Rupert Murdoch appears to have branded Charlotte Church a "scumbag" for campaigning for greater privacy laws, even though she sang at his wedding in exchange for good press.
In her witness statement at the Leveson Inquiry, Church said she waived her £100,000 fee to sing at Murdoch's 1999 wedding to Wendi Deng in exchange for Murdoch promoting her through his media empire.
She said: "I remember being told that Rupert Murdoch had asked me to sing at his wedding to Wendi Deng and it would take place on his yacht in New York.
"I remember being told that [there would be] the offer of money or the offer of the favour, in order to basically get good press, to be looked upon favourably."
Both Church and her mother had wanted to accept the fee but were told the favour would be more beneficial.
Despite this agreement, Church was found to have been a victim of phone hacking and was paid £660,000 by News Group Newspapers. News of the World phone hacking generated 33 articles about Church and her family for the newspaper.
Church said press coverage had had a devastating impact on her family, adding that the money "could never mend" the damage caused.
Since then, the singer has been a part of the Hacked Off Campaign, which strives for media reform.
Last week, she appeared at the Conservative Party Conference with former Crimewatch presenter Jacqui Hames.
Following the conference, Murdoch tweeted: "Told UK's Cameron receiving scumbag celebrities pushing for even more privacy laws. Trust the toffs! Transparency under attack. Bad."
In response, Hames tweeted: "@rupertmurdoch Plse withdraw & apologise for ... calling me & @CharlotteChurch"scumbags"?"
Murdoch said that he did not refer to anyone in particular, but was speaking about "some 'dodgy' self-promoting celebrities".
Church added: "@rupertmurdoch What do you mean by 'dodgy'? My understanding of the word is 'lacking legitimacy', a term that befits NI before me or J.Hames."
Other Twitter users then questioned Murdoch on his views on privacy laws. He said people in the public who "sell their names" are not entitled to privacy.