Quantcast

Is Rupert Murdoch’s Media Empire a Threat to Democracy?

SodaHead News 2010/09/13 20:28:48
You!
Add Photos & Videos
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?
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Robert 2010/09/13 23:08:26 (edited)
    No
    Robert
    +10
    You 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.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Art or Gunny 2011/07/07 16:13:11
    No
    Art or Gunny
    Is George Sorros or the Huffington Press any more of a threat to democracy than Murdock and the Post, also when did the NYT ever print a non-partisan political article, by the way the NYT never hesitates to print anything that jepordzes national defense or the protection of indivuals tasked with nat defense, people that live in glass houses etc
  • MichaelJ 2011/07/07 15:10:28 (edited)
    No
    MichaelJ
    The only threat he poses is to the 'pet ' media of liberal causes. It's been uncomfortable for liberals since it's creation and they just aren't used to any freedom in the media that highlights the hypocrisy of liberal thought.



    Boy it's tough when you don't have all of the media in your back pocket huh?
  • Ssgtwaldo 2011/07/07 08:40:05
    No
    Ssgtwaldo
    The truth is no threat to democracy. While the liberal SH once again worries and lies about an Empire Builder while supporting a nation destroyer and his puppet!

    Photobucket
  • J39203 2011/07/06 22:02:55
    No
    J39203
    Not completly sure myself about media empire being threat to democracy
  • Casey 2011/07/06 16:24:52
    No
    Casey
    No more than the New York Times is a threat to democracy by shoving liberalism down people's throats.

    Free press is a cornerstone of democracy whether or not you agree with the message being put out there by the media.
  • Mondovibe 2010/09/30 18:46:51
    Yes
    Mondovibe
    Murdoch & News Corp a transnational corporations that owns the majority market share of our media and donated a cool million to Republican Governors race, only cares about profiteering by nursing people's worst instincts instead of critical thinking skills for sound debate for solutions to our critical challenges...this is a threat to democracy. Support expansion of Independent journalistic news!
  • Casey Mondovibe 2011/07/06 16:28:31
    Casey
    News Flash: The media is a for profit venture regardless of which side of the aisle they stand on. There's no such thing as "independent" or "unbiased" journalism as long as money is the main goal. It's no more a threat than any other media outlet out there today doing the same things as Murdoch and company but from the liberal viewpoint.
  • trentinafur 2010/09/16 06:41:04 (edited)
    Yes
    trentinafur
    +2
    I hope this guy ends up in jail. He blatantly uses his media empire for his own personal political agenda. Note last month's $1m contribution to the GOP governors. A media company contributing to a political party? Redefines the phrase "conflict of interests".

    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.
  • Stormy 2010/09/16 06:22:41
    Yes
    Stormy
    +3
    FOX " NEWS " IS PROPAGANDA DESIGNED TO GET POOR IDIOTS TO SUPPORT TAX CUTS FOR MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES. WAKE UP PEOPLE.!!!
  • Casey Stormy 2011/07/06 16:30:01
    Casey
    +1
    That's right, WAKE UP PEOPLE!... and listen to the propaganda coming from the other media outlets instead! Lol
  • Stormy Casey 2011/07/19 05:03:08
    Stormy
    You mean like these other media outlets for example ? media outlets Rupert Murdochs newspaper empire
  • Casey Stormy 2011/08/09 17:18:34
    Casey
    Ha, I love how you show a graphic (God knows where it came from) and then make it out to be as if Rupert Murdoch's media empire has the media market dominated. That couldn't be further from the truth as that's only a fraction of all the media of the world, the vast majority of which is liberal spin.

    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.
  • Stormy Casey 2011/09/17 10:21:42
    Stormy
    I got the graphic by typing in Murdoch media empire. He has his tenticles in three continents and has swayed elections with his lies and distortion. News should not be full of distortion and lies. When people don't get access to good information, democracy suffers. Democracy needs an informed public, not one fed nothing but misinformation and distortion, which is what Fox does.
  • Casey Stormy 2011/09/28 01:33:33
    Casey
    "which is what Fox does."

