Amid scandal, Murdoch kills off News of the World
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. observers warn of Syria civil war after massacre
( 7 )
-
Obama on the defensive over spending, debt
( 18 )
-
Egypt's top candidates try to broaden support
( 1 )
-
Queen marks diamond jubilee riding wave of popularity
( 0 )
-
Thousands take part in 'Slut Walks' in Brazil
( 10 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
59 Comments
Login to comment
0
GG2141
Shut it down? Oh yeah! sure. The Murdoch UK cash cow. Wait for Wold of the News tabloid. Opening next week.
-1
Virtuoso
Murdoch's FOX TV should be shut down as well, for hacking into the brains of millions of Americans and wiping out their common sense.
4
yokomoc
From the Sun to Fox News most of Murdoch's media empire is a sleazefest. Let this be the beginning of the end.
0
steve@CPFC
Hopefully The Sun and Fox News will be the next to close down.Murdoch really is a grubby old man who tries to influenec our lives through his position.
0
wanderlust
It used to be called News of the Screws in the UK, interpret that as you wish...
1
Taka313
rupert murdoch being involved with a news organization with less than honorable practices. I'm shocked. No. Really. Shocked I tell you.
Taka
0
Dennis Bauer
still need to shut down a zillion tabloids, these things have nothing to do with news
1
MrDog
But, they're the only source of reading material for millions of near-illiterate proles in Great Britain!
How else would they know the details of all the latest important news stories, like which footballers wife is "looking fit" this week??
1
zurcronium
home of fox fake news, its all the same. media for the meek minded tea party types.
1
chewitup
I have to wonder how much Murdoch knew and if this dumping of the tabloid is not an attempt to smokescreen people from asking that question. I hope they do anyway. If he was involved in the clearly criminal activities, I hope he goes down along with the News of the World.
And I hope Andrew Breitbart is next in line for investigation.
-1
Alphaape
I don't get it. For those who are bashing Fox News, they report on a lot of stories that the rest of the media doesn't. Do they have a conservative lean, sure they do. But you know it. Left leaning media will not be as up front and honest and not tell you. So I ask, are those who say Murdoch's other business should be shut down, do you really think you will get balanced opinions, or just more of the "More Snotty Nonsence By Chicks (MSNBC) type of reporting.
1
yabits
They accomplish that by making a lot of things up. Survey after survey after survey has revealed that Fox viewers are the most ill-informed on the facts of every issue. Most people are intelligent enough to refuse to "buy" what an information source is "selling" when they've been proven to be consistently unreliable. Those who maintain a steady diet of Fox simply aren't very informed or intelligent.
According to rabid conservatives, anything that doesn't toe the conservative line is, by definition, "left-leaning."
Most news organizations would not be telling the truth if they declared themselves "left-leaning." Fox's self-admission of "balancing out" news agencies which, are for the most part, centrist, means they admit that they are very much imbalanced.
1
Virtuoso
The power of money is amazing. The wealthy smell each other out, and their billions of bucks achieved critical mass, bringing a sleazy Australian "media baron" to the US, where he revels in poisoning the minds of people who are too ill-informed to know any better. I occasionally talk to my parents' neighbors and hear them parroting the previous evening's FOX News talking points verbatim the morning after they're broadcast. Try to question their arguments and they just sputter and become angry, but they're always on firm ground when they simply reiterate what Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. spew. Jon Stewart got it 100% right when he described FOX as insidious propaganda to Chris Wallace's face. As far as the UK rag is concerned, they'll write it off from their profits and it won't even hurt their bottom line. Murdoch's business is like The Terminator -- no matter how you smash it, it just reassembles and keeps coming at you. What a horrible, malignant thing the media has become.
-2
Alphaape
@yabits: Please provide me with stories that they have made up. Wouldn't it be really easy to discredti them with all of the other liberal channels and web sites like Huffington Post. What I ahve seen is that Fox reports a story, and the media then denounces them as being partisan, not saying that the story is not true, but that they just don't get the full picture. So I ask you, give me a story that Fox has made up.
If you go to a comedy channel to get your news, then you miss the whole point. I have seen Stewart, and he will be the first to tell you that when he is called for being biased against a conservative, he comes out with the "I'm only a comedian" line. The point that your neighbors may have picked up talking points from Fox, is probably just about the same as someone who doesn't watch Fox and getting their talking points from other news sources.
