There's good quality journalism, and there's the crap that Murdoch spews. It's a shame, really, because he smears all the good reporters with his stink. Hope he gets taken to the cleaners, better yet, some hard prison time.
IP: Logged
06:38 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22738 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
So I guess what we should garner from this is that because a tech-savvy reporter working for a small-time tabloid hacked the girl's phone, we should immediately believe that Sky, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch, and every other company that Rupert Murdoch owns is an evil corporation?
I'll tell you what... Rupert Murdoch is a hero in my eyes. He's been defiant to literally hundreds of unions. An Australian born citizen, he moved to America to become a full-fledged US citizen. He had to do this because you could not own a TV station in America without having US citizenship. The fact that he was willing to change his citizenship tells me a lot. He's an American success story like all the other greats. He's provided a news outlook to the world that has been largely underserved until Fox News and Sky (or BSkyB) came out. Now... both those networks have more viewership than any of the others.
The man has brought a voice to the rest of the world that has been silenced until now. Until just a couple of years ago... the local NBC news affiliate used to have the station owner come on, and give us his two cents of the world's going-ons... it was always the same stuff... corporations are evil, public unions are the wave of the future, and the wealthy should be castrated. Same old, same old...
If you read about his history, he's awesome... he's totally destroyed the printing unions in the UK... and he was best-buds with Margaret Thatcher.
IP: Logged
06:42 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
There's good quality journalism, and there's the crap that Murdoch spews. It's a shame, really, because he smears all the good reporters with his stink. Hope he gets taken to the cleaners, better yet, some hard prison time.
There's the truth, and there's the crap that leftists spew. No lie is too big or small, no distortion too great for a leftist.
He's the CEO, its his responsibility, and if he does not react and roll some heads then he is condoning it. From what I understand, what hapened was illegal after all. His company, his responsibility in my opinion.
That is true that he would bear ultimate responsibility, but absent evidence that he *ordered* it, he's not directly responsible, making the topic title misleading.
IP: Logged
08:49 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22738 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
He's the CEO, its his responsibility, and if he does not react and roll some heads then he is condoning it. From what I understand, what hapened was illegal after all. His company, his responsibility in my opinion.
He's the founder / majority owner of the parent company, News Corporation... seriously, that's like Obama getting blamed for a local state representative from the 343rd district of California doing something stupid. This shitty rag in the UK is like some bull **** print media that he probably doesn't even know he owns.
Anyway, this article is clearly, CLEARLY an assasination piece of Rupert Murdoch, more than it is anything related to the story of the child having her cell-phone hacked. What's worse, the person hacking the cell phone, or the person writing the article and using a misfortune purely for political gain, like the author of this piece has done?
Thanks for the article.... I don't think this is just a character assassination. It's okay journalism. Yes, it has a spin, but that is going to happen when a human is writing any article.
I don't think we can put this blame on Murdoch, but this is a good and interesting article. Thank you.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: He's the founder / majority owner of the parent company, News Corporation... seriously, that's like Obama getting blamed for a local state representative from the 343rd district of California doing something stupid. This shitty rag in the UK is like some bull **** print media that he probably doesn't even know he owns.
Anyway, this article is clearly, CLEARLY an assasination piece of Rupert Murdoch, more than it is anything related to the story of the child having her cell-phone hacked. What's worse, the person hacking the cell phone, or the person writing the article and using a misfortune purely for political gain, like the author of this piece has done?
Or it could be similar to blaming George Soros for having some kind of massive influence on all media that is not owned by Murdoch with no proof.
IP: Logged
10:03 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22738 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Or it could be similar to blaming George Soros for having some kind of massive influence on all media that is not owned by Murdoch with no proof.
I don't know anyone that's blamed Soros for anything related to the media? I know he recently spent $130 million dollars of his own money to hire journalists for NPR to combat Fox News, but as of this point, I don't think the people that have been hired by that money have done anything yet... either that or I just haven't heard it yet.
I blame Soros and Buffet for lobbying state congresses to pass No-Fault legislature so they can maximize profits.
Buffet owns Geico, and Soros is one of the founders and part-owner of Progressive.
Or it could be similar to blaming George Soros for having some kind of massive influence on all media that is not owned by Murdoch with no proof.
Wrong, newf. You can trace Soros' money through his various foundations and tax filings, especially to political organizations (which is required in my country).
