Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
walker

Murdoch throws News of the World under a bus to protect the mangement.

Recommended Posts

So what if two or three jurnos go to jail for 18 months? News International will be able to rebuild their disgusting socially divisive media empire, just like the banks got away with their morally repugnant behaviour.

Nothing morally fair will happen because circumstance won't allow it. Putting away or speaking up at an emperor of a media empire isn't worth loosing your job/privacy. So BSkyB will take over where NotW left off, the Murdochs will continue to get richer and the unconscious morass will be spoon-fed right-wing bullshit to the detriment of society.

I am 21 and I have not seen a bad guy loose in my lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the massed public can wield a big enough hammer to knock those c**ts off their over-sized perches. Shame it'll probably never happen! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That journo is a douchebag. I for one don't give a damn about celebs and would prefer all this crap about whos sleeping with who, who cheated with who, whos getting married and so on and so forth to just go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McMullen can't weigh in on any TV debate of this subject without coming across as the embodiment of everything that is sleazy and morally bereft in British tabloid journalists. He just comes across as a complete wanker who delights in making money off other people's misery.

Last night the comedian/actor Steve Coogan, and Greg Dyke, the former Director-General of the BBC tore him a new one live on TV.

This guy sat outside my house!

It's a nice house.

I think McMullen picked the wrong profession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear me those videos.

All he can do is spend his time saying "well look at you, you like a camera ... so... you have money and houses ... so" ... and well, its real low level pond life tripe. I think hes more in the business of devils advocate and winding things up more while the goings good for any publicity at all.

He mentioned in the second video about Gordon Brown and the bigot link, and all things about Gordon Brown they brought up in papers and highlighted that for some time in the papers and yet with a few clicks ...

HANDSHAKE VIDEO

http://nowscape.com/mormon/momo-handshake4_500.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_R9t2oCQUaac/SY4P-0LG18I/AAAAAAAAAKk/TcNrdb6TRsk/s400/acodex_64.jpg

Then all media can say is "hip hop handshake":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2143451/Gordon-Brown-thrown-by-George-Bushs-hip-hop-handshake.html

So why dont these "journalists" look into that, well, of course they wont becuase they are payed and contractually compromised scum working for the lower ends to just produce smoke screens of crap to keep the brain occupied with nothing at all, while the REAL corrupt they wouldn't even touch, which would be REAL investigative journalism.

The real beauty is that this whole calamity is perfect "news to bury other news" and keeps people in more work for the time being. Irony is Murdoc is the first to be "investigated" in the same way as this scandal has been done .. hehe.

Edited by mrcash2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

McMullen just admited live on TV (BBC Sunday Morning Live) that the Police have invited him in to be questioned under caution Days ago but that he has been avoiding going home, so that they can not arrest him, hence why he has been wearing the same suit for the past week. He says the police told him yesterday he "Will come in tommorow" but he was ignoring them because they would arrest him!

The others on the show were all sitting there with there jaws droping through the floor and eyes blinking in shock

bemused walker

Edited by walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

For those of you who missed it here is the (BBC Sunday Morning Live) program with Paul McMullen being a complete Doofuss watch from around 30 minutes onwards where he admits he is dodging the police:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012n3q7/Sunday_Morning_Live_Series_2_Episode_3/

Through out the whole program he is making gaf after gaf, admiting hacking then saying oops I should not have said that. He is constantly saying everything they did was for a good purpose, while everyone is staring at him unable to comprehend why he thinks that.

Anyway watch it, he is crazier than a bag of monkeys.

Kind Regards walker

Edited by walker
spelling and explanation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

Murdoch has been forced to abandon his BID for BSkyB.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14139081

I posted this in another thread about press foulups before coming here:

Hi all

Just a pointer as to why Brendan Behan' famous quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan Behan.

Irish author & dramatist (1923 - 1964)]There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.

may now need the caveat unless you are the conventional Media:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14029033

This could well be the first case of a media giant taken down by the people. Seems that the Wikileak method that spawned the Arab Spring has now turned its spotlight on the one group that society considers more corrupt than politicians.

Kind Regards walker

Now with investigations in the US and Australia and other countries in the offing and 5.3 Billion wiped off News Corps's Share Price and that is before the bid pullout anouncement, the investors suing the board and more arrests to follow, I think we can safely say that Murdoch has disproved Brendon Behan's famous quote.

Since the anouncement only minutes ago News Corps's shares have fell off a cliff and lost another 4%

As the the last of the Baff1 style Murdoch fan investors finaly get the message and abandon ship. Amusing to think how much money those people have lost and are continuing to loose, they deserve it.

