Murdoch Meltdown

[casimendocina]

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?

[Undertoad]

PM sent

[casimendocina]

And replied to.

[Undertoad]

[DanaC]

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.

[DanaC]

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.

[casimendocina]

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

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

[DanaC]

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.

[tw]

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?)

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by DanaC

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?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

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

No.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

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?

... 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-result...&submit=Search

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

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

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

[Undertoad]

You must have bought the Soro's and Media Matters Brainwashing hook, line, and sinker

just one simple question...

[classicman]

Their 'Newswatch' programme has steadfastly refused to cover the Murdoch/News International/News Corp issue

She didn't say Fox - Reread...