IP: Logged
10:49 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Political donations and activism United States In an interview with The Washington Post on November 11, 2003, Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death." He said he would sacrifice his entire fortune to defeat President Bush, "if someone guaranteed it."[48] Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, $2.5 million to MoveOn.org, and $20 million[49] to America Coming Together. These groups worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election. On September 28, 2004 he dedicated more money to the campaign and kicked off his own multi-state tour with a speech: Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush[50] delivered at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The online transcript to this speech received many hits after Dick Cheney accidentally referred to FactCheck.org as "factcheck.com" in the Vice Presidential debate, causing the owner of that domain to redirect all traffic to Soros's site.[51] Asked in 2006 about his statement in The Age of Fallibility that "the main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States", Soros responded that "it happens to coincide with the prevailing opinion in the world. And I think that's rather shocking for Americans to hear. The United States sets the agenda for the world. And the rest of the world has to respond to that agenda. By declaring a 'war on terror' after September 11, we set the wrong agenda for the world. [...] when you wage war, you inevitably create innocent victims."[52] Soros was not a large donor to US political causes until the 2004 presidential election, but according to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2003–2004 election cycle, Soros donated $23,581,000 to various 527 groups dedicated to defeating President Bush. A 527 group is a type of American tax-exempt organization named after a section of the United States tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 527. After Bush's re-election, Soros and other donors backed a new political fundraising group called Democracy Alliance, which supports progressive causes and the formation of a stronger progressive infrastructure in America.[53] In August 2009, Soros donated $35 million to the state of New York to be ear-marked for under-privileged children and given to parents who had benefit cards at the rate of $200 per child aged 3 through 17, with no limit as to the number of children that qualified. An additional $140 million was put into the fund by the state of New York from money they had received from the 2009 federal recovery act.[25] On October 26, 2010, Soros donated $1 million, the largest donation in the campaign, to the Drug Policy Alliance to fund Proposition 19, that would have legalized marijuana in the state of California if it had passed in the November 2, 2010 elections.[54]
Wrong, newf. You can trace Soros' money through his various foundations and tax filings, especially to political organizations (which is required in my country).
You missed the point. Soros can donate his money wherever he sees fit but showing his influence or outright demand of what stories and "bias" which is what is often claimed here is a different thing all together. Now compare that with a known Conservative that OWNS known Conservative slanted media outlets. Nothing wrong with either IMO but the "Soros Influence" that some just disregard all non Murdoch media with is bizarre to me. You know it's an example of the hypocritical stuff you like to point out.
Having said all that I don't hold Murdoch responsible for anything that happened in the article however it may be a smart thing to do some damage control and fire the appropriate people, not that even that should be his personal responsibility.
Political donations and activism United States In an interview with The Washington Post on November 11, 2003, Soros said that removing President George W. Bush from office was the "central focus of my life" and "a matter of life and death." He said he would sacrifice his entire fortune to defeat President Bush, "if someone guaranteed it."[48] Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, $2.5 million to MoveOn.org, and $20 million[49] to America Coming Together. These groups worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election. On September 28, 2004 he dedicated more money to the campaign and kicked off his own multi-state tour with a speech: Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush[50] delivered at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. The online transcript to this speech received many hits after Dick Cheney accidentally referred to FactCheck.org as "factcheck.com" in the Vice Presidential debate, causing the owner of that domain to redirect all traffic to Soros's site.[51] Asked in 2006 about his statement in The Age of Fallibility that "the main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States", Soros responded that "it happens to coincide with the prevailing opinion in the world. And I think that's rather shocking for Americans to hear. The United States sets the agenda for the world. And the rest of the world has to respond to that agenda. By declaring a 'war on terror' after September 11, we set the wrong agenda for the world. [...] when you wage war, you inevitably create innocent victims."[52] Soros was not a large donor to US political causes until the 2004 presidential election, but according to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2003–2004 election cycle, Soros donated $23,581,000 to various 527 groups dedicated to defeating President Bush. A 527 group is a type of American tax-exempt organization named after a section of the United States tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 527. After Bush's re-election, Soros and other donors backed a new political fundraising group called Democracy Alliance, which supports progressive causes and the formation of a stronger progressive infrastructure in America.[53] In August 2009, Soros donated $35 million to the state of New York to be ear-marked for under-privileged children and given to parents who had benefit cards at the rate of $200 per child aged 3 through 17, with no limit as to the number of children that qualified. An additional $140 million was put into the fund by the state of New York from money they had received from the 2009 federal recovery act.[25] On October 26, 2010, Soros donated $1 million, the largest donation in the campaign, to the Drug Policy Alliance to fund Proposition 19, that would have legalized marijuana in the state of California if it had passed in the November 2, 2010 elections.[54]
Oooof you missed again.
I didn't ask for a source that he contributes money, I asked for a sourced to the specific claim. Do you have a source for the claim that George Soros "Spent $130 million dollars of his own money to hire journalists for NPR to combat Fox News"
Edit, please don't use the links from Canadafreepress, it's full of pop ups and crap.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-05-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:57 PM
Jul 6th, 2011
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I didn't ask for a source that he contributes money, I asked for a sourced to the specific claim. Do you have a source for the claim that George Soros "Spent $130 million dollars of his own money to hire journalists for NPR to combat Fox News"
...I didn't claim how much Soros spent on NPR, only that he did. You need to talk to the other guy about proving the figure he posted.
quote
Edit, please don't use the links from Canadafreepress, it's full of pop ups and crap.
But...it's from Canada!