2
yabits
Before I provide examples from this -- pardon the redundancy -- unethical Murdoch media outlet, tell me how many examples would it take for you to renounce them?
1
chewitup
It has been abundantly clear to anyone paying attention that if there are people who can put aside their biases at all and not inject their own sense of drama into a news story, those people tend to lean left. Thus, at one time, journalism was dominated by people whose politics leaned left. We had balance as much as balance can be achieved, which was not perfect, but still as good as it could be. Tossing in the cheerleaders with their bias and drama has taken us pretty far away from the best we can achieve in balance. And in true form, I am sure those types will accuse me of claiming the balance was actually perfect before, because those types cannot see shades of grey, which is just another reason why those who lean right tend to suck as journalists.
The mark of man who has seen disingenuity from his opponents over and over! Take the Pepsi challenge and join the light side alpha.
2
Virtuoso
No, I go to a comedy channel in search of evidence that America still retains a modicum of sanity. It's starting to wear thin, however.
-2
Alphaape
@yabits: Let me decide for myself if I will want to renounce them. But until that time, give me evidence. I have provided time and time again evidence that has disproven some of the stories that the left has presented, and yet you still believe in them. So, for disucssions sake, bring forth a story, and let's discuss it like rational persons, and not worry about trying to convert one to ones side.
3
yabits
This is not what a fundamentally honest person would say. If a forthright person discovered that a particular news organization had lied or purposely embellished stories with untruths, he or she might give them two strikes. But definitely, three strikes and they would be OUT.
The behavior described in the article is a natural outcome of the values of the Murdoch organization. "Immoral and criminal" -- quoting the article -- is what they are.
That is not the pattern of any exchange that I've been witness to or involved with. Every time, the "evidence" presented is shot through with holes and the presenter simply slithers away from the discussion in pursuit of new topics to dissemble in.
If the Murdoch-run Fox News had journalistic integrity, they would not force those working for it to sign non-disclosure agreements prohibiting them from talking about how they distort nearly every item of news they choose to report on. That hasn't stopped some Fox News insiders from tipping off other organizations about the internal workings of their organization. But the people who enjoy what Murdoch is serving them don't really care much about integrity. That much is plainly obvious.
It is a waste of time to serve up truth to people who have a vested interest in believing in lies and half-truths. To such people I would merely recommend starting with Robert Greenwald's 2004 documentary: Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. The problem is that a lot of Fox devotees don't even know what good journalism is. (It certainly would never involve having writers and presenters being forced to sign NDAs on the journalistic process.)
-2
Alphaape
@yabits: You gave a long post on why you think I can't "handle the truth" (to borrow a phrase from a movie), but did not give me any concrete evidence on where I am wrong in my views.
So once again, give me the proof on a story that Fox News has run and has proven to be false. I think I am a big enough person to be able to say I was wrong if I am wrong, but through your round about way, you are only throwing up "smoke and mirrows" and not giving any solid evidence.
2
yabits
Concrete evidence is given within the first 10 minutes of Robert Greenwald's 2004 documentary: Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. All of which is available on YouTube.
If it is your view that Fox News stories present reliable, balanced, honest journalism, that ten minutes -- for any who are not too lazy to look at it -- should provide enough to start to shatter the delusion. Because much of what is presented are not "my views," but the actual views and experiences of those working for Murdoch.
Once beyond that, I can present concrete evidence of a Murdoch story that falsely accused a government official of endorsing a crime that was never committed -- and completely made up a phony controversy about it. The first example of many more I can provide. Yes, that was one of those stories you won't see anywhere else -- because it was made up by Fox News.
-2
Alphaape
yabits, show me th link to the story so I can judge myself. As far as Fox reporting what others don't, I seem to remember Fox covering a story about Pelosi, when she said before Obamacare was passed "we need to pass it so that we can see what's in it" but I don't recall other networks airing that statement (I have heard the audio/video myself).
One more question, if Fox is so full of lies, you seem to be fixated on it enought to keep watching. Or are you just going by what other people tell you.
2
yabits
Apparently, fans of Murdoch aren't aware how they can navigate to YouTube and search on "Outfoxed."
The first ten minutes has various Murdoch employees and ex-employees detailing how they were directed to skew the news. The second ten minutes details a favorite Murdoch tactic: making claims without any attribution other than "some people say."
