23
   

Is this the beginning of the end of Rupert Murdoch's media empire?

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 04:33 am
@Setanta,
Excuse me? Surprised

I introduced the "US angle"?

Nope. It was George, then you followed right along. And kept right on going.

I've grown tired of this Setanta.

Do you actually have anything to say about Murdoch & media issues, or do you intend to bore us all by carrying on in this silly way?



Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 04:54 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
My issue is with the sweeping and unqualified judgment of a special commission concerning his moral character and his fittness to engage in commerce. I have so far believed that one of the distinguishing virtues of the Anglo Saxon tradition in law has been that it did not allow governments to make such judgments.
The Leveson Inquiry is, to my knowledge, an inquiry established under according to a law, namely the Inquiries Act 2005. The counsels to this inquiry are all very reputable barristers, in public and administrative law as well as in regulatory law, employment law etc.

There has been the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act since 1921 ...
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 04:56 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Lenin had his "irreconcilables" and Levinson has his Murdoch.
Comparing Lenin to a Lord Justice of Appeal for England and Wales and head of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales seems a bit strange in my eyes.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 05:06 am
@msolga,
Ever the bully . . . keep trashing your own thread, it's no skin off my nose.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 05:14 am
@Setanta,
Yeah, sure.
That would be clearly obvious from most of my posts to A2K! Wink Smile

Can we move on now?
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 05:41 am
Quote:
LIVE COVERAGE: Rebekah Brooks at the Leveson inquiry -
(so far)
• Discussed hacking allegations with Cameron in 2009-11
• Had 'informal role' in lobbying for News Corp's BSkyB bid
• Brooks denies Cameron texted her 12 times a day
• Says it was more like once a week, sometimes twice
• Brooks commiserated by Cameron, Osborne, Blair when left NI
• Disagreed with Murdoch on some political and editorial issues
• Spoke to Murdoch 'very frequently' when Sun editor
• Murdoch hosted her 40th birthday party; Blair was present
• 'Not embarrassed' to be described as Murdoch's 'top priority'
• Blair and his aides were 'constant presence in my life for years'
• 'Cameron didn't have input into timing of Sun backing Tories'
• Brooks: not fair to say politicians live in fear of newspapers
• Brooks discussed News Corp-Sky bid with Cameron, Osborne


Live Coverage:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2012/may/11/leveson-inquiry-rebekah-brooks-live
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 05:45 am
@msolga,
As i said, you're the one trashing the thread. If you want to move on, move on, don't keep hectoring me.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 06:00 am
@Setanta,
I already have moved on.
See post above yours.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 06:16 am
@msolga,
Live coverage will resume at 2pm .... about 45 minutes from now.
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 06:18 am
@msolga,
If you're still attempting to bully me, then you haven't moved on. It ends when you drop it.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 06:22 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
You are correct. The spelling I used has too many Jewish overtones for you. It was careless of me and I apologize for the error


I'm sorry George. I hadn't thought it was deliberate to draw my attention to a Jewish connection. I had not considered Mr Murdoch being Jewish. Is he?

Private Eye's long standing "Dirty Digger" appellation is lodged in my mind as an Australian coming here, like Germaine Greer, to subvert our national institutions using forms of populism which were as obvious as they were crude.

I am aware that our national institutions might have needed subverting. Or that there is a respectable argument that they did.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 06:35 am
@msolga,
Think of Setanta as you do the weather Olga.
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 06:40 am
@spendius,
What a fascinating morning of evidence that was. And more to come.

I'm not sure I am reading too much into things but I detect a subtle hint of hanky-panky, rumpy-pumpy goings on in South Oxfordshire country houses.
msolga
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 07:03 am
Quote:
Rebekah Brooks reveals ties to top politicians
Updated May 11, 2012 22:43:26/ABC News
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/2798350-3x4-340x453.jpg

Video: Rebekah Brooks faces the Leveson Inquiry (ABC News)
Related Story: Coulson told Cameron he 'knew nothing' about hacking
Related Story: Cameron in crossfire as Murdoch pressure mounts
Related Story: Murdoch 'not fit' to run News Corp
Map: United Kingdom


Former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks has told the British inquiry into media ethics that prime minister David Cameron was among the top politicians who commiserated with her when she was forced to resign over the phone-hacking scandal.

