t

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-11-2011).]

Wow, this is interesting stuff.


They shut the doors

Wonder how many of the staff knew they were doing this sort of 'research', and how many of them actively were engaged in it


Are father and son on the same page on this (Did the son close the paper without discussing w/ the dad?)

might set up a rift, perhaps a calculated one

DAD already has his reputation

His son has one too, but this is a VERY public way of 'cleaning up one's own garbage'
(not the same as 'keeping one's house CLEAN', but it shows he will take action when something is uncovered.

But it also may help cover up other bad practices that aren't publicly known...

quote Originally posted by tbone42: News of the World.. buh bye! http://old.news.yahoo.com/s...ritain_phone_hacking Murdoch's kid did exactly what needed to be done- publicly denounce the actions. Not sure if the paper needed to be shut down, just the person who ran it.

So again, I have to ask you about the ridiculousness (I feel) about the "direction" you are taking your opinions regarding this? You seem to hold Rupert Murdoch SOLELY responsible for all of these actions. That lady who actually is the CEO has absolutely nothing to do with it, at all, and yet you expect her to be fired even though at the time, she was just an editor when the "hacking" took place. And as far as I understood, both of those editors who were originally responsible for the "hacking" were also no longer employed there anyway. You also COMPLETELY ignore the fact that Murdoch said the act was "deplorable", and presumably are twisting Murdoch's intentions, when he said that he stands behind the CEO. He was not saying that he was supporting the act... like I said, you completely let his denouncing of the act fly over your head (bias?), he said he was standing by the CEO to basically handle the situation.

You also said that Murdoch carries his stink with him so to speak, that he creates these types of issues himself. The exact phrase you made was: oh man... you edited your post. Damn... I can't quote it anymore.

Anyway, you have an obvious bias towards him... you should recognize that for what it is. I fully recognize my bias towards his altered-ego here in the US. I don't get the impression that you're admitting that you're allowing your bias to have an affect on your judgement here.

So, now he's shut down the paper... and a lot of people will be unemployed. Do you think "Justice was served?" I'll tell you what will probably end up happening... he'll just buy another newspaper, probably a liberal one, and fire all those employees and hire the staff of News of the World back. That's his personality...


EDIT: If I could compare this to a similar story... NPR. A lot of stuff has happened at NPR, and the CEO was fired. She was fired because the events that occured all happened at the time she WAS in charge, and rightfully so. However, if bad things happened BEFORE the NPR ceo / director ever stepped foot into her position, and there's no evidence that she had anything to do with it, sure you can do an investigation (if it's criminal), but there's no reason to fire her. I feel the same way about News of the World. It's pretty clear to me (barring any investigation) that at this point, she had absolutely nothing to do with it. One of the guys who WAS responsible for that hacking, was also busted on another hacking attempt (I don't even know why we're calling this hacking??? looking through text messages isn't hacking), and he resigned in 2007. The other editor from what I could read was fired later on. It doesn't appear to me that she had anything to do with it. And... like I said, barring any investigation, why then should she be responsible in her current position for something that was done prior to her being in charge? Please answer THAT for me.

Second, you really must have missed the part where Rupert Murdoch publicly denounced the phone hacking yesterda, at 1:00pm when he said the actions were "DEPLORABLE" but then said he was supporting his CEO to handle the situation. Did you miss that he had said that? You seemed to be chastizing him for not publicly denouncing it, but he had most certainly done that a full day already before you made that post with regard to it.

On a side note, I don't believe for a second the decision was ultimately his son's to make. I'm sure he asked his father first if it was ok, and I'm sure the dad said yes.

That paper was from the mid 1800s. Funny thing is, it was originally a pro-union, progressive news paper when Murdoch bought it in 1960 something...

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 07-07-2011).]

t

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-11-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Murdoch's kid did exactly what needed to be done- publicly denounce the actions. Not sure if the paper needed to be shut down, just the person who ran it.

So, in the end, they did the right thing, didn't they?

"Rupert said the actions were "DEPLORABLE" but then said he was supporting his CEO to handle the situation."


Isn't that a valid response from any 'leader'?

Denounce it, and ask his general to handle it?

[t

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-11-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Yeah, but in this case its my belief his "General" (Brooks) is also the one who gave the order to break the law. You can't self-police illegal actions with the possible criminal in charge. She gets to keep her job .. just hundreds who had nothing to do with it lose theirs. Makes sense. (Not really.)

But if Murdock was all about money, why shut down the paper?

