- Dec 6, 1999
- 10,575
- 292
- 126
For those who live in a fact-based world,
this will be rather amazing to watch:
http://youtu.be/n9gOSsvLIO4
this will be rather amazing to watch:
http://youtu.be/n9gOSsvLIO4
Fox re Murdoch's News of the World
- Thread starter db
- Start date
dullard
Elite Member
- May 21, 2001
- 26,117
- 4,763
- 126
For those who don't want to watch the video, I'll summarize the guest's response.
And really deal with the issue of hacking...We've got a serious hacking problem...We have to figure this out... Murdoch, who owns it, has appologized, but for some reason the public the media keeps going over this... The bigger issue is hacking and how we are to protect ourselves...We've got to find ways to defend ourselves...We've got major problems in the country... and we are dealing with this issue in London? All the right things have been done in terms of the News of the World issue... and we should move on.
Which is it? Do we have a serious problem? Or should we just move on?
And really deal with the issue of hacking...We've got a serious hacking problem...We have to figure this out... Murdoch, who owns it, has appologized, but for some reason the public the media keeps going over this... The bigger issue is hacking and how we are to protect ourselves...We've got to find ways to defend ourselves...We've got major problems in the country... and we are dealing with this issue in London? All the right things have been done in terms of the News of the World issue... and we should move on.
Which is it? Do we have a serious problem? Or should we just move on?
What a piece of shit youtube video that is.
July 5, the scandal began in the news.
July 7, News of the World is announced to be shutting down.
The video in the link is from July 15. That clip shown is not enough to declare anything definitive, except to excite the partisan hacks.
July 5, the scandal began in the news.
July 7, News of the World is announced to be shutting down.
The video in the link is from July 15. That clip shown is not enough to declare anything definitive, except to excite the partisan hacks.
Last edited:
All his networks and newspapers did it, but he's trying to contain the damage as much as possible at the moment.
Just like he's trying to let the journalists take all the blame and is claiming he had no idea it was going on. While the journalists were told that it was of course illegal to do, and that they therefor wouldn't be told to do so, but that if they didn't they might not have a job the next day.
Just like he's trying to let the journalists take all the blame and is claiming he had no idea it was going on. While the journalists were told that it was of course illegal to do, and that they therefor wouldn't be told to do so, but that if they didn't they might not have a job the next day.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
If they broke the law then they should be punished.
But let's ditch the anti-Fox 'holier than thou" act and remember that US news organizations have been accused or similar things or worse in the past.
The NY Time leaking details of the top secret program to track terrorist money for political reasons.
CBS airing a news story the weekend before a Presidential election that used fake documents to make one of the candidates look bad.
Or new organizations sitting on stories in order to release them at the point they would do the most damage (the Bush DUI story)
The illegal wire tapping of conversations between members of congress too. (The story I am thinking happened during the Clinton years)
Let's just say that nearly every major news organization has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar before.
But let's ditch the anti-Fox 'holier than thou" act and remember that US news organizations have been accused or similar things or worse in the past.
The NY Time leaking details of the top secret program to track terrorist money for political reasons.
CBS airing a news story the weekend before a Presidential election that used fake documents to make one of the candidates look bad.
Or new organizations sitting on stories in order to release them at the point they would do the most damage (the Bush DUI story)
The illegal wire tapping of conversations between members of congress too. (The story I am thinking happened during the Clinton years)
Let's just say that nearly every major news organization has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar before.
I suspect you are lying.
You are lying.
Proof?
False equivalency, right on schedule from our second biggest apologist.
Is there a single issue the right has done wrong PJ hasn't responded to with false equivalency attacks saying the left did something wrong?
In other news, they checked how much reporting each cable news station is doing on the Murdoch scandal. Fox is doing the least of any cable news network.
It so happens I'm surprised at the strong reaction, and I find it odd how much damage this is doing to Murdoch while his far greater wrongs, IMO, have mostly gone unpunished.
It was an outrageous clip when Fox had a guest who said 'this is a hacking scandal, but other big companies got hacked into and that was scandalous too, but you don't see the media treat them same as they are treating Murdoch.' Nuts - comparing Murdoch's company DOING the hacking with other companies who were the victims of hacking.
Fox's (non-)coverage of the scandal reinforces how bad it is.
It so happens I'm surprised at the strong reaction, and I find it odd how much damage this is doing to Murdoch while his far greater wrongs, IMO, have mostly gone unpunished.
It was an outrageous clip when Fox had a guest who said 'this is a hacking scandal, but other big companies got hacked into and that was scandalous too, but you don't see the media treat them same as they are treating Murdoch.' Nuts - comparing Murdoch's company DOING the hacking with other companies who were the victims of hacking.
Fox's (non-)coverage of the scandal reinforces how bad it is.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
I thought you were ignoring me? Dammit...
Details of the "swift program" being illegally leaked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Finance_Tracking_Program
Rathergate aka the fake memo story:
My timing was wrong, the story was aired almost 2 months before the election. In the end even CBS admitted that they couldn't verify that the documents were real and that they shouldn't have used them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
The Bush dui story was 'leaked' on the Thursday before the election. The same media that sat on its hands with all the allegations surrounding Clinton wasted no time jumping on that story.
So as I said: ALL media had blood on its hands, not just Fox or Murdoch, but nearly every major organization has done something wrong or illegal and is generally given a free pass.
The difference in between this story and US one is that they don't have blanket freedom of the press in England. Otherwise they would all just claim freedom of the press and nothing would likely happen.
