It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
hedwards: Because Rupert Murdoch bribes public officials. He attempted to hand Newt Gingrich a huge advance on a book, which would have dwarfed the entire take from the previous one, about the same time that the FCC was looking into whether he should, as a foreigner, be allowed to own a media outlet.

Fox "news" is what half the country thinks of as being free of liberal propaganda. Unfortunately, it's also completely devoid of actual news and is sort of like the Daily Mail in the UK. (Assuming I've got that right)
Hmm yeah, massive corruption sounds about right for Murdock and his empire. And yes, you're very much right about the Daily Mail.
avatar
orcishgamer: The Daily Mail is part of the Murdoch empire, iirc.
Not as far as I'm aware. He owns the Times and The Sun. The Sun is also fairly devoid of actual news like the Mail. But unlike the Mail it doesn't have any pretence to the contrary.
Post edited March 11, 2011 by Navagon
avatar
dudalb: Time to send General Sherman down there again;the state needs a good butt kicking.
At least that one district down around Atlanta finally had the sense to not re-elect Cynthia McKinney out of the (US, not state) House of Representatives after she assaulted a Capitol policeman. Last I heard, she was trying to run in CA for the Green Party.

Both corruption and insanity are found across the political spectrum.
Post edited March 11, 2011 by Luned
avatar
Navagon: Hmm yeah, massive corruption sounds about right for Murdock and his empire. And yes, you're very much right about the Daily Mail.
When he bought into the US media market he did so illegally as foreign nationals are not allowed to own media outlets in the US. I'm not sure if that's still the case or if he managed to get that changed, but he bought the first outlets illegally.
avatar
hedwards: When he bought into the US media market he did so illegally as foreign nationals are not allowed to own media outlets in the US. I'm not sure if that's still the case or if he managed to get that changed, but he bought the first outlets illegally.
It just goes to show that less serious laws aren't about who is right and who is wrong. More who has money and who does not.
Just because I'm curious, do any of our European members know what the legality is on abortions in their respective countries?
avatar
Navagon: What I don't understand is why they weren't legally required to change their name following their own claims in court and also sued for misrepresentation of their programming.
avatar
hedwards: Because Rupert Murdoch bribes public officials. He attempted to hand Newt Gingrich a huge advance on a book, which would have dwarfed the entire take from the previous one, about the same time that the FCC was looking into whether he should, as a foreigner, be allowed to own a media outlet.

Fox "news" is what half the country thinks of as being free of liberal propaganda. Unfortunately, it's also completely devoid of actual news and is sort of like the Daily Mail in the UK. (Assuming I've got that right)
You being an american, could i ask you since I dont know, where did this notion in the american's view, that most media outlets before fox news had "liberal propaganda" come from? So, to them, until fox news, all the communists had taken over all important media channels? I dont get how they came to believe that, specially after 8 years of pure uninterrupted years of conservativism permeating every aspect of american society.
avatar
hedwards: Wouldn't surprise me. Murdoch is probably one of the most dangerous men on the planet. And he's either to stupid or greedy to see what he's doing.
avatar
orcishgamer: You assume a man like that has goals or thinks anything like people like us. I don't think he does, socially, he's nearly another species. This is, incidentally, why I think Bill Maher actually gets it right when he asks the Tea Party folks "Why do you think you're goals should be in any way aligned with these people? Aren't you being useful idiots?" I don't think Bill Maher is consistent or fair, but he is amusing at times, and occasionally even right. He's also a hypocrite.

So when we say evil or greedy, I actually don't think it's either. I think he just doesn't care, he's an alpha male among billions of omegas, in his worldview.
I read on another site, an interesting theory on rupert murdock. Maybe it's wrong, but I'll say it anyways. They were arguing, that while rupert murdock is a stinking rich person, he's an unhappy old man. And that he hates the middle and lower class, of the world., and thus, he's engagged in a full-blown war to destroy the middle and lower class, since in his view that will benefit his elitist lifestyle. It sounded to me kinda difficult to believe, since well, he sells his stuff to those same classes.
Post edited March 11, 2011 by drmlessgames
Tangentially on-topic:

John Stewart made an interesting point during a bit on his show the other day. He was having a mock interview/debate with the new Republican Presidential candidate, "Reagan OS 911", a computer AI similar to the machine that recently won on Jeopardy. Of course, as a conservative candidate, certain conservative "hot button" subjects came up, such as the "birther movement" (the ongoing false debate over Obama's citizenship status) and abortion. Stewart approached it rather logically, showing conclusively that when Obama's parents got married in Hawaii, his mother was already three months pregnant, therefore, if a fetus is already a person and Obama was conceived in Hawaii, there should be no question on his citizenship status, and, if there is still is a question, what does that say about the AI's stance on abortion. Three words: massive logic error.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-8-2011/indecision-2012---indecision-edition---reagan-os-911?xrs=share_copy
avatar
orcishgamer: You assume a man like that has goals or thinks anything like people like us. I don't think he does, socially, he's nearly another species. This is, incidentally, why I think Bill Maher actually gets it right when he asks the Tea Party folks "Why do you think you're goals should be in any way aligned with these people? Aren't you being useful idiots?" I don't think Bill Maher is consistent or fair, but he is amusing at times, and occasionally even right. He's also a hypocrite.