IP: Logged
02:17 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27079 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
You missed the point. Soros can donate his money wherever he sees fit but showing his influence or outright demand of what stories and "bias" which is what is often claimed here is a different thing all together. Now compare that with a known Conservative that OWNS known Conservative slanted media outlets. Nothing wrong with either IMO but the "Soros Influence" that some just disregard all non Murdoch media with is bizarre to me. You know it's an example of the hypocritical stuff you like to point out.
Strange that you would say that, when we seem to agree on...
quote
Having said all that I don't hold Murdoch responsible for anything that happened in the article however it may be a smart thing to do some damage control and fire the appropriate people, not that even that should be his personal responsibility.
He's the CEO, its his responsibility, and if he does not react and roll some heads then he is condoning it. From what I understand, what hapened was illegal after all. His company, his responsibility in my opinion.
Since this is already marked politics...
I assume you hold the same view when it comes to who is in charge and responsible for the current state of our nation? The buck stops there--or so I've been told. Or, will we just hear more "It's (fill in the blank)'s fault"?
IP: Logged
03:13 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22738 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Shoot... it's actually 1.8 million he donated to NPR this last time. You're going back at least a year here, on a comment that he made in an interview. I can't find it... I did a quick search, but maybe you'll take my word for it. He believes that NPR is the only true and un-biased news source, which he stated in an interview that you can probably find on YouTube. He then said he wants to support NPR because he believes the world needs to be able to fight the lies from Fox News... not verbatim, but this is exactly what he said.
quote
Originally posted by tbone42:
I would think the one who broke the law and hurt the police investigation is worse.
I have seen people here espouse the opinion that all Muslims should apologize/denounce quite publicly for terrorism even though almost all have nothing to do with it. I have seen here the opinion that our president is our country's CEO, and as a result, any current financial trouble we are having is directly his responsibility. If those two sentiments hold any water at all, then Murdoch as well IS ultimately responsible for the misactions of those he hires to run his businesses. Did he push the button on the action? In as much as he approves them being his employee and he is not doing anything to denounce this action, then yes.
Did he personally come down there and tell someone to hack the cellphone? Maybe, maybe not. We may never know, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt on that. However, that does not make him less responsible. Its HIS conglamorate. His employees, and ultimately, his decision to let those people do what they do without denouncing it. Thats complicit enough for me. He should be having a news conference RIGHT NOW saying what he is going to clean up at his stations in regards to this kind of behavior. If I were him I would be doing that.
Rupert Murdoch is not the CEO of this tabloid... he is the owner / founder of News Corporation. This tabloid is but one of a hundred or so print media that he owns... he probably doesn't even remember that he owns it. His big priority right now is television / cable media... and his focus is almost exclusively in the US, and in China. It has been ever since he became a US citizen. News of the World has their own CEO to answer to this...
I have three Muslim friends, and I've never once asked them to apologize for 9/11.
IP: Logged
08:17 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Rupert Murdoch is not the CEO of this tabloid... he is the owner / founder of News Corporation. This tabloid is but one of a hundred or so print media that he owns... he probably doesn't even remember that he owns it. His big priority right now is television / cable media... and his focus is almost exclusively in the US, and in China. It has been ever since he became a US citizen.
News of the World has their own CEO to answer to this...
This would be like the CEO of [insert company name here] being at fault when one of the employees of one of the companies he owned did something.
If he had any inkling of it, sure, fire up the grill... but he's always looking ahead, (sometimes stomping on the little ones who don't scamper out of his way, but he's actually quite personable in real life. (but who knows what's going on in that mind of his...muhwahahahahaaaa)
It's really easy to demonoize sucessful people. but ya hafta give them credit for being sucessful, not "famous" (which is easier to acomplish)
Ahh... so it sounds to me like this story is REALLY taking shape because Murdoch wants to basically buy the entire news market in London, and everyone is really scared since Murdoch has been known to absolutely violate and destroy unions there... something that England has always had a big issue with. So this incident, which is quite honestly, barely world-wide news, is making huge headlines for what reason? To villify Murdoch, or to bring light to the travesty that a missing girl's phone was hacked?
Surely T-Bone, you have to see the twist in this media escapade going on over there...
The conservatives LOVE Sky News because it's essentially the Fox News of England... but those who would identify with the party of the left and progressives, hate Sky news. To put it into perspective... Rupert Murdoch is to England's Progressives, as Soros is to America's Conservatives.
Oh I have read the articles Todd. I understand he is trying to make a media takeover. Thats not the point I am making... although yes, I do believe there is some fear that plays into the story as a result. My position does not change, he is supporting the woman in charge of that news station when he should be firing her and making an apology to the family and the police. If he did that, the heat would be off him from me.
But he wont, so he looks complicit to me until he does denounce these actions and release his support for the person who likely ok'd them. There are ways he can come out of this smelling like roses, but I think ego is going to stifle those options. So to me, it just makes someone I never cared for to begin with look worse.
I'm glad that you have a good opinion of the man for some things he has done, but one good act does not excuse a bad one. He needs to clean up his mess here, regardless of who made it originally, his name is attached to it.
Honestly... I don't think he's even thinking about this event. Not being overly dramatic here, but the man has so much going on, he's probably barely taken notice of this whole event. He's in the news almost on a regular basis for this and that... and any time one of his companies has someone that does something wrong.
Don't be scared, but below is a list of all the companies that are owned under News Corporation:
quote
HoldingsSee also: List of assets owned by News Corporation [edit] BooksHarperCollins book publishing company HarperCollins India (40%)[clarification needed] joint venture with India Today Group Zondervan Christian book publisher Inspirio - religious gift production. [edit] NewspapersAustralia published by News Limited. The Australian (Nationwide) Community Media Group (16 QLD & NSW suburban/regional titles) Cumberland-Courier Newspapers (23 suburban/commuter titles) The Courier-Mail (Queensland) The Sunday Mail (Queensland) The Cairns Post (Cairns, Queensland) The Gold Coast Bulletin (Gold Coast, Queensland) The Townsville Bulletin (Townsville, Queensland) The Daily Telegraph (New South Wales) The Sunday Telegraph (New South Wales) Herald Sun (Victoria) Sunday Herald Sun (Victoria) The Weekly Times (Victoria) Leader Newspapers (33 suburban Melbourne, VIC titles) MX (Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane CBD) The Geelong Advertiser (Geelong, Victoria) The Advertiser (South Australia) The Sunday Mail (South Australia) Messenger Newspapers (11 suburban Adelaide, SA titles) The Sunday Times (Western Australia) The Mercury (Tasmania) Quest Newspapers (19 suburban Brisbane, QLD titles) The Sunday Tasmanian (Tasmania) Northern Territory News (Northern Territory) The Sunday Territorian (Northern Territory) The Tablelands Advertiser (Atherton Tablelands and the Far North, Queensland) Fiji Fiji Times (National) (10%) Nai Lalakai (10%) Shanti Dut (10%) Papua New Guinea Papua New Guinea Post-Courier (National) (62.5%) UK and Ireland newspapers, published by subsidiaries of News International Ltd. News Group Newspapers Ltd. The Sun (published in Ireland as The Irish Sun) News of the World Times Newspapers Ltd. The Sunday Times The Times The Times Literary Supplement US newspapers and magazines The New York Post Community Newspaper Group The Brooklyn Paper Bronx Times-Reporter Brooklyn Courier-Life Queens Times Ledger Dow Jones & Company Consumer Media Group The Wall Street Journal Wall Street Journal Europe Wall Street Journal Asia Barron's - weekly financial markets magazine. Marketwatch - Financial news and information website. Far Eastern Economic Review Enterprise Media Group Dow Jones Newswires - global, real-time news and information provider. Factiva - provides business news and information together with content delivery tools and services. Dow Jones Indexes - stock market indexes and indicators, including the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Dow Jones Financial Information Services - produces databases, electronic media, newsletters, conferences, directories, and other information services on specialised markets and industry sectors. Betten Financial News - leading Dutch language financial and economic news service. Local Media Group Ottaway Community Newspapers - 8 daily and 15 weekly regional newspapers. STOXX (33%)- joint venture with Deutsche Boerse and SWG Group for the development and distribution of Dow Jones STOXX indices. Vedomosti (33%) - Russia's leading financial newspaper (joint venture with Financial Times and Independent Media). SmartMoney The Timesledger Newspapers of Queens, New York: Bayside Times, Whitestone Times, Flushing Times, Fresh Meadows Times, Little Neck Ledger, Jackson Heights Times, Richmond Hill Times, Jamaica Times, Laurelton Times, Queens Village Times, Astoria Times, Forest Hills Ledger, Ridgewood Ledger, Howard Beach Times The Courier-Life Newspapers in Brooklyn The Brooklyn Paper Caribbean Life Times-Herald Record (Middletown, New York) [edit] MagazinesNews America Marketing (Smartsource) (weekly Sunday newspaper coupon insert/website) Australian Alpha Magazine Australian Country Style Australian Golf Digest Australian Good Taste Big League BCME Delicious Donna Hay Fast Fours GQ (Australia) Gardening Australia InsideOut (Aust) Lifestyle Pools Live to Ride Notebook Overlander 4WD Modern Boating Modern Fishing Parents Pure Health Super Food Ideas Truck Australia Truckin' Life twowheels twowheels scooter Vogue (Australia) Vogue Entertaining & Travel Vogue Living InsideOut (UK Based Magazine) [edit] Music and radioFox Film Music Group [edit] RussiaNashe (50%) Best FM (50%) [edit] Sport50% of the National Rugby League (Australia and New Zealand) Majority ownership of the Brisbane Broncos (68.9%) and full ownership of the Melbourne Storm rugby league team. Colorado Rockies (15%) [edit] StudiosFox Filmed Entertainment: 20th Century Fox's parent company 20th Century Fox: a film production/distribution company Fox Searchlight Pictures - specialized films. Fox 2000 Pictures - general audience feature films. 20th Century Fox Television - primetime television programming. 20th Television - television distribution (syndication). Fox 21 - low scripted/budgeted television production company. Fox Television Studios (productions)- market specific programming e.g. COPS and network television company. Fox Television Studios International Fox World Productions Fox World Australia Fox TV Studios France Fox TV Studios India Natural History New Zealand - natural world documentaries, non-fiction programming. Fox Faith - Promotion and distribution of Christian and related "family friendly" movies on DVD and some theatrical release. Fox Studios Australia, Sydney, New South Wales Blue Sky Studios - production of CGI films e.g. Ice Age. Fox Entertainment Group New Regency Productions (20%) - general audience feature films. Regency Enterprises (20%) - parent company of New Regency Productions (50%). BSkyB Studios London, England FOX Star Studios New Delhi,India [edit] TVNews Corp agreed to sell eight of its television stations to Oak Hill Capital Partners for approximately $1.1 billion as of 22 December 2007. The stations are US Fox affiliates.[32]
