Is Rupert Murdoch’s Media Empire a Threat to Democracy?
SodaHead News
2010/09/13 20:28:48
|
|
|||||
|
36 votes
|
|
47% | |||
|
41 votes
|
|
53% | |||
Fans of Rupert Murdoch’s conservative news empire likely shook their heads last week when The New York Times published a Sunday magazine cover story on the growing scandal involving Murdoch's News of the World tabloid.
But the Times is hardly alone in its questioning the legality and moral bankruptcy behind allegations that editors and reporters at the London tattle sheet engaged in the mass hacking of voicemails and phones of members of parliament, the royal family, soccer stars, celebrities and other public figures.
The English media is also piling on the scandal, with the Guardian posting an op-ed on Sunday in which two columnists wrote that billionaire media mogul Murdoch is “a problem for British society and the News of the World phone-hacking story … is a symptom of the chronic malignity of his power...”
But, the Guardian argued, in creating such a vast network of media properties in England, “Murdoch has become one of the political issues of our time, as menacing in his own special way to democracy and conduct of politics as many other threats our society faces...”
Guardian columnists Henry Porter and Will Hutton lamented the shadow of secrecy invoked by Australian-born Murdoch’s vast U.K. media web in the wake of the phone hacking story, saying that the media mogul, an American citizen, has one overriding concern.
"It is as though we had handed over a huge chunk of British agricultural land or given up our food distribution networks to a relentless foreign corporation," wrote Porter and Hutton.
It was also noted that no British political party has succeeded in an election in the past 30 years without Murdoch’s blessing and that his News International group appears to “regard itself as above the law of the land.”
Is Rupert Murdoch’s Media Empire a Threat to Democracy?
But the Times is hardly alone in its questioning the legality and moral bankruptcy behind allegations that editors and reporters at the London tattle sheet engaged in the mass hacking of voicemails and phones of members of parliament, the royal family, soccer stars, celebrities and other public figures.
The English media is also piling on the scandal, with the Guardian posting an op-ed on Sunday in which two columnists wrote that billionaire media mogul Murdoch is “a problem for British society and the News of the World phone-hacking story … is a symptom of the chronic malignity of his power...”
But, the Guardian argued, in creating such a vast network of media properties in England, “Murdoch has become one of the political issues of our time, as menacing in his own special way to democracy and conduct of politics as many other threats our society faces...”
Guardian columnists Henry Porter and Will Hutton lamented the shadow of secrecy invoked by Australian-born Murdoch’s vast U.K. media web in the wake of the phone hacking story, saying that the media mogul, an American citizen, has one overriding concern.
"It is as though we had handed over a huge chunk of British agricultural land or given up our food distribution networks to a relentless foreign corporation," wrote Porter and Hutton.
It was also noted that no British political party has succeeded in an election in the past 30 years without Murdoch’s blessing and that his News International group appears to “regard itself as above the law of the land.”
Is Rupert Murdoch’s Media Empire a Threat to Democracy?
Top Opinion
-
No
+10You liberals are out of your minds. Fox News is the counter thesis of the Marxism that you all embrace along with your "chosen one" Obama. This is a classic example...big on innuendo with no facts (or links) to support it. It is the way the Kool-Aid drinkers spread their propaganda.
Boy it's tough when you don't have all of the media in your back pocket huh?
Free press is a cornerstone of democracy whether or not you agree with the message being put out there by the media.
SodaHead is 100% correct in calling "News of the World" a tabloid. Same is true of "FOXNews". Including news in the title - with the tagline "Fair and Balanced"; these are the BIGGEST lies in the media world.
I at least give Glenn Beck credit for labeling himself an entertainer. Not reporter. Not commentator. Not pundit. Entertainer (and I would probably extend that to "evangelical entertainer".) But at least he is being forthright about the nature of what he does.
As for Murdoch, and his (so-called) Newscorp - moral bankruptcy is an apt description. We'll see if his actions cross the line from simply immoral, to illegal. On the money reporting and analysis - Sodahead.
I don't defend Murdoch or what he does. But I will defend his right to freedom of the press. It'd be a sad world that only listened to one side of every story... Oh wait, it already is a sad world.
Correction: which is what they ALL do. It would be extremely naive to think otherwise. I'm not defending Murdoch, I'm simply pointing out the fact that the same thing happens amongst all media. Because Murdoch is the "one of these things is not like the other" guy in media (being that he's conservative and the rest are almost entirely liberal, he gets attacked more than anyone. They all do what he's does.
Pulling up a graphic on Murdoch's media empire does nothing to prove your point, it only shows that you're guilty of the very thing you're accusing him of being: being full of distortion and lies and misinformation as it doesn't show the FULL picture, only Murdoch's relatively small piece of the money media pie.
Pulling up a graphic of the enormous extent of the Murdoch empire globally has no distortion. It is simply factual. PS Watch Crosstalk on RT for some good political debate with a global context.
I would that we had several news wire services and some fact checkers after the receipt….but, ce la vie, it is what it is….so read several sources, and then decide.
The news industry stopped reporting the facts and investigating in the 90's ironically after a lawsuit against FOX by a group of it's reporters and the following appeal which FOX won because the courts determined there is no law ordering truthfulness in the media. This victory by FOX spread like wildfire and more than ever we sudden;t begin to see beauty queens, comedians and anyone with access to a radio station suddenly becomes "news people" only they shifted news away from fact gathering and telling us the facts to reporting on news events as news entertainers and analysts meaning... they only give us their opinions about the news and through those opinions manipulate us into thinking they're presenting the truth when they are only presenting their opinions of the truth whether it be false or they haven't got a clue what they are talking about.
I actually first thought to myself when I heard about this story that it's about time some reporters showed some balls and began taking risks again to get the story and if these political leaders have nothing to hide, ...
The news industry stopped reporting the facts and investigating in the 90's ironically after a lawsuit against FOX by a group of it's reporters and the following appeal which FOX won because the courts determined there is no law ordering truthfulness in the media. This victory by FOX spread like wildfire and more than ever we sudden;t begin to see beauty queens, comedians and anyone with access to a radio station suddenly becomes "news people" only they shifted news away from fact gathering and telling us the facts to reporting on news events as news entertainers and analysts meaning... they only give us their opinions about the news and through those opinions manipulate us into thinking they're presenting the truth when they are only presenting their opinions of the truth whether it be false or they haven't got a clue what they are talking about.
I actually first thought to myself when I heard about this story that it's about time some reporters showed some balls and began taking risks again to get the story and if these political leaders have nothing to hide, then their private communications will prove it. Of course, if you get caught doing it, it's still illegal and as a reporter you pay the price... but at least they were actively trying to get the news and not just sitting in a news studio giving us their opinion about the news or reading someone elses opinions because they're nothing but fluff with no minds of their own.
You have noticed I'm sure that most female news personalities look like they stepped off a beauty pageant runway... well, a huge number of them did. Then you have blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Ed Schultz trying to bully everyone into believing them and talking tough or pulling emotional brainwashing on us like Olbermanns permanent case of road rage and Becks fake tears.
The most honest news personality I have seen today is Jon Stewart... a comedian by trade whose doing this entirely for fun and to portray everything as a joke. Unfortunately, that's what news entertainment is today... it's all a joke, just a big joke and we're the ones getting a face full of joker venom every time we tune in to watch the news.
Maybe Murdoch is wrong and maybe he has too much power. But if there are no laws requiring the media to be truthful and just present the facts, then who the hell gave him so much power to manipulate the masses like a lying politician until he becomes like the unelected President of the country? And while Murdoch may be the man we see most because the political left has demonized him into the greatest evil of our time... I'm far more worried about the heads of the other networks controlled by corporations acting like the heads of every leftwing special interest group in the country and using that power to control the Senate, Congress and Parliament in Britain... if Murdoch wants to be the President, then the opposition we hear little from or quickly forget must want to be our Congress and Senate since there's only one Conservative network and many Liberals ones.
I don't like Murdock nor FOX News. But unlike the political left, I see all the networks as being no different and at least FOX gives the political right a voice which the other networks clearly do not unless you mean people like Pat Buchanan hired to make the right look the way the left wants the right to be seen.
How about this guy who got 700 billion to bail out his wall street buddys with an email to the white house stating that if he did not get the funds quickly that the sky was going to fall.
Shifty Paulson
We're way off base here, Murdoch is definately a threat to America. Watch this little video clip where He openly admits slanting the news toward Bush.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The most logical explanation for Kennedy's assasination is that he had established an executive order to reissue "silver certificates" as a competing currency with the Federal reserve Note. They were called "US Notes" and had already been issued into circulation. He intended to promote these US Notes to the people of America, explaining to them the need for a sound money system as opposed to the fiat money system we have under the Federal Reserve. This would have been disastrous to the Fed as people would definitely have re-learned what had been forgotten by their parents and grandparents... Fiat money is ultimately worthless! If Kennedy had succeeded in his efforts with US Notes it would have meant the collpase of the Federal Reserve system. And anyone who has researched the origins of the Fed would understand that Kennedy was supposed to be their puppet. He defied them in a way that would have ensured their downfall, and they decided to take him out as a threat to their agenda.
That is the most logical explanation for his assasination. If you don't know what this is about I would recommend you google "US Notes" first, then google "America: Freedom to Fascism" to understand where the Fed came from.
I'm very well versed on the origin of the Fed. I wish I could say the same for 95% of the rest of the population. If they understood the truth about banks there COULD possibly be a revolution by tomorrow morning, as Henry Ford said. But then again, possibly not, as the laziness and indifference of the American people has been well documented.
And no, Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT that good a shot. :)
I have to admit that I'm not very well versed on the specifics of the Vince Foster "suicide". However I have seen more than enough evidence to convince me that Bill and Hillary have been directly responsible for the deaths of many people. Bill is a sadistic bastard! But what less would you expect from a guy who came from nothing and was indoctrinated into the ranks of a top level player in the New World Order agenda. He's a devil in disguise, if there ever was one. And it has to be evident to anyone that Hillary teamed up with him to accrue her own level of power. She's a cut-throat as well.