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.
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.
He wanted to kill the body to discourage anybody from attacking the cancer.
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.
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-14112097Private 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.
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?
Wouldn't it be lovely if this broke the bastard's stranglehold on our print media and political culture?
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.
Look at the role Fox news plays in many elections in the US......
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.
Are you seriously telling me Fox isn't one sided?
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.
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?
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.
[YOUTUBE]SkeSJLgzG8k[/YOUTUBE]
Thanks for the above interview Dana. This was watched at work as well.
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?
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:
Four deeply worrying question emerge from this. The first is how a newsroom could run so far out of control. ...
The second question ... many journalists at the newspaper would have known about such practices, and failed to report them. That can only happen in an outfit that has lost any sense of right and wrong. The notion that its rivals were perhaps doing the same thing is no excuse.
Then there are the police. The initial investigation by the Metropolitan Police into phone hacking was pitiful. ... Files handed over last month suggest that police received some payments from the News of the World. ...
Far from urging the police to conduct a full investigation, [politicians]have long cosied up to the tabloids. One member of the parliamentary culture committee alleged last year that members had been warned they could be targeted by newspapers if they insisted on summoning Mrs Brooks to give evidence against her will.
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?)
Sold it to people like Merc. Who've swallowed the line.
just one simple question
Is it
charitable to say that the people we disagree with have been
duped into their opinions?
Are you seriously telling me Fox isn't one sided?
No.
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.
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.
They have been one of the biggest factors in the polarisation of the American political scene in recent years....
Really? One TV channel? Has been one of the biggest factors in our political polarization? :eek: :lol:
... 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.
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....
So, now many people who are not liberal feel like it's the only mainstream news they can possibly watch.
Then they are fools. I know how to change channels on my TV.
And automatically discount anything said on any other news channel as 'liberal bias', regardless of the quality, or lack thereof, of the reporting.
I wouldn't do that.
They have no journalistic integrity.
More evidence of your personal bias. You must have bought the Soro's and Media Matters Brainwashing hook, line, and sinker.
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.
Really? A 1 second search says otherwise.
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=Murdoch&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.
You must have bought the Soro's and Media Matters Brainwashing hook, line, and sinker
just one simple question...
Their 'Newswatch' programme has steadfastly refused to cover the Murdoch/News International/News Corp issue
She didn't say Fox - Reread...
just one simple question
Is it charitable to say that the people we disagree with have been duped into their opinions?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The problem with Fox isn't just the bias (though that does seem absoutely blatant), it's the way it presents news.
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.
engages in media vendettas against individuals and organisations
That's a perfect description of media matters with their latest target being Fox and the people who work there.
The problem with Fox isn't just the bias (though that does seem absolutely blatant), it's the way it presents news.
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?????
She didn't say Fox - Reread...
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.
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.
Fair enough. I listen to BBC World News on a regular basis as well, and when I lived in NJ I bought the Village Voice every week. I still buy the NYTimes when ever I travel, but I also buy a WSJ as well. I try to read all the different views, even when I disagree with them.
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.
Sure I can. The Morgue Channel: You Stab 'em We Slab 'em.
Good point, UT. Unrelated to the point that I don't think a reasonable person could actually claim, without tongue firmly planted in cheek, that they don't misrepresent themselves and that they blatantly let us know of the bias. :rolleyes:
Fox News: Yeah, We're Biased. But It's Working For Us. ;)
Fox News: Yeah, We're Biased. But It's Working For Us. ;)
I love it! I would support an online drive to get them to change their name. :D
I don't think a reasonable person could actually claim, without tongue firmly planted in cheek, that they don't misrepresent themselves and that they blatantly let us know of the bias.
Let me rephrase for
you - I find their bias blatantly obvious.
:finger:
It was a legitimate point. What a child.
Goofball. I can't help that men fall for me so. It's a curse, really.
Hey, you know how choosy mothers choose Jif? Other peanut butters tend to attract like, college students or single guys, but at least Jif doesn't represent itself as the choice of choosy mothers. Except for maybe IN THEIR ENTIRE MARKETING CAMPAIGN.
:thumb:
Fox News: Yeah, We're Biased. But It's Working For Us. ;)
Fox News: Yeah, we're biased. So are you. That's why you like us.
Heard on Morning Edition
July 13, 2011 - [POST-BROADCAST NOTE: Reuters issued an advisory indicating that the column written by David Cay Johnson, on which this interview with Johnson was based, was wrong. We will provide further clarification as information becomes available.]
STEVE INSKEEP, host:
As British investigators dig for details in the News Corp. scandal, a columnist for Reuters looked at some financial figures that were already public. News Corp. is a publicly traded American company, meaning it must disclose financial information. So columnist David Cay Johnston ran the numbers on how much News Corp. made in the last four years and the taxes it paid on those earnings.
Mr. DAVID CAY JOHNSTON (Columnist): [COLOR="Red"]Murdoch's company News Corporation made over $10 billion in profits over the last four years, and their tax came to $4.8 billion negative. That is they made $4.8 billion from tax refunds.[/COLOR]
INSKEEP: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I've heard of people eliminating their tax burden down to zero. General Electric was criticized for getting its tax burden down to zero. But you're saying that News Corporation was actually paid by the United States government?
Mr. JOHNSTON: Almost $5 billion, which would increase their profits, if you looked at it that way, by almost 50 percent.
We'll see what, if any, part of this is wrong but right now it looks like the US has two public broadcasting systems. As we sit at a budget impasse, I'd say the Democrats could make hay with an anti tax haven argument.
They did a correction on that story the next day. I hadn't heard the original story but I did hear the correction. David Johnston was absolutely mortified at how badly he fucked the story up. He was reading the financial report wrong and read negative numbers as positive. News Corp paid $4.8 Billion. They didn't get a refund of $4.8B.
The correction was amazing. These NPR reporters kept trying to explain how they made the mistake and were absolutely mortified at how wrong they got the story.
I don't know how to search for it, but it's an amusing story to listen to if you find it.
Total f-up! Retract all conclusions.
From The Economist of 9 July 2011:
Fox was setup by Roger Ailes, a former media adviser to three Republican presidents, specifically to appeal to conservative viewers. Its star hosts, such as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, offer distinctively right-wing opinion and commentary though the channel insists that its news reporting is unbiased. Fox is famous for being opinionated rather than for being profitable. ....
How profitable? Fox News is estimated to profit $0.8 billion dollars on revenues of $1.5 billion. That is obscenely profitable. Says how opinionated their reporting is. Promoting opinions rather than facts has always been that profitable because so many only want to hear their political agenda. Not a reality that might challenge them to think. To ask and answer damning questions.
These are the people who make advertising so much fun. They can be so easily manipulated. They were told to smoke cigarettes for increased health. Then got angry when the Surgeon General define it as a lie. Angry at the Surgeon General. Not at the liars who first told them what to think.