    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.
  • Stormy Casey 2012/02/09 05:03:47
    Stormy
    Fox News by it's very nature distorts facts. Putting a bunch of overpaid commentators on the screen so they can spew their very biased opinions is not exactly investigative journalism is it ? What it is, is fake " News ". Designed only to sway opinion by it's endless repetition and lack of intellectual debate with the same old tired faces mouthing the same drivel. Anyone with a different opinion is usually shouted down or drowned out, and is anything but fair and balanced. If you want to watch News that truly explores a wide range of opinions from a wide range of experts, try watching RT. Russia Today. It is not politically biased, it looks at all the facts and facets of a topic and is extremely informative and stretches the intellect instead of insulting it as Fox does.
    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.
  • Brian 2010/09/15 01:01:28
    Yes
    Brian
    I can't imagine anyone other than those he his media outlets have indoctrinated thinking otherwise.
  • TombstoneJim 2010/09/14 19:43:06
    Yes
    TombstoneJim
    +2
    I don't LIKE anyone being in charge of so much of the information spectrum. Having watched Al Jazzerah for a time in Iraq and the Pravda offerings of the former Soviet empire, I have a basic distrust of the news media....the truth generally speaking lies somewhere between CNN and Fox......so, the more players in a particular arena the less efficient and more transparent they tend to be...

    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.
  • chaoskitty123 2010/09/14 17:55:56
    No
    chaoskitty123
    +1
    Look who owns the media in the US... all of them are owned by corporations. Even your local television stations are owned by corporations who own these affiliates as a franchise operation just as they own newspapers.

    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, ...







    Look who owns the media in the US... all of them are owned by corporations. Even your local television stations are owned by corporations who own these affiliates as a franchise operation just as they own newspapers.

    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.
    (more)
  • EinsteinsGhost 2010/09/14 16:44:50
    Yes
    EinsteinsGhost
    +1
    But, my dining table disagrees with me. Its got the same intellect as those dedicated Fox News supporters.
  • Dano 2010/09/14 16:38:06
    No
    Dano
    Negative

