Just when you thought the Murdoch era was over ...

... he reminds you just why you despise him so much.

Yesterday Murdoch launched a strong defence of The Sun, simultaneously announcing the long-suspected launch of the Sun on Sunday.

Murdoch closed the News of the World on the basis that some journalists had been involved in phone hacking. While the guilty parties deserve everything they get, a large staff of entirely innocent parties were disposed of at a whim when the newspaper closed.

Journalists at the Sun are being investigated for what would seem the far more serious crime of bribing the police. Yet those under suspicion are reinstated to their jobs on the basis of 'innocent until proven guilty', and their legal fees paid by News International. There is no question whatsoever that the Sun will ever be closed down. 'Innocent until proven guilty' is not a principal that the Sun has often been willing to extend to the targets of its journalism.

The - deliberately provocative - announcement of the launch of the Sun on Sunday gives the explanation for these different approaches. Murdoch was given an excuse, on a plate, to close the News of the World, and jumped on it.

No businessman wants to produce two identical products using all the expense and manpower of two separate companies. The News of the World in essence WAS the Sunday Sun - it's existence was to be made redundant by the new paper.

Phone hacking enabled Murdoch to close the News of the Screws and greatly increase the profitability of the Sun on Sunday from day one. Don't confuse a cold-hearted business decision with an ethical response to the phone hacking scandal.

Wag the Dog? Being forced to war on a timetable

There seems to be the terrifying prospect of Israel and/or the West engaging in another war in the Middle East before the year is out. The 'window' apparently is the summer or just after the US election. When the British government gets hawkish, you know you're in trouble. William Hague, the UK Foreign Secretary is waffling on about a new 'cold war' today, while the Guardian reports Obama insiders saying "the US will be left with no option but to launch an attack on Iran or watch Israel do so", surely a case of the tail wagging the dog if ever there was one.

Personally, I don't see that one sovereign state trying to develop weapons that other sovereign states already have can ever be a provocation for war, however much we might wish they don't have them. You can only argue that it is 'provocation' if you believe that Iran is somehow less of a state than the rest of us, and that we have a say in its internal affairs ... and that has a million uncomfortable implications. But that's not an argument you'll see coming even from progressives.

Finally, as with Iraq, I don't believe that Iran is much of a threat to anyone, except its own people ... a judgement this article seems to support.