In terms of salcious tittle tattle, illegal practices and gossip: agreed.

In terms of the power of a media magnate to influence politics, I don't believe that was ever in our power to prevent.

Sure it was - don't buy his rags if you don't like them. Trust me - if it wasn't profitable he'd shut it down in a heartbeat. That douche only cares about his money and the power it buys.

Well, I don't buy his rags. But a lot of people do. More importantly, he exercises his political sway very directly through those papers. He can and has brought down prominent politicians and swung elections.

It is said that one of the most influential parts of the election campaign in 1992, was the front page of the Sun with headline 'last one out of Britain, remember to turn out the lights' along with a picture of the Labour leader.

The problem is that tabloid media is incredibly influential here. So the politicians end up over a barrel having to court that media. I cannot emphasise enough how big a part of our politics and culture the print media is. This was less of a problem when the print media was divided up between several stables. Even I was not aware of how extensive Murdoch's reach actually is. He controls most of the print media. Whoever controls the print media, largely controls British politics.

This isn't just a case of people wanting gossip and so buying the nasty rags. (though it is that) Print media has always had a massive role in our public life. And Murdoch doesn't just own tabloids rags either.

Hey Dana, share this with your comrades... there is this newfangled thing called the internet. ;)

Seriously - I've been hearing and reading more on Murdoch. It looks like the scandal/investigation... is spreading to America.

lol. Everyone I know uses the internet. The tabloid newspaper is for reading on bus/train to work, or whilst sitting on the loo :p

Oh c'mon Dana - honestly, when was the last time you actually used the internet?

YES

'The Jakarta Post published an infographic last week which shows Murdoch's ownership of the media across the world (on the work computer, so I'll post it tomorrow)-146 brands in Australia alone.

Yeah. It's not just the UK he has such influence in. Look at the role Fox news plays in many elections in the US, in Italy and elsewhere

And of course Australia where he began his business.

So where will all this go? Are we seeing the end of another Robert Maxwell or Randolph Hearst empire?

ohhhh - waiting with anticipation for that one, casi.

Certainly a lot less than all the other news sites, TV, and Newspapers which are decidedly one sided with a liberal slant. I am still trying to figure out how if Fox is so bad and is really the sole voice of conservative news they have remained at the top of the ratings for something like 6 years in a row?

Are you seriously telling me Fox isn't one sided?

I didn't say they were the sole voice of conervative news. They do seem the most hysterical one though, and have done a bang up job of whipping their viewers into hitherto unseen levels of hatred and anger.



[eta] I notice your only contribution here is to say 'Waaaaah, the others are worse, it's a liberal dominated media' and generally shill for Fox.

Fox News anchormen (their equivalent to Walter Cronkite and Peter Jennings) will report a story with snide remarks or even mocking laughter. This is not commentary. This is their newsmen supposedly reporting the news without bias. Purpose is to tell the least educated among us how to think. News reporters in Nazi Germany did same so that many could be told how to think – ie blame Jews.

Radio Moscow, even in the early 1960s, was never that blatantly obvious about bias in their news reports. I would listen to Radio Moscow often just to learn another viewpoint. But Fox News is so blatantly insulting that I cannot last more than 15 minutes.

Fox anchormen literally mocked their own Katrina reporters at the Superdome and New Orleans convention center. Because reporters were accurately reporting dangerous and deadly conditions. While Fox News anchormen were told, instead, what political agenda must be reported.

If Fox News is an honest or responsible news source, then Pravda must have been a champion example of honest reporting. After all, Pravda mean honesty.

A term from the UK is blagging. What is that?

Blagging carries two meanings, one colloquial and one legal.

It basically means to fool someone into thinking you are something or someone you are not. It can have a wider meaning: so for instance, if I haven't done the amount of things I claim to have done, I might blag my way through an interview. If I haven't done any revision or study and am making it up as I go along in an exam I could say I blagged it.

In legal terms it is more precise, it is about assuming a fake identity and using that fake identity to acquire information that you have no legal right to, such as someone else's private bank account details, or employment records, or health updates.