Hmm yeah, massive corruption sounds about right for Murdock and his empire. And yes, you're very much right about the Daily Mail.
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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.