REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Murdoch's not having a good week...

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, July 29, 2011 05:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3154
PAGE 1 of 2

Thursday, July 14, 2011 9:22 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

News Corp. -- Rupert Murdoch's media conglomerate -- ended its $12.5 billion bid to purchase all of British Sky Broadcasting, following days of intense pressure from the British public and politicians over the company's growing phone hacking scandal.
.....

"It's a major disappointment but events were unfolding so quickly that it became almost clear in the last 24 hours that the deal wasn't going to do through," said Tuna Amobi, analyst with Standard & Poor's.
.....

Politicians on both sides of the British ideological spectrum have been calling for Murdoch to drop the bid, but the pressure reached its apex earlier Wednesday when British Prime Minister David Cameron announced he was opposed to News Corp's purchase of BSkyB.

.....

The end of the deal is a major setback for Murdoch.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/13/news/companies/news_corp_bskyb/index.h
tm


Okay, so he'll go back to it when the political climate cools down, but it might be while:
Quote:

The phone-hacking scandal engulfing Rupert Murdoch's media empire intensified in the United States on Wednesday as three senators and a congressman urged federal authorities to investigate whether one of Murdoch's U.S.-based companies may have violated anti-bribery and other laws. fourth senator told CNN he was considering launching his own investigation into the scandal.

Were a U.S. case against News Corp. to arise, the potential implications for the Murdoch media empire would be numerous -- and none of them are good, Koehler said.

An investigation would most certainly attempt to answer the question of how widespread bribes were within News Corp. Were other employees -- all over the world, for that matter -- making similar payments?

.....

An investigation would most certainly attempt to answer the question of how widespread bribes were within News Corp. Were other employees -- all over the world, for that matter -- making similar payments?

The FCPA stipulates that U.S.-listed companies, their employees or agents may not make bribes to foreign officials. A second portion of the law applies to accounting requirements for public companies, said Don Zarin, author of "Doing Business Under The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act" and a partner with the Washington-based law firm of Holland & Knight.

.....

So, if a bribe was made and not properly noted, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department could each have a case, Zarin said. telephone call or an e-mail from an editor in London to his or her boss in New York could prove key, he said. If you send an e-mail to the boss saying, 'I'm going to pay $10,000 to police officers for this information,' that would provide the jurisdictional basis or potential liability on the part of possibly the British employees," Zarin said.

If any employee of News Corp., which is listed in the United States, knew about and authorized such a payment, "they could have potential exposure," he said.

And if Murdoch -- the 80-year-old Australian-born head of News Corp. who became a U.S. citizen in 1985 -- knew what was going on and authorized it, even implicitly, "he could have some potential exposure," Zarin said.

The penalties can be severe, including jail time and fines.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/13/us.hacking.fcpa/index.html


One can only hope (dream?)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 14, 2011 9:33 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Ooops...
Quote:

Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and his son James will attend a hearing over the phone-hacking scandal before British lawmakers next Tuesday, their company, News International, told CNN Thursday.

The House of Commons had issued the pair a summons to appear after the Murdochs initially told the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee they could not attend the July 19 hearing.

News Corp. boss Rupert Murdoch wrote to the committee earlier that he was "not available to attend," although he said he was "fully prepared to give evidence to the forthcoming judge-led public inquiry."

James Murdoch, who heads the News International newspaper group, a News Corp. subsidiary, had said he could not appear before lawmakers before August 10 or 11.

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee issued a statement saying it wanted all three to appear "to account for the behaviour of News International and for previous statements made to the committee in Parliament, now acknowledged to be false."

Meanwhile, police announced they arrested a 60-year-old man Thursday morning in London in connection with the phone-hacking probe, the seventh person arrested in the investigation.

The suspect has not been formally named by police but the Press Association news agency reports that he is Neil Wallis, a former executive editor of the News of the World.

Wallis also served on the Press Complaints Commission, the British newspaper industry's self-regulating body, which has been broadly criticized in recent days for failing to act against press misconduct.

Britain's Home Secretary Theresa May wrote to London's top police officer, Sir Paul Stephenson, Thursday evening asking for the full picture about his links to Wallis.

Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whose family's private records are alleged to have been obtained by News International newspapers, said it was vital to maintain the right to a free press.

But, he said, staff at News International, a subsidiary of News Corp., "cynically manipulated our support of that vital freedom as their justification and then callously used the defense of a free press as the banner under which they marched in step, I say, with members of the criminal underworld."

The criminality was "not the misconduct of a few rogues or a few freelancers," he said, but was carried out "often on an industrial scale -- at its worst dependent on links with the British criminal underworld."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/14/uk.phone.hacking.scandal/in
dex.html?hpt=hp_t2


He's not getting his way...that's a start. It'll probably all be swept under the rug eventually, at least here in the states, but again, one can only hope...



Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 14, 2011 12:19 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 14, 2011 1:44 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
He's going to need a bigger Rug.
http://www.channel4.com/news/fbi-to-investigate-news-corp





Several of them, it seems. In different countries.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 14, 2011 2:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Oh how the mighty...
It's a long fall from up there, and idols fall hard, don't you know.

I'm waiting for the moment where Rappy says that he was always against Murdoch, that break when the lowest worm turns and you know the empire is doomed.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 14, 2011 3:48 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Oh how the mighty...
It's a long fall from up there, and idols fall hard, don't you know.

I'm waiting for the moment where Rappy says that he was always against Murdoch, that break when the lowest worm turns and you know the empire is doomed.

-F




Oh, he's been amazingly quiet on this one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 14, 2011 3:54 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yes, I noticed the lack of Raptor's usual inarticulate defenses--so far at least--but I'm sure he'll come flying in with it all being somehow a vast liberal conspiracy or something.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 15, 2011 5:54 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Meanwhile, Murdoch's week keeps getting worse...

Les Hinton, publisher of the Wall Street Journal and chief officer of Dow Jones & Co, resigned. He's been with Murdoch for 57 years, and he's out on his ass now.

His British chief, Rebekah Brooks, also stepped down amid the growing and spreading scandal, a day after the number two shareholder in NewsCorp said she had to go, despite Murdoch's efforts to keep her in charge.