Same attitude is why so many knew Saddam had WMDs when facts and numbers said otherwise. Saddam only had WMDs because so many only believe the first thing they are told. Profits by manipulating these 'most easily deceived' people can be massive - as Dannon Yogurt has recently proven.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Yeeeeahhh. After years of NPR consumption, I'm familiar with this.
It's "polite bias": we, at NPR, are the figureheads of all things properly news, and we are pretending to not have any bias at all.
So we can't do the radio equivalent of a Jon Stewart, and bug our eyes out at this new information or do a faux spit-take. We can't do what we'd do in the real world, which is to say "5 billion, are you shitting me?"
But we can say wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Our listeners understand that it's
code for are you shitting me.
These NPR reporters kept trying to explain how they made the mistake and were absolutely mortified at how wrong they got the story.
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/14/137840231/reuters-columnist-admits-error-in-news-corp-story
Now, let's follow, in comic fashion, how the columnist attempts to deflect some of the blame onto Fox.
INSKEEP: What happened?
Mr. JOHNSTON: Well, News Corp. reported numbers as positive numbers for cash paid for taxes for three years and then switched to reporting them as negative numbers - that is numbers in parenthesis. And I didn't catch that those were negative numbers.
What really happened?
Journalism students are not required to take courses in Business such as Accounting and Economics. (worse than that: to Journalism students, those courses are SATAN!) So they make these kinds of mistakes all the time, because not only can't they read financial statements, they don't even know what is reasonable. And they don't know the statements are prepared by public accountants, following strict accounting principles.
INSKEEP: You're saying - wait a minute. You're saying you spoke with News Corp. before making this mistake, and they didn't correct you about the mistake?
Mr. JOHNSTON: Absolutely. You know, I've never written a story in my life that anybody who is being criticized didn't know exactly what was coming.
INSKEEP: Although in the end, they said no comment. In a situation where the company is not helpful, did you have an extra...
Mr. JOHNSTON: Well, they didn't comment. I didn't say they said no comment, they did not comment.
(at News Corp) Hey boss, this Reuters reporter says we got a tax refund of $5B, what should I tell him?
Nothing. That asshole Johnston is on our shit for everything. Let him report it, and then tell the guys at Newsbusters, and we'll have great fun watching him try to cover his ass.
Also, need I point out that "
you're saying, wait a minute, you're saying" is the "wait wait wait wait wait" of this retraction.
But, yes, I was surprised that the company had - you know, they were just nonplused when I said this. Usually, when you have something, if it's off, in even a small detail, companies jump right on that. On the other hand, to be fair to them, remember, they're under siege right now from journalists from all these other issues facing Mr. Murdoch.
"
remember, they're under siege right now from journalists from all these other issues facing Mr. Murdoch" is how you shit on the company you just fucked up the reporting of.
It's good work if you can get it.
[size=1]Do I have to add the disclaimer that I rarely watch FNC these days, and when I do it's "Red Eye", their best program that nobody knows about.[/size]
the chief of police for the city of london has resigned.
This is apparently due to the criticisms leveled at his officers for their part in this unfolding scandal over phone hacking.
This story seems to still be in the expanding stage, more people are getting splattered with more shit. Will David Cameron escape unscathed? Intact even?
This is getting much larger as time goes on. Imma bettin there are some REAL nervous peeps over here too, V.
So, who is the bigger crook: Murdoch or Assange?
News of the World phone-hacking whistleblower found dead
Sean Hoare, the former News of the World showbiz reporter who was the first named journalist to allege Andy Coulson was aware of phone hacking by his staff, has been found dead, the Guardian has learned.
Hoare, who worked on the Sun and the News of the World with Coulson before being dismissed for drink and drugs problems, is said to have been found dead at his Watford home.
Hertfordshire police would not confirm his identity, but the force said in a statement: "At 10.40am today [Monday 18 July] police were called to Langley Road, Watford, following the concerns for the welfare of a man who lives at an address on the street. Upon police and ambulance arrival at a property, the body of a man was found. The man was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after.
"The death is currently being treated as unexplained, but not thought to be suspicious. Police investigations into this incident are ongoing."
Hoare first made his claims in a New York Times investigation into the phone-hacking allegations at the News of the World.
Link
The timing of this is just too bizarre...
This whole story is bizarre.
Bloody hell. I haven't listened to any news today. Gad, ye can't turn yer back on this story for five minites...
Cameron is cutting his African trip short to come home ...
and another cop resigned...
This is moving pretty quickly.
So, who is the bigger crook: Murdoch or Assange?
we're all crooks down here. ;)
we're all crooks down here. ;)
:lol:
And Lulzsec just hacked The Sun's website and redirected it to their twitter feed. Seems the Times was offline for a while too.
Gad, ye can't turn yer back on this story for five minites...
You would be too young to remember Watergate. Once Judge Sirica had one Watergate burglar spilling beans, the avalanche began. The Saturday Night massacre at the time started to get scary. Many people were taking precautions; murder was an option.
By the time the Supreme Court was involved, Chief Justice Burger made plans in case Nixon used the Army to occupy the Supreme Court building. He did not expect it. But with things moving so quickly, the powers that be in Washington started making contingency plans. Even the Sec of Defense ordered the Joint Chiefs to ignore any command to launch nuclear missiles unless confirmed by the Secretary. Even that action was considered possible – things were moving that fast.
This scandal has too many people at highest levels too fully involved. Do we know if Princess Diana was even monitored? Considering Murdoch’s ethics, that would be consistent with what Nixon did in Watergate.
Head of Dow Jones (in the US) has also resigned. Apparently this scandel also involves powerful people in America.
Does Murdoch have an enemies list? Who should be paid to get on it?
I doubt they'll find anything specifically related to Di's death. That'll all have been destroyed during the various trials and enquiries at the time (I'm guessing).
I don't think even the NoTW nutcases would have been mad enough to keep records of having essentially hounded the Princess of Wales to her death.
The terrifying thing with this is that it seems to have been such an accepted part of the job. That former features deputy ed, in the video clip, clearly saw nothing wrong with listening to people's messages. He seems to think that's an acceptable tactic in digging into people's private lives. And also that covering celeb's coke habits and marital affairs was a 'bit of fun' despite the wreckage of families that left behind.
The links to the top of the police service and the government are fascinating. I think we all (the British public) assumed he had fingers in every level of government, but I think the extent of police corruption has schocked us. That some police would take bribes from reporters isn't that shocking. There will always be an element of personal corruption in any organisation of people. But that it went so high and deep. Wow.
Really not sure what to think about the guy who just died. I'm not generally a conspiracy theory nut, but the timing isn't great. I really want to believe the assurances we got over Doctor Kelly's death too, but I'm not entirely sure I trust the people offering that assurance.
Is it just me, or does James Murdoch sound an awful lot like Lex Luther?
