or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › News of the World
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

News of the World - Page 2

post #31 of 119
Thread Starter 
The scandal will be hopping across the pond in short order now.

post #32 of 119
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosiemac View Post
To close the newspaper down so quickly like they have is making a lot of people think that there's more to this than meets the eye, and l agree.

It's a shame that a newspaper of 168 years has ended like it has, but they put it in the gutter. And as for the phone hacking, it's despicable!!
Murdoch's "Hard Copy" is also what propelled the US Television media's downward march into the muckraking mess that it is now.
post #33 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Murdoch's "Hard Copy" is also what propelled the US Television media's downward march into the muckraking mess that it is now.
I didn't realise he was that bad until now?!
post #34 of 119
Thread Starter 
post #35 of 119
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosiemac View Post
I didn't realise he was that bad until now?!
Well, there is a down side to everything actually. One of the reactions to Murdoch's scandal rag journalism is, that many other media outlets adopted the same tactics to maintain competition and a form of balance throughout the industry. Losing News of the World is going to leave a big imbalance in the UK's news scene.

One thing that struck me this morning was this story;
Police: Someone sabotaging UK newspaper inquiry
It's entirely possible that one of News of the World's competitors is using exactly the same tactics they fell from to get scoops on the investigation so they can happily hang them out to dry before the public.
post #36 of 119
Thread Starter 
The man is quite the shrewd player. By altering the conditions of his bid, he has put the BSkyB deal back into the court of the Competition Commission.

News Corp., the umbrella company for Murdoch's media empire, withdrew its promise to spin off Sky News, which had been a condition for taking full control of British Sky Broadcasting.

It puts the acquisition on hold, perhaps even finishs it. But, the alternative would have been to risk being deemed "not fit and proper" to hold a broadcasting license, which would have cost him the portion of BSkyB they do own, and maybe even affected his licensing around the world.

Quite well played, actually.
post #37 of 119
Thread Starter 
post #38 of 119
Murdoch has always been a sleaze lord, so to speak.

That doesn't necessarily make his media suspect. After all, we have a long history of sleazeball politicians doing good things, and even very good journalists doing very sleazy things (Charles Kuralt and Dan Rather, for example).

And even sleazy media have done some very good things. The National Enquirer has a pretty impressive record of calling attention to items the mainstream media have ignored or missed.
post #39 of 119
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Murdoch has always been a sleaze lord, so to speak.

That doesn't necessarily make his media suspect. After all, we have a long history of sleazeball politicians doing good things, and even very good journalists doing very sleazy things (Charles Kuralt and Dan Rather, for example).
Of course it does. Murdoch is Emperor of his empire. His seconds carry out his every whim around the globe. This brings up the adage of the stopped clock. It's wrong most of the time, misleading and obnoxious. But for a fleeting moment, twice a day, it's right.

Quote:
And even sleazy media have done some very good things. The National Enquirer has a pretty impressive record of calling attention to items the mainstream media have ignored or missed.
Al Capone was quite a charitable guy too.
post #40 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Al Capone was quite a charitable guy too.
And so were Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, both of whom spent fortunes doing something "for" people so they'd forget what they'd done "to" them.

I guess Al should have started earlier with his philanthropy!
post #41 of 119
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
And so were Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, both of whom spent fortunes doing something "for" people so they'd forget what they'd done "to" them.
Exactly! Remind you of any current events?

One thing I'm curious about is, does Brooks actually think Murdoch is going to protect her? It seems to me that she is just the red cape to James Murdoch's matador. She is merely the "offered target" to keep the heat off sonny, at least for a while.
post #42 of 119
Thread Starter 
And so it comes...



http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ente...perations.html

Quote:
“If Mr. Murdoch’s employees can be so brazen as to target the British prime minister, then it is not unreasonable to believe they also might hack into the voice mails of American politicians and citizens,†Sloan added.
post #43 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Exactly! Remind you of any current events?

One thing I'm curious about is, does Brooks actually think Murdoch is going to protect her? It seems to me that she is just the red cape to James Murdoch's matador. She is merely the "offered target" to keep the heat off sonny, at least for a while.
The word Scapegoat springs straight to mind
post #44 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I saw this on the news and knew there was more to this story!. Absolutely disgusting!!
post #45 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
We don't need a news organization to do it. Political operatives and politicians have already done it. Remember the "hacking" and recording of a cellular conversation between Newt Gingrich and John Boehner in ... wait for it ... 1996?

Illegally recorded Gingrich conversation
post #46 of 119
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
We don't need a news organization to do it. Political operatives and politicians have already done it. Remember the "hacking" and recording of a cellular conversation between Newt Gingrich and John Boehner in ... wait for it ... 1996?

Illegally recorded Gingrich conversation
That wasn't hacking, that was someone being really stupid with a phone. Analog cell phones could be monitored with a Radioshack scanner. Nor was it organizational or institutional, nor was it directed at juvenile kidnap victims, nor sick children, victims of terrorism or fallen soldiers. It was not a business using it as a standard operating procedure, nor did it require bribery, moles and hush money. Trying to compare the two is what Aristotle would have called "Ignoratio elenchi"...we just call it a Red Herring. If you're going to go with the "two wrongs make a right" approach, perhaps you could find something a bit more commensurate.

The funniest part of this entire episode is; this is a story that Murdoch would be absolutely drooling over...if it were about someone else.
post #47 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
That wasn't hacking, that was someone being really stupid with a phone. Analog cell phones could be monitored with a Radioshack scanner. Nor was it organizational or institutional
Wrong. I have a scanner, and I used to hear the occasional phone call. It never lasted for more than a few seconds before the cell phone skipped to a different frequency. It takes very sophisticated software AND hardware to follow a phone conversation for more than a minute or so. AND this instance appears to have been actually instigated by political activists and promptly turned over to Democratic leaders, who gladly accepted it and used it.

Anyone who puts ANYTHING on the air on a cell phone should keep in mind that all someone has to hear is a few seconds for them to obtain personal information.

I would say the reporters, etc., who have done this are muckraking scum, but they operating in the fine tradition of Wikileaks, Deepthroat, and Daniel Ellsburg, all of whom seem to have no concern for individuals and think that whatever story they're following is more important than individual lives.
post #48 of 119
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Wrong. I have a scanner, and I used to hear the occasional phone call. It never lasted for more than a few seconds before the cell phone skipped to a different frequency. It takes very sophisticated software AND hardware to follow a phone conversation for more than a minute or so. AND this instance appears to have been actually instigated by political activists and promptly turned over to Democratic leaders, who gladly accepted it and used it.

Anyone who puts ANYTHING on the air on a cell phone should keep in mind that all someone has to hear is a few seconds for them to obtain personal information.

I would say the reporters, etc., who have done this are muckraking scum, but they operating in the fine tradition of Wikileaks, Deepthroat, and Daniel Ellsburg, all of whom seem to have no concern for individuals and think that whatever story they're following is more important than individual lives.
Then explain how the people that recorded that conversation did so...with a scanner and a tape recorder.

If you're not taking the stance that two wrongs make a right, what's the point of comparison? Is it less criminal because someone else did it first? Under that system, how many times does a crime have to be committed before it no longer "counts"?
post #49 of 119
Thread Starter 
It looks as though Murdoch is fast running out of political "friends" in the UK

PM calls on mogul to drop his BSkyB takeover offer as coalition leaders side with Labour against News Corp
post #50 of 119
It was on the news this morning they want him out the UK.

How would you like him back, first class or economy?
post #51 of 119
Don't know if you are familiar with Mike Royko, originally a columnist for the Chicago Suntimes and had syndicated columns all over the U.S. When Murdoch bought that paper, Royko immediately resigned, walked across the street and was hired by the Chicago Tribune. His parting comment was something to the effect: No self respecting fish would be wrapped in one of Murdoch's newspapers.

His "news" corporation has lowered the quality of reporting around the world. I really would love to see him take a huge fall. Remember he got his start in the tabloids.....
post #52 of 119
Murdoch abandons BSkyB bid in rare business defeat
Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. drops bid for BSkyB
Quote:
The decision to withdraw the bid for BSkyB was announced only hours before lawmakers were scheduled to debate and vote on a measure calling on News Corp. to drop its attempt to take over the broadcaster. The measure was expected to pass overwhelmingly with support from all parties in the House of Commons. The extraordinary show of unity demonstrated how toxic Murdoch has become after having been one of the most politically influential men in the country through his media properties.

Despite dropping the takeover bid, News Corp. will retain its 39% share of BSkyB.
post #53 of 119
Thread Starter 
What's an unethical media baron to do when his potential scapegoats banish themselves to the wilderness before he can bestow his sins upon them?


News of the World: Legal Manager leaves company
post #54 of 119
Thread Starter 
Now up to 7 arrests, and the investigation has come to News Corps' home turf.
Quote:
The FBI has opened an investigation into allegations that media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. sought to hack into the phones of Sept. 11 victims, a law enforcement official said Thursday.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/national/us...#ixzz1S7DdtboZ
post #55 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Then explain how the people that recorded that conversation did so...with a scanner and a tape recorder.

If you're not taking the stance that two wrongs make a right, what's the point of comparison? Is it less criminal because someone else did it first? Under that system, how many times does a crime have to be committed before it no longer "counts"?
It was clearly a well-orchestrated operation, using sophisticated hardware not readily available to the public, by political activists supported by Democratic political leaders.

This from an earlier post:

Quote:
“If Mr. Murdoch’s employees can be so brazen as to target the British prime minister, then it is not unreasonable to believe they also might hack into the voice mails of American politicians and citizens,” Sloan added.
My point was that it already happened, and nothing happened to the activists and politicians involved.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and that wasn't my point. I wanted to make it clear that this would be, in the U.S., a case of very selective outrage.

Just in passing...wasn't there some questioning of how Murdock got U.S. citizenship? I seem to recall something about that years ago...
post #56 of 119
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
It was clearly a well-orchestrated operation, using sophisticated hardware not readily available to the public, by political activists supported by Democratic political leaders.
Really? You would think that if it wouldn't work, someone working on or following the case would have pointed that out.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/26/us...hone-call.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug21.html

In fact, radio shack themselves said;

Quote:
''In some cases, proximity to cellular-telephone towers and other transmission phenomena may result in cellular-phone conversations being received on frequencies other than those allocated to cellular phones.''
Quote:
This from an earlier post:

My point was that it already happened, and nothing happened to the activists and politicians involved.
The couple was charged, and fined, and have criminal records...that's not nothing.
The politician was sued and lost due to knowingly receiving illegally obtained communications. He also is out over 1,000,000 in awards, several hundred thousand in legal fees, and over 50,000 in fines, plus he got a formal rebuke from Congress. That's a long way from nothing.

Quote:
Two wrongs don't make a right, and that wasn't my point. I wanted to make it clear that this would be, in the U.S., a case of very selective outrage.
Of course it is...it's selective outrage in the UK as well. It has been going on there for years with politicians and celebrities. People in the US following the case figured that it probably happened here as well, with the same groups of people, and didn't really care because it resulted in interesting stories. The new outrage, or the "selective outrage" comes from, how many fallen soldiers were involved in Gingrich's conversation? How many disabled children? How many murdered children? How many terrorists victims? How many of Gingrich's voicemails were deleted to make room for more hoping a scoop would pop up? It's selective because people realized that stories like "so and so terrorist victim made last call to mistress instead of wife" or "missing child had numerous suitors" are the kind of stories that grieving people don't need the Murdochians throwing in their faces. It's selective because it HASN'T happened before. This is a whole new ballgame, and it's a simple red herring to try to compare the two.

Quote:
Just in passing...wasn't there some questioning of how Murdock got U.S. citizenship? I seem to recall something about that years ago...
I'm sure someone brought it up at one time or another, whether it amounted to anything or not.
post #57 of 119
Thread Starter 
Now it's just getting funny.

This from the guy who has his networks dogging people 24/7.

Murdoch said he was "getting annoyed" with press coverage of the scandal, but said, "I'll get over it."

I'm more than sure the parents of Milly Dowler are quite sorry that Rupert Murdoch is getting annoyed.
post #58 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I'm more than sure the parents of Milly Dowler are quite sorry that Rupert Murdoch is getting annoyed.
I don't know how he can sleep at night knowing what we all know now?!
post #59 of 119
Thread Starter 
post #60 of 119
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosiemac View Post
I don't know how he can sleep at night knowing what we all know now?!
He has an idée fixe that he is the "little guy" battling the giants on behalf of the common man. He will never be able to realize that he hasn't been the "little guy" in a couple of decades. He is highly critical of others, yet seems to be very sensitive to criticism. He cannot grasp why his shareholders think he's overstepping by spending their money hand over fist on his whims.

Sounds like he's somewhat narcissistic doesn't it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › News of the World