Why don't they just ban Murdoch and all his works?

[G-MAN2004]

Imagine a newspaper owned by stockhausen. I think I'd rather read the Sun!

 

[stockhausen]

Swamp Reptiles

I don't normally (ever!) agree with stockhausen but news international is just awful and I hope the sun goes the same way as notw.

Cheque is in the dog

There was no prior warning to any of the quartet that they were the subject of investigation before they were arrested on Saturday. They were carrying out their usual tasks, unaware that material involving them had been passed on by News Corporation's Management and Standards Committee (MSC) to Operation Elvedon, which is investigating allegations of inappropriate payments to police.
...
But there is a wider point to make about the astonishing turn of events that resulted in the arrests of Shanahan, head of news Chris Pharo, crime editor Mike Sullivan and former managing editor Graham Dudman.

The MSC is a creature of News Corporation. It has handed over material to the police as part of its remit to clean house at the company's UK publisher, News International (NI).

Yet NI's chief executive Tom Mockridge has told Sun staff that the four men will receive legal support. So News Corp is playing contradictory roles as police/prosecutor on one side and defender on the other.

To make matters more extraordinary, in an off-the-record briefing, an MSC source - widely quoted across the media - said of the committee: "They are there to drain the swamp." Should any of the four be charged at some stage in the future, will that description be thought to have undermined their chances of obtaining a fair trial?

No wonder Sun editor Dominic Mohan found it necessary, as revealed in today's Times, to address his "shocked newsroom." It reported:

"There was said to be fury and dismay in The Sun newsroom over the arrests. Staff were thought to be particularly angered by a figure within the publishing group who apparently described the process as 'draining the swamp', although NI sources insisted the remark did not come from anyone in an authorised position."​

Authorised position! What does that mean at present? To add to the bizarre nature of the affair, the MSC - aside from enjoying the services of a law firm, Linklaters - has hired its own City PR outfit, Powerscourt. Why?

Mockridge confirmed in his email to staff that The Times and Sunday Times are also under investigation.

So, in effect, News Corp is at war with itself. It illustrates just how poorly the company handled the initial revelation of phone hacking way back in 2006.

They wanted to restrict the whole sordid affair to a rogue reporter. Now we can see NI as a rogue company. Or, as that source put it so elegantly, a swamp.

So, it might not be just the Sun that follows the News of the Screws down the pan then? This gets better and better

 

[Biohazard]

To be honest I don't think it warrants removal of sky's licence.

I do think the sun protested too much in the advent of NoTW that it was an issue unique to that paper and not to the wider group.. I remember thinking at the time 'yeah yeah'

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

why don't the Government simply withdraw the broadcast license for Sky, shut down all the Murdoch rags and declare Murdoch and all members of his family personae non gratae?

I don't know, why don't they?

We can get along absolutely fine without them

Please never include me in your definition of 'we'.

 

[Strife212]

Considering you don't reside in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland I presume he wasn't

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Why do you want to see The Times closed, which is essentially run as a very good public service by News International?

It is probably by its nature the most independent of all our newspapers (it is the only one in this country which is required by law to have an independent editorial board overseeing the newspaper's editorial while it is in News International's hands), and probably why it is still the official newspaper of record?

 

[Hatter The Mad]

-- double post --

 

[stockhausen]

Why do you want to see The Times closed, which is essentially run as a very good public service by News International?

It is probably by its nature the most independent of all our newspapers (it is the only one in this country which is required by law to have an independent editorial board overseeing the newspaper's editorial while it is in News International's hands), and probably why it is still the official newspaper of record?

I accept that The Times and Sunday Times are the least offensive of Murdoch's organs - their past respectability is almost certainly why he bought the loss making publications 20 years ago. I believe that the Grantham Grocer inexplicably ruled that the acquisition should not be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I very much doubt that Murdoch would continue to publish The Times or Sunday Times if he had to get rid of his shares in the Sun, BSkyB, etc.


What exactly do you think qualifies a newspaper to be the "official newspaper of record"?

Who awards this distinction? Is it perhaps the most powerful proprietor? The wholly impartial PCC?


I object to The Times most specifically because it IS owned by Murdoch and is hardly in any position to be described as impartial or objective.

Murdoch states that he acts as a "traditional proprietor"; exercising editorial control on major issues such as which political party to back in a general election or policy on Europe.

I suspect that Murdoch also exercises editorial control when it comes to the BBC and questions of media behaviour and standards.

 

[elmarko]

I didn't mention the morality or legality of it, only the feigned surprise that everyone has. How did people think Journalists got their information exactly.

Do you ever actually listen to yourself, it is no surprise that people rarely take anything you say seriously.

To be fair, you are starting to sound like an apologist.

I agree it's pretty obvious it's been going on, but that's hardly the point now is it? - as it does not excuse the actions of these individuals or those in charge who knew it was going on.

Hacking into the phones of murdered/missing schoolgirls - the phones of family members of people killing in Iraq/Afghanistan - is a total disregard for privacy.

All papers involved should receive incredibly heavy fines, to offset any potential gain from hacking phones (selling newspapers) to make the risk of hacking not worth the potential loss.

Murdoch has been manipulating politics in the UK for a long time, both Labour & the Tory's have been in his pocket at different times & it would be wise to remove his political influence.

 

[Dolph]

Stockhausen is suggestions of authoritarian behaviour towards people who express different views to him shocker...

 

[dannyjo22]

Hacking into the phones of murdered/missing schoolgirls - the phones of family members of people killing in Iraq/Afghanistan - is a total disregard for privacy.

All papers involved should receive incredibly heavy fines, to offset any potential gain from hacking phones (selling newspapers) to make the risk of hacking not worth the potential loss.

.

Who actually did the hacking, the police or the journalists?

 

[stockhausen]

Stockhausen is suggestions of authoritarian behaviour towards people who express different views to him shocker...

Dolph in typical suggestion that questions of morality, the law and ethical behaviour should NEVER be allowed to interfere in any way with the pursuit of a profit without regard to anyone else non-shocker

 

[Dolph]

So would you support making the occupy groups proscribed as they are entirely based on illegal activity?

I have no real desire to defend Murdoch, apart from against victimization by ideologues who wish to silence those they disagree with while ignoring or attempting to justify illegal activity when they approve of the message.

 

[elmarko]

So would you support making the occupy groups proscribed as they are entirely based on illegal activity?

I have no real desire to defend Murdoch, apart from against victimization by ideologues who wish to silence those they disagree with while ignoring or attempting to justify illegal activity when they approve of the message.

The legality of an action has no bearing on it's merits or failings.

 

[Dolph]

The legality of an action has no bearing on it's merits or failings.

So stockhausen's suggestion does show a desire to be authoritarian towards those who express views he disagrees with?

Thanks for confirming.

 

[grimm]

We just need some other billionaire to set up a rubbish paper for the rabble to buy. Someone like Richard Branson could do it. If a suitable alternative came along I'm sure the masses would buy it rather than fund the Murdoch empire.

 

[elmarko]

So stockhausen's suggestion does show a desire to be authoritarian towards those who express views he disagrees with?

Thanks for confirming.

Well, I don't agree they should be blanket shut down - as much as I despise what they write - I'd defend there right to continue spewing the lies they do (but I would suggest they come with a health warning - "Warning - Reading this newspaper will distort how you view reality & make you irritable & irrational ").

What they don't have the right to do is to illegally invade the privacy of others, regardless of how known it is or common it is.

Any measures put against the rest of his media empire should be equally enforced against the more left leaning media (if they are also guilty of the same).

Edit : The point still stands, an acts legality is irrelevant - laws change to suit the zeitgeist of the time, so to judge an action we have to use objective measures such as social/personal harm caused.

 

[Dolph]

Well, I don't agree they should be blanket shut down - as much as I despise what they write - I'd defend there right to continue spewing the lies they do (but I would suggest they come with a health warning - "Warning - Reading this newspaper will distort how you view reality & make you irritable & irrational ").

What they don't have the right to do is to illegally invade the privacy of others, regardless of how known it is or common it is.

Any measures put against the rest of his media empire should be equally enforced against the more left leaning media (if they are also guilty of the same).

Edit : The point still stands, an acts legality is irrelevant - laws change to suit the zeitgeist of the time, so to judge an action we have to use objective measures such as social/personal harm caused.

Mostly, I agree with you. Stockhausen, however, has a history of appealing to legality to justify why positions he doesn't like must be silenced, while refusing the apply the same logic to positions he supports, and often moving further to defending the legal actions when committed by others (for example, he has defended in the past phone hacking by Guardian Journalists because he didn't like the target)

It is true that legality does not define validity of the action, unless you are setting out to define an alternative action based on it's legality, then comparisons are entirely justified.

 

[stockhausen]

An act's legality is irrelevant ???

... The point still stands, an acts legality is irrelevant - laws change to suit the zeitgeist of the time, so to judge an action we have to use objective measures such as social/personal harm caused.

I can't say that I agree with what seems to be the suggestion that "an act's legality is irrelevant" - that way lies anarchy.

However, I do agree that one should apply judgements based on social / personal harm. Applying these tests, I don't believe that Murdoch's influence in any way serves the public good in the UK.

As it happens, I feel exactly the same about Paul Dacre & Richard Desmond but they don't (as yet) dominate the UK media in the way that Murdoch does.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Who awards this distinction? Is it perhaps the most powerful proprietor?

Given that it was the case well before Murdoch, no - I don't think it has anything to do with 'the most powerful proprietor'.

I object to The Times most specifically because it IS owned by Murdoch and is hardly in any position to be described as impartial or objective.

Inquiry into Media Ownership and the News.
Murdoch states that he acts as a "traditional proprietor"; exercising editorial control on major issues such as which political party to back in a general election or policy on Europe.

Either you are stupid or you delibertly set out to deceive by including that quotation, where is is talking about The Sun, not The Times.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_(United_Kingdom)#2009:_The_Sun_returns_to_the_Conservatives

In a 2007 meeting with the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications, which was investigating media ownership and the news, Murdoch stated that the law and the independent board prevented him from exercising editorial control [over The Times]

I suspect that Murdoch also exercises editorial control when it comes to the BBC and questions of media behaviour and standards.

There is as usual a massive void between what you suspect and believe and what the facts are.

Once again, you are spouting crap.