Kind Regards walker

Edited by walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As my Dad always said, the purpose of news is to sell news papers.

It not freedom or knowledge, it's for commercial profit, nothing more. If there is no news they make it up, how else to you explain the phenomena of the "Celebrity"?

Oh so true ! :rolleyes:

Its time some of these sad sad people were put under the bus, maybe a few others might learn something from it ...... or not.

....... also why I like my news from TV channels like SBS and ABC ..... less chance of commercial crap.

BEWARE .... the web is manipulating you too ....

http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

Unsurprisingly it appears that the Baff1 style Murdoch fan investors, were that other great bete noire of the public: hedge funds and they have lost millions each :yay: :bounce3: :rofl:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/13/phone-hacking-scandal-hits-hedge-funds

Never have declines in the stock market done such a good job to make my day.

Kind Regards walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any investments in Murdoch thankfully.

I did however have a paper round as a youth, if that counts?

I don't invest in companies because of my poltical sympathies.

I notice that you don't either, (despite advising everyone else to) so why you are repeatedly attempting to imply that I would do something you yourself are too gutless to do, is beyond me.

I do however feel a lot of sympathy for the man.

He has clearly spent so much of his life building something he is very proud of and something that has been highly successful.

But has got too powerful and the jealous of others has been his downfall.

It reminds me of a story I was once told on a guided tour of Audley End.

The owner of the stately home made a vast fortune from his massive farming empire in England.

He spent a good wedge of that fortune on his great home. But the king, seeing that Audley End was bigger than any royal palace...sent soldiers and the bulk of the house was pulled down and he was put in the Tower of London...

And that's all this is really, pathetic jealousy and fear from the political and media classes... plus all the usual loony letfies out to destroy capitalism/whatever.

I watch Sky news every day, and I don't pay a penny for it. I think Murdoch is great.

I think people who build great things are cool. And people who destroy them, blow.

I despair of people whose only wish is to see other people who are doing better than them, brought low, rather than using people who do better than themselves as an aspiration to what they themselves could achieve.

I am disgusted by people who take delight in the misfortune of others.

If some shareholders in News Corp have lost money or some random hedge funds, why is that reason for you to gloat?

Have any of those people ever done anything to you?

No.

You might as well hate Paki's or Jews for all the difference I see. Blind hatred is blind hatred.

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But has got too powerful and the jealous of others has been his downfall.
Ummm, no I think its a massive illigal phone tapping scandal that was the card that made them all start to fall. Not sure if you like Murdoc enough to ignore the actual reasons this has all come to light.

Being happy for someone doing well in life and then thinking a Night Of Malta member at the helm of a industry that is full of celebrity crap and low level scandal without investigating any real news in the world that's now wrapped up in complete illegal phone tapping and spying is great, is a bit different.

I assume you like CEO's and bankers with pay rises too, because it would only be jealousy and spitefulness to think bad of them as they did so well for themselves. The man could not care for you at all Baff.

Bear in mind the investigation isnt over yet, this is only the start, I wouldn't worship too soon.

Edited by mrcash2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think those are the actual reasons.

I think they are just the vehicle.

I also don't think Murdoch did any massive illegal phonetapping

I think he sat on the board of directors of a holding company that owned another load of holding companies each with their own boards of directors... that owned a series of newspapers, one of which is alleged to have been involved in massive phone tapping...

Just as I expect all the others were.

And those people who did it were found out and punished. (Twice so far).

I don't think he did it, I don't think he sanctioned it. I don't think he was involved in it in anyway or likely even knew about it. I fully expect that his busy days were spent on completely different pursuits than sourcing stories for The News Of the World.

But it's not the people that did the phone tapping that everyone is after. It's Murdoch.

Where is the private investigator who tapped these phones? Where are al lthe private investigators from all the other newspapers who hacked all the other phones?

I tell you right now, no one gives a monkies about the person who commited those crimes.

You are not intrested in some seedy private eye, you want "Murdoch: Night of Malta". You want an arch-villain of Bondian proportion!

How am I expected to take that very seriously? It just makes me laugh.

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think those are the actual reasons.

I think they are just the vehicle.

Shit happens, but as you already know he's done well enough so I dont think the man will be crying himself to sleep.
I think he sat on the borad of directors of a holding company that owned another load of holding companies that owned a series of newspapers, one of which is alleged to have been invovled in massive phone tapping...

Just as I expect all the others were.

And this bolsters his position then!?

Theres always someone taking the fall for someone else, and again its early stages, if you listened to the meeting at NOFTW it was mentioned "You will realise in a years time why we did this" ... so it all hasn't come to light yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think someone's success is good enough reason to target them.

Sorry.

I don't think it validates ill will toward them or makes palatable any punishment falsely meted out towards them.

But I believe that to be immensly unjust and immoral.

I don't think it's OK to punish people for crimes they did not commit, just becuase they have worked hard all their lives and become successful.

Further to this, to love and have lost is worse than never to have loved at all.

If someone has spent their entire life creating something, taking that away from them, is not something they will feel OK about. I think the chances are that crying himself to sleep is very close to what Murdoch must be doing. You might not be, but then you haven't just been forced to give up things you have spent your whole life building.

When Murdoch's newspapers are singled out for criminal behaviour that all the other newspapers were involved in too, the behaviour his newspaper was involved in isn't any less criominal becuase it was his newspaper, but the use of this as a vehicle to get to him is much more obvious when it is only his newspapers under investigation.

And yes there is always someone taking the fall for someone else. If phone hacking is illegal, then the guy who hacked the phones has to take the fall for himself.

"I was just following ze orders!". Doesn't cut much mustard with me.

---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------

If he was successful in any other business that wouldn't be a problem, but he controls a large media empire that trades on influence (and he also makes sure the editorial line of his publications align with his views).

His influence is seen as malign because of the twisted things people have done to gain his favour, needing the support of the Sun to become Prime Minister, and in return abandoning plans to join the Euro (inadvertently a blessing) or hamstringing the BBC. Oh, and there's News International's extreme tax avoidance too.

It is a mystery why you think this is everyone v. Murdoch when they're all in deep doo-doo, just arguing over who smells worst. Here's a good overview by Paul Mason.

In my view Murdoch is not to be held in any esteem. He's no philanthropist, merely a greedy old man interested in more wealth for his immediate family.

Personally I think the aquirement of wealth for ones immediate family is the most laudable goal of all mankind.

I don't think it's a mystery why I think it's all about Murdoch at all. Read through this thread. How many of the posts are discussing Murdoch and how many are discussiing that link you have provided?

I agree that it is his power and influence that is the reason for this.

They fear him.

Poltiicans don't have to curry favour with him. They wanted to.

If not him, they will still curry favour with whatever other power broker they think can offer them influence and electoral victory.

And me, I am always going to stand with the private citizen against the state. That is what comes most naturally to me. As big and as "dangerous" a media monopoly as this man may have accrued, it pales in comparison to the monopoly of the state.

I recognise that media moguls have poltical power. Was it Losd Beaverbrook who attempted the last Coupe in the U.K.? I see the dangers. But the dangers aren't to me. They are only to the political classes. And I think a bit of danger to them is a good thing.

I also prefer my media sources to be independant. I love the BBC, but it's not a free press. Murdochs is.

Tax avoidance and the EURO, hahahaha LMAO. I'm not a lefty mate. I don't approve of taxing people, and most people in my country don't want anything to do with the EURO. Loony Lefties ar the ones who all harp on about evil big biusiness not paying enough tax. Or the great EU.

I don't have much time to pander to the far left.

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think someone's success is good enough reason to target them.
You keep saying this, no one else does or has, I think you hang on to that way too much. You can take the model of this and adapt it to political parties, banks, other corporations and I assume for all that would be ok in your world mearly based on the success of the person at the top.

Other papers will fall, I dont for one second believe that this will end JUST with him or that paper alone, in fact I see another tabloid is being looked at, but then allot does fall under him based on mergers of the past.

I get what your trying to say but its a bit to simplified based on the weight of what's happening and who its happening with. This isn't Derek Trotter winning his millions and then getting hate mail for not being so "Cushty" anymore.

I also prefer my media sources to be independant. I love the BBC, but it's not a free press. Murdochs is.
None of them are.
If someone has spent their entire life creating something, taking that away from them, is not something they will feel OK about. I think the chances are that crying himself to sleep is very close to what Murdoch must be doing
He wont be crying himself to sleep based on what he ends up being left with is my point. You seem to know a lot about this guys personal feelings based on guess work and only how you would feel based on how you see it. They dont give 2 shits about you (as in "us") mate that's for damn sure singing praises or not. Edited by mrcash2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You keep saying this, no one else does or has, I think you hang on to that way too much.

And I don't think you are hanging on that enough. And I have trouble feeling any respect at all for people who do not and have not.

I believe in justice.

I do not believe in persecuting the rich or the poor or the black or the muslim.

Wealth is not a green light for abuse.

The BBC is state broadcasting. News Corp is independant. No government owns it or controls it as far as I'm aware.

It is wholly and solely a news agency. Quite independant of all other concerns. They decide their own revenues and they decide their own appointments.

I don't know this guys feelings, but I am able to experience human empathy.

I understand the emotional commitment I have to the things I have created.

I understand what it is like to lose something I care a lot about.

I've been in positions in my life where people have targeted me for no other reasons that for my wealth or success.

I've expereinced injustice and defeat. Everybody has.

We all know enough about humanity to know this is not something that when it happens, we don't get upset about it.

So you could make out like this guy is some inhuman monster if you like.. but he isn't. People seem to like him. He has friends, he is always well spoken of by those who have worked for him. He is a family man.

From what little I know of him, I see no reason to think he would feel any differently about such things as i would expect to myself.

I fully recognise that you wish to treat him differently because of his wealth and influence and I recognise the common sense in that.

But justice doesn't allow for that. It isn't right.

I truely believe that the motives of those people who are trying to destroy him to be no purer than his own.

I truely believe that those people whose power we protect by destroying him to be of no higher standing than his own (Less in fact).

So while there clearly are other practical reasons not to treat him the same as Derek Trotter, all of them involve an poltical agenda that is not mine and none of them are of as higher an importance to me as justice is.

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand what it is like to lose something I care a lot about

I might suggest you'd be surprised at how business men view their assets, and how quickly they'll ditch them when their purpose is served. Richard Branson for example sold Virgin, possibly one of the UK's greatest labels, built from scratch by Branson. He ditched it to fund his airline business.

In any case, you said an interesting thing in an earlier post: that political scuffles doesn't affect you, it only affects the political class. Same here, Murdoch is no philanthropist. There's a nice quote somewhere about capitalism being the unreasonable belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, are somehow working for the betterment of mankind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fully recognise that you wish to treat him differently because of his wealth and influence and I recognise the common sense in that.

But justice doesn't allow for that. It isn't right.

Theres only one slight issue Baff with your point, not once have I spoke about his wealth being an "issue" of some kind. Like I said, YOU keep on about that subject and have interpreted it as such.

Your general outlook and point means well and stands in many situations, but i'm afraid this isn't a situation where that really "works".

I understand what it is like to lose something I care a lot about.

I've been in positions in my life where people have targeted me for no other reasons that for my wealth or success.

Ok, NOW it all makes sense why you are keeping on that track about the wealth thing. Well im sorry about your situations but I dont think this is about a target of wealth or success that you seem to be seeing ONLY based on your personal feeling, this is about criminal activities that he's the head figure of, whether he likes that or not, was aware of, or not. Same as CEO's for BP and so on, and banks, heads of government's ... and so on, "its business" as they say. I doubt he never though the business he was in wasn't cut throat, the nature of some of it is just that. I would still like to hear about people effected by his mergers and other such business dealings along the way.

I think your emotional attachment to "I have money thus anything is an attack on my wealth" is getting in the way of the bigger picture here to be honest. Theres doing well, and then theres who you hang with, what your dealings are based within, and the position you happen to have within that larger picture.

Edited by mrcash2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ironically, this is precisely what people are accusing Murdoch of having done to the 168 year-old News of the World.

Clearly the spirit of Gordon Gekko is alive and well and living in Baff1. And how many millions does your family need, precisely?

Many philosophies, and indeed religions, would disagree with you.

So that's the BBC on one hand, impartiality in its charter, getting decried by both Labour and Conservative governments, and with a world-wide reputation. Having a relatively secure stream of funding, it does not expose itself to financial arm-twisting by advertisers or other special interests.

On the other News Corp, owners of Fox News, widely ridiculed for not being remotely 'fair and balanced', noticeably partisan and cheerleader for a mismanaged War on Terror, mocked the world over. Their only concerns are their own concerns: getting more leverage and profit for the Murdoch empire, not the dispassionate reporting of events.

I'm not sure I know of any religion that does not advocate the provision for ones children.

I do not think I can name any philosophies that object to this.

I don't think Gordon Gekko had any children. Gordon Gekko wasn't a real person He was a caricature bad guy.

Do you view the world in terms of good and bad guys from hollywood morality plays? That seems very simplistic.

The BBC, is a government agency. Ask Iranians if they consider it to be impartial. Or Syrians. Or Libiyans. Ask Saddam Hussein or the Taliban.

The thing about the BBC, is that the news stories each day are sent to them by the government of the day. And they run them.

So every morning on BBC, I get stories of how if I eat low fat chocalate the dangers of child obesity are bla bla blah.

This isn't news it isn't intresting broadcasting. it's just government issued tripe. An attempt for them to control the news agenda.