Apparently the Murdoch organization freely used G. Gordon Liddy types. Because those types are so ethical. Everyone has reason to be concerned. It’s not coincidental that the head of Dow Jones in America also had to resign. We just don't yet know the details.
lol
Rupert Murdoch's just been hit in the face with a 'custard pie'/plate of shaving foam, by a protestor.
The police being brilliantly effective at stopping such incidents occurring.
A pie in the face? What a clown! :lol:
This is making for occasionally quite surreal viewing.
I heard a report that the "protestor" was
Johnny Marbles. I wonder if Murdoch hired him to be his safecall.
Yeah, I believe it was at that.
Murdoch did very well in his testimony. He held his own as the political pundits tried to say he should have know about something that represents less than 1% of his financial holdings.
Glad to see his wife got a face slap on the ass hole who tried to hit him with a pie.
Murdoch did very well in his testimony. He held his own as the political pundits tried to say he should have know about something that represents less than 1% of his financial holdings.
He blamed everyone but himself. If there was ever an example of "85% of all problems directly traceable to ...", it was apparent in his testimony.
Top management sets the attitude and knowledge. And top management is responsible for subordinates having the proper attitude and knowledge. Well, Rick Wagoner of GM also tried to blame everybody else including the market, the economy, government regulation, unfair competition, etc. Why was GM making crap cars? Wagoner - the guy who blamed everyone but himself.
Riccardo blamed unions, the economy, government, unfair foreign competition, and everything else for Chrysler that kept making products that could not sell. He literally filled the Michigan State Fairgrounds with products nobody wanted. Why could Iacocca make Chrysler profitable in only three years? He replaced the guy who blamed everyone but himself.
Murdoch's testimony describes a corporation that was doing exactly what he wanted. Complete with blame everyone else. How many other Murdoch operations are just as corrupt? Why is Dow Jones so suspect that its top man resigned? No reason exists to believe this is limited to "News of the World". But Murdoch is a right wing extremist. Therefore TheMercenary *knows* Murdoch is innocent. The political agenda is again telling us what to believe.
At this point, we have no idea how wide this corruption is. Because Murdoch was blaming everyone but himself ... just like Nixon.
Report from Fox News has it that Johnny Marbles is also responsible for the corruption.
Murdoch may well have no knowledge of phone hacking within his organisation, but he along with his 'top management' are responsible for putting enough pressure on employees to make them feel it necessary to commit crimes in order to get their job done.
Murdoch may well have no knowledge of phone hacking within his organisation, but he along with his 'top management' are responsible for putting enough pressure on employees to make them feel it necessary to commit crimes in order to get their job done.
Yea, that is the nature of all news organizations today, from the Huffington Post to MSNBC to Fox News.... The Economist has a great series of articles in the latest edition addressing this very issue.
tw, I'm pretty sure a megalomaniac like Murdoch would be very pleased to be considered as important as Nixon.
He sure is a hell of a lot richer and more powerful than any politician could ever hope to be!
So, if the people questioned yesterday are to be believed: nobody at the top of News International and News Corp, or the Metropolitan Police knew anything that was going on beneath them.
The Murdchs didn't know about paying the legal fees for one of the Private Investigators who conducted the illegal hacking until just recently, the Chief knew nothing about the cloud hanging over the man his department had hired, the Deputy Chief did nothing wrong when he assisted the daughter of a friend ('a business friend') at News of the World get a job in civilian liason.
Everybody attends the same parties, the Chief recovered from injury at a luxury spa owned by someone at News International, but nobody ever spoke about what was going on.
Rupert Murdoch has taken such a deep personal interest in British politics for such a long time and is known throughout the media world as a hands on business man with a particular personal interest in the newspaper side of his empire, knew nothing of what went on.
This stinks in all kinds of ways. The key players are all linked socially and in business. Police, politicians and press. A ridiculous number of ex-police worked for the NoTW, and a ridiculos number of ex-NoTW worked for the police. The Prime Minister is a neighbour and friend of Rebecca Brooks, who was apparently 'like a daughter' to Murdoch, and was his 'first priority' when he came back to sort out the mess. It was said when he closed down NoTW, he killed the paper to save Rebecca.
The Prime Minister's former press aide is currently on bail awaiting trial. Employed by him after he had resigned from the NoTW claiming ignorance of what went on under his watch. And then taken with him into Downing Street after the election. Despite warnings from people across the political and party spectrum, and by the Guardian newspaper based on what they knew from investigating the story, and what they knew of an ongoing murder trial of a private detective involved in the hacking.
Thatcher and her government waved through the Murdoch deal to launch Sky Tv despite it breaching the assumptions of the day that ownership of so many newspapers and also a tv broadcasting arm consisted of a dangerous monopoly.
Blair flew halfway around the world to court Murdoch's support. The switch of Murdoch's press to support Labour was itself a massive news story and is thought to have had a profound impact on voting in that election.
The former Prime Minister, Brown, meanwhile says that News International tried to pressure him into legislating a weaker BBC. On his refusal to act in a way that would clearly be of direct benefit to the BBC'a rival, BSkYB, the Murdoch press turned against him.
A former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Met has come out and said they essentially attempted to blackmail him into a more cooperative position, and when he refused to play ball, the stories about his gay sex life started appearing in the Murdoch press, and he ended up having to resign because 'he had become the story' and it was preventing him from doing his job.
Prior to this scandal it was looking certain (and was clearly supported by the Conservative government) that the BSkyB deal would go through. This would have given Murdoch 100% ownership of the satellite broadcasting system. He already owned 30%, Sky having effected a takeover ('merger') of BsB in the 90s. Whilst Conservative ministers float changes in legislation which would force the BBC to operate more like a commercial organisation and at the same time reducing its presence in the market (through cutting back what it offered online, and splitting the licence fee across other channels). The minister for this area engaged in public speaking events and discussions where he pushed the same anti-BBC regulation script that we'd already heard so many times from James Murdoch. All whilst the leviathon of BSkyB, whose commercial revenues far outstrip anything the BBC brings in awaits a more favourable climate for its own business.
The amount of power Murdoch's press machine has in British politics has long been known/suspected, but I think even we are shocked at the close and intertwined three way relationship that appears to have struck up between press, politicians and police, accross decades.
There was a really interesting Panorama investigation the other night. I managed to track it down on youtube, chopped up into chunks:p It includes interviews with the chap that was found dead the other day (Hoare). It's also quite a nice analysis of the role of Murdoch in British political culture.
P1
[YOUTUBE]sdRaWaXq_0c[/YOUTUBE] David Mellor who talks about the Thatcher government was one of her Cabinet ministers. He spoke out against Murdoch (iirc) and then the tabloid press outed him for an affair, with all sorts of gory details, and basically destroyed his ministerial career.
P2:
[YOUTUBE]17cAmrQIBQM&feature=watch_response[/YOUTUBE] Prescott was the deputy Prime Minister during the Blair years. He's been suing NoTW for breach of privacy, as his phones were hacked.