There's much speculation that most - if not all - of Murdoch's papers may be too damaged to continue. Also, there's talk that Murdoch himself may end up in a sort of forced retirement.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 15, 2011 6:04 PM

KANEMAN


Yep, Les Hinton's "departure" speaks volumes.not good

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 15, 2011 6:07 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


I heard a media wonk declare that it spells the end of the WSJ, which is just pure bullshit. WSJ's credibility is damaged, but it was the day Murdoch bought control of it.

They can recover. Once it gets downtrodden *enough*, it will be sold off. If they're savvy, the former owners can pick it up for a song and bring it back to its former position.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 15, 2011 6:33 PM

DREAMTROVE


Okay, I'll take counterpoint on this one.

The media needs balance. Without it, it's not just unfair and unbalanced, it's a circus, it's mind control.

Now, sure, most of you would say that about FOX. Fair enough. But the thing is, sure, FOX is not, by itself, fair and balanced; but the Media world with FOX *in* it is.

The media without FOX is dishonest. (Yes, it's already dishonest) but one thing you can trust is that republicans will lie to you to cover their asses while exposing democrats who will in turn lie to save their own asses while exposing republicans.

I know most of you don't accept that republicans and democrats are equally crooked, in spite of the obvious (that a person's party allegiance is really decided by two things: His parents, and the voting balance of his district, neither of which he can change, and both of which are completely random.) But that said, you all are at least willing to accept that a fair number of both sides are crooks.

Which is why we need balance. In the 1990s, no one heard anything on the news about Clinton setting up secret torture prisons, domestic wiretapping, making corrupt deals to sell the country out to China, Walmart and Halliburton, or about his funding of third world genocide, illegal wars against civilian populations, etc. No, you probably heard something about his inability to use a zipper.

That was because no one was watching FOX. Time/Warner was still trying to block FOX from having cable access because they claimed "it was not a news organization." (Okay, you could make this case, but as TW happens to *own* CNN, about which you could easily make the same claim...)

To understand it, you gotta look at it from the flipside: What if there were *only* FOX. How many crimes of Bush would you know about?

Every time Obama and the democrats fuck up, do something corrupt, evil or stupid, FOX is going to say it, because it makes republicans look good by comparison, and that's what they care about. And this is the strange manner by which the actual news gets to the actual majority of the American people.

(And yes, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, Viacom, etc. will say it when republicans fuck up)


As for FOX and domestic wiretapping? Who isn't? I mean, seriously, you set this as policy, and you're showing them the way. I doubt there's anything done at FOX that isn't done at CNN (aside from upskirts)

FOX and WSJ at the same time looks like an agenda related attack.


Re: Cameron and BskyB. Murdoch owning Sky has irritated the brits for some time, but didn't BskyB just do its damnedest to get Cameron elected? Probably that's why he needs the distance. It's not going to be popular with anyone in the UK, as Mr. Murdoch is persona non grata there, which is probably not a phrase they use there.

At the moment I'm miffed at Mr. Tree for his ungreen fracking.

The idea of arresting Murdoch is absurd. Maybe the executive is getting too much power.



That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 15, 2011 6:56 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

I know most of you don't accept that republicans and democrats are equally crooked, in spite of the obvious (that a person's party allegiance is really decided by two things: His parents, and the voting balance of his district, neither of which he can change, and both of which are completely random.) But that said, you all are at least willing to accept that a fair number of both sides are crooks.




One problem with your premise there: My parents were Republicans, and I grew up in an overwhelmingly Republican district.

So how am I not a Republican?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 16, 2011 1:30 AM

DREAMTROVE


a) it's not 100%. 90% of people share inherit the political views of their parents.

b) You didn't run for office (that I know of) or at least, you weren't elected (that I know of) If you're in a republican district it might be difficult for you to be elected as a democrat. It makes more sense to be a republican, you could vote in local primaries and have more control, and you could run for office. Since there's zero effective difference between the two parties... sure, they talk a different talk, but they walk the same walk. See? That's how happens. People follow the logic I just did, and then they run for office, and become democrats or republicans.

Sure, some ideologues switch districts to carry on their parents views, and some people are carrying on the views of their professor or minister, and a very few might actually think, but they will be outnumber by those who don't, and were simply paid to run by some corporation.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 16, 2011 5:48 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I question your figures, DT, and I respectfully request something to back them up.

I, too, was raised by Republicans, but that's neither here nor there.

GETTING too much power? Have you been listening to Magons? He's BEEN a major king-maker in England and Australia for a long, long time now, and if you're looking for fair and balanced, how about how MUCH of the media he runs globally?

I have absolutely nothing against fair and balanced. The problem is that Fox has NO scruples whatsoever. Sure, few in the media do these days, but to blatantly lie in such outrageous ways and still insist they're fair and balanced; deliberate fraud, with not a care in the world if everyone knows about it, and many of the other things Fox does, makes me downright sick.

I HOPE his power diminishes, I pray it does. Nobody should have that much power, especially globally, and be able to "make" politicians and government heads isn't good for anyone in media who can also control the message--worldwide. I've nothing against somene on the other side, in fact I welcome it, and I realize the media slants things (tho' I disagree to the extent you think they ALL do), but Fox has absolutely no scruples and when you combine that with power, it's bad news all around. If he wasn't so entrenched in politics and government, I wouldn't mind nearly as much.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 16, 2011 6:48 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


And even Rappy will have to agree that Murdoch admits to all this deplorable behavior. After all, Murdoch himself apologized, and we all know that THAT means, right, Rappy?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 16, 2011 7:49 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I know most of you don't accept that republicans and democrats are equally crooked, in spite of the obvious...

Hey DT,

You just insulted EVERYONE who disagrees with you because they were too stupid or pigheaded to agree with you. And you do it in a way that paints you as the victim. "I know most of you don't accept..." Poor DT, the only voice of reason amongst the sheeple... And when people respond to your insulting innuendo rather than the substance of your argument you play the persecution card, crying, "Ad hominem! Ad hominem!" Poor, misunderstood Dreamtrove.

Of course, the great irony here is that a lot of people on this board absolutely DO agree with you.

