Showing posts with label off-topic: murdoch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label off-topic: murdoch. Show all posts
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
The Murdoch Scandal Continues...
Just as I'd suspected the cancer is spreading to the rest of Murdoch's empire as last light the US called more an investigation into News Internationals actions in the US:
I cannot say that I'm surprised. The fact that the 7/7 victims families were hacked is a horrible thing, but if the 9/11 - or as I prefer to call it "11/9" because I have difficulty working out American dates when the two numbers are those of a month and a day, I genuinely sometimes think it's the 9th November rather than the 11th September - victims and their families were hacked, it would be awful.
All of Murdoch's papers are dodgy. It isn't just the News of the World; the Sun illegally obtained private medical records of Gordon Brown's son (and Rebekah Brooks actually called him to say she was running the story and there was nothing he could do about it) and he suspected for a while that the Sunday Times were hacking his phone (and the police have told him since they think it was hacked).
That's potentially 3 out of the 4 papers that Murdoch owns in the UK. Odds are on the Telegraph are at it too and we're bound to find it out once the public inquiry into News International gets underway. If those papers are at it you can be certain other papers are. I believe Murdoch owns (or partly owns) the New York Post, opening a real possibility that the terrorist victims and their families were hacked.
I also bet that it's going on at News Corporation back in Oz. The worrying thing about that is that Murdoch pretty much owns Australia's media. It's not like the US and the UK where he owns a couple of papers - he owns over twenty papers that cover different states. I was talking to my cousin Roz the other say and she said he pretty much owned Australia on the newspaper front.
Getting any dirty work exposed there would be difficult because Murdoch probably has everything watertight there. I should point out that it was a left-wing broadsheet paper The Guardian that exposed the scandals here in the UK. I think left-wing papers all over the world should get their groves on and start ferreting for dirty in Murdoch's empire.
He's backed into a corner and we shouldn't let him slip passed us because he has been controlling our governments and our media for too long. The UK Election is a good example of that; everyone hated David Cameron and hates the Tory party, yet with a combination of the Tories (more or less) buying seats with Ashcroft's money and Murdoch launching an unjust hate campaign against Gordon Brown, Labour would still be in power. They'd have lost a chunk of their majority but I believe that Brown would have beaten Cameron easier than Cameron could hate beat him simply because Cameron and Clegg are both inexperienced and out of touch. Murdoch hates elites and so he likes to make them jump for him, and it's sent him into a potentially dangerous ego trip.
It's like I said to that Green Party representative - power corrupts everyone in the end and Murdoch is a great example of this.
Politicians have been frightened of Murdoch for too long and it's time they stopped asking him to pull out of BSkyB and just told him, "No!" He's covered in crap because he won't let Rebekah Brooks reign. Why? Because she knows where all the bodies are buried. If he lets her out of his sight for too long she might blab. She's already blabbed a lot which she should have been arrested for but there isn't enough evidence.
Seriously, politicians, you never hold back when you see your opponant limping and always go in for the kill. The nasty, painful kill too. Why hold back over Murdoch? If you all join together to give him the heave-ho then what's the worst he can do? Tell people not to support any of you? Grow some balls, Cameron.
The greatest irony of all is that Ed Miliband, written off just a couple of months ago as a weak political geek, is the only person who seems to have correctly judged how the people feel about Murdoch's BSkyB takeover, or him in general. Cameron is (and always has been) completely out-of-touch with his public, and Clegg is just slightly better (although the TRUE politically weak magot - but then so is Cameron). This really has become a case of 'the worm that turned' as Cameron rather cowardly chose to try and sell his Big Society: Privatisation thought the backdoor/Let's get plebs to work for free and get rid of public spending crap to a crowd of unconvinced people, rather than face Miliband's questionning in Parliament. He sent Jeremy Cun-*cough**cough*HUNT*cough**cough* to face him instead. Labour were so pissed off with everything Hunt said you'd have thought they'd start lobbing handgrinades at him.
Cameron just doesn't seem to realise how disturbed the public are by his closeness to a man who is right at the heart of the phone hacking scandal, and who allegedly abused his position while in power. It was his employee and he should have known better. They try so hard to turn this around on all politicians but NO - they are the ones who have been caught holding the biggest cookie from the jar, THEY have to answer for it.