    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



    buddys email white house stating funds sky fall shifty paulson
  • Theodon 2010/09/14 16:00:34
    No
    Theodon
    +2
    Is this a case of the kettle calling the spoon black?
  • Poppa Blues 2010/09/14 15:21:18
    No
    Poppa Blues
    +1
    Awww sounds to me like there's a lot of complaining about a News organization keeping a close eye on government! Isn't that the purpose of the press, to investigate power? To be a skeptic of those with influence on public policy? On the other hand if the press were to become the mouthpiece for those in power than we'd have a real problem, kind of like the problem we have now in America with the mainstream media basically a cheer leading squad for the administration the people have only one source they can rely on that will question and be the skeptic, Murdoch's Fox News.
  • kehvan 2010/09/14 14:50:19
    No
    kehvan
    +1
    The only way Murdoch could be a threat to "democracy", which I take it to mean "democratically election of representatives", is if he were able to shutdown the competition and make all politicians use his networks.
  • Ergosum 2010/09/14 14:19:47
    No
    Ergosum
    +1
    Rupert Murdoch has restored the balance of truth to the media. Fox and his other media outlets may lean right, so what? I say it is about time. Murdoch is a hero and an American success story. If he can get under the skin of the Socialist left, politically correct police, then any of us can. So speak my conservative friends and speak loudly. Shout at the top of your lungs and I quote the profundity of Ice Cube and N.W.A. when I say "F@#$ - the - Po-leece!"
  • merlinskiss 2010/09/14 13:57:05
    Yes
    merlinskiss
    +1
    All biased news media are a threat because of the biased and oftentimes inaccurate propaganda they spout out!
  • Silvershadows 2010/09/14 13:34:51
    No
    Silvershadows
    +2
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Besides, we're not a Democracy----we're a Democratic Republic.
  • Art Tro... Silvers... 2010/09/14 13:56:47
    Art Trombley
    Well then please explain why bush tried to export Democracy around the planet?
  • Silvers... Art Tro... 2010/09/14 14:13:05
    Silvershadows
    Perhaps it's an easier theory to understand?? I believe he was talking about a Democracy that is a Republic. Representative Government with the people choosing their reps. A true Democracy always fails.
  • Art Tro... Silvers... 2010/09/14 14:42:13
    Art Trombley
    +1
    Every Democracy has a Representative Government, Even Our Capitol building isn't big enough for All Americans to have a seat in it. Being a Represenative Government is just common sense, but I tell My Rep. and Senators what to do and if they don't do as I say, I vote them out next election cycle. That makes America a Democracy. Far right Republicans don't like the word "Democracy" because it sounds too much like Democrat, where as "Republic" sounds much more like Republican, ahh, isn't that easier on the ears?, well, Your ears anyway. lol.
    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?...
  • kehvan Art Tro... 2010/09/14 14:52:30
    kehvan
    +1
    You need to crack open a book, because you're knowledge is lacking.
  • Art Tro... kehvan 2010/09/14 15:08:07
    Art Trombley
    +1
    Kevhan, I've forgotten more about Government and American History than You will ever know. :-) You need realize which side has Your best interest in mind. :-/ I'm being kind here.
  • kehvan Art Tro... 2010/09/14 15:29:19
    kehvan
    +2
    Yeah, sure, right... You're a babbling fool.
  • Silvers... Art Tro... 2010/09/14 15:39:50
    Silvershadows
    +1
    We could debate the fine points but that's nonsense. If we were a pure Democracy the election would go to the one who received the most votes. Wouldn't need the electoral college. It would, however, put those states with the lower population/voter base at a disadvantage. Doesn't everyone slant their views?? To support what they want? Hey, didn't like Bush?? His popularity is higher than Obe's now.
  • Art Tro... Silvers... 2010/09/14 16:14:08
    Art Trombley
    I agree with You about the Electoral College, it has outlived its necessity, but it really doesn't have much to do with what Our form of Government is. Yes I agree that the popular vote should be the deciding factor in any race, if only We could make that retroactive to the year 2,000, things would be so much different than they are today.
  • Silvers... Art Tro... 2010/09/14 17:11:41
    Silvershadows
    +1
    Hee, hee----obvious Bush hater?? Let's just make it retroactive to say, Kenney and Nixon? Yeah, things are a lot better now, aren't they?
  • Art Tro... Silvers... 2010/09/15 00:14:50 (edited)
    Art Trombley
    I don't know why Your laughing, there was nothing funny about the Bush years, all 8 of them. I don't hate Him but I sure don't like Him either. It's a good thing He couldn't get 4 more, We'd be at war with Iran as well.Not one single big ticket issue that Bush caused to happen was paid for. Now We have to pay the piper, and the same guys that drove the Bus off the road want more tax cuts. Just for the record, The Bush tax cuts marked the first time in the History of the United States that tax rates were reduced during a time of war. What about Kennedy/Nixon ?. Kennedy won both the popular and the Electoral, or am I misremembering?.
  • Silvers... Art Tro... 2010/09/15 13:54:24
    Silvershadows
    +1
    On Kennedy and Nixon you're correct. Actually, I liked Kennedy and he may?? have been offed because he was considering lowering taxes! Government types hate that. Of course, government spends the money better than those who earned it?? Obe and his followers want to raise taxes, again. He's outspent Bush in just two years. We're trillions in debt and yes past governments are to blame too. Obe is a threat on steroids. Libera/progressive modes of government don't work well----unless, we ALL have to be equal in everything? When does accountability, responsibily, work and creation come into play?? If you work hard or are just plain lucky you deserve to keep, spend, invest and enjoy the fruits of your labor. No one else earned it. Certainly not government. Government keeps buying votes with the entitlements. You just don't like that theory, do you? If you support big goernment (the Healthcare Bill will create over 150 new Federal agencies not counting new state agencies)----you are part of the problem.
  • Steve ☮... Silvers... 2010/09/15 15:36:24
    Steve ☮ R ☮ P ☮ 2012 ☮
    "Kennedy... may?? have been offed because he was considering lowering taxes!"

    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.
  • Silvers... Steve ☮... 2010/09/16 03:40:28
    Silvershadows
    Not bad----I was wondering and hoping you might understand. It was simpler to use 'taxes'. Do you know where the Federal Reserve system came from?? Was Lee Harvey that good of a shot? or did he have help?? Let's get off base a bit, was Vince set up by/for Hillary??
  • Steve ☮... Silvers... 2010/09/16 18:57:15
    Steve ☮ R ☮ P ☮ 2012 ☮
    +1
    Glad you understand. It's draining having to always post this stuff over and over again to people who like to bitch about how America is going down hill but don't want to take any initiative to understand how and why.

    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.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/20 11:07:35

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals