Quote:

---

News Corporation said its net income, driven largely by its strong cable television division, was $937 million in the third quarter, which ended March 31, or 38 cents a share, compared with $639 million, or 24 cents a share, in the period a year earlier.

Revenue was up 2 percent to $8.4 billion because of double-digit gains at cable channels like Fox News and FX, which has enjoyed a ratings increase on the strength of original dramas like “Justified.”

Chase Carey, News Corporation’s president and chief operating officer, strongly objected to a British parliamentary panel’s report last week that said Rupert Murdoch, the company’s chairman and chief, was “not a fit person” to lead a major corporation.

“I flatly reject the report’s notion that Rupert is unfit to run a major media company,” Mr. Carey said on a conference call with analysts and reporters. “He’s one of the smartest, most forward thinking executives of our time, and both the board and I rebuff any notion that he is unfit to run this company.”

He said the company had no expectations that it would have to divest its 39 percent stake in the British Sky Broadcasting Group. The British regulatory body Ofcom is investigating whether News Corporation is “fit and proper” to hold a broadcast license. News Corporation’s equity earnings from its BSkyB stake were $262 million in the quarter.

News Corporation has largely appeased investors despite the tumult at its British businesses with an aggressive $5 billion stock repurchasing program. The company said Wednesday that it would extend its buyback program by an additional $5 billion to be completed roughly by the end of the 2013 fiscal year.

The increased stock buyback was announced as investigations into wrongdoing at the company’s British publishing unit, News International, continue to weigh on News Corporation’s reputation, if not its bottom line.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/news-corp-profits-inc
rease-despite-scandal/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BLUEHANDEDMENACE:
Nobody ever claimed Murduch wasn't an expert when it comes to profits....did they? Or are you creating a strawman to argue against, as usual?

---

Quote:

---

You really dont understand the difference between an opinion and a fact do you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Only someone as vile as Rappy would celebrate the success of the corrupt.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BLUEHANDEDMENACE:
Thanks Niki, glad to be of service.

Obviously however, if I am going to fit in around here, I need to up my snark quotient. This may be the only community on Earth where that is true for me, as its a rare room where I am not the snarkiest, most sarcastic person there. (Just ask my family)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BLUEHANDEDMENACE:
No. But I do enjoy watching him try to justify his absurd claims, it makes my workday go faster.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BLUEHANDEDMENACE:
No. But I do enjoy watching him try to justify his absurd claims, it makes my workday go faster.

---

That it does.

I also find its almost a pallet cleanser. If I have to deal with some idiot in real life, I know I can always come here to find someone dumber.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BLUEHANDEDMENACE:
Actually, its more like we're ignoring your point, as it has no meaning or value.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BLUEHANDEDMENACE:
Actually, its more like we're ignoring your point, as it has no meaning or value.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Actually, y'all aren't. And my " point " was merely to post this article, which simply states facts. NC is still making a profit, legally, which is what Murdoch is suppose to do, as the head of the company. It says exactly that, or did you not even bother to read ?

How is this even an issue?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by whozit:
Did they pay their taxes? GE (NBC) didn't pay any.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Only someone as vile as Rappy would celebrate the success of the corrupt.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

---

Vile as me ? How so, exactly ?

Murdoch is doing his job properly. He's ' fit ' to run a corporation, as he's accomplishing his duties. Unless and until it can be shown that HIS actions yielded profit to the Corp. in an unlawful manner, it's just hysterics on the part of some to claim outright corruption.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

There is no limit to how totally correct and honest Raptor can be.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Murdoch is head of a company that has regularly engaged in illegal activities, including phonetapping, bribery of police and government officals. You think that there is nothing wrong with condoning breaking the law? Do you think, as clearly Murdoch does, that profit overrides morality and the law?

Don't forget, the hacking wasn't just of celebraties, but families of murdered children and soldiers who had died in combat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

Murdoch is the head of a corporation. That CORPORATION has been PROVEN to have engaged in all the things Magons described. If he didn't know about any of it, he's not fit to HEAD the corporation, RUN the corporation, he's been blind to what the corporation he runs has been doing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

Murdoch is the head of a corporation. That CORPORATION has been PROVEN to have engaged in all the things Magons described. If he didn't know about any of it, he's not fit to HEAD the corporation, RUN the corporation, he's been blind to what the corporation he runs has been doing.

---

So, Murdoch is responsible, personally, for each and every individual, in all the companies which News Corp owns, through out the world ?

Really?






" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
In some ways yes, he is. Any corporation of which he is the HEAD is his responsibility. In this country at least, how many CEOs, etc., have been fired when it's discovered their corporation has broken the law? Many of them get away with it, but a person who heads up a corporation is responsible for the actions of that corporation.

Your argument simply fails. The issue is whether he is FIT to head up a corporation. Given the actions of the corporation and either his complete ignorance of same OR his complicity in same, he's not fit to run that corporation, period. If the corporation is too big for him to handle, it should be broken up into multiple corporations with people who will properly oversee their actions running each one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Murdoch is head of a company that has regularly engaged in illegal activities, including phonetapping, bribery of police and government officals. You think that there is nothing wrong with condoning breaking the law? Do you think, as clearly Murdoch does, that profit overrides morality and the law?

Don't forget, the hacking wasn't just of celebraties, but families of murdered children and soldiers who had died in combat.

---

As clearly as Murdoch does ? It's not been shown that Murdoch condones of or took a knowing part in wiretapping, has it ? Show me that he has, that he himself is guilty of the crimes underlings have done, then I'll cede that point. Until then, it's bogus for you or anyone to claim he 'clearly' thinks it's o.k. THAT is an opinion, not fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

Naw, YOUR argument is silly. Unless it can be shown that he was involved, knew of, participated in anything unlawful, deceptive, then those who actually WERE guilty should be punished, and that should be the end of it.

---

You clearly don't understand corporate governance.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Everyone knew, but there's no proof.

Right.

In other words, we hate Murdoch, because FOX news is totally kicking everyone's ass in the news business, so we deem him guilty.

Just because.

*yawn*

---

Quote:

---

In January 2003, Andy Coulson took over as editor of the News of the World following the move of editor Rebekah Brooks (then known as Rebekah Wade) to sister paper The Sun. Brooks had been News of the World editor since May 2000, during which time allegations would later surface that the tabloid accessed the voicemail of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler. Later in 2003, Brooks and Coulson appeared before a parliamentary committee, where Brooks admitted to paying police for information.[

---

Quote:

---

Former prime minister Gordon Brown alleged his bank account was accessed by The Sunday Times in 2000, and that The Sun gained private medical records about his son, Fraser.[73] Rebekah Brooks telephoned Brown to tell him that The Sun was going to reveal that his son had been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis and tried to persuade him not to spoil the newspaper's exclusive by announcing it himself first.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Everyone knew, but there's no proof.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Everyone knew, but there's no proof.

Right.

In other words, we hate Murdoch, because FOX news is totally kicking everyone's ass in the news business, so we deem him guilty.

Just because.

*yawn*

---

There is plenty of proof now.

" Blah blah blah..."

But in your mind, none of this matters so long as the company makes a profit. You are a morality free zone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Everyone knew, but there's no proof.

---

Ask Bill Ayers about that.

What was it he was tried and convicted of, exactly? Remind us.






"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

---