Murdoch Meltdown
 

Any of you following the news about Murdoch's UK business going into meltdown?

The News of the World, owned by Murdoch's News International has now closed. (a paper that has been in print since the mid 19th century!)

The rot appears to stretch through the whole tabloid industry, though it is only NoTW that seems to be in the firing line.

There are questions in the House about payments to police, illegal phonehacking (including the hacking of a missing 13 year old's phone, shortly prior to her being found dead, the phones of relatives of 7/11 victims, and likewise relatives of soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

Murdoch's bid for the remaining 70% shares of BSkyB (major broadcasting satellite network here) is looking increasingly under threat: but if it is decided the organisation is not 'Fit and proper' that could also mean them having to give up their current 30% share.

BSkyB's stock is plummetting.

People have already been jailed (2 years ago I think) now more have been arrested including a former press advisor to Prime Minister Cameron.

More is coming out every day.

They are covering it on NPR (radio) here, I couldn't say whether it hit's the network TV news.

Pretty shocking reaction to the shenanigans that they, all tabloids, have been up to all these years.

I think there must be soimething deeper, Murdoch stopped paying off the right people.

Possible. But part of it is also that the Guardian newspaper continued to engage in solid investigative journalism and uncovered more and more stuff.

The Guardian first reported two years ago. The oversight body for the press investigated, but accepted the Police's assertion that it had only been one journalist at fault, and one private detective. Despite the fact they had incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

Since then the new management and staff at the NoTW have been co-operating with an investigation and trawling through past emails and records looking for wrongdoing. I feel rather sorry for the current workforce really. They are picking up the tab for something their predeccessors engaged in.

This has bubbled away for two years, what proved a tipping point though, was when it became clear they'd hacked Milly Dowling's answerphone mesages whilst she was missing. Not just accessing them, but allegedly also deleting them whch gave false hope to parents and police that she was still alive, whne in fact she;'d already been killed and her body dumped. Not only was that shocking, but also moved the timeline of events further back to 2002 thereby implicating more people.

Then came the news that they'd hacked servicemen's relatives, and relatives of 7/11 victims. At that point there was a massive public outcry.

The political angle to this is that Cameron's press guy had already resigned because bits of news kept coming out linking him to stuff, but not yet criminally so. Once it became clear he was about to be arrested and implicated in criminal activities, the PM had to start making statements and looking tough.

Alongside this there's been legal action running against the paper, by several prominent people who'd been hacked.

So, it was already coming, And was always going to come out.

It's in the news down here, too.

I have very cynical views.

It looks to me that Murdoch took NOTW out the back and shot it ASAP. Like he knew it wasn't going to get better and wanted to be rid of it before worse things came out. One wonders what, and how far, and who knew ... I guess lots, a long way, and everyone at the top, but nothing on paper.

And if phone-hacking and cop-bribing is what they do - more or less routinely - to put juicy stories in the paper, what do you think they do to make sure that important political and business decisions go how they want them?

*nods*

There are a lot of questions being asked now about how close the government are to Murdoch and how that relates to decisions over the BSkyB thing.

It was already deeply unpopular, with petitions and demonstrations against allowing it to go through.

As an aside, that twat Murdoch's son has been promoting the idea for a few years now that the BBC is too big, anti-competitive and needs to be brought down a peg or two. Succeeding governments have pressed for the BBC to reduce the content on its website, reduce its budget, change its oversight mechanisms.

Coincidence? I think not.

The one thing that REALLY got to me was the issue with the phone of the 13 year old that was missing, then found dead. Apparently they were deleting voicemail messages when her phone was full so that more could be left. It gave the family hope that she was receiving them and therefore still alive. That's is so far over the line :mad:

Sorry for the duplicate point. I was typing and just saw your post Dana ...

An American would be surprised how few news outlets exist in London. Murdoch's influence on UK information channels is that significant. His power as a king maker is massive.

He wanted to kill the body to discourage anybody from attacking the cancer.

Very true. He has made and broken many politicians.

Think about what Fox is like for hounding politicians they don't approve of. And then add a shitload more shit :P

News International today announced that they are requesting their BSkyB bid be subject to a full review. rather than withdrawing the proposal altogether. This effectively bounces the issue into the long grass for a year.

And now it is coming out that other papers owned by News International (most of the tabloid press and some of the broadsheet) are being implicated in some shady reportage:p

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14112097

Private Eye have been calling Murdoch The Dirty Digger for years.
Now we get to see how much mud-raking actually sticks.

Wouldn't it be lovely if this broke the bastard's stranglehold on our print media and political culture?

Pffffft.
We have the media we deserve.

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.

