We note you have failed to provide any new evidence sufficient to support what amount to very serious allegations. This inevitably leads us to question the motives of the New York Times. It seems to us that your investigation has always been tainted by a vested interest in its outcome which means it is in serious and multiple breach of your own ethical guidelines. As you should know, [the hacking issue was] examined extensively by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee over an eight-month period leading up to publication of its report “Press standards, privacy and libel” on 24 February this year. Every area addressed by your questions has already been the subject of detailed oral and/or written evidence and, in particular, put to, and answered by, our executives during public hearings conducted by the Committee. Your letter goes on to refer to unattributed conversations with “former reporters and editors” who make a number of unsubstantiated claims and then to a specific claim made by Matt Driscoll. He had a very difficult relationship with the newspaper, which included disciplinary action for inaccurate reporting . [His] termination was later challenged at an employment tribunal in an acrimonious case which we vigorously defended, but which Mr. Driscoll won. This should, I hope, make you exercise caution in your assessment of what Mr. Driscoll has told you. Failure to make your readers aware of why Mr. Driscoll’s comments may not be entirely objective would be a clear case of bias. For this reason, you should also exercise extreme caution in your approach to what you are told by any “former reporters and editors” and your readers should be made aware of any reasons why their views may be biased. I would ask you to consider, for example, what your reaction would be were Jayson Blair to make allegations now to a rival newspaper group about editorial practices and the culture at the New York Times, given that he left the paper approximately five years ago and a new editorial and executive team has been installed? As a general point, we reject absolutely any suggestion or assertion that the activities of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, at the time of their arrest, were part of a “culture” of wrong-doing at the News of the World and were specifically sanctioned or accepted at senior level in the newspaper. We equally reject absolutely any suggestion or assertion that there has continued to be such a culture at the newspaper. At the time of those arrests, and subsequently, we co-operated with the authorities in their investigations (which resulted in criminal convictions which were followed by the then Editor taking responsibility and stepping down), just as we co-operated with the CMS Select Committee in its extensive inquiry last year. No evidence came out of those investigations or that inquiry that corroborates any such suggestion or assertion. Indeed, to reinforce the lessons learned from the Goodman and Mulcaire episode, as the new Editor, Colin Myler, made clear to the Select Committee, rigorous new safeguards have been put in place since he became editor in January 2007. These include changes to staff employment contracts, strict protocols on cash payments and regular internal training on legal and Press Complaints Commission compliance. Turning now to specific issues in your letter: . The “for Neville” email - We have nothing to add to the Select Committee report (paragraphs 412-416) which sets out what investigation was carried out on this. The Harbottle & Lewis [News International’s outside counsel] investigation related – as paragraphs 434 and 435 of the report make clear – to emails passing from and to Clive Goodman and five members of senior management, including the Editor, at the newspaper. The purpose was to look for evidence of complicity in, or knowledge of, Goodman’s activities at such levels. We find it surprising that you mention this investigation in this context as the “for Neville” email would manifestly not have formed part of the Harbottle & Lewis remit and review. This raises serious doubts about the thoroughness of your investigation. The Mulcaire/Miskiw contract – Again, paragraphs 408-411 of the Select Committee report address this and we have nothing to add. The rest of the paragraph and the next paragraph is based on unattributed “sources” and speculation and we have no further comment. Claims by “over a dozen former reporters and editors” – Our response to these unattributed and unsubstantiated claims is, I hope, clear from [our comments above]. Matt Driscoll /Rio Ferdinand – At no point during his employment or subsequently did Mr. Driscoll raise any concerns about our handling of the Rio Ferdinand drug test story, nor has any other party raised any such concerns. Any claims made by Mr Driscoll have to be viewed in the context of his very acrimonious dispute with the newspaper. Allegation about one of our reporters – A serious allegation has been made about the conduct of one of our reporters. We have followed our internal procedures and the reporter has been suspended from reporting duties, and a very thorough and extensive investigation carried out into that allegation (involving, for example, external forensic specialists). The allegation is the subject of litigation and our internal investigation continues in tandem with that, which means I am unable to comment further. If the conclusion of the investigation or the litigation is that the allegation is proven, the reporter will be dismissed for gross misconduct without compensation. We have a zero- tolerance approach to any wrong-doing and will take swift and decisive action if we have proof of any wrong-doing. In conclusion, it seems from your letter (unless there is something material you have not referred to or disclosed) that there is no new evidence to corroborate what is claimed and that the proposed story will amount simply to a re-hash of material that has been very thoroughly covered in sections of the British media over the past half decade, with some added speculation and unsubstantiated rumour. We therefore request that your Standards Editor, or other appropriate executive, investigate whether your conduct is in breach of your own ethical guidelines on impartiality, neutrality, honest treatment of competitors, reader benefit, conflict of interest and professional detachment “free of any whiff of bias”. Those guidelines state that your journalism “should be beyond reproach.” Manifestly, that is not the case here. They also remind your journalists: “It is imperative that the Times and its staff maintain the highest possible standards to insure we do nothing that might erode readers’ faith and confidence in our news columns. This means that staff members should be vigilant in avoiding any activity that might pose an actual or apparent conflict of interest (our italics) that threaten the newspaper’s ethical standing.” What clearer conflict of interest is there than devoting such enormous resources over five months to investigating one of a rival group’s newspapers and then seeking to publish unsubstantiated claims about that newspaper? .