Details of the "swift program" being illegally leaked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_Finance_Tracking_Program
Rathergate aka the fake memo story:
My timing was wrong, the story was aired almost 2 months before the election. In the end even CBS admitted that they couldn't verify that the documents were real and that they shouldn't have used them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy
The Bush dui story was 'leaked' on the Thursday before the election. The same media that sat on its hands with all the allegations surrounding Clinton wasted no time jumping on that story.
So as I said: ALL media had blood on its hands, not just Fox or Murdoch, but nearly every major organization has done something wrong or illegal and is generally given a free pass.
The difference in between this story and US one is that they don't have blanket freedom of the press in England. Otherwise they would all just claim freedom of the press and nothing would likely happen.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
If you say "hacking" often enough, and fail to give details of who hacked and who got hacked, people's attention spans will blur the distinction, especially if they're stupid people. Clearly, Fox news is banking on the low IQ of its viewers.
LOL, I guess fox news doesn't understand the difference between hackers and hackees. Or more accurately, Fox news doesn't want it's viewers to know the difference.
NotW were hacking other people, they were not hacked themselves. That Fox lied about this is unsurprising given both their previous track record and that they are owned by Murdoch as well. That's "fair and balanced" for ya!
NotW were hacking other people, they were not hacked themselves. That Fox lied about this is unsurprising given both their previous track record and that they are owned by Murdoch as well. That's "fair and balanced" for ya!
Macamus Prime
Diamond Member
- Feb 24, 2011
- 3,108
- 0
- 0
Oh please; Murdoch/NewsCorp/Fox News won't be touched. Tarnished a bit, yes. But, there will not be any prison time or "justice".
Men like Murdoch have far too many people in his pocket to ever run out of "legal buffer" room.
Men like Murdoch also have plenty of buffoons like his Fox crew who make him look pretty fucking stupid.
Men like Murdoch have far too many people in his pocket to ever run out of "legal buffer" room.
Men like Murdoch also have plenty of buffoons like his Fox crew who make him look pretty fucking stupid.
Last edited:
Hahahahaha. Oh wow.
Other news organizations publishing news is totally the same thing as this. If you are really so deluded as to think that the examples you have just listed are somehow equivalent you either need to go learn more about this story or have someone shake you back to reality.
It's unfortunate that we have no good mechanisms against a hypothetical media baron who might kill millions with lies to sell policies for unnecessary wars, end social programs.
But this 'hacking scandal' has had shocking legs, and it's not over yet. Mess with some cell phones aggressively pursuing stories, and that counts for more somehow.
Murdoch a week ago went to England strongly defending his head of operations there; after closing 'News of the World', she remained. Friday she resigned.
On the same day, the Publisher of the Wall Street Journal resigned as well (leaving the paper with some explaining to do about the reason he did being a scandal for the last two weeks they apparently had not covered). These are major resignations in his company, right up to the next higher people being his son (who seems quite terrible) and then Rupert.
There are plenty of analysts saying they think Rupert himself is about to be out of power in the company.
It seems likely that a lot of politicians who have had bad experiences with Murdoch might be using this to take him out - at least in England.
It does remind us why no single institution should have too much power - not a military group (public or private like Blackwater) being able to threaten the country, not financial institutions who can blackmail the economy, not consolidated media under mega corporations who can corrupt our political news, not a religious group who can force its views and power on others and deny rights to others. Democracy does better with distributed power, with protected rights for minorities.
(Some would say 'what about the government?' Yes, the government should have 'limited powers', but it's also important to remember that a government in a functioning democracy largely 'is' that society, representing its interests and is the protection for society against abuses by the powerful groups. It's when those groups get control of the government it becomes much more of a threat to the society. We're quite a ways in that direction.)
It would be a dysfunctional democracy when 'legitimate' issues of the people mean nothing, but manufactured 'people issues' can be used in their place for political reasons, for power battles between the players, who might use an issue like this scandal as a weapon for their agenda, while it goes nowhere but a one paragraph article on page 21 if it's only 'the people' who have the issue.
Hacking phones and bribing police is illegal in the UK. Printing biased scare stories isn't.
News Corp have been attacking the BBC in print for years because it's very hard for their BSkyB TV service to compete with a service that all Brits have to pay for. Now the BBC has something they can use to attack back and they aren't going to miss the chance.
Is it legal for police to accept bribes in the UK?
Why hasn't the person that accepted the bribe from News Corp been arrested and punished?
Hopefully they will be. The investigation has only just started and it will probably take months before everything settles.
The problem we have now is the police are investigating themselves. That doesn't usually result in lots of arrests.
Rupert should probably have just killed off everyone involved with this, thrown them in the forest, not reported them missing for 31 days, and all the liberals would be demanding he be set free because of lack of evidence.
This is not complex. This isn't a question of whether NotW did participate in the hacking (they did) and it isn't whether other papers/news orgs have also done questionable things in the past (they have, and they had to deal with media outcries as well). The topic is how Fox News is treating this news.
Based on this clip we can draw one of two conclusions. 1) These folks at Fox News are so hopelessly ignorant that you'd likely get better news coverage on the view or 2) they are intentionally lying to cover for one of their own. Given the track record Fox News has I would assume it was #2 because they like to ensure that they never ever report anything negative on one of their own even, apparently, when there is really no way to spin it without lying (though they could use the PJ defense of other people did it too).
I know; part of my point was how that skews the response to a much worse impact.
Good for the BBC. Too bad the US PBS system doesn't do so.
The difference sounds like the fact that Murdoch's argument hasn't done all that well in the UK, while it would probably be far more popular here in the US.
Unfortunately, it's an argument that leads to a lot of bad tv and less good tv.
That's a funny thing. Give the people a BBC, and they seem to love it and want to protect it (I'm sure there's lots of criticism, but overall).
But suggest a BBC be created if there isn't one, and it has almost no support - that's a commie idea, forget it!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter