So NPR had a cool report on the Murdoch empire today. Apparently, Murdoch's only competition in Australia is his eldest son, who, in the US FOX News, works for Murdoch Sr.
Man, I guess we all thought that kind of thing happened, but still
Cable was taken off the decision to say yay or nay to the BSKYB takeover because he was biased, but was replaced by someone just as biased, but in a way acceptable to Cameron. "Yes, please! Have more influence and a greater stranglehold over our political process!" is how decades of politicians have treated Murdoch. It's just nauseating and humungously depressing.
Man, I guess we all thought that kind of thing happened, but still
Cable was taken off the decision to say yay or nay to the BSKYB takeover because he was biased, but was replaced by someone just as biased, but in a way acceptable to Cameron. "Yes, please! Have more influence and a greater stranglehold over our political process!" is how decades of politicians have treated Murdoch. It's just nauseating and humungously depressing.
Did you see the chart of who said what/when in the Guardian today? I can't seem to find it online, but it probably wouldn't translate well onto a small screen, rather than a double page spread
With the question by question focus of the levenson inquiry it's sort of easy to forget the larger picture.
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
You know what? I can genuinely buy that there was no "grand deal" to hand BSkyB over to Murdoch on a silver platter. You know why? Because there wouldn't need to be.
You know what? I can genuinely buy that there was no "grand deal" to hand BSkyB over to Murdoch on a silver platter. You know why? Because there wouldn't need to be.
In that it was always an obvious next step for NI?
You know what? I can genuinely buy that there was no "grand deal" to hand BSkyB over to Murdoch on a silver platter. You know why? Because there wouldn't need to be.
In that it was always an obvious next step for NI?
Pretty much. I feel the influence Murdoch had meant he wouldn't have to be so blunt about it. He could just make his move and be confident the Government wouldn't object.
Murdoch's statement is almost as disngious as Herman Goring defense at Nuremberg.
Goring actually tried to argue he was a moderating influence. Murdoch does not even seem to recognise that fighting corruption would be a laudable defense. Instead they're going with: We did not know about the criminal masterminds within preforming criminal acts.
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
So, Rupert Murdoch has been confirmed as "not a fit and proper person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company", by the Culture Committee of the House of Commons. I'm not sure quite what that means going forward, but that it is a big deal either way
Freedom for the Northern Isles!
0
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
So murdoch senior's "way out" of this is going to end up being "oops, I didn't notice my minions being evil and I totes should have, my bad. Imma retire to my mansion and contemplate my failure in my champagne bath now. Ps, totally throwing the rest of you suckas to the wolves, peace out!"
Sooo not surprised.
(I think that the "not fit and proper" bit means the govt. gets to order the board to fire his ass, but I'm not sure they can stop him resigning first)
So murdoch senior's "way out" of this is going to end up being "oops, I didn't notice my minions being evil and I totes should have, my bad. Imma retire to my mansion and contemplate my failure in my champagne bath now. Ps, totally throwing the rest of you suckas to the wolves, peace out!"
Sooo not surprised.
(I think that the "not fit and proper" bit means the govt. gets to order the board to fire his ass, but I'm not sure they can stop him resigning first)
Not even that. He'll probably go back about his business with his wrist stinging from the slight slap it's been given. The UK government has no power to shut down a huge multi-national company like NI. We can say Murdoch sucks and we don't think he is fit to run his company but ultimately those are just words from people with no power over Murdoch.
The worst we could do is cripple his ability to operate in the UK, but at this point NI has such a stranglehold over the UK media I'm not sure how the government would even begin to do that without some sort of soviet style "shoot all the journalists" crackdown going into effect. Needless to say that would not go down well.
UPDATE 12:02
The report's verdict that Rupert Murdoch is not fit to run a big international publicncompany was not supported by four Tory MPs on the committee. The disclosure that the vote on this divided along party lines may lessen its force.
In particular, News Corporation's board may well view the verdict as a political judgement, rather than a dispassionate one.
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Taking this from Twitter:
25Apr: Murdoch on The Sun "I want to put out the best paper observing highest ethical standards"
2May: Sun front page: http://twitpic.com/9g5ru5
Cameron sent her an indirect message of support after she was forced to resign as chief executive of News International last summer. Asked about the claim in an updated biography of the prime minister that he told her to "keep your head up", she confirmed that it was "along those lines". The message, through a mutual contact, was sent days after the revelations that the News of the World had hacked murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler's phone, causing a wave of revulsion in parliament and among the general public.
Cameron was not the only one to reach out: Brooks confirmed she also received messages from George Osborne and Tony Blair. But not from Gordon Brown, who she said was "probably getting the bunting out".
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
@darleysam Just to be clear, that's not one of your many works of genius in this thread, is it? That's a real thing?
A thought occurs to me: Given the way that the NI has behaved and become a malignant cist of a media conglomerate, could the UK government forcibly dismantle it's infrastructure within the British isles? As in, sieze their printing presses and offices and then put them up for sale.
I realize that this is bordering on some V for Vendetta levels of government interference, but is it feasibly possible within the framework of the UK legal system?
A thought occurs to me: Given the way that the NI has behaved and become a malignant cist of a media conglomerate, could the UK government forcibly dismantle it's infrastructure within the British isles? As in, sieze their printing presses and offices and then put them up for sale.
I realize that this is bordering on some V for Vendetta levels of government interference, but is it feasibly possible within the framework of the UK legal system?
And most importantly, even if they cannot currently do it to News International, what would need to be discovered to turn the tides against them enough so that the UK COULD then do this? Inquiring minds demand answers!
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
A thought occurs to me: Given the way that the NI has behaved and become a malignant cist of a media conglomerate, could the UK government forcibly dismantle it's infrastructure within the British isles? As in, sieze their printing presses and offices and then put them up for sale.
I realize that this is bordering on some V for Vendetta levels of government interference, but is it feasibly possible within the framework of the UK legal system?
And most importantly, even if they cannot currently do it to News International, what would need to be discovered to turn the tides against them enough so that the UK COULD then do this? Inquiring minds demand answers!
Short of them being found trying to overturn the government I don't see it happening. It would literally take treason or terrorism.
Short of them being found trying to overturn the government I don't see it happening. It would literally take treason or terrorism.
Wouldn't trying to ensure permanent rule by the Conservative party in the UK over every facet of government count? It's effectively overthrowing democracy and subverting the will of the electorate, only through both overt PR maneuvers and as we're quickly discovering, the shady illegal business deals, police suborning, and political arrangements as well. It's the same thing as a coup, minus the violence and at a significantly slower pace. Or are you saying they'd need to be conspiring specifically for a violent overthrow of government for it to qualify?
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Short of them being found trying to overturn the government I don't see it happening. It would literally take treason or terrorism.
Wouldn't trying to ensure permanent rule by the Conservative party in the UK over every facet of government count? It's effectively overthrowing democracy and subverting the will of the electorate, only through both overt PR maneuvers and as we're quickly discovering, the shady illegal business deals, police suborning, and political arrangements as well. It's the same thing as a coup, minus the violence and at a significantly slower pace. Or are you saying they'd need to be conspiring specifically for a violent overthrow of government for it to qualify?
Yes. That's what I'm saying.
Besides it's hard to call NI a mechanism for a Conservative coup when they switch camps every 5-10 years and start doing the same thing for Labour.
0
Options
BobCescaIs a girlBirmingham, UKRegistered Userregular
A thought occurs to me: Given the way that the NI has behaved and become a malignant cist of a media conglomerate, could the UK government forcibly dismantle it's infrastructure within the British isles? As in, sieze their printing presses and offices and then put them up for sale.
I realize that this is bordering on some V for Vendetta levels of government interference, but is it feasibly possible within the framework of the UK legal system?
If Ofcom, the UK independent media regulator, finds that News Corp. is not a "fit and proper" organization to be holding a broadcasting license, they can be forced to sell some or all of their controlling stake in BSkyB.
A thought occurs to me: Given the way that the NI has behaved and become a malignant cist of a media conglomerate, could the UK government forcibly dismantle it's infrastructure within the British isles? As in, sieze their printing presses and offices and then put them up for sale.
I realize that this is bordering on some V for Vendetta levels of government interference, but is it feasibly possible within the framework of the UK legal system?
If Ofcom, the UK independent media regulator, finds that News Corp. is not a "fit and proper" organization to be holding a broadcasting license, they can be forced to sell some or all of their controlling stake in BSkyB.
Interesting. Do we have any examples of organizations being lashed out at by Ofcom?
A thought occurs to me: Given the way that the NI has behaved and become a malignant cist of a media conglomerate, could the UK government forcibly dismantle it's infrastructure within the British isles? As in, sieze their printing presses and offices and then put them up for sale.
I realize that this is bordering on some V for Vendetta levels of government interference, but is it feasibly possible within the framework of the UK legal system?
If Ofcom, the UK independent media regulator, finds that News Corp. is not a "fit and proper" organization to be holding a broadcasting license, they can be forced to sell some or all of their controlling stake in BSkyB.
Interesting. Do we have any examples of organizations being lashed out at by Ofcom?
A thought occurs to me: Given the way that the NI has behaved and become a malignant cist of a media conglomerate, could the UK government forcibly dismantle it's infrastructure within the British isles? As in, sieze their printing presses and offices and then put them up for sale.
I realize that this is bordering on some V for Vendetta levels of government interference, but is it feasibly possible within the framework of the UK legal system?
If Ofcom, the UK independent media regulator, finds that News Corp. is not a "fit and proper" organization to be holding a broadcasting license, they can be forced to sell some or all of their controlling stake in BSkyB.
Interesting. Do we have any examples of organizations being lashed out at by Ofcom?
A thought occurs to me: Given the way that the NI has behaved and become a malignant cist of a media conglomerate, could the UK government forcibly dismantle it's infrastructure within the British isles? As in, sieze their printing presses and offices and then put them up for sale.
I realize that this is bordering on some V for Vendetta levels of government interference, but is it feasibly possible within the framework of the UK legal system?
If Ofcom, the UK independent media regulator, finds that News Corp. is not a "fit and proper" organization to be holding a broadcasting license, they can be forced to sell some or all of their controlling stake in BSkyB.
Interesting. Do we have any examples of organizations being lashed out at by Ofcom?
Really though, that's just a slap on the wrist. I can't remember any situation where they pulled the licence of a major broadcaster.
Major broadcasters tend to try and hold onto their broadcasting licenses, for obvious reasons. You aren't going to find comparable cases because events on this scale don't happen very often.
A NZ news show interviewed Brian Gould this week about the early times of New Labour and Murdoch's engagement with such, unfortunately that interview still seems to be regionlocked, but hopefully they will put the interview up on Youtube as they usually do
Posts
That's gotta hurt.
EDIT: BONUS ROUND (same URL): James Murdoch spoke to David Cameron about BSkyB. Yikes
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Cable was taken off the decision to say yay or nay to the BSKYB takeover because he was biased, but was replaced by someone just as biased, but in a way acceptable to Cameron. "Yes, please! Have more influence and a greater stranglehold over our political process!" is how decades of politicians have treated Murdoch. It's just nauseating and humungously depressing.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Did you see the chart of who said what/when in the Guardian today? I can't seem to find it online, but it probably wouldn't translate well onto a small screen, rather than a double page spread
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2012/04/2012427131051213164.html
With the question by question focus of the levenson inquiry it's sort of easy to forget the larger picture.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
In that it was always an obvious next step for NI?
Pretty much. I feel the influence Murdoch had meant he wouldn't have to be so blunt about it. He could just make his move and be confident the Government wouldn't object.
Goring actually tried to argue he was a moderating influence. Murdoch does not even seem to recognise that fighting corruption would be a laudable defense. Instead they're going with: We did not know about the criminal masterminds within preforming criminal acts.
Start at 1.10
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Sooo not surprised.
(I think that the "not fit and proper" bit means the govt. gets to order the board to fire his ass, but I'm not sure they can stop him resigning first)
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Not even that. He'll probably go back about his business with his wrist stinging from the slight slap it's been given. The UK government has no power to shut down a huge multi-national company like NI. We can say Murdoch sucks and we don't think he is fit to run his company but ultimately those are just words from people with no power over Murdoch.
The worst we could do is cripple his ability to operate in the UK, but at this point NI has such a stranglehold over the UK media I'm not sure how the government would even begin to do that without some sort of soviet style "shoot all the journalists" crackdown going into effect. Needless to say that would not go down well.
Hmm.
Although I think NI have yet to manage poisoning babies, but you know time.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8375638.stm
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
25Apr: Murdoch on The Sun "I want to put out the best paper observing highest ethical standards"
2May: Sun front page: http://twitpic.com/9g5ru5
I realize that this is bordering on some V for Vendetta levels of government interference, but is it feasibly possible within the framework of the UK legal system?
http://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/gotcha/
And most importantly, even if they cannot currently do it to News International, what would need to be discovered to turn the tides against them enough so that the UK COULD then do this? Inquiring minds demand answers!
Short of them being found trying to overturn the government I don't see it happening. It would literally take treason or terrorism.
Wouldn't trying to ensure permanent rule by the Conservative party in the UK over every facet of government count? It's effectively overthrowing democracy and subverting the will of the electorate, only through both overt PR maneuvers and as we're quickly discovering, the shady illegal business deals, police suborning, and political arrangements as well. It's the same thing as a coup, minus the violence and at a significantly slower pace. Or are you saying they'd need to be conspiring specifically for a violent overthrow of government for it to qualify?
Yes. That's what I'm saying.
Besides it's hard to call NI a mechanism for a Conservative coup when they switch camps every 5-10 years and start doing the same thing for Labour.
One of my favourites:
If Ofcom, the UK independent media regulator, finds that News Corp. is not a "fit and proper" organization to be holding a broadcasting license, they can be forced to sell some or all of their controlling stake in BSkyB.
ITV were fined £4million for charging viewers for phoning in for competitions they couldn't win.
Really though, that's just a slap on the wrist. I can't remember any situation where they pulled the licence of a major broadcaster.
Major broadcasters tend to try and hold onto their broadcasting licenses, for obvious reasons. You aren't going to find comparable cases because events on this scale don't happen very often.
Hah, cheers! I'm sorry to tell you that, indeed, it is an actual real thing that was approved by the editor and published nationally.
Here is a link to the show's host, who blogged on the topic
http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/to-prostitute-yourself-to-media-interests/
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3