Once again, the site is YouTube and the search term is "Outfoxed." Great foundation for the rest of the stuff that follows.
There are reputable watchers of all media newscasts who evaluate nearly every major story for accuracy and balance. Especially accuracy. I can view and research any article or segment under question. Those watchers have been dead right while Fox has been shown to lie and fabricate things time after time. You found and example for yourself without even knowing with the Pelosi statement -- which was edited by Fox out of context.
No responsible news source would have run a single 10-second clip out of context the way Fox did. You don't know who Pelosi was addressing, what she was referring to leading up to the quote, and what statements came after it. You just remember that 4-5 seconds and that's all Murdoch wants you to know.
-2
Alphaape
@yabits: The persons who made this are as biased as the day is long, so I doubt very seriously. Just like Michael Moore's films the movie is targeted to provide thos who believe their own justification to belive.
I did find one article that was interesting. When Fox News challenged any news organization that thought this was a major story to "put out 100 percent of their editorial directions and internal memos [and] Fox News Channel will publish 100 percent of our editorial directions and internal memos, and let the public decide who is fair." I haven't seen this happen yet.
So now are you going to tell me that MSNBC is fair to the opposing viewpoint? Or do they receive their points from the DNC?
1
chewitup
Yabits, Yabits, Yabits. There is nothing wrong with skewing the news. Nothing! It is the right of any news orginization to skew news. In fact, they have right to not only spin and skew, but to completely lie. In fact, FOX went to court once specifically to defend that right, and they won! It was the Jane Akre appeals case in Florida in 2003. News orgs have a First Amendment right to lie apparently.
But that is not my real point. My point is that it was SPECIFICALLY FOX News bitterly defending that right.
I am sad you did not hold Alpha to a number. Now he is going to dance around forever and think he has done a clever thing. Your converstation with him has only exposed the simple fact that he is completely hopeless. You could stick hot pokers in both his eyes and he would insist that he can still see!
1
yabits
LOL! They are not nearly as biased as the immoral and criminal Murdoch-led media outlets who, among many other things, would take a 5 second clip of a Pelosi speech out of context and completely make up that it means something different from its real meaning in context.
Nobody believes that an immoral and criminal Murdoch-led organization would make good on that, just as the defenders of lies and criminality would never commit to renouncing it, no matter how many examples could be provided. There are simply too many ways that the snakes at Fox could slither out of actually delivering, and intelligent people know that. The Fox "challenge" is just another in a long string of Murdoch lies that dupes keep buying. Do fans of Fox wish to remain dupes for the rest of their lives? (Some posters are off to one heckuva start.)
@chewitup: Of course, any news organization has a first amendment freedom to lie and make things up. It's a freedom that Fox exercises on a near-daily basis. But there is also something above and beyond that called journalistic integrity. It's a standard and ideal that is light-years away from nearly every Murdoch-led organization. Can you believe there are people so gullible and naive to buy that Fox would actually ever make public every one of its internal memos? Especially when they could do something far more immediate, effective and meaningful: Release their employees from non-disclosure agreements -- which genuine news outlets do not have their journalists sign -- and allow them to speak freely.
Those on a steady diet of Murdoch fare can't help but become cravenly dishonest. There has never been a media organization with less regard for journalistic integrity among supposedly free societies than Murdoch's News Corp, and we witness the results right here in these forums from its defenders.
-2
Molenir
Indeed, CBS News knows all about that. Particularly the idea of making up stories to suit their biases. And of course its hard to be a credible news organization, when you are the unofficial mouthpiece for the Obama administration. MSNBC is all about that. CNN isn't really much better, though at least they give a shout out to fairness at times. Heres something to note. On Fox, when O'Reilly and Hannity come on to give their opinions, you'll note they always have a liberal there to give their own opinion. Yes they may be shouted down, but they're always there. Contrast this with the other networks that frequently ignore the conservative viewpoint.
Fox actually plays things straight. They cover both stories that make conservatives look bad and stories that make libs look bad. Unlike the other networks, which won't cover those stories unless its absolutely shoved in their faces. And even then they try to spin the news to minimize the impact. Its the obvious bias of the other networks that makes Fox so successful. And the reason why Fox is hated so by the libs. They have no problem with the idea that conservatives should always be maligned, but daring to actually show stuff that shows the libs true colors, to a lib, there is no greater crime.
One of the things the libs don't understand, is that by putting libs out there, giving them a chance to answer, and express their viewpoint in opposition to the conservative views, it actually helps bring the 2 sides together, as people can see that the positions, frequently aren't all that far apart. That things are not always black and white, but frequently shades of grey.
Ah, so Fox is bluffing, knowing no one will call. Heh, if it was me, I would call just to see them fold, or as you put it, to try to slither out of it. Somehow I doubt that would happen, but hey what do I know
lol, as opposed to those on a steady diet of news from such reputable sources as MSNBC? Thanks I'll take Fox every day of the week. At least I'll have a chance to find out the news, and not just that which Obama wants me to know. I'm honestly amazed that anyone can write or say something like this with a straight face. Do you have to practive to make your faux outrage appear real?
1
globalwatcher
Because it was set up as a political propaganda machine here in US. They are invading and brain washing people;s mind. .
1
yabits
There's only one example I can think of and that's the Dan Rather affair -- which came about as a failure to adequately fact-check claims that were brought to them. According to Faux-news insiders, fact-checking is rarely done and is replaced with other tactics to lie and dissemble. To CBS's credit, when Rather's story was debunked, they took proper action.
Baloney. MS-NBC is highly critical of the Obama administration and a great many Democrats. Yet another Murdoch devotee who believes in the falsehoods he conveys.
Faux has someone there who they claim is a liberal, but we on the progressive-liberal side never heard of them. They certainly don't present the liberal argument very well, which has to be Faux's intention: setting up straw men.
MS-NBC has former RNC Chairman Michael Steele on nearly every day. However, those on the Republican side are so much at war with themselves over ideological purity, those who claim that their viewpoint is ignored reminds me of the complaints of those who believe the earth is flat that nobody takes them seriously.
We have demonstrated what happens right here: I asked a person how many examples of fabricated stories would it take before they admitted that Murdoch-led Faux News is unreliable, and they couldn't bring themselves to deliver anything. This is the very typical lack of integrity that Murdoch feeds upon.
MS-NBC does make things up, as Faux News does.
Faux News is an extremely dark shade of gray, indistinguishable from black. They have ZERO journalistic integrity. Only those who revel in their own dupedom would regard them as a serious news source. Then again, there are people who believe that pro wrestling is a real sport. (And it's clear that the audiences for both are very similar in their mental outlook and development.)
0
yabits
This is a typo. It should have read "does NOT make things up." I have never seen anyone provide a shred of evidence that MS-NBC makes things up, as Faux News does regularly.
1
globalwatcher
Do they? In contrary to your comment, FOX did a poor job for Japan tsunami case. I was watching all news stations including NHK when I was trying to understand what's going on. here. . FOX invited many commentators who never lived in Japan. They could not come with name of cities, name of govt officials streight. It was sad in my opinion.
Where did get that idea? None of car dealers waiting room are not showing FOX here. Every candidates who have been supported by FOX ALL FAILED including Palin.
Yeh, you are right. They carefully chose only ONE weak lib. on the show, and a majority are conserv. You know how to win in a college debate. That rule is applied here. Most strong libs are not accepting their offer to be on FOX. Sorry, pal. .
0
globalwatcher
Correction to my comment above.
None of car dealers waiting room are showing FOX in my city.
-3
Molenir
lol, well thats the spin on things anyway. The truth of the matter is a bit different but its understandable that you don't want to acknowledge that your own side lies.
Sorry, but when you hear the Dem talking points, very nearly word for word from MSNBC, you stop believing this. There are some decent people who work there. I grant you that, but they are nonetheless, mouthpieces for the Obama administration.
Sorry, what was that you were saying about strawmen? lol, Steele is no more conservative then you are yabits.
Interesting, lets turn this around then shall we? How many made up, fabricated stories would it take before you admit CBS News, or MSNBC is unreliable? We have 1 even you admit to, how many more examples do you need? And will you count lack of coverage as well?
Heh, coming from someone who watches a steady diet of MSNBC, that means... absolutely nothing.
Heh, candidates supported by FOX? Which candidates are you referring to? I don't remember Fox ever endorsing a candidate. Perhaps you could point me to the story where that happened. As to what I'm talking about, I'm simply talking about ratings, which are easily double the nearest cable news network, and frequently outpace all 3 of the others together.