I don't mean to be harsh, and "I know" you're gonna feel persecuted by my bluntness with you, but these tactics mar nearly every substantive post of yours that I see these days. It's tacky, Dream. Why not let your arguments stand on their own, without the innuendo and "poor me" routine?

Quote:

Which is why we need balance. In the 1990s, no one heard anything on the news about Clinton setting up secret torture prisons, domestic wiretapping, making corrupt deals to sell the country out to China, Walmart and Halliburton, or about his funding of third world genocide, illegal wars against civilian populations, etc. No, you probably heard something about his inability to use a zipper.
That wasn't because the MSM was liberally biased. It was because (a.) we didn't have the internet back then and (b.) the press has always been prejudiced in favor of well liked Presidents. Watergate would have gone rather differently if Nixon were handsome and affable, don't you think? Just look at how Iran/Contra "hurt" Reagan. Oh, right, it didn't.

Beyond that, there's an argument to be made that a free press is in itself a liberal institution. Bill Moyers (that pinko!) once said, "News is what they don't want you to know, everything else is advertising." The "they" he was talking about was TPTB. When either "side" of the political spectrum gives TPTB a pass they are not serving the people, they are serving TPTB as press agents.

Quote:

That was because no one was watching FOX.
Then how the heck did we get all those Republican Presidents, cycle after cycle? Even after the Watergate scandal we only got 4 years of Democratic administration. You suggest that without FOX we'd have a Democratic "permanent majority" and history simply does not bear that out.

You continually paint the Repubs and the Dems as being the same entity with different faces but that's only the Republican and Democratic elites. And most folk around here would agree. But the actual Republican and Democratic citizenry have very different agendas.

Quote:

To understand it, you gotta look at it from the flipside: What if there were *only* FOX. How many crimes of Bush would you know about?
False equivalency. For years we had only not-FOX and it didn't put the Dems in absolute power. Why are you, a professed individualist, defending these bootlickers?

Quote:

Every time Obama and the democrats fuck up, do something corrupt, evil or stupid, FOX is going to say it, because it makes republicans look good by comparison, and that's what they care about. And this is the strange manner by which the actual news gets to the actual majority of the American people.
Here you're the Adam Smith of journalism. Let the invisible hand of the market determine what's true! This is some very flawed and very right wing thinking. It's not even funny.

Quote:

As for FOX and domestic wiretapping? Who isn't? I mean, seriously, you set this as policy, and you're showing them the way. I doubt there's anything done at FOX that isn't done at CNN (aside from upskirts)
This sort of argument hinges on the absolute power of authority to determine policy. In order to compete in the corrupt market, poor little put upon FOX had to play along! That's just not how an individualist thinks, is it? Do you hear any of the actual Anarchists on this board defending corrupt actions by saying, "But everyone's doing it!?"

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 16, 2011 9:03 AM

DREAMTROVE


I knew that was bound to get a flame from someone.

Quote:

Just look at how Iran/Contra "hurt" Reagan. Oh, right, it didn't.


But it certainly did get reported on.


The MSM is a bunch of left wing nutjobs hell bent on an agenda. FOX news is a bunch of right wing nutjobs hell bent on an agenda. It doesn't completely balance the system out, because it's still bias in favor of nutjobs hell bent on an agenda, and some of that agenda is shared.

Quote:

False equivalency. For years we had only not-FOX and it didn't put the Dems in absolute power.


Sorry Mr. Strawman, didn't say it did, did I? If politics is inherited, news doesn't change it. If you weren't already a republican, you wouldn't be tuned to FOX as your default channel.

I said it changed what we knew. We know more about what's wrong with Obama now then we knew about what was wrong with Clinton, even thought there was an internet then, because now there is a dialogue. People debate whether armed predator drones are a good idea. No one debated whether giving halliburton control of our military infrastructure in a no bid contract was a good idea because nobody knew.

Quote:


Here you're the Adam Smith of journalism.



I'll take that as a compliment.

I often disagree with FOX, but that doesn't mean I disagree with them saying it. The more different points of view the better. Pirate News should have his own news channel, and so should Mincing Beast, but they shouldn't be on the same show, that would just waste everyone's time.

I often disagree with the Tea Party, but I'm glad they're there disagreeing.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 16, 2011 9:11 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


I don't mind an opposition press. In fact, I think an adversarial relationship between government and media is absolutely essential.

When media is simply making things up that are provably false, that's an issue.

Just this week, Glenn Beck's replacement claimed that there weren't ANY terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 2000 and 2008. He really said that. And he wasn't even the first Fox correspondent/contributor to say so. Now, if we're going to play by Rappy's rules, wherein the employee of the company lays out the entire company's agenda, then that means that Rupert Murdoch and NewsCorp claim that 9/11 never occurred.

That's not oppositional or adversarial press. That's a press that's delusional and farcical, pure and simple.

(For those who don't remember, the September 11 attacks occurred in the U.S. in 2001.)

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 16, 2011 9:51 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


Quote:


Here you're the Adam Smith of journalism.




I'll take that as a compliment.




You really shouldn't.

What most people tend to completely overlook when they speak of Adam Smith and the "invisible hand" of the market, is that he predicated all of his theories on individuals and corporations acting out of a sense of ENLIGHTENED SELF-INTEREST. That's the part that's been clearly missing for quite some time; really, it's been missing since well before Adam Smith ever postulated his theories.

I mean, if you postulate that people will act out of enlightened self-interest, then even communism and socialism make sense on paper.



"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 16, 2011 12:11 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mike,

I take your point: Many corporations do not act out of self interest but are in fact shell organizations serving someone else, such as the people who have given themselves power to issue currency, and so a housing industry may not be building houses so it can house people and be paid for that, but so that the federal reserve can run a derivatives scheme and generation a quadrillion dollars, rendering the financial system irrelevant.

But in the sense that HK was applying it, let the free market decide what is true, then absolutely, sure, I see no problem with that. Will the media be influenced by corporations to print untruths? Sure, of course it will, but it will do so even if there is a state run media (ever listen to NPR or watch the BBC?) The more competing information you have, the better you are able to detect that bias.