Like I said, politicians are frightened of Murdoch and Cameron is still scared of him. He knows he's only there thanks to money and Murdoch, and he knows that this entire thing is probably the last nail in the coffin FOR HIM. He can't blame the LibDems for once. Furthermore he must realise that Ed Miliband called for this vote in parliament to completely block the BSkyB takeover due to lack of confidence in News International today in order to test the coalition.
Nick Clegg has already come out and made it clear he is keep his hands clean and keeping Cameron at a ten-inch-pole's length this time. He knows he's on his way out and the coalition is crumbling regardless.
Miliband knows that by forcing this vote - which couldn't be denied - forced a wedge between not only the LibDems and the Tories but the Tories in general, those who can see the ship sinking around David Cameron and don't want to be on that ship, and those who cling to Cameron because he's the one who got them their jobs. Moreover if the vote DOESN'T pass it makes Cameron and the Tories look corrupt, and if it does go though then it proves that the Coalition have abandoned Cameron (including Clegg, it seems).
Either way Miliband can't lose. This is a Labour vote, and that has been made clear in the papers. If it passes, it's a feather in their cap - not the coalition's.
I want to leave you all with this video I just uploaded to YT. It's a clip from Charlie Brooker's Newswipe by documentary maker Adam Curtis. I've titled it 'Nixon Syndrome' because it's about how we've all become like Nixon - paranoid that the elite are running the country to suit themselves. It mentions Murdoch in it, stating his hatred of elites:
The irony is that he IS an elite and runs things to suit him.
"I am concerned that the admitted phone hacking in London by the News Corp may have extended to 9/11 victims or other Americans," he said. "If they did, the consequences will be severe." more by Jay Rockefeller - 1 hour ago - Evening Standard |
I cannot say that I'm surprised. The fact that the 7/7 victims families were hacked is a horrible thing, but if the 9/11 - or as I prefer to call it "11/9" because I have difficulty working out American dates when the two numbers are those of a month and a day, I genuinely sometimes think it's the 9th November rather than the 11th September - victims and their families were hacked, it would be awful.
All of Murdoch's papers are dodgy. It isn't just the News of the World; the Sun illegally obtained private medical records of Gordon Brown's son (and Rebekah Brooks actually called him to say she was running the story and there was nothing he could do about it) and he suspected for a while that the Sunday Times were hacking his phone (and the police have told him since they think it was hacked).
That's potentially 3 out of the 4 papers that Murdoch owns in the UK. Odds are on the Telegraph are at it too and we're bound to find it out once the public inquiry into News International gets underway. If those papers are at it you can be certain other papers are. I believe Murdoch owns (or partly owns) the New York Post, opening a real possibility that the terrorist victims and their families were hacked.
I also bet that it's going on at News Corporation back in Oz. The worrying thing about that is that Murdoch pretty much owns Australia's media. It's not like the US and the UK where he owns a couple of papers - he owns over twenty papers that cover different states. I was talking to my cousin Roz the other say and she said he pretty much owned Australia on the newspaper front.
Getting any dirty work exposed there would be difficult because Murdoch probably has everything watertight there. I should point out that it was a left-wing broadsheet paper The Guardian that exposed the scandals here in the UK. I think left-wing papers all over the world should get their groves on and start ferreting for dirty in Murdoch's empire.
He's backed into a corner and we shouldn't let him slip passed us because he has been controlling our governments and our media for too long. The UK Election is a good example of that; everyone hated David Cameron and hates the Tory party, yet with a combination of the Tories (more or less) buying seats with Ashcroft's money and Murdoch launching an unjust hate campaign against Gordon Brown, Labour would still be in power. They'd have lost a chunk of their majority but I believe that Brown would have beaten Cameron easier than Cameron could hate beat him simply because Cameron and Clegg are both inexperienced and out of touch. Murdoch hates elites and so he likes to make them jump for him, and it's sent him into a potentially dangerous ego trip.
It's like I said to that Green Party representative - power corrupts everyone in the end and Murdoch is a great example of this.
Politicians have been frightened of Murdoch for too long and it's time they stopped asking him to pull out of BSkyB and just told him, "No!" He's covered in crap because he won't let Rebekah Brooks reign. Why? Because she knows where all the bodies are buried. If he lets her out of his sight for too long she might blab. She's already blabbed a lot which she should have been arrested for but there isn't enough evidence.