Most 'strong' libs are terrified to go on and defend their points of view. However those who do have a bit of courage, even the most radical are allowed on. Just look at how often they have on Al Sharpton. No, the problem isn't people accepting, but rather them being afraid to go up and debate their positions.
1
yabits
The truth of the matter is that fact-checking was not done by CBS, and that, in a responsible media outlet practicing journalistic integrity, people working for it can not tell falsehoods with impunity. The CBS organization demonstrated that. As chewitup has pointed out, the Murdoch organization went to court to defend its right to lie. The truth of the matter is that Faux news insiders have frequently made it known that fact-checking is not done to any great extent in their organization -- nowhere near the extent one would expect from a media outlet practicing high standards of journalistic integrity.
First off, MS-NBC is highly critical of President Obama and Democrats on a wide variety of issues. Additionally, Faux should not be compared only against MS-NBC but against every other organization that holds to much higher standards than Faux does. Keep in mind that when MS-NBC offers news, they turn to their NBC news organization, which holds to high standards of journalistic integrity. So comparing Faux News to MS-NBC's pure opinion/discussion shows only demonstrates how low the standards are for Faux.
If Michael Steele is not a conservative, then how come the Republican Party chose him to be their chairman? If it wasn't because he did not represent their views, was it because they needed a certain kind of face or token? Steele is a very well-known spokeman and defender of Republican views -- unlike the nobodies who Faux trots out as "liberals." Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and a whole host of other conservative lights are regulars on MS-NBC. They are on daily to give their views.
Any organization could have a service failure. High standards of journalistic integrity demand that when a failure occurs, the organization corrects it. When The New Republic discovered that Stephen Glass conned them, they immediately informed their readers, fired Glass, and retracted/rewrote all of his articles. Likewise CBS and Rather. These are very isolated cases that prove that the underlying organizations strive to maintain integrity.
Faux/Newscorp makes stories up -- lies and distorts -- with great regularity, and with impunity. Only when a line gets crossed as in the case of News of the World they react because their crimes and immorality are just that egregious and can't be tolerated by decent society. But this case shows just how far Murdoch's organization has pushed the line away from genuine integrity.
Any organization that is found to promote a false story even ONE TIME and does nothing to take proper action against the people involved (who have forfeited the right to be called "journalists") -- they are not reliable and can not be trusted.
Only if an internal memo or other organizational communication can be found -- as have been regularly leaked by Faux insiders -- telling newscasters to downplay or omit (as opposed to "reschedule") stories altogether. Using Faux as the standard of what others don't report is a non-starter since so much of what they report is made up and would not pass screening and fact-checking at any professional media outlet.
-1
Alphaape
@chewitup: Funny thing, I hav disagreed with yabits and many others on this board, but never have I had to resort to calling someone "hopeless" because they don't think like me. Throwing that out makes me think that you don't have anything to offer.
So since you know it all, please give to me, a blind man all of the stories that Fox News has made up. What about the comments I made about the Fox News board asking for the other networks to provide proof so that they can show their own internal files to counter. Never have seen them bring it up yet.
I have never heard any commentor on Fox News say that they got a "tingling sensation up and down their body" as Chris Mattherws said about Obama.
0
yabits
Hate to break it to you but this is not about you. This is about the immoral, corrupt and criminal Murdoch organization, and the extent to which their devotees defend and support their wrongdoing.
Some are indeed "hopeless" because they can't respond to simple questions in a simple, forthright way. Such are hopelessly detached from truth and reality because their ideological position is far more important to them than the facts of any matter. I have to ultimately laugh because it is so obvious that some people can't see how others can know them better, and see through their game, better than they can see it for themselves. (Such types truly can't be trusted to "judge for themselves".)
There shouldn't be any difficultly with a fundamentally honest person answering the question of how many false news stories would it take to renounce the news organization putting them out. Only someone as fundamentally adverse to the truth as the media organization he defends would have a problem with the question. If the answer is above 3, they would make themselves look like complete idiots. Three or below is easily demonstrated as it applies to Murdoch's Faux News -- which is what their defenders truly fear.
-1
Alphaape
@yabits: Then you need to direct those comments to chewitup. He was the one who started it. I only mentioned my comments due to the fact that we may disagree, I feel no need to call you names or think that your thinking (or lack thereof) is some sort of defect on your mentalitiy.
So once again, give me an exact example of the bias in Fox News. If you put the truth out there for all to see, then I will be able to see for myself. If I make comments to the contrary, at least give me the opportunity to do so. But to state that "you know what's best for me" and others who disagree is a bit self serviing on your part.
Give me the numbers.
-2
Molenir
Come on now Alpha, you know they can't do that. This is liberal spin, not actual reality. Fox News Lies, thats their mantra. The fact that Fox is actually more reputable, then any of the other networks drives them crazy. Especially since the reason they have more credibility, is that they are willing to cover the stories other networks don't bother with. The ones that cast libs in a bad light. Hence the need to make up lies about them.
Heh, you have yet to point out a single false news story, so the point is really moot. On the other hand I have pointed out one, and could point out many others. You only need to look at the Times. lol, with the Jason Blair issue as well as so many others, its almost become a joke. Almost no one takes it seriously any more.
-1
Alphaape
@yabits: If you think that Fox had a conflict of interest having Michael Steele on their airwaves, then how about this:
Should CNN be using President Obama's pollster as a paid contributor to its network?
A Washington insider says dapper data guru Cornell Belcher represents a potential conflict of interest for the cable network, now that he's reportedly going to work for Obama's reelection effort.
In February, CNN announced that Belcher - who did polling for the Democratic National Committee from 2005 to 2008, including Obama's presidential campaign - was joining its team of on-air political contributors.
I found that article on the web. So I guess you are going to say that it is fine for this guy to work for CNN, even though in the part I didn't quote he says that he is not being paid by the Obama campaign and if he does take the job will cease to be on the air for CNN when the campaign starts.
So do you think that this pollster will say anything negative about the current administration leading up to the time that he has to quit to help out the campaign? Will that really be a fair and balanced approach to news? Or am I just delusnional?
0
yabits
There is no logic at all to that statement. A question that asks someone how many false stories any news organization has to put out before they'd call them unreliable is not related in any way to any specific network. Instead, it relates directly to that person's own sense of morality and ethics. A person who won't answer that simple question is providing an indicator that they can't be honest and, as such, are a complete waste of time.
The one you inferred was actually a success by the network's management, who maintained their integrity by admitting the error and firing the people involved. CBS management has not and would not ever condone its staff lying and making up stories as Faux does on a routine basis.
It was the Times that discovered that Blair was plagiarizing and informed its readers after firing him -- keeping intact their high standards of journalism. The management and editorship of the Times does not have its staff make up stories the way that Murdoch-run organizations do.
I said that Steele appears almost daily on MS-NBC, where he provides the Republican perspective from issues under discussion along with Pat Buchanan and other noteworthy conservatives. Nowhere did I say anything about a conflict of interest. Your failure to read properly, which led to your making things up, seems to be part of a larger pattern of failure to assimilate and relate to simple information accurately. I'm sure this is what Faux expects of its loyal viewership.
-1
Alphaape
Steele appeared on Fox News and still does from time to time as a commentator. I still seem to remember many people on the left giving Fox charges of leaning right because he showed up there numerous times.
But once again, you try to snipe at someone with sarcastic comments, and still have not shown me the three cases of where Fox News made up stories as concrete proof. I mean, you liberals went ballistic when we went to war in Iraq because of the information that was presented, so I am asking you for proof so that we will not be duped again. Show me the evidence.
0
yabits
That has nothing to do with anything I said about his appearances on another network, nor your complete invention that was inferring any kind of conflict of interest.
Any honest person would have been genuinely troubled and concerned when the main rationale -- WMD -- were found not to exist. A fair percentage of Murdoch's viewership -- the dishonest and duped -- actually believe the US found weapons of mass destruction.
The rank dishonesty in that statement only demonstrates that a duped person won't accept any proof that threatens to reveal just how badly they are duped.
-1
Alphaape
@yabits: If I am so easily duped as you say, then whatever you put up I should believe then since you think I can be so easily duped.
So again I ask, "dupe me" and provide proof.
-1
Alphaape
@ yabits: To my previous post, I would like to add: "The world wonders" (I am sure you may not know this, but it is a reference to ADM Halsey in WW2, look it up).
-1
BreitbartVictorious
The Murdoch flap reflects poorly on the UK, but it doesn't have implications for his empire in the US. Fox News could be shut down tomorrow. But something like it would soon reappear.Unless of course Liberals - who once used to believe in free speech - have their way. The public knows the market for an alternative to the hopelessly compromised mainstream media is there. We are not going back to how it was.
-2
Molenir
Oh, is that how you spin it? Heh. Perhaps you can respond to their problems with Kantor as well? That is not the only example either, we could go further. So to bring back your question, the one you fail to provide any evidence to support, how many made up stories does it take, before a news organization can be considered dishonest?
@Alphaape: Sorry bud, but you know he's just blowing hot air. He has no evidence to back it up. If Libs did, they'd be shouting it from the heavens.
I'm not saying it doesn't, or couldn't happen. People are people, regardless of their political persuasion. And management can be poor at any news organization. That said, it was liberal policies of affirmative action that led directly to the biggest blunders at the Times since Durranty. The same cannot be said of CBS news, who willfully and maliciously chose to believe a story, without any corresponding evidence to support it, simply because they liked the politics of it. Thats what got Rather fired. It wasn't that he simply failed to check his sources, it was that he chose to believe it, simply because he liked what they were telling him, and that is a fatal error for an organization or individual that wants to be taken seriously. Fox though checks their sources, and when they don't, they publish retractions. They certainly don't go on air, every day for a week to try to cover it up, nor do they ignore the story for days simply because they don't like how it attacks one of their own. You remember, the only ones who dared to publish the Rathergate story was Fox News. It wasn't until days later, after everything had already come unraveled that ABC and NBC both came out, and it was days later that CBS and Rather finally admitted their mistake.
-1
Alphaape
@ Molenir: That's the truth!
Good points on the rest of your post. I have seen the much hated O'Reilly make a retraction. The two that I remember most was the one with Shirley Sherrod, the woman from the Dept of Agriculture who people demanded she should be fired from her post due to the out of context clips of her speech. And, O'Reilly did an about face on Bush and the US involvement in the Iraq War. I even believe that he didn't back "W" on the Dubai ports deal, and the nomination of Harriet Meyers for the Supreme Court.
Just from those few points alone, any normal thinking person would be able to see that Fox News is not just a "shill" for the GOP. But I have not seen the media (MSNBC, CNN, ABC, etc) really go after the Dems when they make mistakes. I'll admit, we are starting to see some of it now, only becuase things for the Dems are really getting out of control, and there is only so much spin that you can do.
So, once again I ask yabits: "Where's the Beef?"
1
yabits
So, that is what the number is for you: Three? I'm betting you could be shown triple that number and would still remain a Murdoch devotee.
Not only did the Times fire Blair, they changed their internal procedures to make another occurrence of such an incident far less likely in the future. The Faux News false reports are almost identical to the kind of stuff Blair was passing off as journalism but we don't see the management of Faux taking anywhere near similar actions.
-2
Molenir
And yet despite it all, you haven't got any evidence to back this up. While I've seen a huge amount of evidence to the contrary. So, despite what you say, its the lib media that lies, and tries to cover it up, not Fox News. Either back it up with facts, or admit you're blowing smoke.
Heh, so funny. You obviously have no clue then eh? Never heard of Kantor? Do a bit of research. She is by far, not the only one. The Times has gotten much, much worse.
2
yabits
In late September, 2009, Faux News anchors Martha McCallum and Bill Hemmer reported that the Obama Administration's appointee for "safe schools czar," Kevin Jennings, had condoned an incidence of statutory rape over 20 years prior, when he was a 24-year-old teacher in Massachusetts. Sean Hannity repeated the lie on his faux news commentary.
The facts of this matter are as totally wrong as anything Blair fabricated at the Times. Faux News claimed that the male student who came to Jennings for advice was 15-years old and was having sex with an adult man. As other news outlets investigated the claim, it was uncovered that the student at the time was not having relations, and that he was actually 16 at the time he came to Jennings -- the age of consent in the state of MA. No correction or apologies by Faux News were ever issued, and no actions were taken against those who fabricated and repeated this story.
Faux completely made up the "controversy" as the lie made the rounds of the other right-wing talking heads shows. No responsible news organization would have reported it the way Faux did. Then again, none other but a Murdoch organization would tap private phones for two years either. This is the type of story the foolish devotees of Murdoch will point to as one the other networks just won't touch.
-1
Alphaape
@yabits: I have not heard of that story, since I am really not a Hannity fan. But I will research on my own to find out.
However I did come across a particular item. The media were in the tank for Barack Obama in 2008 is almost a given. But how much they favored him is now being quantified, and the margins appear to be even wider than those for liberal candidates of the past.
Thanks to the Washington Examiner, which analyzed data from the Center for Responsive Politics, we learn that "senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC" were overwhelmingly in the Obama camp.
Overall, 1,160 employees of the big three networks gave Democratic candidates and campaign committees $1.02 million, while 193 contributed $142,863 to Republican candidates and campaign committees. That's a 7-to-1 ratio.
It pales against the imbalance at the candidate level. Obama took in 710 such contributions worth $461,898 compared with the $26,926 that his GOP opponent, Sen. John McCain, got from 39 contributors. That's 18-to-1 contributors and 17-to-1 contributions.
We can even step into the "wy back machine" and see that in 1964, journalists from the top newspaper, magazine and TV outlets voted for Democrats 94% to 6%, according to a study by political scientists Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman. They also found the same "media elite" voted 86% for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon in 1968, when Humphrey pulled just 43% in a three-man race that included George Wallace.
In 1972, when Nixon beat liberal Democrat George McGovern in a 62% landslide, Lichter and Rothman determined that 81% of top journalists voted for the liberal McGovern. The percentage was the same in 1976, when the media backed Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican President Gerald Ford.
Moderator
All readers back on topic please. The subject is the News of the World.
0
Alphaape
@yabits: So you are saying political affiliaton should not matter, I agree. But in real life it does. Just check out the book "Primetime Propagada" and you will see why. There are more conservatives in Holloywood than one may think, but they keep their views to themselves so that they are not blacklisted and not be able to get work. I suggest you read the book. The author may be conservative, but here is one thing. He quotes some of the big names in Hollywood production, and the quotes he gets from them are not made up, in terms of the directions they wanted their shows to go, and how they feel about conservatives.
So if a media corporation is full of like minded individuals, they will shift the way the news is presented.
0
yabits
I fail to see how alleged blacklisting of conservatives in Hollywood has any bearing on how the Murdoch organization distorts and makes up news stories. That is, other than providing the motivation that self-victimized conservatives feel a need to "get back" and even the perceived score.
A media corporation has to be full of ethical, intelligent individuals. People who are mature enough to be fully aware of their own biases and who know how to check their own work and the work of others to make sure their biases have been kept at bay. Rupert Murdoch operates under a completely different agenda. People within his organization thought it was absolutely OK to hack into the private phones of a number of genuine victims of tragedies. For at least two years this criminal behavior was going on.
This obvious lack of morals and ethics is indicative of a systemic problem with NewsCorp; one that is both cultural as well as philosophical, and feeds to all of its branches.
0
Molenir
Wrong. Not surprising but wrong. No one thinks its ok to break the law in pursuit of a story. That there were people doing so who worked for him, is not a reflection on him personally, but on those he hired to oversee and manage the paper. However if you think this the only occurrence and that no lib papers have ever used tactics such as this, then you couldn't be more wrong. This isn't a conservative/liberal issue, this is a people and ethics issue. One thats universal. The outrage though, thats a political thing.
2
yabits
It's rather obvious that Murdoch's organization thought it was OK. It was going on for years and involved more than few employees -- not an isolated individual like a Blair or a Glass.
People he hires are a reflection on him. This scandal is a natural consequence of his very style and philosophy. Of course, any honest person would be questioning himself where he went so wrong with his hires. Obviously, Murdoch doesn't have it in him to do that.
Fans of Faux News and NewsCorp all too often take after the slime they worship: When their dishonesty and lack of morals are revealed, they just make up things without the slightest bit of evidence. The world knows this: NewsCorp has revealed itself to be rotten to the core. So much so that its apologists are asking themselves: "How do I continue to support this totally discredited organization without looking like a complete idiot?.... I know. I'll just make up a claim that 'lib papers' engage in the same tactics."
-2
BreitbartVictorious
I know. I'll just make up a claim that 'lib papers' engage in the same tactics."
Wait a few days...
0
chewitup
Waiting for examples is killing me! Ha ha ha ha!
1
chewitup
I hate the sin, not the sinner. When asked for a number, you totally dodged. Fact.
I would have thought that going to court to argue the right to lie would be enough for any fool. Actually winning the case would be enough for an extra special fool. I will stop there. The weight of all this should be hitting you like a ton of bricks. Explaining why you don't feel anything might cross the line.
Back to top