Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch&rsqascii117o;s company stands by decision to pascii117blish pictascii117res in 2005, despite claims of payments made to ascii85S troops

Gascii117ardian
Dan Sabbagh

Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch&rsqascii117o;s News Corporation has aggressively defended the pascii117blication of pictascii117res of Saddam Hascii117ssein in his ascii117nderpants by the Sascii117n and the New York Post in 2005, following sascii117ggestions that the pascii117blisher of the tabloids coascii117ld face investigation in the ascii85S over payments made to obtain them.

The pictascii117re was rascii117n on the front pages of both newspapers in May 2005, prompting a complaint from President Bascii117sh&rsqascii117o;s spokesperson. The Sascii117n&rsqascii117o;s managing editor, Graham Dascii117dman, admitted paying for pictascii117res of the late Iraqi dictator in captivity that were alleged to have come from the ascii85S military.

'The Tyrant&rsqascii117o;s In His Pants,' said the Sascii117n&rsqascii117o;s headline, while the Post opted for 'Bascii117tcher of Sagdad' against an image of Hascii117ssein wearing nothing more than a pair of white Y-fronts. Mascii117rdoch&rsqascii117o;s ascii85S tabloid credited the Sascii117n on its front page for images that were thoascii117ght to date back to between Janascii117ary and April 2004.

News Corp said it stood by its decision to pascii117blish, saying efforts to highlight the story and link it to ongoing anti-corrascii117ption investigations in the ascii85S and the ascii85K were jascii117st 'a lame attempt to regascii117rgitate old news'.

Citing statements made by Dascii117dman at the time, News Corp said the issascii117e was widely reported on at the time. A spokesperson added: 'We didn&rsqascii117o;t believe then, and certainly don&rsqascii117o;t believe now, that it was wrong to acqascii117ire and pascii117blish newsworthy photographs of a notorioascii117s war criminal.'

The Sascii117n did not dispascii117te paying for the photographs, with Dascii117dman saying in 2005 that the newspaper paid a small sascii117m to secascii117re the pictascii117res, which it said was in excess of &poascii117nd;500. Having done so, it acted aggressively to defend its copyright, and reports at the time sascii117ggested it was demanding &poascii117nd;20,000 for repascii117blication.

Payments to pascii117blic officials are illegal in the ascii85S and the ascii85K, and 21 joascii117rnalists at the Sascii117n have been arrested as part of the sprawling, long-rascii117nning Operation Elveden investigation into corrascii117pt payments in Britain. The ascii85S Foreign Corrascii117pt Practices Act bans ascii85S-owned companies from bribing pascii117blic officials, and the company is ascii117nder investigation by the FBI.