aware of the details was embarrassing. He had been verbally briefed and hadn’t bothered to read many of the key documents.

He hadn’t been at News International during the relevant period, and showed a spectacular lack of curiosity about what, by any standards, were strange events and accusations that were appearing in the press on an almost daily basis.

Even when he knew he would be appearing in front of the committee you would have thought some urgent preparation would have been a good idea given that most of the questions were obvious.

There is little doubt he has damaged his chances of winning the succession and the independent non-executive directors of BSkyB may yet decide that an independent chairman of the satellite broadcaster might be a good idea.

It was a compelling drama that told us almost nothing new in any factual sense but almost everything about the key players involved.

We also found out that Rupert Murdoch despite his advanced years still likes to bang the table and gesticulate.

As for the “wilful blindness” that may have been a common ailment in News Corporation, that matter cannot be determined even in four hours before a commons committee. That can only be satisfactorily resolved by the police and the courts.

We can however be certain that the truth will eventually come out. Memories about who knew what when will be jogged when some of those involved are in danger of facing lengthy jail sentences.

That’s when the singing will really begin.