As far as the media telling lies, that's nothing new. The french revolution was in a decent part based on the idea. What you need is not a strong arm to silence dissent on the grounds that they might be lying, but an informed public with enough conflicting stories that they can educate themselves and decide which one is true.

But back to my original point, and sure, I take some of what HK says: that while I disagree that there was no criticism of Reagan and Bush 41, I would concede there was not as much as there was of Bush 43, and I don't credit this to them both being better presidents though they were, but rather to the adversarial nature of a two-party media being more prone to point out those flaws because they are now competing for marketshare. I mean, sure, they're not taking many viewers from each other, but like elections, it's whether their base watches the news or ignores it. If your opponents base is watching the news and being informed with your opponent's side of the story, you need to do the same to your base.




That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 16, 2011 1:18 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


I think we're basically in agreement here, DT, just quibbling over details.

I want the media investigating. I *WANT* investigative journalism. Instead, what we now get is paid shills reprinting PR packets, word for word, and calling it "news". It serves no one.

And when the shills are caught out in outright lies and flat untruths, they should be held to account for it. Dan Rather got fired for his; where is the ethical equivalent at Fox? Who at Fox has ever been fired for just flat making shit up? For that matter, who at Breitbart's "news" site has paid that price? Anyone?


"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 16, 2011 2:15 PM

DREAMTROVE


To be fair, a lot of people have been sacked from FOX, including IIRC, Beck, who was the person you were just complaining about.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 16, 2011 2:36 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
To be fair, a lot of people have been sacked from FOX, including IIRC, Beck, who was the person you were just complaining about.




Actually, that was Beck's REPLACEMENT. Goes by the name of "Eric Bolling".

Fox would never admit that it was Beck's lies that got him canned. His ratings were in the tank, down more than a third (more like half), and he was losing sponsors and ad revenue. In Murdoch's world, that's much worse than lying.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 16, 2011 3:38 PM

DREAMTROVE


He was losing sponsors because they didn't want to be associated with the things that he was saying, though, not because his ratings were down, that's a cover story, his ratings were down, but still a lot better than many who did not get canceled, but were still bringing in money. And, sure, I generally agree, but even FOX has pulled the plug on people who went too far into whacko-land.

But as Jon Stewart would say, it's not about defending FOX, it's basically impossible to credit the idea that CNN is any better. If you support one and not the other, you can only have an agenda in mind. And yes, ideally, people should get their information elsewhere, but the reality is many don't. Television still exists.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 17, 2011 3:32 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


Not many people left to be thrown to the wolves before it all reaches the Murdoch's
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/brooks-arrested-phone-hacking-probe-122426944
.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 17, 2011 7:04 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


The argument that CNN does the same is ridiculous. They may have a bias and choose what they'll report and how, but they don't even BEGIN to come close to Fox's cheerful lying and FRAUD! I freely grant most news is biased, it could hardly help but be, but Fox is something new: a member of the MSM who OPENLY misinforms the public via methods no "newstainment" show has ever done. How you can say otherwise is beyond me.

I agree with Mike:
Quote:

I don't mind an opposition press. In fact, I think an adversarial relationship between government and media is absolutely essential.

When media is simply making things up that are provably false, that's an issue.

I, too, would dearly love something that gives "the other side" with half the scruples (such as they are) as ANY supposed left-leaning media. Makes me wonder why there isn't one, given there's as much money to be made doing so, and a huge audience for it. What it says to me is it's okay to be blatantly fraudulent, to the incredible degree FauxNews is, with the right. It's like religion in that respect; It's just fine to let someone else do your thinking for you, and swallow what they say whole cloth. Sickens me.

Give us any voice on the right who can behave as decently as CNN and I'll WATCH, even. I'd like the "other side of the story", I'd love it, but it ain't FoxNoise, not at all.
Quote:

now there is a dialogue
You've GOT to be joking! One side presents news, albeit slanted; the other side presents blatant falsehoods and goes to the length of MAKING UP the news, with impunity. Give me a break!
Quote:

People debate whether armed predator drones are a good idea
Hmmmm...how about Huffpost, about as left-wing as any media can get??
Quote:

David Letterman jokes that the most dangerous job in the world is "the number 3 man in Al Queda." Why? "Because," as Dave says, "We keep killing him." How we do this, or claim as much, is no joke especially to the many innocent bystanders and civilians who die as uncounted and unaccountable "collateral damage." Letterman's joke makes us ask the unspoken question: How can a missile sent from an unmanned drone, controlled by a joystick ten thousand miles away, have any idea who is getting killed?

Is the United States' use of deadly drone attacks enough to make this nation - once praised as a beacon of liberty - an international outlaw? There are plenty of Americans who probably think that simply asking such a question is wrong, or worse. But are we? Have we become international outlaws?
.....

For the sake of discussion, let's assume the US is acting legally anywhere and everywhere in the world where we currently employ deadly force. Double 07 are no longer the numbers with a license to kill. Now its 9/11. Let's also assume that the Obama Doctrine - the concept that the US is allowed to kill anyone, anywhere in the world if the President declares those persons to be terrorists, even citizens of the United States - is also legal. If you accept that, how then do you answer this question: Does the same principle apply to other nations? Isn't self-defense a universal right?

MUCH more at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greener/the-us-drone-attacks-hav
e_b_641891.html


I'm sure you think the Times is left-leaning, given you're saying they all are, so how about this?
Quote:

I am concerned about the use of drones in U.S. military operations overseas.
I do not support using drones as weapons. The drones are excellent as an intelligence-gathering tool; however, it is wrong to arm them with weapons and allow someone thousands of miles away to kill our enemies, as if they were playing a video game. Technology is a wonderful thing; it has saved thousands of lives through medicine and added comfort and convenience to the lives of millions. Yet it has added to the horrors of war. The detachment to reality that technology is causing is troubling. People are glued to their cellular telephones and computers while loud rock music blares in their ears and all real human communication goes by the wayside. Allowing this detachment into our military is detrimental to the way war is fought.

.....

Allowing computers and people thousands of miles away to literally hunt and kill a living being rather then engaging them in actual combat is not right.