And the BBC can refuse, they can act on their ethos of independance, (as opposed to genuienly being an indenpendant news sevice and not needing a charter), but when they do.. when they go too far and say.. question the government too closely over the Iraq War... everybody gets the sack and a new bunch are appointed to over see it.

The BBC's funding is also a problem for it's independance. It is funded by taxation. It's a left wing institution. It's financing isn't it's strength it's it's achilles heel.

---------- Post added at 04:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 AM ----------

Theres only one slight issue Baff with your point, not once have I spoke about his wealth being an "issue" of some kind. . .

Your reply at the top of the page does.

That is why I took you up on it.

] as you already know he's done well enough so I dont think the man will be crying himself to sleep.

You offered him no sympathy because of his wealth. you didn't care if he recieved injustice, because he is rich so it doesn't matter.

Me. I don't discriminate right from wrong, by the wealth of the victim or the perpetrator.

I have no respect for anyone who does.

And yes he is at the top of an organisation that has been involved in systematic crime. But then so is the Queen, and David Cameron. When the crime is not taking place at the top, it is not the top we should be attempting to punish.

I understand that he has a corporate liability and that is something between himself and his shareholders. (Some of whom are sueing him). But he doesn't have a criminal liablilty for all his employee's.

Each one of them is responsable for their own actions.

It's just political opportunism. All those who hate him for his power, all those who hate Fox News because it is has a right wing target audience...

With regards to the creation of wealth vs the ethicality of your business model... who you hang out with.. what you do with your money... What sanctimonius crap. Just another way the left justifies stealing from the right.

Dismiss those with money as evil and you have free moral reign to steal from them. Only you don't Wrong is wrong. Rich people are not immoral. They are not second class citizens. If they have done something wrong/immoral prosecute them. Otherwise, shut up.

I'm sorry but I don't feel that the evil done by phone hacking at the News of The World, outdoes the good done by paychecks and pension provisions at News Corp.

And even if it does, two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't think it benefits society to destroy a productive industry over a misdemeanor. More people are hurt than avenged and the people hurt aren't likely to be the ones that caused the offense.

Some people screwed around with some other peopels phones causing distress to the owners... so lets rob a load of completely different people of their money and do our best to destroy their livelihoods.

No. Lets not. That doesn't float my boat at all.

Edited by Baff1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing about the BBC, is that the news stories each day are sent to them by the government of the day. And they run them.

So every morning on BBC, I get stories of how if I eat low fat chocalate the dangers of child obesity are bla bla blah.

This isn't news it isn't intresting broadcasting. it's just government issued tripe. An attempt for them to control the news agenda.

And the BBC can refuse, they can act on their ethos of independance, (as opposed to genuienly being an indenpendant news sevice and not needing a charter), but when they do.. when they go too far and say.. question the government too closely over the Iraq War... everybody gets the sack and a new bunch are appointed to over see it.

The BBC's funding is also a problem for it's independance. It is funded by taxation. It's a left wing institution. It's financing isn't it's strength it's it's achilles heel.

I am compelled to point out that your views on this are rather fantastical and are based almost entirely on a poor opinion. I can take the point about government health messages, but to suggest that the government controls the news is just fantasy. The BBC is first among the journalists to reveal government failures and faults. People are not sacked from the BBC by the government for not supporting poor governmental decisions.

And yes I believe the way the BBC is funded is it's strength. It has a mandate to supply material not necessarily judged as "profitable", the BBC is the only institution in the world of it's size where great quality TV can be made without fear of not finding sponsors for it.

IMO natch :)

---------- Post added at 10:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 AM ----------

Some people screwed around with some other peopels phones causing distress to the owners... so lets rob a load of completely different people of their money and do our best to destroy their livelihoods.

It's about accountability. If Murdoch oversees/owns a rag like TNOTW and allows it to use any method it likes to peddle ridiculous stories, then he's accountable. And if he denies accountability then he's not concerned with the business, only the money. And if the chain of command denies accountability on the basis of ignorance, well we all know about how ignorance is viewed by the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

Murdoch's empire is built on blackmail.

He might not have done all the deeds but he paid others to do it for him. That is the nature of the man.

He set the targets as did Brooks and his son.

Then he as the head of what is obviously a morally corrupt organisation chose the kind of people, even to the point of employing known criminals, who would do the nasty things that he wanted.

And when they got caught he caused those who investigated it, to bury it.

These are the indisputable facts.

The analogy is obvious; Hitler may not have thrown the concentration camp victims in to the gas chambers and ovens but he sure as hell created the situation that made it certain.

Edit If as has been mooted, Murdoch and his son have been implicated by those allready arrested then they should be arrested before they leave the country.

walker

Edited by walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×