Murdoch Empire Infographic
 

I'm having a bit of an issue uploading this infographic. I've tried uploading it in PDF format and also in txt to no avail. Can anyone either give me some tips or can I PM it to someone who'll be able to make it play ball?

PM sent

And replied to.

What really winds me up is the way they've tried to use their political influence to sabotage the BBC. James Murdoch gave a lecture to some conference or other basically claiming the BBc was too big, and didn;t allow for competition in television, and also that they provided too much on their web pages (again damaging potential competition). He even tried to pressurise Gordon Brown into anti-BBC policies (Brown refused and the Murdoch press went to town on him for several months thereafter).

I don't know if he put pressure on Blair, and the previous Conservative administration, but successive governments, including the current administration have gone out of their way to weaken the BBC.

Murdochs claiming the BBC is anti-competitive. Ridiculous. As they slowly buy up the entire frakkin world's media lol.

The BBC barely competes on the commercial side. The vast majority of its programming is stuff that just wouldn't get made if left to market forces. or if they were made they be done to a much more populist style (like science and nature documentaries for instance). The beauty of the BBC is it doesn't just have to look to the bottom line when deciding what to commission and air. The commercial broadcasters do that and for the most part they do it pretty well. Oftne making stuff that the BBC just couldn't justify making as a licence fee funded broadcaster.

Programmes like Doctor Who would never continue being made past the first dip in viewing figures. Children's and family friendly drama is a major plus for the BBC but the commercial companies don't really want any of that.

We don;t have a huge amount to offer the world these days in terms of cultural product, but the BBC is what we got.

Interview from right at the start of this furore.

Steve Coogan is a successful comedian, writer and actor. Well known for not giving many interviews and fighting shy of the limelight. Not remotely one of the celebs that haunt the pages of gossip mgazines. His phones and those of his former girlfriend were hacked by the NoTW. He and a few others (including Hugh grant) have been pressing legal action against NoTW and News International and have been a part of bringing this matter to the public eye.

The former editor of the NoTW who he's facing off against not only presided over that particular piece of hacking, but also personally staked out Coogan's house in attempt to dig up dirt.

Thanks for the above interview Dana. This was watched at work as well.

Because it's all based on how many viewers there are, and of course all the conservatives watch it, and plenty of liberals watch it just for shits and giggles. I know we do sometimes. :D

It's popular because it is populist :p Whatever my gripes with Fox's biased and (imo) irresponsible reporting style, it led the way in making news 'fun' to watch instead of just informative.

They've used that to peddle lies and hatred, but they've done it with lots of splash and colour. They have been one of the biggest factors in the polarisation of the American political scene in recent years and have successfully sold the lie that the rest of the media is a liberal haunt. Sold it to people like Merc. Who've swallowed the line. So, now many people who are not liberal feel like it's the only mainstream news they can possibly watch. And automatically discount anything said on any other news channel as 'liberal bias', regardless of the quality, or lack thereof, of the reporting. They are the televisual equivalent of the British tabloid press.


They have no journalistic integrity. Their 'Newswatch' programme has steadfastly refused to cover the Murdoch/News International/News Corp issue. Despite it being the biggest story in the news industry at the moment. There's a clip on youtube of them talking whilst off-air during a break: they joke about the story they aren't talking about.

The Economist summarizes the scope: As this grows, it is starting to feel more like Watergate complete with threats and obstructions at the highest levels of government and other powers that be. And with virtually one news service (The Guardian) doing most all reporting and investigations. With even law enforcement subverted at the highest levels.

And finally, this is a classic example of where problems originate. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. It was true in Watergate.

Most interesting is how little Murdoch news services are reporting this corruption at highest levels involving so many people who fear to tell the truth ... just like Watergate.

Watergate enshrined in American law and bluntly defined by a 1971 Supreme Court ruling in "Times v. United States" that “only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.” Newsgate will create what principle in British law?

What happened to the principles once heralded on Fleet Street?

Also asked (and unanswered) are predictions for Murdoch. Is this a story similar to Hearst and Maxwell? (Will there be a Patty Murdoch?)

just one simple question








Is it charitable to say that the people we disagree with have been duped into their opinions?

No.

Some shows may have done that, Beck comes to mind, they have just given him the platform. I there are other shows which I find informative, just like some of the shows on CNN, but not all. To color the whole channel with the same brush is foolish.

Really? One TV channel? Has been one of the biggest factors in our political polarization? :eek: :lol:

No, actually that discussion began during the Clinton era, I believe that is when the first study was done at UCLA that showed the bias of most news sources to be liberal leaning. But you can believe anything about me that you want. Just like your previous personal bias and assessment about my views on things....

Then they are fools. I know how to change channels on my TV.

I wouldn't do that.


More evidence of your personal bias. You must have bought the Soro's and Media Matters Brainwashing hook, line, and sinker.