Seriously, politicians, you never hold back when you see your opponant limping and always go in for the kill. The nasty, painful kill too. Why hold back over Murdoch? If you all join together to give him the heave-ho then what's the worst he can do? Tell people not to support any of you? Grow some balls, Cameron.
The greatest irony of all is that Ed Miliband, written off just a couple of months ago as a weak political geek, is the only person who seems to have correctly judged how the people feel about Murdoch's BSkyB takeover, or him in general. Cameron is (and always has been) completely out-of-touch with his public, and Clegg is just slightly better (although the TRUE politically weak magot - but then so is Cameron). This really has become a case of 'the worm that turned' as Cameron rather cowardly chose to try and sell his Big Society: Privatisation thought the backdoor/Let's get plebs to work for free and get rid of public spending crap to a crowd of unconvinced people, rather than face Miliband's questionning in Parliament. He sent Jeremy Cun-*cough**cough*HUNT*cough**cough* to face him instead. Labour were so pissed off with everything Hunt said you'd have thought they'd start lobbing handgrinades at him.
Cameron just doesn't seem to realise how disturbed the public are by his closeness to a man who is right at the heart of the phone hacking scandal, and who allegedly abused his position while in power. It was his employee and he should have known better. They try so hard to turn this around on all politicians but NO - they are the ones who have been caught holding the biggest cookie from the jar, THEY have to answer for it.
Like I said, politicians are frightened of Murdoch and Cameron is still scared of him. He knows he's only there thanks to money and Murdoch, and he knows that this entire thing is probably the last nail in the coffin FOR HIM. He can't blame the LibDems for once. Furthermore he must realise that Ed Miliband called for this vote in parliament to completely block the BSkyB takeover due to lack of confidence in News International today in order to test the coalition.
Nick Clegg has already come out and made it clear he is keep his hands clean and keeping Cameron at a ten-inch-pole's length this time. He knows he's on his way out and the coalition is crumbling regardless.
Miliband knows that by forcing this vote - which couldn't be denied - forced a wedge between not only the LibDems and the Tories but the Tories in general, those who can see the ship sinking around David Cameron and don't want to be on that ship, and those who cling to Cameron because he's the one who got them their jobs. Moreover if the vote DOESN'T pass it makes Cameron and the Tories look corrupt, and if it does go though then it proves that the Coalition have abandoned Cameron (including Clegg, it seems).
Either way Miliband can't lose. This is a Labour vote, and that has been made clear in the papers. If it passes, it's a feather in their cap - not the coalition's.
I want to leave you all with this video I just uploaded to YT. It's a clip from Charlie Brooker's Newswipe by documentary maker Adam Curtis. I've titled it 'Nixon Syndrome' because it's about how we've all become like Nixon - paranoid that the elite are running the country to suit themselves. It mentions Murdoch in it, stating his hatred of elites:
The irony is that he IS an elite and runs things to suit him.
Sunday, 10 July 2011
OUTFOXED: The Truth About Rupert Murdoch
OUTFOXED
This was an interesting documentary that someone on Facebook referred me to. It really does say a lot about Murdoch's control over the media in the US. It appears to me to be much stronger than the one he has over the UK or any where else, and it seems odd that no one in the US has stood up and stopped the clear lack of balance at FOX news.
Now, to us in the UK FOX news is a joke. You can get it through your Sky subscription should you desire it but most people in this country take the piss out of it because it is unbias republican propaganda. In the UK, while the Conservatives are right-wing and more right-wing than most people in the UK are, they are not like the republican party. Of course, in the States there isn't really a true left-wing. There's a far right (The Republicans) and the centuralists (The Democrats) whereas here in the UK you have the the centuralist-to-mid-right (The Conservatives), the centuralist-liberal-right (The LibDems) and the centuralist-to-mid-left (The Labour Party). You can get some serious radicals in all three of the parties but it is generally accepted that the Tories are on the political right, Labour are on the political left and the LibDems are a mixture of the two... although they like to think they are more left-wing than right-wing.
So our political ideologies are very different. In a way I think the US are where the UK were 100-150 years ago and they need to catch up really. Typically the longer a conservative ideology goes on, the more people desire a liberal or left-wing alternative. With the US power diminishing in favour of China, this trend will probably over the next 100 years.