P3:
[YOUTUBE]ViJqMKTvzR8&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
P4: (Includes some of the Hoare interview)
[YOUTUBE]8Au2LxY0HLQ&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
P5: ('Clapham Common' is infamous as a gay pick up place)
[YOUTUBE]8Au2LxY0HLQ&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
P6: Final part :P
[YOUTUBE]T78yUdIOaNA&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
The small sgment that was removed from the documentary is also available on Youtube separately:
Rebecca Brooks telling Parliament in 2003 that the NoTW had paid police.
[YOUTUBE]v1AJjnl2y8U[/YOUTUBE]
Rebekah Brooks is hot, and I would hit her twotimes.... just saying.
She's apparently utterly charming in person. Except whren she's being a ball-breaking, bullying bitch of course.
I don't know, and can't be arsed going through the whole thread, but have I told you guys about her Harry Potter project?
It was her pet project apparently, whne she was editor of the NoTW in 2001. One of the journalists had a remarkable resemblance to Harry Potter. So, Brooks decided to make him the paper's Harry Potter correspondent. He had to change his name by deed poll to Harry Potter and dress as a wizard at press conferences and public engagement. From The Telegraph in 2002:
(Rebecca Wade is now Rebecca Brooks)
His breaking point came on the afternoon of September 11, when he was summoned to the office of the editor Rebekah Wade and rebuked for not being "in character". Begley, then 29, was told to appear in full Potter regalia at the next day's news conference. He parted ways with the paper a few weeks later and is now considering legal action against his former employers. (His initial claim was turned down because he had been on staff for only six months.)
Begley's account was this week dismissed by Stuart Kuttner, the tabloid's managing editor, as "deeply flawed". In a letter to this paper, he said that his former reporter was a "fantasist" and Ms Wade had "made no request" for Begley to "parade as Harry Potter".
And now? As if by magic - a tape recording of conversations between Begley and senior NoW executives has suddenly "apparated" at Telegraph Towers. . .
The rest of the article is here, with the transcripts and stuff:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1406429/Pottergate-we-publish-the-secret-tapes.html
And here's the followup piece from this week.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8629659/Phone-hacking-News-of-the-World-journalist-forced-to-dress-as-Harry-Potter-after-911-attacks-story-goes-viral.htmlIs it true that they're going to rename London ... Hackensack?
An interesting development. Turns out if the top man shovels shit downwards, the people below don't always quietly lap up the shit:
Evidence on phone hacking given to MPs by News International chairman James Murdoch has been called into question by two former executives at the firm.
Mr Murdoch told the culture committee he had not been "aware" of an email suggesting the practice went wider than a "rogue" News of the World reporter.
But ex-NoW editor Colin Myler and ex-NI legal manager Tom Crone have now said they "did inform" him of the email.
Mr Murdoch later said he "stands by his testimony" to the committee on Tuesday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14242763
At the committee hearing on Tuesday, Labour's Tom Watson asked Mr Murdoch: "When you signed off the Taylor payment, did you see or were you made aware of the full Neville (Thurlbeck) email, the transcript of the hacked voicemail messages?"
Mr Murdoch replied: "No, I was not aware of that at the time".
He went on: "There was every reason to settle the case, given the likelihood of losing the case and given the damages - we had received counsel - that would be levied."
In their statement issued on Thursday Mr Myler and Crone said: "Just by way of clarification relating to Tuesday's CMS select committee hearing, we would like to point out that James Murdoch's recollection of what he was told when agreeing to settle the Gordon Taylor litigation was mistaken.
"In fact, we did inform him of the 'for Neville' email which had been produced to us by Gordon Taylor's lawyers."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14245922
And now:
David Cameron says James Murdoch "clearly" needs to answer questions in Parliament after his evidence on phone hacking was challenged.
Labour MP Tom Watson has asked police to investigate after Mr Murdoch's evidence to MPs was disputed by two ex-News of the World executives.
Is the parliamentary hearing under oath? As in, lying constitutes perjury?
[/sniff of blood]
I don't think it is. But if it is proved then there is a strong possibility it will be seen as evidence of a previous attempt to pervert the course of justice:
Labour MP Tom Watson (one of the few to try and take the issue on whilst the rest of the political clases were still cosying up and one of the committee members who questioned the Murdochs this week) speaking to the BBC:
"If [Colin Myler and Tom Crone's] statement is accurate it shows James Murdoch had knowledge that others were involved in hacking as early as 2008, it shows he failed to act to discipline staff or initiate an internal investigation, which undermines Rupert Murdoch's evidence to our committee that the company had a zero tolerance to wrongdoing."
The MP added: "More importantly, it shows he not only failed to report a crime to the police but because there was a confidentiality clause involved in the settlement it means that he bought the silence of [chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association] Gordon Taylor and that could mean he is facing investigation for perverting the course of justice."
All I have to say is that I agree with Jon Stewart here: "England is awesome!"
I LOVE the way the Brits are handling this. I LOVE the way you sling it and then others stand up and go "HEREHERE!" and all that shit. Very bloody entertaining good shit.
eta: if I was Wendy Murdoch and had to crawl into bed with that bloodhound-faced old man I'd slit my wrists.
Yeah, I saw that Daily Show :p
Gotta say it's a fuck of a long time since I actually felt some pride in parliament.
That debate would have been a whole heap more impressive had the party leaderships on both sides not spent the last 30 years cosying up to the Murdoch press. Though, I suppose the fact that anybody who took them on had their political careers destroyed by them explains why so few successful politicians have clean hands in this area.
Many of the backbench MPs who spoke up are backbenchers, rather than frontliners, partly because they took on the Murdochs and lost.
last night, Newsnight revealed evidence they'd obtained suggesting that the lawyer acting for Milly Dowler's family has been 'under surveillance' by News of the World. When it was put to him he referred the matter to the police but also spoke on Newsnight:
I really hope this plays outside the UK. It's from the BBC News site so hopefully it isn't region locked.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14244007Is the parliamentary hearing under oath? As in, lying constitutes perjury?
[/sniff of blood]
Here.She's apparently utterly charming in person. Except whren she's being a ball-breaking, bullying bitch of course.
Yea, that is why she is successful at running companies. Go figure.
She's a Chinese Hilary Clinton!
She's not Chinese...
Was talking about Rebecca Brooks, the former editor of NoTW and an executive of News International. Not Wendy, Murdoch's wife.
She's not Chinese...
Was talking about Rebecca Brooks, the former editor of NoTW and an executive of News International. Not Wendy, Murdoch's wife.
That'll teach me to read the damn posts, won't it? ;)
Rebecca Brooks doesn't
look charming. She looks like a ball=breaker from waaaaay back.
I suppose most women in positions of real power are ball-breakers.