More at http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9019830

Ironically, a comment to that article from someone on the right:
Quote:

hey zach looks as if you been drinking the kool aid man but don't worry the nuirses will be by your room later to pas out your meds cause you have to be eiher mentaly insane or just plain stupid one and i haven't figured out which yet. have you ever served in the military especially at war time if not sit back keep your mouth shut or as one reader posted go join up the military and get a feel for yourself how things are. As a combat veteran myself to think i went to defend freedom so punks like you can sit back and arm chair quarter back and second guess militaru tatics if you haven't served then keep your mouth closed.
How about the New Yorker, surely a front for the left-wing agenda:
Quote:

n August 5th, officials at the Central Intelligence Agency, in Langley, Virginia, watched a live video feed relaying closeup footage of one of the most wanted terrorists in Pakistan. Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Taliban in Pakistan, could be seen reclining on the rooftop of his father-in-law’s house, in Zanghara, a hamlet in South Waziristan. It was a hot summer night, and he was joined outside by his wife and his uncle, a medic; at one point, the remarkably crisp images showed that Mehsud, who suffered from diabetes and a kidney ailment, was receiving an intravenous drip

.....

The image remained just as stable when the C.I.A. remotely launched two Hellfire missiles from the Predator. Authorities watched the fiery blast in real time. After the dust cloud dissipated, all that remained of Mehsud was a detached torso. Eleven others died: his wife, his father-in-law, his mother-in-law, a lieutenant, and seven bodyguards

.....

The seeming unreality of the Predator enterprise is also felt by the pilots. Some of them reportedly wear flight suits when they operate a drone’s remote controls. When their shifts end, of course, these cubicle warriors can drive home to have dinner with their families. Critics have suggested that unmanned systems, by sparing these combatants from danger and sacrifice, are creating what Sir Brian Burridge, a former British Air Chief Marshal in Iraq, has called “a virtueless war,” requiring neither courage nor heroism. According to Singer, some Predator pilots suffer from combat stress that equals, or exceeds, that of pilots in the battlefield. This suggests that virtual killing, for all its sterile trappings, is a discomfiting form of warfare. Meanwhile, some social critics, such as Mary Dudziak, a professor at the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law, argue that the Predator strategy has a larger political cost. As she puts it, “Drones are a technological step that further isolates the American people from military action, undermining political checks on . . . endless war.”

Much more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_mayer

That's just a casual search. My point is, I reject your argument. I also call bullshit to
Quote:

He was losing sponsors because they didn't want to be associated with the things that he was saying, though, not because his ratings were down, that's a cover story
Money talks; there's a huge audience for FauxNews, even if the ratings are down. To say it was because of their "conscience" that advertisers pulled out is disingenuous at best, deliberate equivocation at worst. Once again, point


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 17, 2011 7:50 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


The net widens:
Quote:

Former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks was arrested Sunday in connection with British police investigations into phone hacking and police bribery, her spokesman told CNN.

She is being quizzed by police in London after having come in by appointment, a Metropolitan Police spokesman said.

Brooks did not know she was going to be arrested when she arrived, her spokesman Dave Wilson said.

She resigned on Friday as chief executive of Rupert Murdoch's News International, which published the News of the World.

The company also did not know she was about to be arrested when it accepted her resignation, a News International source told CNN Sunday, asking not to be named discussing internal corporate affairs.

Brooks had agreed to testify Tuesday at a House of Commons hearing on the scandal. It's not clear how her arrest will affect the hearing -- committee member Louise Mensch, a Conservative MP, said the committee chair was "taking legal advice" on the situation.

.....

Police in the United Kingdom have identified almost 4,000 potential targets of phone hacking in documents recovered from a private investigator working for the paper.

Much more at http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/17/uk.phone.hacking/index.html
?hpt=hp_t1



Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 17, 2011 10:32 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


I'll be interested to see if Les Hinton, Brooks's old boss during the time when most of this was going on, will be arrested as well. That could be interesting, since he's in the U.S., where he was working as publisher of the Wall Street Journal until Friday.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:50 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


And now Britains most senior police officer resigns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14180043

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 17, 2011 1:16 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Only watched snippets of Fox, and thought it was pretty dreadful stuff. Not just because it had such a right winged bias, but it was stupid news aimed at stupid people. Sorry if you are a fox fan, but that is my opinion of it.

Murdoch's papers in the UK weren't just biased, in fact, that was the least of their problems, they were guttertripe journalism...all scandals and inflammatory personal attacks. who slept with which hooker, who has had an affair, who had a child with downs syndrome. They've come under fire because they've bribed police to obtain information that frankly the police shouldn't have access to either. This is V for Vendetta stuff in the UK, but its not just the ebil gubment, its the evil corporations who would stoop to any length, even criminal to make a buck or a billion, its the corrupt police who can and will be bribed, its the fragile facade of privacy being torn to shreds in this technological age, you may as well post all your health, bank, taxation records online, and broadcast all you telephone calls over the radion. Big Brother is watching, and listening, only he'ss not look for thoughtcrime, but how to make a buck out of someone else's dirty laundry.

And it is too the government, successive ones, labour and conservative, left and right, in bed with the goons, who have been running the show all along. And excuse me if I say "I told you so" because it doesn't give me much satisfaction.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 17, 2011 3:32 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


It's spreading - now it's jumped the pond.


Quote:

Former Fox News executive Dan Cooper has claimed that a special bunker, requiring security clearance for access was created at the company's headquarters to conduct “counterintelligence” including snooping on phone records:




More at

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/17/995568/-Fmr-Fox-News-Executiv
e:-Americans-Phones-Were-Hacked



"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 17, 2011 3:34 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
And now Britains most senior police officer resigns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14180043





I'm beginning to wonder if this scandal will bring Cameron's government down. He has also hired Murdoch cronies as "advisors."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, July 17, 2011 8:10 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


When you do bad things you deserve the cummuppins that eventually find you.
Murdock equals Soros, is he next? Because he probably does similar things.

I wish there was a channel that just reported the news: No opinions or silly jokes or firey editorial pieces, just someone reading the headlines with reports from field reporters who just tell us what's going on. Then if we wanted someone's opinion we could change the channel to the political-talk-show-channels and see whatever opinion we wished. Whenever I turn on CNN or FOX its all about opinions, what if I just want to watch the news and don't care what what's-her-toes thinks about Casey Anthony for the 50th time. All options should be available, a conservative talk channel, a liberal talk channel, a straight news channel.

I remember back when Glen Beck was just on the radio and he'd do this funny thing relating to duct tape, with sound effects and everything, he should go back to that, it was more interesting than his TV show.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 18, 2011 2:42 AM

DREAMTROVE


Unlikely, Soros is a liberal, and also a very rich and powerful man (so is Murdoch, true) but conservatives have attacked him before. The overall assault on FOX looks like a liberal attempt to silence dissent. It's been going on for a while. What I don't understand is why Jim Cramer is not in jail.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 18, 2011 6:47 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

The overall assault on FOX looks like a liberal attempt to silence dissent
Somehow doesn't surprise me you see it that way, DT. As a neutral observer, of course. You think the British and American services both are in the pay of liberals, and police are quitting because, what, liberals paid them to? I think your perspective is rather skewed.

Yeah, Mike, there's been talk of that. I heard something about both Cameron and a few other Prime Ministers seeking Murdoch's "approval" before running for office, and other things. I kinda doubt it will, tho'; right now it's big news, but these things pass, and Murdoch's a survivor.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 18, 2011 8:00 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY


Quote:

Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
And now Britains most senior police officer resigns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14180043]
http://www.channel4.com/news/john-yates-quits-met-police-insisting-con
science-is-clear


And now his deputy, our most senior anti-terrorism officer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 18, 2011 12:23 PM

DREAMTROVE


Niki,

From where you're standing, everything would look right wing.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 18, 2011 3:00 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Niki,

From where you're standing, everything would look right wing.




Y'know, one could just as easily say that from where you're standing, everything would like left wing. Or like a vast left-wing conspiracy.

Just sayin', that knife has two edges.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 18, 2011 5:42 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mike,

You're not standing next to Niki, but you're solidly over the blue line. From where I'm standing, Byte is probably right next to me, Riona and Happy are in the red, but only just, Geezer a few steps more, and Rap is in the Red solidly, but not to the wall like Hero, Kane, et al, who fall into a foggy red haze, every once in a while Wulf or someone will be visible from the background.

In the other direction, Frem, for all he may argue, is about one step to the left of me. (maybe take three or four issues we disagree on, but nothing major or conception outside of RTL and its implications.) Further left, there are some people who are barely blue, HK and PR are looking blue-tinted, You are not to Niki blue, but standing in the solid blue, and past you guys there's Sig and a couple others (kiki, magon) who generally fade into the blue haze from where I'm standing.

I guess I'd define it like this: I'm self-defined as a conservative democrat. My reasoning here is that I believe that conservative philosophy is essentially correct, that it's more important to keep what we have than to change; and my default position is to vote for the democrat. I voted for one democrat this time who I'm very very happy with, Schneiderman, att. gen. of NY. I didn't vote for Cuomo because I thought he was too much a corporate whore, and I was unsure in my congressional district, and voted green, and got a republican, who seems to be an improvement, because he's putting all of the issues to a local referendum and you can vote, and actually give feedback, dialogue, and he meetings you can call in and participate at any time on the conference call... this sort of stuff, the human stuff, is more important than the positions that politicians have to pretend to hold.

You'll notice almost no one here is a solid set of part values. You're a 2a democrat, I'm not. But I'm an RTL dem, and you're not. But we both agree on gay rights, the environment and a number of other things (the war, probably the whole military industrial complex etc.) Where I really cross into conservative is on spending. I wouldn't be anti-aid to the poor, but I'm certainly more conservative on this then most of the dems on the board.

The people who I think of as solidly blue or solidly red are "I will always vote for the dem/rep" which may not be true, but it's what the lion's share of their posts read like to me.

The blue and red haze read more to me like "the left/right is always on target and the other side is the enemy."

Politically, if you enumerate my positions, I'm still on the democrat side, not just nominally, but ideologically, I don't hope for change. I fear change. Change might bring me gay rights, but it will also bring me predator drones, financial collapse and fracking. I don't think that Bush was conservative, because he was full of change, and not full of preservation of what was. He was a neocon, who define themselves as "supporting the conservative movement" meaning they'll push right wing wedge issues.

And yes, I get that Obama is not a liberal. He's a neolib, and pretty solidly so. I sort of wish the democratis didn't keep fronting people who said that Reagan was the greatest president there ever was, or who didn't open by disowning Carter or Dukakis.

Left/Right, Blue/Red is a one dimensional perspective anyway, but if you mean that I think change is bad, then yes, generally, historically, change has been bad. Only a fraction of species on this earth remain from when humans came, and half of all species of life on earth has been extinguished in your lifetime. Our rights are rapidly eroding away. We're sliding into a one world police state that will be more ant hill than an actual ant hill. I vote we push the Undo button. I'm not sure when to stop hitting the undo button, but in american politics I'm reasonably happy with Carter. I at least want to undo the NWO/NAFTA. I would accept an undo back to Reagan, mabye Bush Sr., and would tolerate an undo back to Eisenhower. If you had to undo passed that, I would want to selectively undo. (don't undo civil rights, stuff like that.) But I'd be perfectly happy to undo the last three presidents. They've all been hoping for change, and change hasn't been good.




That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 18, 2011 5:51 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


I just have to point out that hoping to change BACK is still hoping for change.

Hoping for no change means you want things the way they are now. I'm not with you on that.

Semantics, possibly, but words matter. They're all we have on this board. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 2:47 AM

DREAMTROVE


Mike,

A farmer counts his chickens in the coup at the end of the day, and sees that there are only 11 when there should be 12. Quickly, he spots the problem. The gate is open. So, he comes up with a plan: Leave the gate open, and wait for the stray Chicken to come back. The next day, he has 10 chickens...


Right now, you have clean drinkable water, the right to have children, or not to, your country is not being invaded, there is no nuclear war, no one has installed cameras in your bathroom, you have the right access to medical care, no one can force you to work, or imprison you for debts, there is still technically a bill of rights. How much more change are you really willing to risk?

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 6:33 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I maintain that either you are reading me through your own political prejudices or else your dislike of me is coloring what you read. For one thing,
Quote:

But we both agree on gay rights, the environment and a number of other things (the war, probably the whole military industrial complex etc.)
That describes me as well.