India Hathway Cable & Datacom (22.2%), India's 2nd largest cable network through 7 cities including Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, Mumbai & Pune Taiwan Total TV (20%), Pay TV platform with JV partner KOO's Group majority owner (80%). News Corp also has a 20% interest in the KOO's Group directly [edit] InternetFox Interactive Media Foxsports.com - website with sports news, scores, statistics, video and fantasy sports Hulu (27%) - online video streaming site in partnership with NBC Universal and The Walt Disney Company. Flektor - provides Web-based tools for photo and video editing and mashups. IGN Entertainment - Internet entertainment portal (Includes the sites IGN, GameSpy, TeamXbox, and Askmen.com) Giga.de Slingshot Labs - web development incubator (Includes the sites DailyFill). Strategic Data Corp - interactive advertising company which develops technology to deliver targeted internet advertising. Scout.com WhatIfSports.com - sports simulation and prediction website. Also provides fantasy-style sports games to play. Indya.com - 'India's no. 1 Entertainment Portal' ROO Group Inc (5% increasing to 10% with performance targets) News Digital Media News.com.au - Australian-oriented news website News Lab CareerOne.com.au (50%) - recruitment advertisement website in partnership with Monster Worldwide. Carsguide.com.au in2mobi.com.au TrueLocal.com.au Moshtix.com.au – a ticket retailer Learning Seat Wego News owns minority stake in Wego.com Netus (75%) - investment co. in online properties. REA Group (60.7%) Realestate.com.au Casa.it (69.4%), Sky Italia also holds a 30.6% share atHome group, operator of leading realestate websites in Luxembourg, France, Belgium and Germany. Altowin (51%),provider of office management tools for realestate agents in Belgium. Propertyfinder.com (50%), News International holds the remaining 50% Sherlock Publications, owner of hotproperty.co.uk portal and magazine titles 'Hot Property', 'Renting' and 'Overseas' ukpropertyshop.co.uk, most comprehensive UK estate agent directory. PropertyLook, property websites in Australia and New Zealand. HomeSite.com.au, home renovation and improvement website. Square Foot Limited, Hong Kong's largest English Language property magazine and website Primedia - Holding co. of Inside DB, a Hong Kong lifestyle magazine. TadpoleNet Media (10%) Hosts of ArmySailor.com New Zealand DVD Unlimited - leading online DVD subscription service (ownership through stake in Sky Network Television). Fox Networks - one of the largest international ad networks. Expedient InfoMedia blog network. [edit] Other assetsNDS - Conditional access technology and personal digital video recorders (PVRs) (49%) Jungo Timothy Coville ITE, publisher of PlayStation and Mobile games, and interactive television Broadsystem Ltd (UK) - Telephony provider for media companies, bought in 1991 Broadsystem Australia (Australia) Broadsystem Ventures (UK) - provider of cheap-rate telephone calls, particularly for customers of Sky Television. Bought outright in 1999. Jamba! - Mobile Entertainment/Mobile Handsets Personalisation/Games. News Outdoor Group - Largest outdoor advertising company in Eastern Europe with over 70,000 ads including billboards and bus shelters, operating in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, India, Israel, Poland, Romania, Russia (96 cities), Turkey & Ukraine. Maximedia Israel (67%) Mosgorreklama (50%) - Russia sign and marketing material manufacturer Kamera Acikhava Reklamclik (?) - leading outdoor advertising company in Turkey Australian Associated Press (45%) - real time news service. Stats Inc (50%) - worlds leading provider of sporting information and statistical analysis (a JV with Associated Press) Fox Sports Grill (50%) - Upscale sports bar and restaurant with 7 locations - Scottsdale, Arizona; Irvine, California; Seattle, Washington; Plano, Texas; Houston, Texas; San Diego, California; and Atlanta, Georgia. Fox Sports Skybox (70%) - Sports fan's Bar & Grill at Staples Center and 6 airport restaurants. News America Marketing (US) - (100%) - nation’s leading marketing services company, products include a portfolio of in-store, home-delivered and online media under the SmartSource brand. Rotana (9%) - Largest Arab entertainment company owned by Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal The Daily - iPad only newspaper delivered daily. Making Fun - social game developer for making games for social networking sites, smartphones, tablets and other devices.[33]
Yes, seriously... each one of those is a seperate company that he owns UNDER the umbrella of News Corporation. And in addition to News Corporation, which is far and above his largest asset, he also owns a plethora of other smaller companies that aren't even worth mentioning.
So the fact that ONE person in ONE of his companies, waaaay down at the bottom did something stupid, he probably still doesn't even know about it yet. If he had to make a statement, or a comment every time a single person at any one of his companies did something stupid, the man would NEVER be able to get anything done. This is a guy who doesn't even read his own e-mails. He walks, signs paperwork that his assistant hands to him, and that's all he does. He focuses on the big picture. While the story is certainly upsetting... it's hardly something he really has time to deal with. People ALWAYS want to attach Rupert Murdoch to a conspiracy, or blame him for something.
You can think whatever you want about him... but as I said, he probably doesn't even know about this yet. He hires people to manage his companies, and it's for them to make the decisions about what to do and what not to do. To conceive that Rupert Murdoch had a direct hand in the actions of those two individuals from a single company out of the hundreds of corporations he owns (that are significantly more important), is ludacris.
The man is a shrewd businessman, and he's probably not a very nice guy either. Certainly, for his wealth, he barely made it into the top-50 charitable donors in the US.
What I do know is that News Corporation actually employs over a million employees throughout the world... 70% of which are positions that previously had NOT existed. There are actually TWO people on this Fiero List that I know of that are currently employed by News Corporation. Come on guys, you can speak out...
So honestly, T-Bone... I respect your opinions... but to think that Rupert Murdoch has anything to do with this, or even has the time to deal with it, is absolutely ludacris. This is nothing more than an attempt by the leftist media in Britain to prevent a full-scale take-over of the BSkyB network, to turn it into the Sky Network full time, which would undoubtedly mean a disintegration of several unions, as well as many of the liberal reporters getting canned.
It is what it is...
EDIT: I bet you weren't aware that he owned 300+ media outlets!!! One of the things too that's always been his signature trade-mark, is that most of the time when he buys a media outlet, he allows them to continue to function as they have, in their same creative outlet. That means, he allows dissenting opinions to his own. There are only two exceptions that this wasn't the case... when he bought the Wall Street Journal (he fired all the liberals) and when he first bought Sky News and then merged it with the BB company (forget what their real acronym was... it was B?B something...). All the other newspapers, outlets, etc... he's let them do what they may... he has a "hands-off" approach to them. If you knew this about him, like I do, you might not think that he's the conspirator in all of this...
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 07-06-2011).]
If you read the last article, it is him giving support to Rebekah Brooks. He noticed.
Please, we can have a discussion, but "It is what it is"?? Ugh, most annoying and useless expression used by human beings. Of course it is what it is, what else could it be???? lol Just messing with you Todd.
Yes, he is much like this Soros fellah some of you have been beating the drum on. The difference is I have known who Murdoch is for over a decade and I did not need Glenn Beck or any other political personality to point him out. I follow his actions, especially since he bought the Wall Street Journal I watch this foreigner VERY carefully.
It could be not what it is?
He hasn't been a foreigner for a very long time though... he's a US citizen.
Soros really is different, as much as I compared him, it was simply in terms of "hate" from one side of the political spectrum to the other. Soros has a lot of money, but he doesn't really employ very many people. He got almost all of his wealth through Wall Street speculation. So it should come to no surprise that he FULLY supported the Wall-Street bailout from Bush and Obama. He profited absolutely from that.
Soros owns several hedge funds, and investment firms... that's about it. Same with Warren Buffet. The two of them both re-invest their money into insurance.
The interesting thing is, however... that many on the far-left agree with Soros and Buffet's policies, but they know very little about the two individuals. On paper, both individuals go completely against the concepts and ideals that the radical left support. Soros and Buffet are two guys who basically reap millions of dollars monthly from Wall Street... essentially from private citizens 401ks through investments. With that, neither of them really ever re-invest any of that money in business, or in any form that creates employment for America. On the contrary... Rupert Murdoch employs over a million people world-wide. The number of people that Soros employs could be held in the smallest of stadiums. One group of men keep their money, and don't spend it... while another constantly re-invests every dime he gets into a new business.
Soros and Buffet have billions and billions more cash than Rupert Murdoch has... Murdoch is barely a wealthy individual because he ties up nearly all of his liquid cash in new investments...
Why the Democrats don't like Murdoch, or more specifically... WHY they like Soros and Buffet, is beyond me...
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 07-06-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:47 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
either way - this news organizations' hacking of the dead girls phone is highly distasteful, and the "big guy" is standing 100% behind the act.
it is what it is.
As JazzMan would say... "lies!!!"
To be clear, Rupert Murdoch is standing behind the CEO of the company that was affiliated with the incident. The lady who is the CEO also said she knew nothing about the hacking, which occured in 2002... almost 10 years ago. It should also be noticed that the company merely bribed the police officers in getting the information from the cell phones, so who really should be crucified here? The CEO of the company who's editor bribed the police officer, or the police officers who accepted the bribe?
Seriously... the fact that we're even talking about Rupert Murdoch is ridiculous. He stands behind the lady who is CEO of that tabloid because he knows that it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks. This occured in 2002... the fact that it's coming out now is ONLY because of the pending final media take-over of Sky News... which is currently over 30% owned by News Corporation anyway.
This quote should really be the telling issue for why this whole story is making news... almost 10 years later:
quote
The intense attention on the News of the World comes at a sensitive moment for Murdoch, who is seeking British government clearance to launch a full, multibillion-pound takeover of British Sky Broadcasting.
Britain's Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has insisted he will decide the issue purely on competition grounds, without regard to the behavior of the News of the World. But some members of Parliament are linking the two issues and demanding that Hunt block a takeover.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 07-06-2011).]
IP: Logged
03:28 PM
PFF
System Bot
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
lol - yes - I agree that 10 years later is kinda fishy - but - this is when we learned about it, isnt it?
There have been similar investigations into other editors from other tabloids that have hacked phones from terror suspects, celebrities, etc... those editors, many of them, have already served jail time... even ones that were as recent as 2005 have already had people serve jail time and are now out.
It's obvious to me that someone was keeping this particular one for a rainy day.
It also speaks volumes about how easily the police force there can be bribed.
Just my opinion, but he needs to apologize and set things straight by maybe selling the papers/news outlets that are not behaving morally or legally if he wants a clean image.Otherwise, to me, all these cases in the past as well as the current one, then he must condone it if he does not condemn it. Indeed, he is backing up the head of the News of the World.. so....
And Todd, with respect, George Soros really is not germane to the conversation. Its just a deflection. Start a thread on him if you want to point out his shortcomings or whatever... but I am just not sure how a comparison to Soros is valid in a conversation about Murdoch's people breaking the law.
Oh, Soros is ABSOLUTELY pertinent to this conversation. He is pertinent because I was explaining how the dislike of Soros from the Conservatives in America, are identical to the dislike of Murdoch from the Progressives in England. That in and of itself should explain heavily the bias associated with the articles that you're posting. It ABSOLUTELY is 100% pertinent.
For the majority here who have no idea who Murdoch is, or even understand the culture in England... I think it's worth mentioning that for the liberals... Murdoch is their arch-nemesis. He has fought for many years for conservative causes, and destroyed and disbanded many unions, most notably the printing unions with the help of Thatcher. Just as Soros has, on the flip-side been similarly supportive of the progressive movement here in America.
Soros is ABSOLUTELY relevant.
As for News of the World... the editors that were responsible for doing that don't even work for the newspaper anymore. What exactly is she supposed to do? If you condone it, then you are admitting guilt to it and then this becomes admissible in court which means that if they decide to settle, it's going to cost that arm of the company just that much more money. When Murdoch says he supports the CEO (which remember, had absolutely nothing to do with this), he's saying that he supports whatever it is that she decides to do... he doesn't care, let her make that decision.
TBone... you bust me now and then on things, and I relent and give in. This is a clear bias from these news articles, and it should be very obvious to you as to the timing of this. In addition, the family of the girl who was killed... now 10 years later is seeing dollar signs.
This has more to do with stopping a media conglomerate from taking over a news organization, than it does about a girl's cell phone messages getting used by an editor who was under pressure to produce.
Sorry Todd, if you believe there needs to be a comparison to Soros when Murdoch's shortcomings are mentioned, I can only conclude you believe both men are similar in some ways. Hmm.. thats interesting.
I dont think you believe that, because you seen to like Murdoch for whatever reason.
Me, on the other hand, I believe both men are similar too. Soros is a puppetmasterm and Murdoch is too. But thats STILL not germane. Murdoch is the topic, what happened in his newsrooms and what is happening as a result. You want to make comparisons, then ok. They are both puppet masters who have too much ambition, too much power and too much influence in the media and politics.
Easy for me to admit. Howabout you?
Now, back to the topic at hand. Why are CEOs not responsible for the illegal actions of their suboordinates. I'll give Murdoch the benefit of the doubt that he did not order it to happen of course, but he still is standing behind the people who are responsible for an illegal act. That dont sit right with me, and I cant respect a man who would.
I don't think you're intending to misrepresent what I'm saying... or you are simply misreading me... but I am NOT mentioning Soros BECAUSE you are mentioning Murdoch's shorcommings. I am mentioning Soros for the specific reason to explain the media bias towards Murdoch in England, that Soros sees from the right-leaning media here in America. This discussion we are having is not a chess match... so if you're trying to "catch" me on something, I'm not sure what it is. Do you not understand the analogy that I'm trying to make?
The men are BOTH very similar... they're both extremely powerful, and have similar attitudes that are presented to them. Case in point, the United States, despite what many think, is FAR more conservative than England. England, is FAR more liberal than America. So Soros is a perfect example (from our standpoint as Americans) to understand the "culture" that Murdoch is exposed to in England.
For one, I don't think that Murdoch particularly has short-comings other than the fact that I hear he's actually not a very personable guy. If you're not on his level of success, he really doesn't have time for you. He also is brutal in business and will crush any competition. This is exactly how Soros is, but I disagree with Soros's politics, and agree with Murdochs.
So... do we have THAT cleared? Or are you still confused as to why I've mentioned Soros? I just want you to understand VERY CLEARLY that it's a comparison of equal similarities from England to the United States. If you think I'm comparing the two for any other reason, I'm not exactly sure what... if you somehow think that I'm saying that because Murdoch is bad, that Soros is also bad, or something like that, that's NOT what I'm trying to say... because I actually don't believe that Murdoch is at all responsible and shares no guilt in this, so there would be no reason for me to try to make that distinction. Just throwing that out there if that's what you possibly insinuated from me.
NOW... as for the actions, let me explain to you how my mind is working, and how I've come to the conclusions that I have.
Murdoch is NOT the CEO of News of the World... Rebecca Brooks is. In "MY" eyes, I see this as really Rebecca's problem, not Murdoch's. With that being the case, my belief is that save for the parents of the girl, no one who is really making a big deal about this, really gives two shits about the murdered girl's phone. I think they are using this as a means of trying to prevent a media take-over. That's what I believe. The timing is too co-incidental... why now is this suddenly being made an issue almost 10 years later, when all the other cases have already been resolved a LONG time ago... I find it especially "fishy" (as Pyrth puts it) considering the timing...
For what it's worth, Murdoch declared that the act was "deplorable"... ( http://www.newsmax.com/Head...al&promo_code=C900-1 ) again, this is but one act, of a peon, at one of this 300+ companies, I would doubt seriously he had anything to do with it. Now that he's officially announced that this act was deplorable, what would you have him do? The current CEO of News of the World had nothing to do with it, and wasn't CEO at the time it happened. The two editors who were involved are no longer with the paper either as far as I could tell. What EXACTLY do you want Rupert Murdoch to do about this? You really think he should fire the CEO for something that was done BEFORE she was CEO and that she knew nothing about, had no involvement in, and had absolutely no control over anyway?
What is YOUR point? And where is your outrage about the police officers who were bribed to basically give access to this phone? Your posts are about Rupert Murdoch, why didn't you make posts about the corruption in the English police departments? Surely they had much more to do with this than Murdoch did... Murdoch didn't have anything to do with this, yet those officers had DIRECT involvement.
EDIT: Oh yeah, I'm not mad. No Homo...
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 07-06-2011).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: With that, neither of them really ever re-invest any of that money in business, or in any form that creates employment for America. On the contrary... Rupert Murdoch employs over a million people world-wide. The number of people that Soros employs could be held in the smallest of stadiums. One group of men keep their money, and don't spend it... while another constantly re-invests every dime he gets into a new business.
Soros and Buffet have billions and billions more cash than Rupert Murdoch has... Murdoch is barely a wealthy individual because he ties up nearly all of his liquid cash in new investments...
Why the Democrats don't like Murdoch, or more specifically... WHY they like Soros and Buffet, is beyond me...
Where do you get your mis-information??
Do you have any idea how much money these two alone have given back in terms of just philanthropy? If they don't employ people I guess they don't control the "leftist" media so we can certainly put that to rest.
The man is a shrewd businessman, and he's probably not a very nice guy either. Certainly, for his wealth, he barely made it into the top-50 charitable donors in the US.
There are actually TWO people on this Fiero List that I know of that are currently employed by News Corporation. Come on guys, you can speak out...
He actually is QUITE personable in 'real life'. Worked with him a few times after he bought WSJ...
Who else here works/worked for NewsCorp?
IP: Logged
01:26 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22738 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Do you have any idea how much money these two alone have given back in terms of just philanthropy? If they don't employ people I guess they don't control the "leftist" media so we can certainly put that to rest.
What mis-information? I never mentioned anything about their philanthropy... but certainly, I know that Soros gives a LOT of money. A lot of the money wouldn't be going to programs that I support, but that's not really the point of this post.
quote
Originally posted by FieroRumor:
He actually is QUITE personable in 'real life'. Worked with him a few times after he bought WSJ...
Who else here works/worked for NewsCorp?
Ahh, so you work for News Corp too... I think maybe I knew that already. There's another guy on here too who works for News Corp (one of the subsidiaries, not the main corporation). I don't really want to say the name though, it's not for me to out where people work.
But I suppose he is a nice guy... so long as you're not in the way of something he wants!!! hahah...
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 07-07-2011).]
Just messing with you Todd.