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Sorry Todd, I felt that message took too personal of a tone and I did not want you to get the wrong idea. Its nothing against you, so I changed the post to be less personal. Still, I did not edit out what you were talking about... what I said in regards to Murdoch's dirt is still there in the post however.. I said "A lot more links on this man coming. I dont have to dig too hard, he creates his own dirt quite regularly." Now, I have already stated my position on billionaire puppetmasters we are discussing. You don't like Soros. Me neither. I also dont like Murdoch just as much because he too has his fingers in too many political pies and hes a foreigner trying to influence American politics with his media empire to make his world view happen. Sound familliar? As CEO of his conglamorate, I believe he should take responsibility for all actions of his suboordinates and clean up his mess. So his son did, instead. I am fine with that... at least he did SOMETHING. The wrong thing, in my opinion... but its his company, he can do what he wants. Its real tragic that a bunch of tabloid employees lost their job. But not really though, as an employee of a newspaper that systematically lies to make splash headlines (i.e. a tabloid) they should have seen this coming for years and planned around it. Besides all that, Murdoch shut down the tabloid and he did not have to.. all he had to do was fire those reponsible. So all those people who lost their jobs? Entirely Murdoch's fault as well... dont blame those that wanted justice, because even when making ammends Murdoch screwed a bunch of people that had nothing to do with it. No worries, Murdoch owns over 300 other big media companies, I am SURE he will make sure those people find work. (sarcasm) Bias towards Murdoch? More like "Bias against Murdoch" You bet. As stated before, I believe anyone who has that much influence in politics, and an entire media conglamorate to run only stories that make his political opponents look bad, is bad for our country. I won't line up to kiss ass at his feet. Why do you want to?

That's all I wanted to hear from you. When I have these discussions (not specifically with you, but with others), I always get the impression that people present these posts as factual representations of how the world works... and that their views are specifically the right common-sense ones. I respect them MUCH more when I understand any perceivable BIAS that exists first in presenting these facts, and opinions. So I certainly understand, and in many cases agree with your views, I just wanted to hear you say it.

Just to re-iterate though, I know my post was long, but Rupert Murdoch DID say the act was deplorable yesterday around 1:00pm. I get the impression that you missed that? Also, the two people who were allegedly responsible were no longer working for the company as far as I can tell. But to be honest, I've only read your own links, and one other that I searched for yesterday, did you see that as the case also? I know that I just checked WIKIPEDIA and it said one of the guys was fired in 2007 because of a seperate incident.

The newspaper was actually a "conservative" Tabloid... I guess maybe you could compare it to "The Blaze" or maybe even "TMZ" for that matter (if they were in print, that is). I don't think it always was a "tabloid" but actually a genuine newspaper from back in the day that turned into a tabloid at some point in the 60s (maybe before or after Murdoch).


Yeah, Murdoch most certainly is a media conglomerate, and he is extremely powerful. I can say one thing... I'm just VERY glad that I agree with some of his political stances... you can see the impact he has had on America in the past two years. I'd say the tea party owes nearly all their coverage to Fox News. The other stations wouldn't even pick it up before then.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Yeah, but in this case its my belief his "General" (Brooks) is also the one who gave the order to break the law. You can't self-police illegal actions with the possible criminal in charge. She gets to keep her job .. just hundreds who had nothing to do with it lose theirs. Makes sense. (Not really.)

Like I said, I'm pretty sure the two individuals who were directly responsible for the "hacking" are ALREADY gone.

And Brooks was the CEO of News of America... so if they're closing News of America, that means that SHE TOO will lose her job.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 07-07-2011).]

t

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-11-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I'm not sure anybody ever said that Bear. I surmised he was about Power and political influence... and money is only part of that.

I was referring to this:

"just hundreds who had nothing to do with it lose theirs"

Maybe Murdock thought that there was a corrupt culture there that couldn't be fixed? If the paper was still making money, then wouldn't the move be about principles over profits?

t

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-11-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Ok, I can see that. Very possible. Murdoch also said that one of his other news branches may be able to take up the niche that his recently closed one left behind. Isnt that a lot like restructuring after being handed a punitive decision by a court? Easiest way to avoid legal trouble- shut down, and open up under a different name with the same practices?

Well, he may be taking a financial hit on this:

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-so...eport-030337129.html

LONDON (Reuters) - In a breathtaking response to a scandal engulfing his media empire, Rupert Murdoch moved on Thursday to close down the News of the World, Britain's biggest selling Sunday newspaper.

quote 200 lost their job, but as we are already seeing in above quoted article, they will make a move to put most of those ppl in jobs elsewhere in Murdoch's media empire.

Then job losses might be minimal.

well, it turns out that phone hacking of "people of interest" is SOP for news agencies
not sure if that makes this better or worse - but - now ya know. should you become "newsworthy", your phone WILL be hacked for media chow.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is examining allegations that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp may have tried to hack into the phone records of victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, the agency said on Thursday.

http://www.reuters.com/arti...dUSTRE76D5O220110714

I expect this will rile up the Fox News aficionados....but I personally found it funny, anyway.

t

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-11-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I was referring to this: "just hundreds who had nothing to do with it lose theirs" Maybe Murdock thought that there was a corrupt culture there that couldn't be fixed? If the paper was still making money, then wouldn't the move be about principles over profits?

Advertisers are dropping off, and the whole country hates them right now. How do you figure it is still a money making proposition if they can't sell advertising or papers?

The British Parliament is taking off the kid gloves now. Based on member's statements and actions being taken by the House of Commons, it's not hard to surmise that they see the proverbial "blood in the water."

If the US Congress finds that News Corp did indeed hack into 9/11 victims' phones, we're in for a political circus that will make the healthcare debate look like a love fest.

t

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-11-2011).]

t

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-11-2011).]

If I'm wrong, I will eat these words and then some, but I just don't see how any of this is Murdoch's fault. So he owns the company... doesn't mean he sent any orders or even knew about the hacking. The British are already against him, so I can see some bias come into the investigation. Whatever the outcome, I hope it's fair.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: If I'm wrong, I will eat these words and then some, but I just don't see how any of this is Murdoch's fault. So he owns the company... doesn't mean he sent any orders or even knew about the hacking. The British are already against him, so I can see some bias come into the investigation. Whatever the outcome, I hope it's fair.

Confusing to why he would sit down with the family of the murder victim and personally apologize if he didn't feel some sort of responsibility himself.

http://www.businessinsider....dowler-family-2011-7

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-17-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Confusing to why he would sit down with the family of the murder victim and personally apologize if he didn't feel some sort of responsibility himself.

Because people like tbone hold him personally responsible. It's a PR act.

IMO.

Again, I don't know the guy... I don't know if he did order it. If he did, shame on him and I hope it damages his reputation enough for people to distrust him. That just doesn't seem logical to me though. He owns so many companies... why would he have known about that? He deals with the big decisions not the small stuff.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Because people like tbone hold him personally responsible. It's a PR act. IMO. Again, I don't know the guy... I don't know if he did order it. If he did, shame on him and I hope it damages his reputation enough for people to distrust him. That just doesn't seem logical to me though. He owns so many companies... why would he have known about that? He deals with the big decisions not the small stuff.

Oh I agree, and I think the PR moves he and his companies have made in response to this scandal have been dismal. He should have just led from a distance on this one and let someone else handle it if he didn't want to look like he had anything to do with it IMO. There are allegations that it is his son that is more responsible for this mess and he's covering for him. I haven't seen to much evidence of that however.

I doubt he gave the order but it will certainly put a spotlight on the bias and agenda that his organizations are accused of having, in the long run it may help make them more "fair and balanced" which is a good thing IMO.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-17-2011).]

t

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-11-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Confusing to why he would sit down with the family of the murder victim and personally apologize if he didn't feel some sort of responsibility himself. http://www.businessinsider....dowler-family-2011-7

For a couple of reasons...

1) The progressive media is NOT his friend. Rupert Murdoch crushed the majority of the British media during the early years in the 70s and 80s... he totally violated the unions, to put it mildly. To say there's animosity against him is putting it mildly. I would not hesitate to say that by making him fully responsibile is no different than more or less blaming everything bad that happens on Bush over the past few years. Hah. But again, I seriously doubt he has any direct responsibility with anything at News of the World. I mean, that is but one of 320 companies he owns (or owned). I don't think he manages on such a micro scale.

2) The other reason is because he wants to take over BSkyB, and unless he starts cleaning up this PR mess... he'll probably lose any chance he ever had of taking full ownership of that news station. What the politicians, and many of the people are afraid of, is that he'll change BSkyB, and start reporting "conservative" news... which they feel would be devestating to union rights, civil rights, etc... all throughout England. Many people fear that by him taking over that news station, that he'll effectively control the media and it will have drastic ramifications towards the political spectrum of England which many feel will turn the government "conservative."


Personally, I think he's done a great job with teh Wall Street Journal, Fox news, and MarketWatch... hah...


It's CRAZY that the whistle-blower is dead though... the timing is too co-incidental for it to NOT be suspicious...

I wonder SERIOUSLY if there's more to this story. There seems to be a huge backlash against the police force there. I find it odd that the police are not immediately ruling it "suspicious..." which tells me that either it's bad timing for his death, or that maybe the police are involved...

One things for sure, this story has exploded. I just assumed it was a small thing getting blown way out of proportion... it might still be, but there's tons and tons of people involved, everyone from politicians, corporate executives, to whole police forces... ridiculous.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: For a couple of reasons... 1) The progressive media is NOT his friend. Rupert Murdoch crushed the majority of the British media during the early years in the 70s and 80s... he totally violated the unions, to put it mildly. To say there's animosity against him is putting it mildly. I would not hesitate to say that by making him fully responsibile is no different than more or less blaming everything bad that happens on Bush over the past few years. Hah. But again, I seriously doubt he has any direct responsibility with anything at News of the World. I mean, that is but one of 320 companies he owns (or owned). I don't think he manages on such a micro scale. 2) The other reason is because he wants to take over BSkyB, and unless he starts cleaning up this PR mess... he'll probably lose any chance he ever had of taking full ownership of that news station. What the politicians, and many of the people are afraid of, is that he'll change BSkyB, and start reporting "conservative" news... which they feel would be devestating to union rights, civil rights, etc... all throughout England. Many people fear that by him taking over that news station, that he'll effectively control the media and it will have drastic ramifications towards the political spectrum of England which many feel will turn the government "conservative." Personally, I think he's done a great job with teh Wall Street Journal, Fox news, and MarketWatch... hah... It's CRAZY that the whistle-blower is dead though... the timing is too co-incidental for it to NOT be suspicious... I wonder SERIOUSLY if there's more to this story. There seems to be a huge backlash against the police force there. I find it odd that the police are not immediately ruling it "suspicious..." which tells me that either it's bad timing for his death, or that maybe the police are involved... One things for sure, this story has exploded. I just assumed it was a small thing getting blown way out of proportion... it might still be, but there's tons and tons of people involved, everyone from politicians, corporate executives, to whole police forces... ridiculous.

I keep forgetting that unabashed biased control over certain media is only acceptable when it's ones own "side" that is being supported. Yeesh.

quote Originally posted by newf: I keep forgetting that unabashed biased control over certain media is only acceptable when it's ones own "side" that is being supported. Yeesh.

And that is the way it is, on both sides of the isle.
But they are the number one cable news channel, here anyways.
So maybe it ain't broke enough to need fixing.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: And that is the way it is, on both sides of the isle. But they are the number one cable news channel, here anyways. So maybe it ain't broke enough to need fixing.

Oh for sure, MSNBC seems to have been trying to emulate the Fox way of doing things, only from the other side. Agenda based and biased media...sell fear and hate for the ratings. To some that's what matters however ratings don't equal quality or "balance".
Not that either channel/organization are without merit or some good journalism but their overall message seems to show a very biased view and are less repuitable because of it IMO.

a) Murdoch did not listen to anyone's phone. He owned a company where some overzealous reporters did and he closed the doors so what more would some of you have him do?

b) One would assume that if you are listening in on private conversations your story will most likely be MORE accurate so teh arguement that the newspaper spread lies is kinda lame...at best.

c) It is a rag. All gossip papers are. And anyone reading that kind of crap deserves what they get.

d) Spying on people's private conversations is unconscionable in any circumstances where life and limb are not at stake. Rupert did the right thing but sacking the lot of them.

quote Originally posted by newf: Oh for sure, MSNBC seems to have been trying to emulate the Fox way of doing things, only from the other side. Agenda based and biased media...sell fear and hate for the ratings. To some that's what matters however ratings don't equal quality or "balance". Not that either channel/organization are without merit or some good journalism but their overall message seems to show a very biased view and are less repuitable because of it IMO.

Do we have a law that says either has to be "Fair and Balanced"?
They are there to make money, it is a business!
I don't have a problem with MSNBC, don't care for their message though.
So like the majority I don't watch them, but really could care less how fair and balanced they are.
And neither spew much hatred, it is call free speech.
Maybe a bit different variety than you guys are accustomed to?

quote One of the first voices to blow the whistle on the phone hacking — former News of the World journalist Sean Hoare — was found dead Monday in Watford, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) northwest of London. Police said the death was being treated as unexplained but was not considered suspicious, according to Britain's Press Association.

The police are saying that the death was being treaded as "unexplained, but was not considered suspicious." LOL, that's funny right there!

quote Britain's police watchdog on Monday said it had received allegations of potential wrongdoing in connection with phone hacking against four senior officers — Stephenson, Yates and two former senior officers. One of the claims is that Yates inappropriately helped get a job for the daughter of former News of the World editor, Neil Wallis, one of 10 people arrested in the scandal. The Independent Police Complaints Commission said it was looking into the claims.Yates insisted he had done nothing wrong. "I have acted with complete integrity," he said. "My conscience is clear."

That tha... Then why resign? The police in London must've took that line from Nixon, 'I'm not a crook."

[This message has been edited by madcurl (edited 07-18-2011).]