So when we say evil or greedy, I actually don't think it's either. I think he just doesn't care, he's an alpha male among billions of omegas, in his worldview.
avatar
drmlessgames: I read on another site, an interesting theory on rupert murdock. Maybe it's wrong, but I'll say it anyways. They were arguing, that while rupert murdock is a stinking rich person, he's an unhappy old man. And that he hates the middle and lower class, of the world., and thus, he's engagged in a full-blown war to destroy the middle and lower class, since in his view that will benefit his elitist lifestyle. It sounded to me kinda difficult to believe, since well, he sells his stuff to those same classes.
No, he extracts money from "those classes" this in no way requires that he likes them, in fact, some of his tactics imply a very strong disdain for them. Trust me, there's a whole group of people that really think that long held status and money (we're talking passed between generations here) actually make people "better". No really. That's why I was saying, Rupert Murdoch doesn't think like you or me, he's completely different. I can't say whether he's happy or not.
Post edited March 11, 2011 by orcishgamer
avatar
orcishgamer: No, he extracts money from "those classes" this in no way requires that he likes them, in fact, some of his tactics imply a very strong disdain for them. Trust me, there's a whole group of people that really think that long held status and money (we're talking passed between generations here) actually make people "better". No really. That's why I was saying, Rupert Murdoch doesn't think like you or me, he's completely different. I can't say whether he's happy or not.
Did he inherit all his money from his predecessors? I thought he made all his fortune himself. But what you say makes sense. Well, the argument about his unhappiness was from a simple observation, for a stinking rich powerful man, he looks like a frail unhappy old fart.
avatar
orcishgamer: No, he extracts money from "those classes" this in no way requires that he likes them, in fact, some of his tactics imply a very strong disdain for them. Trust me, there's a whole group of people that really think that long held status and money (we're talking passed between generations here) actually make people "better". No really. That's why I was saying, Rupert Murdoch doesn't think like you or me, he's completely different. I can't say whether he's happy or not.
avatar
drmlessgames: Did he inherit all his money from his predecessors? I thought he made all his fortune himself. But what you say makes sense. Well, the argument about his unhappiness was from a simple observation, for a stinking rich powerful man, he looks like a frail unhappy old fart.
He made most of his fortune himself, though his family was wealthy it was nowhere near as wealthy as he is now. Still, he comes from wealth and a peculiar mindset. The fact that he works at all would actually keep him out of the "highest class" of people in some wealthy folks' minds.
avatar
drmlessgames: You being an american, could i ask you since I dont know, where did this notion in the american's view, that most media outlets before fox news had "liberal propaganda" come from? So, to them, until fox news, all the communists had taken over all important media channels? I dont get how they came to believe that, specially after 8 years of pure uninterrupted years of conservativism permeating every aspect of american society.
Honestly, I don't recall hearing that much before recently. My understanding is that it came from AM talk show hosts that make money by enraging the conservative base. A lot of the information is completely made up, such as the recent "death panels" controversy from our health care over haul bill.

But, the conservative base in the US is driven largely by delusion, a lot of the things that they're openly advocated for have been long since debunked, and a lot of what the US is currently dealing with politically was already an old problem in the latter half of the 19th century.

But, this is the case in any country which has problems with fascism. You get this group of people that's so hung up on pseudo nationalism and such that they'll buy into anything as long as you have somebody to blame. It's unfortunately, a problem which is familiar to South America as Pinochet et al., engaged in similar tactics, just for whatever reason our country is sturdy enough that we didn't completely fall apart like that under the Bush administration.
avatar
Wraith: Just because I'm curious, do any of our European members know what the legality is on abortions in their respective countries?
In Britain abortion is legal. There have recently been some interesting cases in Ireland. I believe the law there is that you cannot have an abortion unless there is a genuine risk that the pregnancy will have dangerous consequences (to the parent, not sure about the child). I don't know the full story on that.
avatar
CaptainGyro: what does this even mean?
avatar
michaelleung: Just watch PBS for all your news like anyone over 70. The least biased news there.
I'll second this. It's dull and boring, just the way I like my news. Just give me the unbiased information and I'll make my own wild opinions about it. Plus, you might catch an episode of Red Green.
avatar
michaelleung: Just watch PBS for all your news like anyone over 70. The least biased news there.
avatar
KyleKatarn: I'll second this. It's dull and boring, just the way I like my news. Just give me the unbiased information and I'll make my own wild opinions about it. Plus, you might catch an episode of Red Green.
News always has some bias to it, which is why it's imperative that one avoids sources that do it on purpose or restrict oneself to only one outlet. The BBC in general is pretty good, but they've got a definite pro-Israel bias in their middle east reporting.

News always has some bias to it, which is why it's imperative that one avoids sources that do it on purpose or restrict oneself to only one outlet. The BBC in general is pretty good, but they've got a definite pro-Israel bias in their middle east reporting.
Go on then, show me something to justify this pro israel bias. I just don't believe you there. The BBC is too big, and under to much scrutiny to be able to get away with such bias. The Murdoch empire would love for such an accusation to have any merit, as they really want to clip the wings of the BBC.

The BBC recently came under attack for being too bias towards a political party for interviewing their leader (our PM) and not the other party leaders, despite the closing question of "how on earth do you sleep at night". - so pro isreal bias, would have gone off the charts. - PK Meter to 11.
Post edited March 11, 2011 by wpegg