But that's not my point. My point is that Murdoch owns FOX news, which is one of the four main broadcasters in the US. That's like Murdoch owning Channel 4 in the UK. One thing we should be grateful for in the UK is that it would be against the law for a channel such as FOX to broadcast most of its material on a main channel in the UK. Every channel that reports the news is required by law to remain unbias and in political situations all three of the main parties are required to receive the same amount of coverage. Apparently in the US that rule was removed in the 1980s. I don't know if it's been put back in the mean time but apparently in the US channels are not required to be unbias, which is why FOX gets away with what it does.
You learn something new everyday.
Obviously if you don't like FOX news you can always just not watch it. The thing that is distrubing however is the fact that they have broadcast lies and half-truths in the past, and people have believed them and stated them as fact. Given that people are a group can be unbelievably stupid, it is cause for concern that Murdoch can influence people though his power in the US media.
Here in the UK his power is somewhat more minimal. He is still bound by the broadcasting law which means he is forbidden from treating Sky news the same way. Moreover if you ask most people which news channel they watch, most will tell you they watch the BBC, some will say ITN and the odd person will say Channel 4 News. Sky has got to be everyone's least favourite channel, not least because you need cabel or satelite to see it. Even then hardly anyone watches it because they aren't the most reliable news channel. It is a good argument to stop Murdoch getting full control of BSkyB.
Ed Miliband is going to call for a vote in parliament, something which Cameron won't be able to deny him under public pressure. The nerd has finally found his feet it seems.
No, Murrdoch's grip on the UK media lives in the papers and one thing he clearly hates is how little influence the papers have now. Most people get their news from the BBC or Twitter. News is becoming more unbias because people can now have news beamed to their phones from their favourite news channel instead of reading it in the papers. Moreover the general public seems to know that certain papers are a joke. We all know "The Scum" (AKA The Sun) is a thick working-class-traitor's paper that people read with a sense of irony, rather than taking it seriously. We know "The Daily Wail" (AKA The Daily Mail) is traditionalist Tory-hugging trash created for the wives of rich men. The Daily "Rich Man's Sun" Telegraph is the untimate Tory paper and my middle section says it all. The "Waving the Red Banner" Mirror is the left-wing-man's Sun, only slightly more intelligent (**slightly**). The Independant is what is says on the tin... but it tittering towards the left, as too is The Gurdian (who broke the phone hacking scandal in the first place), who are unashamedly left-wing and proud.
As for the Express, well, they're more of a joke than any of them. Diana-huggers and so on.
People know what the British papers are like and they have lost their impact as a result. I'm sure plenty of my UK friends saw the front of the British Sun on election day last year. It was one of the most horrible propaganda pieces of BS every to grace the front of a British Tabloid. It tried to compare David "The Pig-Faced" Cameron to Obama! It was embarressing to look at! Once more it didn't work - Cameron didn't actually win the election. He had a minority. Murdoch failed.
Nonetheless we shouldn't let him have any more power than he already has. It's ethically wrong that so many media outlets reflect the views of one man.
This was an interesting documentary that someone on Facebook referred me to. It really does say a lot about Murdoch's control over the media in the US. It appears to me to be much stronger than the one he has over the UK or any where else, and it seems odd that no one in the US has stood up and stopped the clear lack of balance at FOX news.
Now, to us in the UK FOX news is a joke. You can get it through your Sky subscription should you desire it but most people in this country take the piss out of it because it is unbias republican propaganda. In the UK, while the Conservatives are right-wing and more right-wing than most people in the UK are, they are not like the republican party. Of course, in the States there isn't really a true left-wing. There's a far right (The Republicans) and the centuralists (The Democrats) whereas here in the UK you have the the centuralist-to-mid-right (The Conservatives), the centuralist-liberal-right (The LibDems) and the centuralist-to-mid-left (The Labour Party). You can get some serious radicals in all three of the parties but it is generally accepted that the Tories are on the political right, Labour are on the political left and the LibDems are a mixture of the two... although they like to think they are more left-wing than right-wing.
So our political ideologies are very different. In a way I think the US are where the UK were 100-150 years ago and they need to catch up really. Typically the longer a conservative ideology goes on, the more people desire a liberal or left-wing alternative. With the US power diminishing in favour of China, this trend will probably over the next 100 years.
