I seems to be characteristic of the populist right that they complain about the wealthy and powerful when it suits them, but they never propose to do anything about the structural factors that lead to accumulation of wealth and power.
Printable View
I seems to be characteristic of the populist right that they complain about the wealthy and powerful when it suits them, but they never propose to do anything about the structural factors that lead to accumulation of wealth and power.
The problem with Capitalism is similar to that with Socialism. When you start to dismantle its corpus of ideas, you find within them contradictions. I see no contradiction in Socialism between individual liberty and the collective good, some think it is irreconcilable; in Capitalism there are 'One Nation Conservatives' who think Government can use the best of Capitalism -its surplus wealth- to ameliorate the worst of it, ie Poverty, and those who think Government is the problem not the solution, and think Markets are the only guarantor of freedom.
At least with Murdoch you know he hates Govt in all its form, and is as committed to Market Forces as Rothbard and people like him. With Trump I am not even sure he believes in Markets, given that most of his wealth comes from tax breaks, tax remittances, building loans and the money he has laundered for various Russian crime syndicates through his Atlantic City casinos and multi-national golf clubs. In this sense, he is a tool for the 'big boys' whose Billions out-count him. And they can manipulate him because he is so dumb at real politics.
But I don't see any serious debate on Capitalism in the US, maybe Elizbeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but someone like Noam Chomsky has failed at it over many years. As for Socialism in the US....well...it had a moment with the Wobblies but by the end of the 1930s they had been floored by a mixture of good old American violence, and FDR, of whom an American once told me with trembling voice, 'he was a Communist'.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tu...4e462a76&ei=21
This is a story I've seen reported and hinted at a few times. Basically that in complying with discovery obligations in the dominion suit, Fox's lawyers had possession of Tucker Carlson text messages that were so bad that it would have severely damaged Fox to be accused of knowing about them and not firing him. When they were forwarded to the board, they felt they had no choice but to fire him. What could be that much worse than what he said on air? I'm not going to even speculate because I have no clue but I really hope we eventually find out.
Edit: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/26/b...-fox-news.html
I checked back to see if anyone had said anything. I think we're talking about the same thing and I've now seen a couple of articles that make it sound more concrete. None of them report what Fox News executives saw, but there are multiple reports that what they saw motivated their decision. I'm not sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Hard to know until we do know. Some have argued Carlson would not have been fired merely because he called Sidney Powell a 'lying fucking bitch' or another woman, or multiple women in Fox News the C-word. Murdoch worships money and the power it gives him, so I suspect he was given a legal overview of the litigation and where it is going, and is most concerned that the share price will fall as the details of Fox News campaign of lies is exposed, with Carlson a leading figure who knew it was all lies. The simple truth is that there are no good outcomes for Fox News as far as the 2020 Election and January 6th are concerned, and Murdoch is thus at the moment saving his investment, given that Fox News earns him money not Carlson, who may have decided he was too important to be fired.
Is this it? Does it surprise anyone? Seems the issue was not what he wrote, but that the court case might expose it to public viewing.
New York Times Obtains Tucker Carlson Text That Contributed To Removal From Fox News (yahoo.com)
On a lighter note, this is good indication of the intelligence level of Fox News presenters.
Fox host claims Messi should 'learn English like Beckham did'
https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/foot...dc90f471&ei=12
Given that Spanish is the second language of the USA, why should Messi learn English? He might be learning some, and the Argentinian player Carlos Tevez claimed he would not learn English as a protest at the UK's 'occupation' of Las Malvinas [Falkland Islands]. Sergio Aguerro is another Argentinian whose commitment to learning English wasn't great.
Makes one wonder how many English players learned Italian, German or Spanish when moving there, Gary Lineker, of course, being the exception. He probably speaks Japanese too.
Since the weekend the Media has been in hysterics over a claim in The Sun, that a famous TV presenter shared sexually explicit photos with a teenager, 17 at the time it started, but now 20 years old. It has claimed the mother of the person, who became addicted to crack cocaine funded, she claims by the thousands of pounds given to her child by the presenter, complained to the BBC in May this year but went to The Sun when the BBC did not respond.
The media has been torching the BBC every day, the name of the person concerned has been bandied about in social media even though I can think of at least one other person whom it could be. But the BBC receives allegations from the public of improper conduct by its staff every day and its bureaucracy might not have taken the allegations seriously. Moreover, to complicate the story, the young person at the centre, or is it the sidelines? of this story, has through his or her lawyer denounced The Sun story as rubbish, indeed, told The Sun before the story was first printed it was rubbish, but they published anyway, and later today (Tuesday) it's headline will read 'Dad: The BBC are Liars', though in fact he is not the Dad but a Step-Dad.
Disregard for the moment the so-called meat in this story, the photos nobody has seen, indeed, a story now bereft of facts. Consider this: Rupert Murdoch owns The Sun and hates the BBC. He wants the licence to end, and the Corporation smashed to pieces in a market place Murdoch wants to grow for himself. Given the negative coverage of this story it doesn't matter to him if it is true or not, he has succeeded in exposing the BBC to severe criticism, and thus it is 'Job done'.
Now the sick irony of it all: until the law changed in 2003, The Sun, legally, published topless photos of 16 year olds, one of whom appeared on its notorious Page 3. The hard copy dropped page 3 in 2015 and in 2017 on its online editions, yet now is fomenting a national scandal over alleged photos of a 17 year-old. Since when did a newspaper that has ruined people's lives over 40 or more years with its lies and vicious attacks, become the country's Moral Guardian?
And, given that you can see the topless 16 year old in the National Archives, or online if you register, doesn't this pose the problem that it might be illegal to do so? And where does this leave Rupert Murdoch -the publisher of what today is classed as Child Porn?
If the BBC is damaged goods and must go, what of Rupert Murdoch, whose newspapers not only ruined people's lives with lies, not only published topless photos of 16 year-old girls, but broke the law again and again through its phone hacking exploits still being prosecuted in the Courts?
The truth will come out, but will those who need to be, be held accountable -not just in the BBC, but in The Sun?
Less than a year ago we were told the Murdoch media empire were going to back away from climate change denialism and support the goal of net zero emissions.
https://www.businessinsider.com/rupe...-change-2021-9
So how have they responded to the recent news about the highest global temperatures on record? You guessed it - the same old denialism. They will never change because their business model depends on appealing to a certain audience by telling them what they want to hear.
https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/ep...mate/102641590