Really? A 1 second search says otherwise.

http://www.foxnews.com/search-result...&submit=Search

Looks like about 4 or 5 news stories on the subject yesterday alone.

You have been drinking the Marxist kool-aid to long. Look in the mirror.

I don't even watch Fox except for Stossel and occasionally O'Reilly. Even that is not more than a few times each week. I get 90% of my news from the web. Mainly Google News because of it's diverse sources.

just one simple question...

She didn't say Fox - Reread...

Fair point *smiles*


@ classic: thanks. yes, i was specifically referring to the programme they run which looks at media matters of the day. It is a glaring omission.

Duped by Fox? Maybe not.

Misinformed by Fox on a regular basis. Absolutely.

What side of the line is NBC on? I find US politics a tad confusing often, because even some of your liberal stuff would be seen as on the Right over here.

I quite like MSNBC (did I get that right?) news. It seems quite level headed without the shouting and showboating. I can't bear Sky news over here either, not because of the politics (it's pretty balanced in that regard) but just because of the infotainment approach. I like my news quiet and thoughtful :p

With Merc, it is more likely that FOX agrees with his preconceived views that he gets from other locations therefore is less likely to consider it as biased as opposed to you, F&B, where FOX disagrees with your preconceived views therefore you are more likely to consider it biased.

I really doubt FOX gives Merc his views, as opposed to many other FOX viewers.

MSNBC would be characterized as leaning left, but with several conservative commentators having prominent network roles for fairness, like Joe Scarborough (former Republican Congressman) and Pat Buchanon (former Republican presidential candidate) and the network gives as much time to Republican guests as Democrats.

FOX had four potential Republican candidates on their payroll at one time as commentators- Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee (both of whom are still with FOX), Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum (both of whom were temporarily suspended as they are now "official" candidates.

I think that's probably a fair point about Merc actually. His was just the name that came to mind as a vocal defender of Fox.

I don't think it's fair to say it's just about whether a programme/show, or newspaper fits your views as to whether it seems biased though. The Times is absolutely on the other side of the political fence from me, but it is a good paper with quality journalism (most of the time). The Mirror is a left wing tabloid, supportive of unions, anti-Iraq war, pro Labour Party til they moved to the Right and very much in line with my opinions: but it's a fucking rag of a paper and I can't remember the last time it engaged in any real journalism.

The problem with Fox isn't just the bias (though that does seem absoutely blatant), it's the way it presents news.

In Britain, TV news is usually pretty balanced. There are some mild biases but they are very heavily regulated. The newspapers however have been left almost to their own devices and the result is the tabloid press. Fox news is like our tabloid press. Unaccountable, peddles lies and innuendo, engages in media vendettas against individuals and organisations, sells itself for political influence.

Oh, I like Joe Scarborough! He seems a thoughtful and intelligent man.

I like him as well because he does bring a right of center perspective to the network in a fair and even-toned manner.

But you wont see FOX with a show comparable to Morning Joe, with a former Democratic congressman offering a left of center perspective.

Of course, that is why I made a relative not an absolute statement, but it does have a large influence. Most people in the US are aware that FOX has a conservative slant while MSNBC has a liberal slant but will usually only apply the biased label to the ones they disagree with. Its just an emotional reaction since we generally don't like to admit that we personally are wrong or biased.

I agree with this 100%.

I tend to watch specific shows versus the channel they are on.
The nighttime lineup at MSNBC is one lecture after another. Very biased and VERY Liberal in terms of American politics. Morning Joe is great except for that dinosaur Pat Buchanon whom I cannot stand. The rest of the panel are pretty good, but sometimes Mika gets out of hand with the texts from people inside the administration. She's lost a lot of credibility with me.

Fox I pretty much can't/won't watch. I do like Stossel but I get that on the Fox biz channel without having to accidentally see Hannity or some of the other idiots.
CNN in the am i rather bland, but I do like Anderson Cooper who is on 10pm-12am)

Local news is murder/rape/fire/death/destruction .... Can't tell you the last time I watched any of it.
That's a perfect description of media matters with their latest target being Fox and the people who work there.

At least it IS blatant and right there versus misrepresenting itself as unbiased which the others do.


Their morning show presentation is pitiful & their hosts are frighteningly pathetic.
All three of them smarmy looking ...just ewwwwww...

"Real Journalism" and "Fair and Balanced" isn't misrepresenting its skew?????

Wow.

My bad. I don't really care about UK politics, only our international relations.

Can you recall the current slogan of any other cable news channel?

Precisely.

And brilliant. Congratulatory to the viewers, incendiary to the non-viewers. They got the non-viewers to promote the channel. You can think of that as using your powers for evil instead of good, if you prefer, but here we are, talking about the channel.