This pretty much illustrates the Murdoch culture

[Craig234]

How his paper says 'stop covering the phone hacking crimes so much':

 

[a777pilot]

Damn, who do they look like?

 

[Craig234]

Damn, who do they look like?

Republican constituents.

 

[Phokus]

What i find funny is the fact that the cartoonist thinks your typical news corp/news international reader would give a shit about poor starving Africans.

 

[ProfJohn]

That is a pretty offensive cartoon.

Relate starving people in Africa to a media controversy. Whoever drew that should be shipped to Africa for a few months to see the famine up close. Perhaps then they wouldn't use it for cheap political points.

 

[Balt]

So the NY Daily News is suddenly interested in world starvation.

Heh. I'm just a tiny bit skeptical.

 

[trenchfoot]

That is a pretty offensive cartoon.

Relate starving people in Africa to a media controversy. Whoever drew that should be shipped to Africa for a few months to see the famine up close. Perhaps then they wouldn't use it for cheap political points.

Agreed.:thumbsup:

 

[Throckmorton]

Ah I see, the media shouldn't cover anything but starving African children.

 

[cubby1223]

That is a pretty offensive cartoon.

Relate starving people in Africa to a media controversy. Whoever drew that should be shipped to Africa for a few months to see the famine up close. Perhaps then they wouldn't use it for cheap political points.

After googling "Peter Brookes", you are right. His cartoons have a common theme of insulting Democrats & liberals as the primary intention.


And I'm sure there are similar cartoons in progressive publications, so it doesn't excuse this thread's obvious partisan intentions either. Brookes' main column runs in the New York Post, but I would not go declaring this cartoon the official message of the newspaper.

 

[Craig234]

So the NY Daily News is suddenly interested in world starvation.

Heh. I'm just a tiny bit skeptical.

This is actually from "The Times", reprinted, if I heard correctly.

The Times, I hear, has gotten far worse since Murdoch buying it.

 

[Lemon law]

Ah I see, the media shouldn't cover anything but starving African children.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Throckmorton you miss the point, the media should not cover starving Africans, that way we can ignore a humanitarian crisis without bothering to note our responsibility to do anything. Hip hip Hooray, three cheers for ignorance and apathy.

After all, the world public needs to spend more time vindicated Rupert Murdock and we need to get our priorities straight.

 

[cubby1223]

I also recall not so long ago a certain someone on this forum kept creating thread after thread after thread, some of them even explicitly saying this in the opening sentence - STOP talking about Anthony Weiner, there are other more important topics you and the media need to be focusing on instead!

So to call this "Murdoch culture", hypocrisy, thy name is Craig.

😛

 

[Phokus]

I also recall not so long ago a certain someone on this forum kept creating thread after thread after thread, some of them even explicitly saying this in the opening sentence - STOP talking about Anthony Weiner, there are other more important topics you and the media need to be focusing on instead!

So to call this "Murdoch culture", hypocrisy, thy name is Craig.

😛

Weiner didn't even have sex with anyone, which is funny considering David Vitter was part of the DC Madame prostitution scandal and he kept his seat. Murdoch's newspaper bribed a public official to hack into people's phones. I don't see how you could POSSIBLY compare them.

 

[cubby1223]

Weiner didn't even have sex with anyone, which is funny considering David Vitter was part of the DC Madame prostitution scandal and he kept his seat. Murdoch's newspaper bribed a public official to hack into people's phones. I don't see how you could POSSIBLY compare them.

I didn't expected anything more from you anyways 😉

In one situation, someone thinks too much media attention is given to one story that is against someone of the same ideological makeup and says the media should focus on a different, more important story.

Then in the other situation, someone thinks too much media attention is given to one story that is against someone of the same ideological makeup and says the media should focus on a different, more important story. And this person attacks the person above for thinking too much media attention is given to one story that is against someone of the same ideological makeup and saying the media should focus on a different, more important story.


I mean, why did I have to type that out? My role in life should not be relegated to baby-sitting you 😛 How do you write a response to me, while in your first sentence you downplay someone of your ideological makeup and divert attention over to someone of the opposing ideological makeup 😀



Come on - baby steps. Drop your ideology. Drop your partisan hatred. Now, tell me - what do you believe is more important? (A) Someone listening in on voicemails, or (B) a starving population?

Answer that question honestly and we can take some more baby steps on your road to self-improvement! Do you never wonder why Craig is such an ineffective persuader? The only thing he is capable of doing well is firing up those who already fully agree with him.

 

[DominionSeraph]

What i find funny is the fact that the cartoonist thinks your typical news corp/news international reader would give a shit about poor starving Africans.

You actually have to throw those in now and again, otherwise even a conservatard would notice that every time there's a valid attack the focus is shifted to a conservative hot-button topic, and this would cause him to suspect that he's being manipulated.
If you break up the pattern the people will remain clueless.

 

[WelshBloke]

That is a pretty offensive cartoon.

Relate starving people in Africa to a media controversy. Whoever drew that should be shipped to Africa for a few months to see the famine up close. Perhaps then they wouldn't use it for cheap political points.

You do understand that cartoon don't you?

Putting it simply the guy is saying there's more important things in the world than journalists listening to your unprotected answer-phone messages, like the massive famine going on at the moment.

Whether you agree is a different point.

 

[cliftonite]

I didn't expected anything more from you anyways 😉

In one situation, someone thinks too much media attention is given to one story that is against someone of the same ideological makeup and says the media should focus on a different, more important story.

Then in the other situation, someone thinks too much media attention is given to one story that is against someone of the same ideological makeup and says the media should focus on a different, more important story. And this person attacks the person above for thinking too much media attention is given to one story that is against someone of the same ideological makeup and saying the media should focus on a different, more important story.


I mean, why did I have to type that out? My role in life should not be relegated to baby-sitting you 😛 How do you write a response to me, while in your first sentence you downplay someone of your ideological makeup and divert attention over to someone of the opposing ideological makeup 😀



Come on - baby steps. Drop your ideology. Drop your partisan hatred. Now, tell me - what do you believe is more important? (A) Someone listening in on voicemails, or (B) a starving population?

Answer that question honestly and we can take some more baby steps on your road to self-improvement! Do you never wonder why Craig is such an ineffective persuader? The only thing he is capable of doing well is firing up those who already fully agree with him.

They didnt just listen to voicemails. They hacked a murdered girls voicemail and deleted messages leading the parents and police to believe that the girl was alive.

 

[shortylickens]

That is a pretty offensive cartoon.

Relate starving people in Africa to a media controversy. Whoever drew that should be shipped to Africa for a few months to see the famine up close. Perhaps then they wouldn't use it for cheap political points.

Perhaps, but no guarantee. I used to think along those lines after I got back from Kosovo. Then one day something occurred to me.
Theres literally MILLIONS of activities a person can do on planet earth. Even if you lead a rich, full life its likely you will only perform a few thousand of those activities. The rest you will just have to observe and make intelligent analysis of.
Its not logical to say someone shouldn't talk about something they haven't personally experienced because its physically impossible to get actively involved with all the things you will think about or discuss. I like the idea of free speech in America in that not every little thing you say needs to be qualified with supporting evidence or personal experience.

ON TOPIC:
The only downside of course is stuff like the above picture, where the artist clearly has no perspective whatsoever and made a mediocre joke in very poor taste. The good side is since his ignorance is so obvious and absolute it makes it that much easier to ignore him completely.

But in general I support the notion people should be allowed to comment on things they dont know everything about, because otherwise the only people who could talk would be 90 year-olds with multiple PhD's, and while that would be amusing its not quite realistic.

 

[Phokus]

Come on - baby steps. Drop your ideology. Drop your partisan hatred. Now, tell me - what do you believe is more important? (A) Someone listening in on voicemails, or (B) a starving population?

You're stupid, Murdoch's newspaper COMMITTED A CRIME, 2 of them in fact: Bribery of public officials and hacking into voicemails. I like how you phrase it as 'listening in on voicemails'. Who is partisan now? You bringing up Weiner to compare is just flat out disgusting.

Do starving Africans mean we should only report on them and ignore the crimes that Murdoch's empire has perpetrated? My god, you calling anyone partisan is just ridiculous. And again, since when the hell do News Corp/News International readers give a shit about starving Africans in the first place?

Edit: Actually, maybe even 3 crimes, considering his son James might have perjured himself during the testimony.

 

[a777pilot]

What US politician received more campaign contributions from News Corp than any other?

Hey Rupert.....fail!

 

[Craig234]

You do understand that cartoon don't you?

Putting it simply the guy is saying there's more important things in the world than journalists listening to your unprotected answer-phone messages, like the massive famine going on at the moment.

Whether you agree is a different point.

You don't understand that cartoon do you?

First, it wanted to simply say 'stop paying so much attention to the scandal'. To do so, it made a bad visual pun by trivializing the issue of starving people for the word 'bellyache'.

Second, the agenda behind the cartoon was nothing more than 'corporate criminal trying to use his media power to avoid accountability for his organization's wrongs'.

If the cartoonist wasn't directed to do it, he knew what his masters would like.

Are you that gullible you think the Murdoch culture suddenly became concerned that issues like the poor in Africa weren't getting enough attention, instead of this being the crassest sort of typical PR damage control? Then take a look at the same paper's cover the day the cartoon was published, below.

You see the same old techniques in these damage control efforts - phrases like 'it's old news', 'we need to move on from', diluting the news item with other news, etc.

You see that with Fox news - commentators going on about 'why hasn't the media moved past this', putting this issue with four other 'hacking stories', etc.

Even as I noted before trying to confuse the issue by comparing themselves to those who were hacked, rather than pointing out it was they who did the hacking.

 

[theeedude]

Disgusting.

 

[Arkaign]

You do understand that cartoon don't you?

Putting it simply the guy is saying there's more important things in the world than journalists listening to your unprotected answer-phone messages, like the massive famine going on at the moment.

Whether you agree is a different point.

The point in itself is well taken, as we watch the 21st century media culture that Murdoch himself is a big part in building take full form in following whatever new controversy can be overcovered (Wiener, Casey Anthony, MJ Death, etc) while ignoring the more noble journalistic pursuits of trying to cover truly important events and problems that our world faces. I have to wonder how the news of today would have covered the Vietnam conflict for example.

The problem with this (or the virtue, depending on where you sit) is that it's pretty much impossible to believe that this cartoon would exist from the same source had the phone scandal been from a 'liberal' source, rather than Murdoch's hyperconservative activist network of businesses and associates. In that case, not only would the cartoon not run as it was trying to divert attention to another issue, but it would have featured the very target that is deflected here.

Hyperpartisanship leads to hyperhypocrisy.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

How his paper says 'stop covering the phone hacking crimes so much':

So Brookes draws what Murdoch tells him to? I doubt that. Especially considering his cartoons are published in many non-Murdoch controlled news papers.

Once again... weak and lame.

 

[Arkaign]

So Brookes draws what Murdoch tells him to? I doubt that. Especially considering his cartoons are published in many non-Murdoch controlled news papers.

Once again... weak and lame.

One would have to be incredibly ignorant to think that Brookes doesn't know where his bread is buttered, so to speak.

It's a partisan cartoon, intended to make a partisan point by deflection.

It's hypocrisy at it's finest, this cartoon wouldn't exist if Murdoch was a famous liberal activist.

I fully understand this, and the same is largely true in reverse. Political cartoonists who supply the liberal viewpoint are incredibly unlikely to want to supply a POV that denigrates their side, and obfuscation and diversion are viable tactics that they will also readily employ.