 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 20 Jul 11 - 05:40 PM My dog asked to go out at 4 AM, so I got a cup of coffee and turned on the TV. The BBC was carrying the Cameron talk and question period. Both he and the gentleman speaking for labo(u)r were excellent debaters, and questions were properly barbed and brief. Most enjoyable, unlike Congressional hearings. Of course, like the American Congress, action may not be as firm as needed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 19 Jul 11 - 08:55 PM It's essentially the same thing as a Senate Committee hearing in the US Gnu. When the government decides to hold a public enquiry it does have the power to summon those involved and witnesses, and in some cases to detain them to ensure that they attend. This is not designed to distract attention from military conflicts, which are still being reported on by the Media. It is the response of a Parliament somewhat shocked by the degree of public fury generated by the phone hacking scandal. I suspect that the US government will in turn be shocked into action by the anger of the US public, should it turn out that similar hacking was used following 9/11. A line has been crossed, and a wise government will be taking firm action to avoid the loss of millions of votes at the next election. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: gnu Date: 19 Jul 11 - 06:37 AM Why is parliament questioning him and his son? Does parliament have the power to summon citizens before it, essentially to try them in public? Is this a big show to detract attention from the military "conflicts" and the like? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Richard Bridge Date: 14 Jul 11 - 07:42 AM Well handled, Don! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 14 Jul 11 - 06:23 AM And if Richard finds it difficult to have to agree with me, just imagine my reluctance to applaud and agree with the following from Gordon Brown (the first time I have agreed with him since 1997). Speaking of News International yesterday in Parliament:- ""He branded it "a criminal media nexus" which "claimed to be on the side of the law-abiding citizen" but in fact stood "side by side with criminals against our citizens", adding: "Others have said that in the behaviour towards those without a voice of their own, News International descended from the gutter to the sewer. The tragedy is that they let the rats out of the sewer.""" My only amendment to that statement would be that "They WERE the rats in that sewer! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Richard Bridge Date: 13 Jul 11 - 03:03 PM I'm sure you will find something in the back street to your liking, Mr Fluids, maybe in the highrise blocks heading towards the mainland, or maybe recommended by the concierge at the Raffles Club. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 13 Jul 11 - 01:46 PM Glad you think he has a plan. Those shares are arse wiping paper right now. So long as his plan allows me to sell them at cost or above eh? Hard work this capitalism gig. Mind you, in a few short hours I shall be in Singapore where the media aren't really to the dirty digger's like or style. An example of where government interference goes too far the other way. Mind you, nobody seems too upset that a lesbian kiss in Sex and the City was edited out for their tv network or that British guy was released from jail e other day for saying the place was Disneyland with the death sentence. A free press is important. It is the disgusting efforts to satisfy purile interest in the misfortune of others that is risking such freedoms. Where I am going, everybody smiles and seems happy. Is is because they think their dictatorship government is benign? Is it because they think reporters won't be looking in their dustbins if tier child is murdered? Is it because there is less opportunity to let off steam and shout your mouth off as we seem to enjoy doing? More to the point, I wouldn't be posting this message once I get there in case the IP is monitored. Wouldn't want my hosts to think I am not grateful for their business climate... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Richard Bridge Date: 13 Jul 11 - 12:57 PM Oh fuck. I have to agree with Don again. But don't underestimate the wrinkly weasel. I don't know his next move but I'm sure he has one planned. Check the front page of Today's Sun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 Jul 11 - 11:13 AM RUPERT MURDOCH HAS BAILED OUT OF HIS BSkyB TAKEOVER!!! "It would be too difficult in the current climate", he said. I think he means that finally he has raised such a miasma of atomised shit that even he can't see his way through to the other side. May he and Rebekah and all the other slimy little turds be buried without trace when it all subsides.. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: DrugCrazed Date: 13 Jul 11 - 03:48 AM Teehee Keep squirming NI. Keep squirming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: SPB-Cooperator Date: 12 Jul 11 - 07:30 PM What is worrying me is that Murdoch is now proposing a delay before considering a deal. I read this as a get-out for Cameron to not be forced into a cross-party consensus blocking acquisition, but allowing when the heat of public opinion has cooled thus getting the full weight of News Int behind the Tories at the next general election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Richard Bridge Date: 12 Jul 11 - 10:53 AM Cut and paste (without much apology) Hacking murdered children's phones, paying off police, destroying evidence of crimes, threatening politicians -- MPs are saying the Murdoch empire has "entered the criminal underworld". But Murdoch is still calling the shots and could still get the BSkyB prize. Yesterday, he pulled a cunning manoeuvre at the last hurdle, meaning regulators will review the deal solely on plurality, not the outrageous immorality of his company's practices. But British law says media owners must be "fit and proper" to be trusted with broadcast licenses. If we demand that now, we can influence the debate tomorrow in Parliament and kill the deal once and for all. People power has brought this deal to its knees -- our 160,000 letters last week were critical in getting the deal referred to the Competition Commission. But we cannot stop now: the hacking scandal is our best chance in a generation to end Murdoch's reign of fear and smear over our democracy. Let's make sure Cameron and Hunt immediately ensure the BSkyB deal is assessed on whether Murdoch is "fit and proper" to be given half our country's commercial media. Click to sign the urgent petition and forward this email to everyone -- we have just 24 hours until the Parliamentary debate: http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_the_murdoch_mafia_2/?vl Murdoch's media -- From the News of the World to the Sun to the Sunday Times -- has corrupted our society, our politics and our police. His staff have listened in to grieving widows of soldiers who died in Iraq, a war that Murdoch's global media empire promoted. They stole a sitting Prime Minister's bank information and his family's medical records, and hacked into the phones, computers and homes of thousands of people. They paid the police for information, and got the first hacking investigation stopped after meeting senior officers. And James Murdoch approved cheques to hush up victims who threatened action -- a criminal obstruction of justice. As the Murdoch empire's vile dealings have been uncovered, he has fought back to try to save his lucrative BSkyB TV deal. First, he pulled the News of the World. Then, yesterday, he surprised Jeremy Hunt at the last minute by withdrawing his proposed undertakings for Sky News, forcing Hunt to refer the deal to the Competition Commission and buying time for the political temperature to cool to ensure the deal he so badly wants is judged only on market share, not his company's criminality. So far the Murdochs have been protected by fear. They run smear campaigns against their enemies, threatening the career of any politician who challenges them. But the fear is melting away, and for the first time our politicians could take steps to stop him, by ruling Murdoch unfit to own our media and forcing him to give up control of his empire in the UK. Tomorrow Parliament could make this move -- it's a breathtaking chance to improve British media and democracy in one fell swoop -- let's bring a massive outcry to achieve it: http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_the_murdoch_mafia_2/?vl It won't be easy. When the hacking scandal broke in earnest a few months ago, David Cameron spent much of his Christmas week socializing with Murdoch executives. Murdoch's mafia power extends deep into our government. But together we have already pushed this deal to the limit -- now let's bury it. But if we act fast now, the government and regulators will have to subject this deal to the fullest public interest tests - which it simply cannot pass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Jul 11 - 10:04 PM I hope that the captain goes down with the ship (or should that be shit?) but you should not misunderestimate the extent of Murdoch's control of his empire. The Susan Douglas sideshow might damage Rupie's attempts to keep the old NoW crew on for the Sun on Sunday, but it might be a cunning plan to get someone else (ie venture capitalists) to finance the latter game with different window dressing. Hunt's remarks about the need to readdress media plurality sound promising though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: BTNG Date: 11 Jul 11 - 07:05 PM From Yahoo News A plan is underway to re-launch the News of the World newspaper just one day after the title was closed by owner Rupert Murdoch. According to reports in The Independent, Susan Douglas, a former editor of the Sunday Express and deputy editor of The Sunday Times, is at the centre of a consortium of media and business figures attempting to put a rescue package together. "What we are talking about is saving the freedom of the press for ordinary people, who are not going to read the Financial Times, or even The Independent or The Guardian. I think it's really important and worth doing," she said. Reports claim that Ms Douglas has already been involved in talks with leading media owners and venture capitalists. She urged that a rescue attempt would need to be made quickly before the opportunity to save the title is lost. Part of Douglas' plans would involve recruiting former News of the World staff – who have been invited to apply for roles within News International. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 11 Jul 11 - 07:00 PM Steamin' Willie, you're wrong about Ofcom. Its primary responsibility in this case would be to establish if the Murdochs are fit and proper people to old a broadcasting licence. A decision that they are not would thwart the NewsCorp takeover of BSkyB. It would also put in question the 39 per cent of BSkyB that is already held by Newscorp. But there was a new twist this afternoon when Newscorp withdrew and undertaking that it would hive off Sky News if it got its hands on BSkyB. This was widely seen as a cynical move by the Murdochs to park the takeover until quieter times. It left the government with no option but to refer the takeover to another authority, the Competition Commission, because it brings the plurality question to centre stage. Richard, you have no near to fear any Murdoch-nominee political party emerging. The Murdochs are already holed below the water line. American investors in the company will have driven them out within months, if not weeks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Jul 11 - 03:29 PM It is unconventional but legally possible retrospectively to change the law. My Volvos were made when Volvo was Volvo, thank you very much. Proper examples of their type. If you have Sky, Murdoch may have you in his pocket, but not me. FFS have the courage of your alleged convictions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 11 Jul 11 - 12:27 PM ""From: Richard, Bridge - PM Date: 11 Jul 11 - 04:32 AM Latest update on the email I send to my MP http://www.flickr.com/photos/62550305@N07/"" Clones please remove this false identity. It is not Richard Bridge, nor is the gallery the link opens anything to do with Dave the Gnome. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 11 Jul 11 - 12:07 PM Yes I know Parliament has supremacy but that is by changing laws and in the case of the referral would be retrospective. So my concern is whether Parliament should decide if a specific case needs to be referred or whether they use the example to decide whether the referral terms of reference require review. After all, how can Parliament hold Ministers to account if they use votes to make the decisions bestowed on Ministers? Just one thing about you not watching his telly, read his newspapers etc. Sorry M'Unleared Friend, he owns you. He owns me too. Your Volvo and my Jag were owned by Ford when they were built. Guess whose empire owns a huge slice of Ford? Me? I have Sky TV, and I don't buy any newspapers although that isn't a protest against the dirty digger, more of not bothering to read them all, I get The Week and use the good old fashioned Internet & Radio 4 for what goes on in life. I have no issue having Sky though, it is a good HD service at. Reasonable cost with excellent recording facility. Sky Arts is great, lots of my favourite big time folk acts on from time to time. My point is that somebody owns everything, so short of holy orders we are all encouraging big business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Jul 11 - 09:14 AM I don't think you can correctly say that of Milliband. It is within the power of Parliament to change the law - that's basic Dicean Parliamentary supremacy, and the enrolled bill rule means that the lawfulness of the enactment of an Act cannot be challenged in court, procedurally or otherwise. So one way or another Parliament has the power (that's why for example the powers of the courts under the Human Rights Act are at the end of the day limited to a declaration of non-conformity, which calls into question compliance with the ECHR). It's the same conundrum basically as what would happen if Parliament enacted something fundamentally contrary to EU law and also enacted that the UK courts should follow that and not take EU law into account. That would be the law of the UK, albeit a breach of treaty obligations (unless the treaty had been ended - by which I intend to cover a multitude of different things). No, I won't buy the shares. I won't buy his newpapers or pay for or watch his TV channels either |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 11 Jul 11 - 07:37 AM Now then M'Unlearned friend. Do you want to buy some shares? Cheaper than when this thread started.... Interesting that considering how events have made this old thread pertinent again, Ed Milliband is consistent from his comments at the time to his proposed Parliamentary vote now. This is an open question Richard and I would genuinely wish to hear your objective take on this. As the referral of the bid is within a legal framework, is Milliband asking Parliament to circumvent the law? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Green Man Date: 11 Jul 11 - 07:14 AM all a bit moot now innit! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Jul 11 - 04:20 AM Email to my MP To Mark Reckless MP N Subject BSKyB - please stand up to Murdoch Message, I apologise if I seem to badger you, but stopping Murdoch is essential to the very foundations of our democracy. I have seen reports that there may be a vote on Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB takeover this Wednesday. Please can you assure me that you will vote in favour of halting the takeover? Much more information is available than at the start of the takeover process started last year. Rupert Murdoch's empire stands accused of appalling crimes and is now under criminal investigation. There are fears that his act of damage limitation in closing the News of the World conceals a deeper purpose: the hiding of information that would once have been recorded or remembered there. That looks entirely credible in the light of the over-specific and over-narrow advice carefully given by Abramson at Harbottle & Lewis, and last night given to the BBC. That advice carefully did not address whether the evidence reviewed by Abramson disclosed (as it allegedly did) bribery of apparently a number of police officers. As a consequence the police investigating the Murdoch empire were kept in the dark about important information for several years. The reliability of "undertakings" Murdoch is offering must be in doubt. I must press you to do the right thing. The government must control Murdoch, not the other way round. Yours sincerely, Richard Bridge |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Richard Bridge Date: 05 Jul 11 - 06:38 PM FP, what, if anything, are you trying to say? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Jul 11 - 03:08 PM "Pardon the length of this letter. I didn't have time to write a short one" That's been said by quite a number of people before and since. In fact I'd suspect a lot of people have written something like that in their time. ...................... ...do we think that the present illegitimate government will stand up to him ... Of course we don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: frogprince Date: 05 Jul 11 - 12:00 PM "Who once wrote: Pardon the length of this letter. I didn't have time to write a short one."?" Sherlock Holmes, in the Laurie King novel "A Letter Of Mary" (I'm not that I'm that retentive, it just happens that I just finished it) In the context of the book, Richard Bridge's reply is pretty much irrelevant; Holmes was writting "on the run" as things developed, and didn't have time to sit back, reflect, and "boil down" the information he wanted to convey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Richard Bridge Date: 05 Jul 11 - 09:55 AM In the light of what Murdoch, despite promises, does to Millie Dowler's phone do we think that the present illegitimate government will stand up to him NOW, or will it only realise what it has done when an openly Murdoch nominee party runs for Parliament with the power of his media monolith behind it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 18 Jan 11 - 05:28 AM Can't eat principles, M'Unlearned friend. People want media. People want TV shows on demand, a daily newspaper so they can get all angry and they want high definition toys in their living room. Denying them what they want sounds a bit Puritan to me. How the hell do you know what I want? or my neighbour? or your neighbour? To get it, you need commerce. You need industry and yes, you need entrepreneurs. The dirty digger does need his wings clipping in more ways than one, but that is my opinion, not my plan of attack. Principles versus profit eh? If profit was my only vice, I would vote to string him along till the bid came with him crying. As it is, I find his political slant on his business somewhat odious and have wanted to offload the shares for some time. However, and this is the rub... Whilst I don't want these shares because of my principles I suppose, I draw the line at selling them at a loss. You know what that makes me? Normal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 11 - 06:06 PM The problem with data is that most of it is fictionalized... I learned that the very first day from my Stats prof in college... That was right after he went to the chalk board and proved mathematically that 1 = 2... Data is so easily skewed that it seems that the side with the most statisticians can win most of the arguments... I mean, there are so many variables in every statistical study that what comes out the pipe is frequently what one side wants to come out the pipe... So, if one is fairly well read in terms of current events one will find all kinds of conflicting opinions on a vast number of issues based on a stat-man doing what he has been trained to do... That's why I rarely quote polls here... Yeah, I read them but that's purdy much it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Jan 11 - 05:49 PM People who fictionalize data (Donel et al.) have no credibility at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Bobert Date: 17 Jan 11 - 05:29 PM Keep hammerin' 'um, Donuel!!! I mean, we know that thr right has so much control of everything that they can just play their little "yawn" games pretending that progressives don't know anything... The right knows exactly what we know and it scares the willies outta 'um... It is their job to propagate mythology and to marginalize reality... Normal... Like I said... Keep hammerin'... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Jan 11 - 05:25 PM OK. The apple crumble looks pretty good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Richard Bridge Date: 17 Jan 11 - 04:57 PM I think, Q, you probably need to dig a little deeper. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Jan 11 - 04:00 PM Never having heard of B sky B this side of the great water, I took a look. It seems to be have a lower middle class target, with TV, entertainment, sports stuff and some simple recipes. The recipe for Lancashire Hot Pot looks pretty good; I will try it. If our boy Rupert continues to print recipes like that one, I might take a look from time to time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Richard Bridge Date: 17 Jan 11 - 11:32 AM Sorry fluids - your posts read to me as if you are happy for people to have principles so long as they do not affect your profits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 17 Jan 11 - 10:04 AM mmm... Shares in Newscorp, shares in BSkyB. I'm a man, and therefore part of mankind. (I suspect the dirty digger is too, but anyway, to the point...) The good of mankind is an interesting aim Richard. I would accept that you are fighting for what you see as the good of mankind, but I suspect the part of mankind that is me might not do so well in your vision? The problem with fighting for what is good is that it can only ever be your vision of what is good, and judging by Richard's posts, I for one don't sign up to it. Me? I leave it to the politicians to sort it out. Although Vince Cable showed us the absurdity of putting politicians in quasi judicial roles, as they will always let their creed rule their thoughts. Murdoch already controls the beast, so increasing his portfolio isn't going to change anything. And as he already reckons (with uncomfortable justification) that he decides who gets the keys to No. 10, I really fail to see what difference this takeover makes. Beaverbrook had Ministers in his back pocket and so does the dirty digger. they don't call it the 5th estate for nothing, and as unpalatable as that may sound, don't forget that telling us what to think is not just news barons and clergy territory, it is also, judging by this post, the right of M'Unlearned friend! (My shares were always up for grabs come any vote. I got them as part of a portfolio and wasn't too interested in them long term anyway.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Richard Bridge Date: 17 Jan 11 - 07:18 AM My motivation, Fugitive from Sanity, is largely the good of mankind - not the good of Rupert Murdoch. It is very different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Jan 11 - 11:21 PM The latest Murdoch Menace, by Richard Bridge.. Well, I guess it takes one to know one. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 16 Jan 11 - 04:47 PM The broken record shows up in this thread too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Donuel Date: 16 Jan 11 - 03:30 PM opps previous post was unreadable due to ctrl v buttons. Brevity is one tool, exclusion is the most powerful. Then there are the truthiness of rumor based facts. They are typically the antithetical twin of fair and balanced opinions that are predominant in coverage and presented as facts. Rhetoric like 'Liberals want to kill you' on talk radio and 'Democrats launch vicious attacks on Republican women', are actually followed by violence committed upon democratic women at tea party rallies. It all works. ACORN was abolished with one highly edited videotape of one incredibly stupid employee. People have been asked to resign from one spoken sentence taken out of context. The FOX media wing of big oil, big energy and banks is the tip of the iceburg. Big oil and Financials have bought Congress and Presidents as well as the US military to do their bidding so cheaply that the budget of their global subtrafuge is barely 1 % of their gross. Now with the Supreme Court decision to let unlimited Corporate fortunes finance state and Federal elections, the "octopus system" is insured to last several more generations or until all bets are off and its every man and his private island for themselves. The weak link in the chain of power is the pay off. Suppose the bought off officials "unionized" and Sort of like a corruption union. Indeed they would be slated for execution. It all makes for a good 007 script don't you think. A lobbyist for Duke Energy was working toward a merger with another energy giant and was found burnt to a crisp in her car at the end of her own driveway in DC this week. Her husband is a white house staffer for Obama. Truth is, this story is overshadowed by current events in Tucson. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Donuel Date: 16 Jan 11 - 03:25 PM Brevity is one tool, exclusion is the most powerful. Then there are the truthiness of rumor based facts. They are typically the antithetical twin of fair and balanced opinions that are predominant in coverage and presented as facts. Rhetoric like 'Liberals want to kill you' on talk radio and 'Democrats launch vicious attacks on Republican women', are actually followed by violence committed upon democratic women at tea party rallies. It all works. ACORN was abolished with one highly edited videotape of one incredibly stupid employee. People have been asked to resign from one spoken sentence taken out of context. The FOX media wing of big oil, big energy and banks is the tip of the iceburg. Big oil and Financials have bought Congress and Presidents as well as the US military to do their bidding so cheaply that the budget of their global subtrafuge is barely 1 % of their gross. Now with the Supreme Court decision to let unlimited Corporate fortunes finance state and Federal elections, the "octopus system" is insured to last several more generations or until all bets are off and its every man and his private island for themselves. The weak link in the chain of power is the pay off. Suppose the bought off officials "unionized" and insisted uBrevity is one tool, exclusion is the most powerful. Then there are the truthiness of rumor based facts. They are typically the antithetical twin of fair and balanced opinions that are predominant in coverage and presented as facts. Rhetoric like 'Liberals want to kill you' on talk radio and 'Democrats launch vicious attacks on Republican women', are actually followed by violence committed upon democratic women at tea party rallies. It all works. ACORN was abolished with one highly edited videotape of one incredibly stupid employee. People have been asked to resign from one spoken sentence taken out of context. The FOX media wing of big oil, big energy and banks is the tip of the iceburg. Big oil and Financials have bought Congress and Presidents as well as the US military to do their bidding so cheaply that the budget of their global subtrafuge is barely 1 % of their gross. Now with the Supreme Court decision to let unlimited Corporate fortunes finance state and Federal elections, the "octopus system" is insured to last several more generations or until all bets are off and its every man and his private island for themselves. Suppose corrupt officials insisted on billions or trillions instead of tens of thousands to do big oil's bidding. Sort of like a corruption union. Indeed they would be slated for execution. It all makes for a good 007 script don't you think. A lobbyist for Duke Energy was working toward a merger with another energy giant and was found burnt to a crisp in her car at the end of her own driveway in DC this week. Her husband is a white house staffer for Obama. Truth is, this story is overshadowed by current events in Tucson. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Ebbie Date: 16 Jan 11 - 03:16 PM Richard B, I would rather have someone read my missive in its entirety than hope to have someone admire my covering all the bases. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Richard Bridge Date: 16 Jan 11 - 02:53 PM Ebbie - it was a moron who has been seized upon by the soundbite generation. The cult of brevity at the expense of completeness and accuracy annoys me hugely. There may be other things that annoy ne more, but there are not many. If you want to criticise a long letter or document, identify the redundant information in it. Otherwise, learn to read and think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Bill D Date: 16 Jan 11 - 01:56 PM Murdoch...Murdock...Murcdoch.... my spell checker and search engines are arguing with each other. (when Rupert Whatsisname bought The Wall Street Journal, I said to myself "something's VERY wrong here.") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Bobert Date: 16 Jan 11 - 12:53 PM I'll 2nd that... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Donuel Date: 16 Jan 11 - 12:35 PM I see nothing wrong with giving total control of the world's media to Bruce Murcdoch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Ebbie Date: 16 Jan 11 - 12:24 PM Who once wrote: Pardon the length of this letter. I didn't have time to write a short one."? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Richard Bridge Date: 16 Jan 11 - 05:37 AM I have written to Hunt (on his web-page) as follows, and somewhat similarly to my MP (mine is Mark Reckless, alas conservative, who replaced the wonderful Bob Marshall-Andrews when the latter retired at the last election). I would urge all of you concerned about the Murdoch power-grab to do likewise. Letter follows: - "I am extremely concerned about the increasing influence of Rupert Murdoch in our media. The basic premise of democracy is an informed electorate. Without information, or with skewed information, the electorate cannot take soundly based decisions. This depends upon media plurality and relatively low barriers to entry in mass media. That plurality has already been badly impaired, and mass market avenues for information have entered excessive concentration. Mr Murdoch already controls two major national print newspapers. A simple scan round the dial will show that there is a substantial commonality of a limited news coverage on terrestrial wireless broadcasts. The internet has a mass of crumbs for those of short attention span, but apart from 140 character "tweets" which of their nature cannot base serious discussion there is little that has the penetration to balance potential bias across those two national newspapers plus a celestial television platform. Likewise market penetration of non-Murdoch celestial platforms is slight. This already gives Murdoch excessive power over the quality of information provided to the public. The facts already show that he is prepared to use that influence - a Sun headline famously bragged of a previous election "It's the Sun Wot Won It". Indeed at the time there was speculation that his price for support for the relevant potential prime minister was a promise of relaxation of media controls. In the USA his "Fox News" is a byword for bigoted propaganda mixed with alleged news. He has demonstrated his opposition to democratic representation when the Times first moved from Fleet Street. All this is dangerous. The obvious corruption and venality in Italy show what can happen when political and media power are too closely entwined. Moreover, Murdoch has already demonstrated his hostility to alternative media outlets. He and his family have made many and political attacks on the closest thing we have to unbiased media - the BBC. A comparison between the quality of output of the heyday of the BBC (and the heyday of the UK terrestrial TV franchises) with the lowest common denominator approach of Murdoch controlled TV shows a tendency towards circuses almost as basic as Roman circuses - without alas the bread. Total Murdoch control of Sky will reduce media choice and quality. Yet further, he has already demonstrated his contempt for regulation by cynically taking US citizenship to enable his control of Fox. Thus the effect of NewsCorp control would be: To place excessive media control in the hands of one dangerous individual; To place excessive political power in the hands of one dangerous individual - consider the Fox news support for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party; To reduce meaningful media choice for the individual; To reduce the quality of televisual programming (if you doubt this look at the Times and the Sun since his ownership); and Potentially to undermine democratic activity. It would be very dangerous for this country. It is known that there has been substantial public input to OFCOM, and it is known that OFCOM has recommended closer scrutiny of the sinister and foreign Murdoch's plans. Their report to says the Competition Commission needs to be involved. But you have been is sitting on the report and refusing to make it public. You have been having secret and possibly unlawful meetings with Murdoch's representatives. It looks as if you he could be trying to cook up a way of giving the Murdoch power grab the green light. This is doubly sinister in that Vince Cable was disqualified from adjudication on the ground of bias, but you have long been known to be an avowed aficionado of Murdoch. A secret deal between you and Murdoch would be undemocratic, probably unlawful, and remarkably redolent of Italian bad habits. The right thing(s) to do would be to publish the OFCOM report and announce that there will be a further Competition Commission enquiry". By only showing the report to Murdoch's lobbying team you create an unwholesome impression of an intention to work with them to find a way round the OFCOM report. That is not the English nor a democratic way of doing things. Yours sincerely, Richard McD. Bridge" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 20 Nov 10 - 07:55 AM In my post of 17/11 I referred to David Milliband - but I should have referred to Ed Milliband. Silly me - I'm still getting them mixed up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 19 Nov 10 - 10:27 AM But that's my point. In a democracy, you don't gag views. You do however ensure a plurality of views, hence the referral to Ofcom. Anyway, he controls enough of the ruddy company to say that if he pulled out now they would be up shit creek paddleless. So he already has the influence, just not the magic 51%. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The latest (Rupert) Murdoch Menace From: Stu Date: 19 Nov 10 - 10:23 AM One of the reasons Milliband might react like this is because most politicians are shit scared of Murdoch and his bullies: What the dirty digger and his cohorts get up to. The problem with Murdoch is his influence in our so-called democracy. |