But that's not my point. My point is that Murdoch owns FOX news, which is one of the four main broadcasters in the US. That's like Murdoch owning Channel 4 in the UK. One thing we should be grateful for in the UK is that it would be against the law for a channel such as FOX to broadcast most of its material on a main channel in the UK. Every channel that reports the news is required by law to remain unbias and in political situations all three of the main parties are required to receive the same amount of coverage. Apparently in the US that rule was removed in the 1980s. I don't know if it's been put back in the mean time but apparently in the US channels are not required to be unbias, which is why FOX gets away with what it does.
You learn something new everyday.
Obviously if you don't like FOX news you can always just not watch it. The thing that is distrubing however is the fact that they have broadcast lies and half-truths in the past, and people have believed them and stated them as fact. Given that people are a group can be unbelievably stupid, it is cause for concern that Murdoch can influence people though his power in the US media.
Here in the UK his power is somewhat more minimal. He is still bound by the broadcasting law which means he is forbidden from treating Sky news the same way. Moreover if you ask most people which news channel they watch, most will tell you they watch the BBC, some will say ITN and the odd person will say Channel 4 News. Sky has got to be everyone's least favourite channel, not least because you need cabel or satelite to see it. Even then hardly anyone watches it because they aren't the most reliable news channel. It is a good argument to stop Murdoch getting full control of BSkyB.
Ed Miliband is going to call for a vote in parliament, something which Cameron won't be able to deny him under public pressure. The nerd has finally found his feet it seems.
No, Murrdoch's grip on the UK media lives in the papers and one thing he clearly hates is how little influence the papers have now. Most people get their news from the BBC or Twitter. News is becoming more unbias because people can now have news beamed to their phones from their favourite news channel instead of reading it in the papers. Moreover the general public seems to know that certain papers are a joke. We all know "The Scum" (AKA The Sun) is a thick working-class-traitor's paper that people read with a sense of irony, rather than taking it seriously. We know "The Daily Wail" (AKA The Daily Mail) is traditionalist Tory-hugging trash created for the wives of rich men. The Daily "Rich Man's Sun" Telegraph is the untimate Tory paper and my middle section says it all. The "Waving the Red Banner" Mirror is the left-wing-man's Sun, only slightly more intelligent (**slightly**). The Independant is what is says on the tin... but it tittering towards the left, as too is The Gurdian (who broke the phone hacking scandal in the first place), who are unashamedly left-wing and proud.
As for the Express, well, they're more of a joke than any of them. Diana-huggers and so on.
People know what the British papers are like and they have lost their impact as a result. I'm sure plenty of my UK friends saw the front of the British Sun on election day last year. It was one of the most horrible propaganda pieces of BS every to grace the front of a British Tabloid. It tried to compare David "The Pig-Faced" Cameron to Obama! It was embarressing to look at! Once more it didn't work - Cameron didn't actually win the election. He had a minority. Murdoch failed.
Nonetheless we shouldn't let him have any more power than he already has. It's ethically wrong that so many media outlets reflect the views of one man.
Thursday, 7 July 2011
The End of the World. News of the World, that is.
It's the anniversary of the 7/7 bombings and we have this story!
This whole thing stinks of a big bucket of old moldy food:
The News of the World closes - live coverage
My first reaction was "YES! THAT'S GREAT!" but then I realised that Murdoch is probably only doing it to distract people from the phone hacking scandal. Worst still someone else in one of the comments on the link above said that this doesn't mean anything, that Murrdoch will just bring out The Sun on Sundays as well, the evil, corrupt, f-king twat!
It's not right that a man like that holds such power and I really hope that past this Sunday the papers continue putting pressure on the independant investigation into News International's dealings. One thing that definately needs to be stopped is Murrdoch's full take over of BSkyB. He corrupts British newspapers and the Sky channels enough without him having clout over them completely.
Still, there's always a chance the journalists could go on strike. :p
This whole thing stinks of a big bucket of old moldy food:
The News of the World closes - live coverage
My first reaction was "YES! THAT'S GREAT!" but then I realised that Murdoch is probably only doing it to distract people from the phone hacking scandal. Worst still someone else in one of the comments on the link above said that this doesn't mean anything, that Murrdoch will just bring out The Sun on Sundays as well, the evil, corrupt, f-king twat!
It's not right that a man like that holds such power and I really hope that past this Sunday the papers continue putting pressure on the independant investigation into News International's dealings. One thing that definately needs to be stopped is Murrdoch's full take over of BSkyB. He corrupts British newspapers and the Sky channels enough without him having clout over them completely.
Still, there's always a chance the journalists could go on strike. :p
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)