Brooks' testimony to the Leveson inquiry into media ethics revealed she had met frequently with Mr Cameron, lobbied key offices of government for the approval of a major Murdoch takeover bid and intervened in the long-running row between former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Dubbed by some the "fifth daughter" of Rupert Murdoch, Brooks edited the News of the World from 2000 to 2003 and went on to become the first female editor of The Sun daily tabloid, Britain's most widely read newspaper, for six years.

She confirmed her position as one of the most important executives in Murdoch's global empire with promotion to run the British newspaper arm, News International, from 2009 to 2011.

Mr Murdoch shut the News of the World in July when it emerged its journalists had hacked into the voicemail of public figures and a murdered schoolgirl.

The impression that the prime minister and finance minister George Osborne surrounded themselves with a coterie of privileged individuals for cosy dinners and horse riding in the English countryside has been pounced on by critics.

Lawyer Robert Jay cut straight to the chase as Brooks began her day-long testimony, pressing her for names of politicians who had expressed sympathy when she was caught up in the hacking storm in July 2011.

At first Brooks sought to evade the question, but eventually said: "I received some indirect messages from Number 10, Number 11, the Home Office, the Foreign Office."

Numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street are the prime minister's and finance minister's offices respectively.

Asked if she had indirectly received a message from Mr Cameron to "keep her head up" in the week she stood down, as reported by the Times, she said: "Along those lines. I don't think they were the exact words."

Mr Cameron also sent a message to Brooks via an intermediary, explaining that he could not remain loyal to her publicly because opposition leader Ed Miliband "had him on the run" over his cosy relationship with top people in the Murdoch empire. ...<cont>


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-11/rebekah-brooks-lays-ties-bare-at-ethics-inquiry/4006980
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 08:23 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
My issue is with the sweeping and unqualified judgment of a special commission concerning his moral character and his fittness to engage in commerce. I have so far believed that one of the distinguishing virtues of the Anglo Saxon tradition in law has been that it did not allow governments to make such judgments.
The Leveson Inquiry is, to my knowledge, an inquiry established under according to a law, namely the Inquiries Act 2005. The counsels to this inquiry are all very reputable barristers, in public and administrative law as well as in regulatory law, employment law etc.

There has been the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act since 1921 ...


I have no quarrel whatever, Walter, with the legal framework behind the inquiry. It appears to have been duly constituted; staffed with well-qualified professionals; and, from the parts I watched on Television, conducted with acceptable legal process. My issue is solely with the sweeping conclusion it made with respect to a person who has not been convicted of any crime in the matter of any kind. That is not in keeping with standards of justice that are in keeping with our legal tradition, or, as I understand it, that of the UK.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 08:24 am
@Setanta,
Why don't you get your head out of your arse? You are not being bullied, you're being disagreed with.

I don't know what's wrong with you, but I think you'd better see a doctor to try to find out why you're acting like a three year old right now.

It would also help if you actually found something out about Levenson, before launching these rather petty attacks on all and sundry.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 08:48 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

Quote:
No detectable reaction here to the moral condemnation of Mr. Murdoch at all. We know better than to assume our media are anything other than self-serving and commercially oriented.

George, about a week ago, your US Senate Committee, which regulates the media, contacted the Leveson Inquiry asking it to share its evidence.
I think that's a reaction, yes?

And in response to this part of the Committee's request, Rupert Murdoch is a US citizen:
"I would like to know whether any of the evidence you are reviewing suggests that these unethical and sometimes illegal business practices occurred in the US or involved US citizens."


Yes, strictly speaking that is a reaction. The Democrat chairman of a Senate Committee has requested information that may have arisen in the Leveson inquiry concerning crimes committed in the U.S. Given the political persuasion of the Senator involved, this is easy enough to understand. However, given that the hearings were conducted in a public venue; that the focus was entirely on evenus that may have occurred in the UK; and that the inquiry's judgments so far have focused on the moral character of the person in question and not on the persecution of crimes he may be charged with; - I see little possibility of anything coming of it.

There's lots of left-leaning liberal media here which oppose the viewpoint expressed by local elements of the Murdoch media empire, and have ample reason to exploit any vulnerability on his part and a strong record of doing so wherever they can. So far the story hasn't raised much interest in the public domain here. Moreover, I believe the sweeping judgment expressed by the Inquiry about the moral character of one individual in the midst of all the political maneuverings around him has made it look a bit silly and self-righteous to many Americans.

I have no argument with vigorous prosecution of various crimes that may have attended the phone hacking incidents, etc. I believe such moral judgments should await actual conviction for actual crimes under the law.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 09:43 am
@georgeob1,
So george, how do you feel about enforcing the anti-bribery laws in the US? Do you think the US should do that and punish those companies that bribe officials overseas?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 10:13 am
@spendius,
Recess.

This coverage today is about as fascinating as fascinating gets to a literary mind. What it actually means? Getting past all the rights and wrongs and partisan positions such as Mr Jay QC's chance to pirouette his stuff in a manner Cicero might have managed, at a stretch, were he to be faced with a society as complex as ours is which yet betrays under close scrutiny to be not dissimilar to a world populated by what Mr Blair called "feral beasts".

Kings may well be feral beasts but they also may not be. Democracy is showing signs of producing a world in which we have no chance of anything else to rule us but feral beasts. aka "Core Participants".

The show confirms that the movers and shakers in Mediacorps take virtually no interest in the content of the vast bulk of any newspaper. They may ask the gardening editor to write a puff for a Miracle Grow product as a favour to a golfing chum with an interest in horticulture.

Or suggest to the Classified Advertising Manager that motorised dildos should be moved from Personal Services to Plant, Machinery and Tools.

Or complain to the Features Editoress that the "tall, dark, handsome stranger" routine in the Your Fortune in the STARS column is getting a trifle passe.

In Michael Frayn's book Towards the End of the Morning (he's an optimist. Dylan has the night coming steppin' in.) Mr Frayn has the crossword compiler pass away and his colleagues finding the next ten years crossword puzzles piled up in his desk. And he has been in post so long that nobody can remember when he started. I think Mr Frayn was suggesting, in line with the findings of behavioural psycholgy, that anybody who had solved all the crosswords this old eccentric had complied had had their mind brought into congruence with his. The large pile of future crosswords, which were used, might make some think that compiling crosswords is more addictive than solving them. Possibly with formulations in physics as well.

The sports results probably go straight in by electronic transference without anybody in the newspaper seeing them. The same with stock prices. Texts from other sources will have to be touched up to make them look original.

All that stuff, and much more, is of little or no concern, except for minor adjustments, to these people. It's the top of the greasy pole and the amusement is directly proportional to the determination of the scrambling. To a literary mind I mean.

I must say that the lady did very well all things considered. The soul of discretion even under the goadings of Mr Jay: an excellent example of the modern Inquisition.



0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 May, 2012 10:31 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I have no quarrel whatever, Walter, with the legal framework behind the inquiry. It appears to have been duly constituted; staffed with well-qualified professionals; and, from the parts I watched on Television, conducted with acceptable legal process. My issue is solely with the sweeping conclusion it made with respect to a person who has not been convicted of any crime in the matter of any kind. That is not in keeping with standards of justice that are in keeping with our legal tradition, or, as I understand it, that of the UK.


To be clear George it was a Parliamentary Committee which declared that Mr Murdoch was an "unfit" person and that was based on a one vote majority with the Conservatives being defeated. And such a committee is perfectly entitled to conclude as it did and announce it.

The Leveson Enquiry has made no pronouncents. Indeed the Judge readily admits the perplexities he is faced with in what he called "the grey area" once. He refers to it in other ways. Waving his fingers about for example.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 07:54:09