What I find slightly frustrating about someone like Brooks is that she made it in a very male world, and then used that to perpetuate a famously misogynistic workplace and publication. She actively encouraged journalists to refer to women in tabloid guy speak. As one former employee recalls:
Attitudes towards women - never thought of as particularly enlightened at The Sun, a paper still famous for its topless page 3 models - did not improve under Brooks, Taggart said.
''We were regularly encouraged to refer to women with misogynistic names like 'tarts', 'slappers' or 'hookers' in our copy if there was conceivably any question mark over their sexual proclivities,'' he said.
''We were expected to childishly objectify women. So blonde-haired women were described as 'beauties' and generously chested women 'looked swell'. ''
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/underlings-recall-tabloid-tactics-under-ruthless-brooks-20110721-1hr0y.html#ixzz1Svl5Fxlz
The Sun, a paper still famous for its topless page 3 models - did not improve under Brooks
Who cares, it sold paper, and it is a business. If a subset bought it only for that or because it add a little something to the purchase, more power to them.
I care. A lot of people here, especially women care.
Newspapers aren't just product like any other. They are a large part of what forms/informs opinion and creates the cultural zeitgeist. I don't have a problem with seeing tits. I do have a problem with newspapers having a page dedicated to topless shots. And the language used to describe women is often despicable.
These are the newspapers that get left about for anybody to read. I remember reading them when I was a kid. They'd be in cafes for people to read having their breakfast, or there'd be a copy left on the bus. And y'know, I remember how it made me feel as an adolescent girl, seeing these bizarrely contrived topless shots of big titted girls in a newspaper as a bit of light relief after the main headlines. Full-on ass-fucking pornography is less objectifying than Page 3.
Who cares, it sold paper, and it is a business.
That sort of short term narrow-focused thinking is the cause of about half of all the problems in the world today. Really.
"Who cares, it sold paper, and it is a business" equally justifies the phone hacking, which aside from the outrage, has destroyed the paper.
This tendency to focus on wining the short-term transactions at the expense of the long-term health of the process and standards is at the root of the financial crisis and the utter decay of political process in so many countries - especially the USA. You don't need me to remind you how often it has been said the "politics is broken". This is what broke it.
Now, about those titties...
yeah. I liked that post a lot.
What's interesting now, is how the hacking side is starting to expand out to the entire tabloid press, but the corruption and close relationship between newspapers, police and government, is remaining a Murdoch/NI issue.
There's a lot of noise coming from some sectors now saying that it's not just Murdoch it's all of them, so we should stop focussing on t he Murdochs. But they're attempting to conflate two distinct issues: one of illegal journalistic practices (all apparently guilty) and one of corruption at the heart of government and law enforcement (so far only News International implicated).
Interesting to see where this goes. The PM is under pressure to explain what was discussed at private social gatherings attended by him and others in his cabinet during the time that decisions were being made about the BSkyB deal.
In a corruption case, does the payer or the payee bare the burden of guilt? In my very limited knowledge based on a political corruption trial here recently, the person in the position of power receiving the bribe is the guilty party. The person attempting to or proceeding with it is still guilty but less so.
Hmmm...if the world were black and white that'd be a simple one wouldn't it.
I care. A lot of people here, especially women care.
Newspapers aren't just product like any other. They are a large part of what forms/informs opinion and creates the cultural zeitgeist. I don't have a problem with seeing tits. I do have a problem with newspapers having a page dedicated to topless shots. And the language used to describe women is often despicable.
The rest of us who read them don't care.... sorry.:cool:
Of course you don't, otherwise you wouldn't be reading tabloids in the first place.
We don't really have mainstream tabloids here in Oz. I feel very left out of this discussion. lol
In a corruption case, does the payer or the payee bare the burden of guilt?
A most interesting question because it probably varies even by country. And unknown if such laws are considered by the ICC.
Since when does merc speak for "the rest of us,"
Be afraid.
Be very afraid.
The world that encompasses Merc's 'the rest of us' is really very limited. As is his sphere of reality.
Of course you don't, otherwise you wouldn't be reading tabloids in the first place.
I just pick it up as a side note on other websites.... I know what it is. If some British Tart wants to show her tits on a major website newspaper I have no problem with that. I could give a shit what the moral police of this forum opines about it....
The world that encompasses Merc's 'the rest of us' is really very limited. As is his sphere of reality.
No different than what your "very limited reality" is... it is just not important to me. Sorry.:p:
If some British [COLOR="Red"]Tart[/COLOR] wants to show her tits on a major website newspaper I have no problem with that.
That's exactly what Dana was talking about, not tits.
As your short-sided distorted sense of reality has no importance to me.
As your short-sided distorted sense of reality has no importance to me.
And I don't give a shit. Neither do most of the readers of the paper. No one cares about your or her moralistic bullshit.
I believe you, you've shown repeatedly you don't give a shit about anyone else, except the tarts in your house.
I believe you, you've shown repeatedly you don't give a shit about anyone else, except the tarts in your house.
What tarts in my house?
Tarts, you know, females.
Tarts, you know, females.
Cool, you ready for me to talk shit about the females in your house? You really want to go there? Man, you are the last person I would have expected a response like that from.
Oh, but it's OK for you to talk about other women that way, eh.
Oh well, I really don't give a shit about your moralistic bullshit.
Is it too late to change the thread title to Mercenary meltdown?
Oh, but it's OK for you to talk about other women that way, eh.
Oh well, I really don't give a shit about your moralistic bullshit.
I was talking about a newspaper. What other women are you referring to?
Is it too late to change the thread title to Mercenary meltdown?
Why in the world would you consider this a meltdown, I don't get it. Just my opinion. It is less valid than any other poster who disagrees with me?
You are a fool.
Because we disagree? What does that make you?
And blind to boot.
Blind to your idiocy? Ok... I understand that, please explain.
If some British [COLOR="Red"]Tart[/COLOR] wants to show her tits on a major website newspaper I have no problem with that.
I was talking about a newspaper. What other women are you referring to?
All women, Merc, all of them... except my ex.
All women, Merc, all of them... except my ex.
So your kids and family are off limits but mine are not?
Hello.... Bruce.... where did you go?
I was just bustin yer chops man - CHILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.
You really don't get it, do you? They should all off limits to that misogynous crap, regardless where they live, not just close to home. Like it or not, your choice of words conveys the attitude behind them. It's not moralistic, it's basic decency.
You really don't get it, do you? They should all off limits to that misogynous crap, regardless where they live, not just close to home. Like it or not, your choice of words conveys the attitude behind them. It's not moralistic, it's basic decency.
If a person makes a conscious decision to put their picture in a newspaper, and some other moralistic fool rails against it, why is that important?
Your choice of "misogynous crap" shows that you have already taken sides. But yet you negate the free choice of the person who posts the picture as if they have no voice or decision in the matter.
I believe you, you've shown repeatedly you don't give a shit about anyone else, except the tarts in your house.
So please tell me, what tarts in "my house"?
Dana's point was how Murdoch's tabloids treat women.
And the language used to describe women is often despicable.
Your use of the word tarts, carries on that tabloid mentality.
Dana's point was how Murdoch's tabloids treat women.
Your use of the word tarts, carries on that tabloid mentality.
Great, so explain your use of "tarts in my house"....
So basically your mother, your daughters, your nieces, you female family members are off limits to my comments now?
Your choice of "misogynous crap" shows that you have already taken sides. But yet you negate the free choice of the person who posts the picture as if they have no voice or decision in the matter.
Their choice doesn't give you the right to call them tarts.
Their choice doesn't give you the right to call them tarts.
Ummmm.... I can call them what ever I want. Just like you made comments about females in my house. And by the way besides my wife I have 2 daughters. So I can make comments about your mother and female children in your house now? Please let me know how you want to proceed.
Great, so explain your use of "tarts in my house"....
To bring to your attention how insulting it is, when you seem to have no problem with doing it to others.
So basically your mother, your daughters, your nieces, you female family members are off limits to my comments now?
They are all off limits when it comes to that shit, all women... and men too for that matter. There is no progress possible, until people stop that name calling and discuss issues.
To bring to your attention how insulting it is, when you seem to have no problem with doing it to others.
They are all off limits when it comes to that shit, all women... and men too for that matter. There is no progress possible, until people stop that name calling and discuss issues.
I am completely open to discussing the "issues", don't try to drag my family into it, which is what you just did, making it personal with me. I have never had that problem with you and don't want to start something now, unless you care to go there, than I am game. You want to make it personal, well go right ahead....
Yeah, you can call them whatever you want. You can be a walking, talking, tabloid, it says so in the Constitution. Just be aware what it says about you.
There are no females in my house, so good luck with that.
Don't draw parallels between tarts who post on Page 3 of some tabloid paper in the UK and posters on this forum, including the women in your life and mine, which the US would never tolerate, and the stupid opinions of some moralistic bull shit spouted on this forum..... they are not the same. Don't make this personal; I don't care how much you hate my opinions.
Yeah, you can call them whatever you want. You can be a walking, talking, tabloid, it says so in the Constitution. Just be aware what it says about you.
There are no females in my house, so good luck with that.
So you are lucky. Me, not so much....
Just be aware what it says about you.
I am completely cool with that. It is what makes our country great.
Tabloid mentality is not what made our country great.
Tabloid mentality is not what made our country great.
So why would you try to drag the tabloid angle of someone in my family into the discussion, making it personal?
Because making it personal is the only way to get your attention, the only way to demonstrate to you how you insult people with no regard to how they feel.
Because making it personal is the only way to get your attention, the only way to demonstrate to you how you insult people with no regard to how they feel.
So you are cool with me calling your mother names? That gives you a right to attack my family?
Ok, so you attack my family because, "making it personal is the only way to get your attention, the only way to demonstrate to you how you insult people with no regard to how they feel".... but you just don't get it. I don't care how other people "feel".Never have, never will. That is not germain to the discussion at hand. It is really not important. These discussions are not about touchy feely ideas. I just don't care. I care about substance. Substance of the discussion and that involves, and in fact ensures, visceral feelings which tend to excite and elicit responses from the gut, that is what debate is about. I could give a shit about some woman who wants to post her pic on page 3 of a tabloid. The very notion of drawing attention to it is an example of the discussion, it is a detractor. Who gives a cares what a person decides to do with their own free will. What next? Are we going to ban abortion? So now I can insult your mother to get your attention?
Like I said, you've shown repeatedly you don't give a shit about anyone else.
Like I said, you've shown repeatedly you don't give a shit about anyone else.
Correct. Not completely, but few have risen to the level of where I give a shit unless they are immediate family or fellow soldier mates. The rest are on their own. So how about that mother of yours?
Don't forget the dogs.
Mom? That old tart's doing pretty well for 91.
Don't forget the dogs.
Mom? That old tart's doing pretty well for 91.
:D So you are not as big an asshole as you just made yourself out to be....
Great. Neither am I, nor do I give a shit if you agree....
Hey mercy--
You certainly have the right to call any woman any name you like. What you're missing, what everyone else here gets that you *don't get* is that your argument is built on sand. You can't simultaneously beat your breast in righteous indignation about your first amendment right to free speech and in the same breath disallow the same remark by someone else about someone else, who, coincidentally happens to be part of your family. That makes you a complete hypocrite and makes your argument invalid, by virtue of the "except when I say so" stamp of disapproval.
It's ok to talk shit about women, or it's not. Pick one. Just one. Choosing a middle ground opens every other position to the same nuance.
Personally, I find your opinion offensive. You don't know these women. No way. Maybe they are tarts. Maybe they are sluts. The insulting tone of voice is abundantly clear, but you don't get to pass judgement on them without receiving the same judgement by others.
Look. I went to Slutwalk in Seattle a short while ago and there were LOTS of sluts walking with me (heh... I was walking with them, really, no way it was *my* parade, I am just one of the sluts). Leaving aside your hypocrisy for the moment, your derision of women who choose (as you yourself pointed out) to show their tits is up to you. I find it baffling that you can hold both positions in your head at the same time.
Here's a picture that made my whole weekend. I walked up to this young woman and thanked her for the best present Father's Day present I got. Now I offer this same gift to you. If you love your daughters and your wife and your mother, you owe a measure of respect to all women, despite what they wear or don't wear. Emphasis mine.
Hey mercy--
You certainly have the right to call any woman any name you like. What you're missing, what everyone else here gets that you *don't get* is that your argument is built on sand. You can't simultaneously beat your breast in righteous indignation about your first amendment right to free speech and in the same breath disallow the same remark by someone else about someone else, who, coincidentally happens to be part of your family. That makes you a complete hypocrite and makes your argument invalid, by virtue of the "except when I say so" stamp of disapproval.
That is a silly notion. A person who choses to post on Page 3 of a well know tabloid is the same as a right to free speech I happen to not disagree with... That person has free will and to try to make it out as something else, like a dominate male culture is stupid talk. Once you drag my family into it we are in open season. And if you want to make it personal go for it and expect the same response. I never dragged anyones family into this discussion so your point is utter bullshit....
Personally, I find your opinion offensive. You don't know these women. No way. Maybe they are tarts. Maybe they are sluts. The insulting tone of voice is abundantly clear, but you don't get to pass judgement on them without receiving the same judgement by others.
I don't care.
mercy, would you please explain why the women in your family deserve a greater amount of respect than the women in the families of the "page three girls"?
mercy, you say "I don't care" AND you say "if you make it personal, expect the same response". Does that mean if I make it personal, about your family, that you don't care?
[post=746404][ATTACH]33144[/ATTACH][/post]
Hmmmmmm ... fathers and slutty looking daughters ... perhaps we need a name for them to remind people a relationship still exists ... I've got it ... Pop-Tarts!
:lol:
Nice one, respectfullySexybon.
Y'know. There are times this place restores my faith in humanity. Bruce, Zen, and V, you totally rock. Blokes that get it.
Sexy BonBon: very funny :P
@ Merc: it's really not about wanting to cover up the titties. It's about context and about a determined culture.
Wow, that was spectacular. Once again, nice try Bruce. I guess the bottom line is that free speech allows everyone to expose themselves.
Dear sexanob- you, sir, are one smartfunny MF. :lol2:
Dana, thanks for the kind words. very kind, thank you.
Hey mercy--
You certainly have the right to call any woman any name you like.
And you and others have done is tried to turn it into a false notion that I have a problem with women because I used the word "tart". It starts in post 121. Then onto 145 where I reiterated that I was talking about the paper, not the person who posts on Page 3. And by post 150 it is now about "ALL" women. What bullshit. That is not what I said. Buy 171 I reiterate that it is not about all women.
You can't simultaneously beat your breast in righteous indignation about your first amendment right to free speech and in the same breath disallow the same remark by someone else about someone else, who, coincidentally happens to be part of your family.
Why not? Isn't that suppose to be the major crime here, posting personal comments about peoples family? I have not done that. It amazes me how often you try to turn things I say into Black or White positions you think I have when I don't think like that on most issues, most issues in life are Grey, not one or the other, this or that, that can't or don't adjust from situation to situation.
That makes you a complete hypocrite and makes your argument invalid, by virtue of the "except when I say so" stamp of disapproval.
No, it makes anyone who tries to turn it into some assumption about how I feel about all women in general, and that is more bullshit.
It's ok to talk shit about women, or it's not. Pick one. Just one. Choosing a middle ground opens every other position to the same nuance.
I see it as ok to talk about anything we want, why are these constraints on discussion? But yet people have always gotten into group trouble for talking about family members of the board who they don't know, correct or not? Making that a bit more of a personal attack, correct or not? Even I have been overwhelmingly attacked when I slipped and said something out of context that insulted someone other than the person I was talking with. I tried never to do it again. Plenty of people have made comments like "tart" or "dick" or general comments about men and women and have not been lambasted because the may harbor some great disrespect for one sex or the other? Right or not? So how this one comment by me has been blow out of proportion is beyond me. What a ridiculous notion.
Personally, I find your opinion offensive. You don't know these women. No way. Maybe they are tarts. Maybe they are sluts.
I have not called them "sluts". And to blow this into something it is not by a single post is foolish. It was a passing comment, not some righteous indignation about all women, good God get a grip! Maybe it is nothing more than a difference between UK speak and US speak? Did you ever consider that or are you just another member of the mob ready to pounce when you see something I post that you don't agree with or like?
The insulting tone of voice is abundantly clear, but you don't get to pass judgment on them without receiving the same judgment by others.
No, the obvious read into what you and others want to believe about me is abundantly clear, and the more I get such responses the less I care about the general response, but I choose to respond to you for a number of reasons.
Look. I went to Slutwalk in Seattle a short while ago and there were LOTS of sluts walking with me (heh... I was walking with them, really, no way it was *my* parade, I am just one of the sluts).
Great, I might have been there as well if I lived there and the very thought that you could never believe otherwise says a hell of a lot more about you and what you
don't know about me is quite telling.
.. your derision of women who choose (as you yourself pointed out) to show their tits is up to you.
Yea, based on a that one comment you figured all that out about me...
Here's a picture that made my whole weekend. I walked up to this young woman and thanked her for the best present Father's Day present I got. Now I offer this same gift to you. If you love your daughters and your wife and your mother, you owe a measure of respect to all women, despite what they wear or don't wear. Emphasis mine.
And here, even in this last summarizing comment you show that you don't know me in the least bit. I am the last person to judge people by what they wear or don't wear, but what you and the usual gang of people who disagree with me on a host of issues, have done is try to pigeon hole me into what you think I think about a single subject.
Thanks for the reply mercy. I'll start with your conclusion.
I don't know you very well, but it is not for lack of desire or effort. I do listen/read what you post. I do make judgements about what I read. I also keep my mind open, and keep adjusting my conclusions as my understanding changes.
It seems clear that I don't understand you. I think I still don't. I won't put words in your mouth, but I will try to explain how I came to the conclusions I made before. I'll try to follow along the same track you made. One more thing. I'm not trying to persuade you or beat you down or show you up. I love women in general, and I've loved a number of them in particular.
You know what--rather than a big long windy blah blah blah blah, I'll ask you something. For me, my understanding of the term "tart" in this context is approximately equal to "whore". When you used it, it really pushed a big button for me. Let me ask you this, what is your feeling, your understanding of the word "tart" here?
Perhaps we're much closer than I imagined, perhaps I'm hung up on something I misunderstood.
Thanks for the reply mercy. I'll start with your conclusion.
I don't know you very well, but it is not for lack of desire or effort. I do listen/read what you post. I do make judgements about what I read. I also keep my mind open, and keep adjusting my conclusions as my understanding changes.
It seems clear that I don't understand you. I think I still don't. I won't put words in your mouth, but I will try to explain how I came to the conclusions I made before. I'll try to follow along the same track you made. One more thing. I'm not trying to persuade you or beat you down or show you up. I love women in general, and I've loved a number of them in particular.
You know what--rather than a big long windy blah blah blah blah, I'll ask you something. For me, my understanding of the term "tart" in this context is approximately equal to "whore". When you used it, it really pushed a big button for me. Let me ask you this, what is your feeling, your understanding of the word "tart" here?
Perhaps we're much closer than I imagined, perhaps I'm hung up on something I misunderstood.
Never something so derogatory! More like sexy, fresh, flamboyant, show off, tease.... Even though it was a flippant remark it was NOT intended to be a negatively laced comment. It was more off the cuff than anything. I have never considered to term "tart" to be analogous to "whore", at least I have not ever used it in such a manner.
But yet mob mentality lead the way...
It's all about context really. Depending how it's used the word 'tart' like the word 'slut' can be fun, or it can be derogatory. The context here was that in response to a comment I made about the tabloid use of a particular and very focused lexicon around women and the whole idea of 'Page 3 Girls' in which women show off their tits as a bit of fun in between news stories, is damaging. Not because it is degrading (though I think it is), but because it is wholly dismissive.
You then respond with a comment about 'tarts' showing off their tits on page 3.
Essentialy you responded with the same language and dismissive tone to which i was objecting at the same time signalling that you see no problem with women's bodies providing light relief in between serious news stories.
Like I said before: I am not on a campaign to cover up the titties. I just think the message it sends when they are just thrown in as an object to gawp at before continuing on to the next news item, is a very unfortunate one. It certainly struck me as horrible when I was growing up with that shit.
I'm glad to hear it.
If you go look at post #120, the first place the word "tart" appears in this thread, you'll see it is used in a much more derogatory way. "tart, slapper, hooker". I've read other references that confirm this. This is where I get my understanding of what "tart" means in the context local to where this is happening, the UK.
Your use of tart, with your expanded explanation, makes for a very different conversation. Calling a page three girl a hooker is different than calling her a tease.
I'm not part of the mob, I was going from the context here.
Truce?
It's so hypocritical to make these judgments when one willingly begs for tit shots on a regular basis. Sure, you can argue it's that person's "choice" but honestly I think it plays on self-esteem and a need to be liked. It's very sneaky that way: I LOVE and RESPECT women. Nice cunt there, by the way. Thanks for showing it...I don't give a fuck what your reasons were, really. I'll pretend that it all comes down to your deep love and acceptance of your "self" though I've not often cared much what you've actually had to say. I will pretend that you didn't feel it was a way to get attention, acceptance, money, love, or any of the other motivators that might make the action seem due to lack of self-esteem or other unsavory notions, and that instead it's just that we're all progressive folks who are really in tune with our bodies and the people's intentions around them. Odds are probably 1 in 10 you really are just a happy exhibitionist, but in my mind I'll apply that label to all who bare it, so as not ever have to deal with the fact that I indeed may be a lecherous old fool.
Who are you talking about im? I hear you describing thoughts and actions and motivations of a number of parties in your post, but it's confusing. rather than put words in your mouth, would you please expand on just who you are "speaking for" and who you're "speaking about"? thanks in advance.
'Everyman' with exceptions and 'everywoman' with exceptions. It's a general jab at the calling out of the "wrong" words to call women by those who have no qualms objectifying women in a hundred other ways, and of women who present the opportunities for objectification.
I hear you describing thoughts and actions and motivations of a number of parties in your post...
Well absolutely, if by 'number of parties' you mean it could apply to a whole shitload of people. There isn't need to assign names because the thoughts and actions and motivations and words are prolific: I won't even go so far as to say "in the cellar" because I'm talking about the whole general shebang.
The only way you tried to put words into my mouth was to assume that I meant anyone in particular. Look around. It's the way of the world, doncha know? And I'll jump on every chance I get to point out the hypocrisy of it, and to point out that's why we've "come a long way baby" but we still have so so so far to go.
So, no, it's not about you or you or you or you, per se. It's about the "everyyou."
I'll pretend that it all comes down to your deep love and acceptance of your "self"...
I'm cool with that.
But truly, it wasn't about merc in particular. Not because I don't think he's just as guilty as the rest of us, but because I don't think he's any MORE guilty than the rest of us. The fingers pointing at him were laughable, given my previously stated feelings on the issue.
OK, merc? ;)
(Funny how everyone is jumping up to see if it's about them. Yeesh. Feel like a heel much?) :lol:
But truly, it wasn't about merc in particular. Not because I don't think he's just as guilty as the rest of us, but because I don't think he's any MORE guilty than the rest of us. The fingers pointing at him were laughable, given my previously stated feelings on the issue.
OK, merc? ;)
(Funny how everyone is jumping up to see if it's about them. Yeesh. Feel like a heel much?) :lol:
Yea. I just thumbed through about 3 or 4 of the pics threads and the comments made there are much more explictly suggestive than me calling some general group of people in a daily tabloid "tarts". Where is the mob mentality in those threads, how about the comment in the NSFW threads or the Dweller NSFW thread? Where are the self-righteous jumping over long time dwellers commenting there? No generally this mob has been and is about me. :D
Again, Merc, it's about context. In a discussion where it's been mentioned that the editors of the tabloid papers routinely push their journalists to use a particular set of words to describe women in the news (not just the Page 3 girls, btw, any woman who appears in a news story is subject to this particular lexicon) alongside a comment about the dismissive nature of the 'page 3 girl' as she appears in the paper, you referred to those women as 'tarts' and dismissed any notion that such things are in anyway problematic.
The NSFW thread is a 'room' in an internet community where people, men and women, can show off their tackle and bits for exhibitionist purposes. That is a whole other kettle of fish, from women's tits framing the news for the male readership.
Again, Merc, it's about context. In a discussion where it's been mentioned that the editors of the tabloid papers routinely push their journalists to use a particular set of words to describe women in the news (not just the Page 3 girls, btw, any woman who appears in a news story is subject to this particular lexicon) alongside a comment about the dismissive nature of the 'page 3 girl' as she appears in the paper, you referred to those women as 'tarts' and dismissed any notion that such things are in anyway problematic.
Maybe, just maybe it's because I don't read the paper, so I don't know what you are talking about in that context and so it just didn't matter to me. Which is probably why I was so flippant in my statement. It was not a statement about women in general, or my feelings about people who show their tits in a tabloid. And on top of that, as I stated to BV, I did not ever know the term "tart" to be one on par with "whore". Doesn't mean that me now and it didn't mean that before I made my comment.
The NSFW thread is a 'room' in an internet community where people, men and women, can show off their tackle and bits for exhibitionist purposes. That is a whole other kettle of fish, from women's tits framing the news for the male readership.
Then that is a double standard and hipocritical, if I follow the comments made to me to be the standard. Which I disagree with btw....
The NSFW thread is a 'room' in an internet community where people, men and women, can show off their tackle and bits for exhibitionist purposes. That is a whole other kettle of fish, from women's tits framing the news for the male readership.
__________________
For exhibitionist purposes, for a need to be liked purposes, for attention purposes, for love purposes, for money purposes, for peer pressure purposes, for "all the cool kids are doing it" purposes.
No, of course not. Every single person here is of strong mind and body and we could never assume that their reasoning to give in to the taunts and jeers could be ANYTHING but good old-fashioned "lovin' your bod exhibitionism." I might even buy that if it were amongst a group of real life friends, though it would take a while to throw the money down. No one here has any problems with self-esteem or self-value. We're all completely normal.
Really really really fine line you've drawn there. In fact, I find it nearly non-existent.
We've come a long way baby. We've so far to go. :headshake
My point is that there is a significant difference between what individuals do in their respective groups (some of which is downright unhealthy, much of which is to do with precisely the stuff you've mentioned) and the institutional depiction of women's bodies as a bit of light relief from all the seriousness.
OK, I see that now, what you meant.
When it's condoned, exalted even, in media that way, it permeates society...gives it the big thumbs up in public...I truly get what you mean.
(Just to say too, I'm no prude. I love the body I love, love being with the body I love, love sharing my body with the body I love. Maybe the past has made me more steely to what seems to be 'normal' that to me just seems sad, and smacks of self-denigration. It's quite easy to sum it up in one word, for me: respect. With a healthy dose of "you are one amazing woman" too, of course. :) I guess then, love and respect...and my world is your world.)
[youtube]GyN76YugQyc[/youtube]
*snortle*
I love the satire, said the infinite satyr. ;)
sypeak for yoursylph, nymph.