And tho' you insist on repeating it, I'm not a Democrat, I'm an Independent. I HAVE voted for Republicans, tho' not as many as Democrats. My strong feelings about the right at present are because of the current makeup of the Republican Party, which I feel is being pushed further and further to the right and becoming more and more rigid because of the onset of the Tea Party and because THEY believe they got a "mandate" in the midterms. They got a mandate to make things better because people are frightened and hoped they would improve the job situation; what they DIDN'T get a mandate for was to ram through all the social agenda laws they have and will, insist on no tax increases for the rich, hold the government hostage with filibusters and uncompromising demands, and gut the middle class more than they already had. Pre-Bush, my feelings were very different. I even respected Bush I.

So your judgment of me is subjective, to say the least. I challenge you and you take it personally, and in my opinion that has colored your view of me. I've gone after Democrats (not as much as Republicans because of my reaction to the way Republicans are behaving and my amazement at the candidates they have and are putting up); I've been very clear that I didn't think Obama would be an effective President and didn't vote for him in the primary, AND that I'm pissed off at a lot of the things he's done and hasn't done. That alone is not the definition of "hard left".

Ironically, I don't view what Murdoch has been doing all this time as a RIGHT-wing conspiracy; I see it as Murdoch utilizing his power and money to push his own agenda, not necessarily the agenda of thinking Republicans. You immediately view it as some kind of liberal conspiracy; who exactly is more ideologically-inclined?

To say "The overall assault on FOX looks like a liberal attempt to silence dissent", in view of the very real power Murdoch, et al. have weilded for a long, long time and how he's used it to propagate fraud and manipulate governments in SEVERAL countries is, to me, absurd. If it were an attempt to silence dissent, there wouldn't be so many facts supporting it, he would be fighting it instead of apologizing (Murdoch is nothing if not a fighter, and he's got a big base behind him) it wouldn't be so widespread, and it would have happened a long time ago.

I see his actions worldwide as a MURDOCH conspiracy, if you will, but one chosen by and implemented by him, not the Republicans or the conservatives; I actually don't think he represents them at all. He is trying to manipulate his audience, and by his actions has been quite willing to imbue his entire enterprise with the concept that "anything goes" in order to achieve his agenda and gain power. If that weren't so, as many blatant frauds and lies as FauxNews alone has been openly found to have committed wouldn't have come to light. They've even admitted and apologized for a number of them; if the "liberal media" were what you claim, those stories would have made banner headlines, rather than having been reported only by a few left-leaning stations.

I say again; your view of me is skewed, for whatever reason, and you see me as something I'm not.

I also find fearing change as a very UNdemocratic metality. If we didn't change things, we'd still be in caves, or at least in the Dark Ages. Change always brings good and bad both, but we HAVE to change, to evolve, to move forward; to advocate not changing is something I can't comprehend. Heck, we'd still have slavery, women would still have no rights, persecution of any number of groups would still be the way of things. I don't enjoy negative change in my own life, but I recognize we have to keep moving forward, not backward. Resisting change, and wanting to undo it, is the hallmark of conservatives, it's in the very title; that puts you on the right, as far as I'm concerned. I don't view you as being as blindly right as those you mentioned, but I have observed a willingness to approve of the right and disapprove of the left which, tho' perhaps unconscious, colors your judgment in my opinion.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 6:40 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Right now, you have clean drinkable water, the right to have children, or not to
I disagree. Time after time the pollution of water has been made public yet still continues, laws notwithstanding, and we don't even KNOW if we have clean water from place to place. Depending on which state you live in, your "right" to have children or not might well not exist, if you don't have the werewhitall to go to another state, drive long distances, OR in some cases drive long distances, be lectured to and forceably shown graphic images and made to view the ultrasound of your fetus, then come BACK those long distances to get an abortion. Ergo, your statement is incorrect. We COULD move forward to ensure safe drinking water; we COULD move forward by giving women the right to choose, but conservatives are against both and work at lessening both (via less regulation on corporations and more regulation on abortion). Both would be positive changes and give us the rights we should have, while at the same time both would bring negative changes...higher costs to corporations who now pollute and more unnecessary abortions. Change always brings good and bad.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 7:31 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
I maintain that either you are reading me through your own political prejudices or else your dislike of me is coloring what you read. For one thing,
Quote:

But we both agree on gay rights, the environment and a number of other things (the war, probably the whole military industrial complex etc.)
That describes me as well.

And tho' you insist on repeating it, I'm not a Democrat, I'm an Independent. I HAVE voted for Republicans, tho' not as many as Democrats. My strong feelings about the right at present are because of the current makeup of the Republican Party, which I feel is being pushed further and further to the right and becoming more and more rigid because of the onset of the Tea Party and because THEY believe they got a "mandate" in the midterms. They got a mandate to make things better because people are frightened and hoped they would improve the job situation; what they DIDN'T get a mandate for was to ram through all the social agenda laws they have and will, insist on no tax increases for the rich, hold the government hostage with filibusters and uncompromising demands, and gut the middle class more than they already had. Pre-Bush, my feelings were very different. I even respected Bush I.

So your judgment of me is subjective, to say the least. I challenge you and you take it personally, and in my opinion that has colored your view of me. I've gone after Democrats (not as much as Republicans because of my reaction to the way Republicans are behaving and my amazement at the candidates they have and are putting up); I've been very clear that I didn't think Obama would be an effective President and didn't vote for him in the primary, AND that I'm pissed off at a lot of the things he's done and hasn't done. That alone is not the definition of "hard left".

Ironically, I don't view what Murdoch has been doing all this time as a RIGHT-wing conspiracy; I see it as Murdoch utilizing his power and money to push his own agenda, not necessarily the agenda of thinking Republicans. You immediately view it as some kind of liberal conspiracy; who exactly is more ideologically-inclined?

To say "The overall assault on FOX looks like a liberal attempt to silence dissent", in view of the very real power Murdoch, et al. have weilded for a long, long time and how he's used it to propagate fraud and manipulate governments in SEVERAL countries is, to me, absurd. If it were an attempt to silence dissent, there wouldn't be so many facts supporting it, he would be fighting it instead of apologizing (Murdoch is nothing if not a fighter, and he's got a big base behind him) it wouldn't be so widespread, and it would have happened a long time ago.

I see his actions worldwide as a MURDOCH conspiracy, if you will, but one chosen by and implemented by him, not the Republicans or the conservatives; I actually don't think he represents them at all. He is trying to manipulate his audience, and by his actions has been quite willing to imbue his entire enterprise with the concept that "anything goes" in order to achieve his agenda and gain power. If that weren't so, as many blatant frauds and lies as FauxNews alone has been openly found to have committed wouldn't have come to light. They've even admitted and apologized for a number of them; if the "liberal media" were what you claim, those stories would have made banner headlines, rather than having been reported only by a few left-leaning stations.

I say again; your view of me is skewed, for whatever reason, and you see me as something I'm not.

I also find fearing change as a very UNdemocratic metality. If we didn't change things, we'd still be in caves, or at least in the Dark Ages. Change always brings good and bad both, but we HAVE to change, to evolve, to move forward; to advocate not changing is something I can't comprehend. Heck, we'd still have slavery, women would still have no rights, persecution of any number of groups would still be the way of things. I don't enjoy negative change in my own life, but I recognize we have to keep moving forward, not backward. Resisting change, and wanting to undo it, is the hallmark of conservatives, it's in the very title; that puts you on the right, as far as I'm concerned. I don't view you as being as blindly right as those you mentioned, but I have observed a willingness to approve of the right and disapprove of the left which, tho' perhaps unconscious, colors your judgment in my opinion.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off








Well said, and ditto.

I'd say that's probably my biggest gripe with DT - he pretends an objectivity that he doesn't really have, and when challenged or questioned on it, he does indeed tend to play the victim and get personally offended.

DT has an agenda; he is ideologically driven. Most everyone here is, whether they'll admit it or not. I'll freely admit it - I'm a Democrat. That doesn't keep me from pointing out the stuff Obama does that pisses me off, and it won't keep me from voting for an independent, a socialist, a green, or even a Republican if I feel they're the best representative for MY values.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 7:35 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I have to say I don't see DT as having an "agenda", and I don't think any leanings one way or another are conscious. We ALL view things through the "veil" of our own experiences, attitudes, ideology, etc., and I know, given the view of me by others, that I either must not be aware of some of my own leanings or write in an unclear fashion sometimes. But I definitely do get the impression that DT's filter doesn't allow him to see me clearly or read what I write as it's intended. JMHO.

eta: Thank you, Mike, and I'll admit up front that when I re-read it to catch any typos and clarify (and hopefully edit!), at the end I thought "damn, I love English, and sometimes I sure use it good!" Whew, that was embarrassing to admit.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 7:45 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Meanwhile, Murdoch's STILL having a bad week...

http://dailylocal.com/articles/2011/07/19/news/doc4e25b4776c5811328334
26.txt


He got hit in the face with a pie during his testimony.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 8:11 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Frem, for all he may argue, is about one step to the left of me.




Even the cat is laughing.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=42472

But of course, you're looking at it from a very narrow viewpoint in a single direction, kind of like taking into account only horizontal distance when vertically, something is much further away than anything else.

It's never that damn simple, never - and to believe it is, well, that's the very core of a whole lotta problems.

-Frem

ETA: Yes Mikey, I saw that in realtime, and I'm *still* laughing about it, given that's been one of my consistent suggestions to shame bad actors, hasn't it ?
Especially since there IS implied threat to it, as well as the idea that they CHOSE a harmless object, instead of one that wasn't.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 8:16 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Meh, I simply put the agenda right out and up front - not my fault if folk don't take it seriously until it runs them the hell over.
(Or maybe it is, since I do it on purpose.)
In my own screwed up way, I can be frighteningly honest.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 8:40 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thanx, Mike. Excerpts:
Quote:

Murdoch appeared by turns vague, truculent, sharp and concise as he spoke alongside his son and deputy, James, calling the parliamentary inquisition "the most humble day of my career" but refusing to take personal blame for the crisis...

Murdoch said he was not responsible for the hacking scandal, and denied his company was guilty of willful blindness over hacking.

He laid blame on "the people I trusted but they blame maybe the people that they trusted."

He said he lost sight of News of the World because it is such a small part of his company and spoke to the editor of the paper only around once a month, talking more with the editor of the Sunday Times in Britain and the Wall Street Journal in the U.S.

Rupert Murdoch acknowledged, however, that he did not investigate after the Murdochs' former U.K. newspaper chief, Rebekah Brooks, told parliament years ago that the News of the World had paid police officers for information. Asked by lawmakers why there was no investigation, he said: "I didn't know of it."

Murdoch also said he was not informed that his company had paid out big sums — 700,000 pounds ($1.1 million) in one case — to settle lawsuits by phone hacking victims.

James Murdoch said his father became aware of the settlement "in 2009 after a newspaper report. It was a confidential settlement."

Rupert Murdoch is eager to stop the crisis from spreading to the United States, where many of his most lucrative assets — including the Fox TV network, 20th Century Fox film studio, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post — are based.





What fun! (Sorry, I'm not THAT good a buddhist, and nobody ws hurt anyway)


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:08 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


I know shadenfreude is not an admirable quality, but BWAH HA HA

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:28 - 110 posts
Suspect arrested after attack on Paul Pelosi, American businessman, married to Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:22 - 62 posts
Where are the Libertarians?
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:16 - 91 posts
Multiculturalism
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:07 - 54 posts
For the record.
Wed, November 6, 2024 20:00 - 224 posts
India
Wed, November 6, 2024 19:52 - 140 posts
Ukraine updates
Wed, November 6, 2024 19:49 - 26 posts
That didn't take long...
Wed, November 6, 2024 19:47 - 35 posts
Syria and Ukraine, Catalan and Kurdistan: what do they have in common?
Wed, November 6, 2024 19:41 - 102 posts
The predictions thread
Wed, November 6, 2024 19:12 - 1186 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Wed, November 6, 2024 18:52 - 642 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Wed, November 6, 2024 18:28 - 6922 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL