That's a helluva woman. No White broad has ever offered herself up as a human shield for me like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Printable View
That's a helluva woman. No White broad has ever offered herself up as a human shield for me like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Hmmmm... & that tells you, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino Velvet
Dino is afraid of cream pies...I think that is the issue. I note that few people have given acknowledgement to Janet Nova, News Corporations Interim General Counsul, sitting next to Wendi M, and the first one to intervene physically. Curious symmetry here: the assailant was a comedian called 'Johnny Marbles'; in 2003 it was the 'comedy terrorist' Aaron Barshak who dressed up as Osama bin Laden and successfully gatecrashed Prince William's 21st birthday party at Windsor Castle. It seems the best way to get within killing distance of the Great and the Powerful is to become a comic...
Yep - Jackie mason was on the grassy knoll when Kennedy rode by, but his water pistol wouldn't reach the President.
Jackie Mason? Sounds more like Jerry Lewis...one day we will know the truth...
And apparently John Wilkes Booth was a laugh a minute too.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Back on topic - James Murdoch is sticking to his story about the phantom internal email which he is alleged to have seen indicating that the original hacking scandal extended much wider than a single rogue reporter. He's either correct or desperate.
Here's the possible scenario. Tom Crone and Colin Myler have obvious axes to grind with their former masters. Nevertheless, if the police (or the select committee or has that been closed down for the summer recess?) find the NoW men's side of it to be true, James Murdoch would be finished - lied to parliament, perjured himself and liable to arrest as well as disbarred from future office.
News Corp would survive, but as a Murdoch-free environment.
Hacking scandal compared to Watergate:
‪Hacking scandal compared to Watergate [CNN 7-16-2011]‬‏ - YouTube
News Corp would survive, but as a Murdoch-free environment.
I said before I expect Murdoch to retire, if that is the case he will want to see his family firm make the transition as he wants it, assuming he realises it can't go on like this. An alternative option would be to separate the positions of Chairman and Chief Executive, Murdoch is currently both. It is still more common in the US for one man (and usually it is a man) to occupy both seats, whereas in the UK and Europe businesses see the benefits of the separation. This would enable Murdoch to stay on as King of the Castle, but without executive control over decision-making. However, my guess is NewsCorp would also want a re-structuring of the shareholding, which is split between the family-owned voting rights which give the Murdochs a simple majority over all executive decisions, and ownership: in democratic America, you would think this archaic way of protecting the family investment would have gone long ago.
Anyone in the UK interested in BBC TV's coverage and Robert Peston's role in undermining Vince Cable's position in government may want to read this from today's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/wo...h.html?_r=1&hp
The Murdoch show continues to roll on, and so far nobody has appeared in court on any charge or found guilty of lawbreaking, though time will tell. In my earlier post I speculated that Murdoch might be challenged by his own Board and agree to step down as CEO and become Life President or something like that, whereas the Board today have endorsed his leadership and rejected the Select Committee conclusion.
The Select Committe on Culture, Media and Sport has issued a divided report, with a controversial late additional remark which claims Rupert Murdoch is not a 'fit and proper person' to run an international company, a conclusion which a member of the committee, Labour MP Tom Watson had already mentioned in advance in his book, Dial M for Murdoch. Peter Oborne has delineated the way in which both political parties have sucked straws at Murdoch parties, while also showing which ones were 'refuseniks', but for me the key issues are the conduct of the police and it remains to be judged by successful prosecution.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...it-is-now.html
However, I think there is an interesting, and deeper issue here, and it is not about the press at all. Murdoch did not just want a full takeover of BSkyB for the money -it is one of the largest ISP in the UK, and what Murdoch wants is an end to 'net neutrality'. What enrages Murdoch most of all is that people like us, having paid a nominal fee to an ISP, can browse our way through multiple websites without paying a dime. Just as he has locked his online papers behind firewalls, and bought rights to major sporting events which force viewers to pay extra to see them, so he wants internet access locked behind a firewall. This blog on Dale&Co from last year to me spells out the dangers inherent in allowing Murdoch to expand his empire, but I suspect with hard copy newspapers on the slide, the long term firewall strategy is the reason why he has backing from his Board. Whether he can survive any prosecutions, or legal investigations into computer and phone hacking in the USA I don't know. But for now, he is secure.
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/murdoc...wn-worst-enemy
Have to say that while I may share the judgement that Murdoch is "unfit etc"... the Press rather buried the fact that this was contested by the Conservatives on the panel. This statement made good hedlines and the fact that Mensch and her Tory colleagues all voted against it's inclusion in the final report was buried in the text. Not the most shining of moments for the rest of the media - with only the BBC's daily Politics Show highlighting this crucial and deep divide.
The Guardian had two pages on it on Tuesday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
They did indeed have two pages on the report - but the fact that the line about Murdoch being disowned by all the Conservatives o the panel was somewhat buried. I'm all for fair play.
And seeing Louise Mensch doughnutting every interview and TV opportunity to distance the Tories from the report's statement about Murdoch is both unedifying but sadly all too predictable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Personally, I can well understand Tom Watson's antipathy towards Murdoch and his cohorts after what they put him and his family through - and almost certainly breaking the law several times in doing so, by the way - but a select committee report was simply the wrong vehicle for continuing his own personal crusade.
The trial in London of Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson is under way and I think this succinct piece from the New York Times is worth reading, although I think Brooks is in deeper shit than the Times thinks.
Incidentally, did anyone notice the claim that Tony Blair had been 'visiting' Wendi Deng without Rupert's knowledge? Where and when? Maybe he is just comforting her through the torture of her divorce from Rupert. I wonder who gets the Park Avenue Apartment--?
Fates of Brooks and Coulson in Tabloid Hacking Case Are Diverging
By SARAH LYALL
Published: December 2, 2013
LONDON — Once they were friends and colleagues who reveled in the heady world of British news, politics and intrigue. Together they rose from the scrappy newsrooms of London’s tabloids to the heights of establishment power, she as head of Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper empire, he as Prime Minister David Cameron’s chief spokesman. For six years they were lovers, carrying on their affair even as each married someone else.
Andy Coulson has lost more.
Now Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson are together again, this time in the dock at the Old Bailey, London’s main criminal court, facing charges of illegally intercepting voice messages and other crimes in connection with their work for Mr. Murdoch’s now-defunct News of the World tabloid.
Since their arrests, their lives have sharply diverged.
Though they sit side by side in court, it is not by choice; their seats are assigned. Nothing about their body language suggests their history of intimacy. They bid each other good morning and good evening, but there is little more than that. When the prosecution read out a steamy letter from Ms. Brooks to Mr. Coulson as evidence of their affair, she looked uneasily down at her lap; he stared straight ahead.
Ms. Brooks, 45, a Murdoch darling who worked as chief executive of Mr. Murdoch’s News International before resigning when the phone hacking scandal engulfed her in the summer of 2011, never lost the support of the man who was her boss, friend, mentor and protector.
She walked away with a $17.6 million severance package that incorporated “compensation for loss of office” and various “ongoing benefits.” These have not been specified but are believed to include the car and driver that bring her to court each day. She has houses in London and in Oxfordshire.
But from appearances at least, she is a changed woman. Her clingy, look-at-me clothes have been replaced by functional skirts and blouses; she wears little makeup. She sees a small circle of close friends, no longer goes to the glamorous parties she used to love, and is devoting her time to the legal case and to the baby she had via a surrogate.
“She’s doing as well as can be expected, which is not great,” a friend said.
Still, she is rich. And she is in better shape than Mr. Coulson, 45, who resigned twice over different phases of the phone hacking scandal: once as editor of the News of the World in 2007 and again as director of communications for Mr. Cameron in 2011. Cut loose by the Murdochs, shunned by his old government friends, short of cash and out of work for nearly three years, he has had to sell his expensive London house and move out of town with his wife and three children.
Mr. Coulson appears unchanged physically, and still wears the same nondescript business suits he always did, He commutes to the trial from his new home in Kent or stays overnight in modest hotels or friends’ houses. The Murdochs washed their hands of him long ago, rightly concluding that his employment at Downing Street made the hacking scandal far more combustible by implicating the government and the Conservative Party.
“My feeling is that he has paid a much higher price than anyone else,” said Roy Greenslade, a professor of journalism at City University here. “He didn’t get a massive payoff, he didn’t get Murdoch standing behind him, and he had to fall on his sword twice.”
A journalist from a competing news organization said, “He has lost everything, basically.”
While Ms. Brooks’s legal expenses have been paid by her old employer, Mr. Coulson — whose bills have passed the $400,000 mark and will inevitably climb much higher — has had a different experience. Despite negotiating an exit package in which the company was obliged to pay his legal bills should he be charged in connection with his work as editor, Mr. Coulson has had to take the company to court to obtain the payments.
Even though it lost the case, the company is still paying only grudgingly, Mr. Coulson’s friends say.
“To this day, they’re making it supremely difficult for him to get his bills paid,” said an acquaintance of Mr. Coulson’s who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke anonymously to comment on a pending case. “They’re going through his bills with a fine-tooth comb, and the big problem is that they’re delaying payments. He has a big team, and it makes life very difficult.”
Both Mr. Coulson and Ms. Brooks are likely to have to pay back at least some of the money to the company if they are found guilty. (Both have pleaded not guilty to the hacking charges.)
The trial is expected to run for several more months. It is now in its second month, and the prosecution is still presenting its arguments. This is a complicated undertaking, in part because of the multiple defendants and multiple charges relating to phone hacking, computer hacking, paying off public officials and perverting the course of justice.
In addition to Mr. Coulson and Ms. Brooks, there are six other defendants, among them Charlie Brooks, Ms. Brooks’s husband, who has been accused of conspiring with her to destroy evidence.
More trials are expected to follow. What began as an investigation into the illegal interception of voice mail messages has grown into a sprawling octopus of a case, with law-enforcement strands stretching in many directions and involving more than 160 police officers and staff members; at least 1,000 likely victims from politics, sports, show business and the media; and millions of emails and other documents.
It is far too early to say how the case will end; the defendants’ lawyers have not started presenting their arguments. But on the surface, at least, Mr. Coulson looks to be in a worse position than Ms. Brooks. While prosecutors have already introduced email and voice mail messages that they say directly link Mr. Coulson to phone hacking, they have not yet presented similar evidence in the case of Ms. Brooks.
She and her husband seem more vulnerable to the charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. The prosecution contends that they illegally removed files from the office and tried to discard a laptop that potentially contained evidence in the case.
As for Mr. Coulson, even when this case is finished, his woes will not be over. Whether or not he is convicted, he faces a second trial in Scotland, which has a different legal system from England’s and a reputation for being tough on English journalists. He stands accused there of committing perjury while testifying in the trial of a Scottish politician who, among other things, claimed his phone had been hacked.
In that trial, Mr. Coulson repeatedly declared that there was no phone hacking going on at the News of the World.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/wo...ref=world&_r=0
I have lost count of the millions of pounds the Murdoch empire has forked out in recent years to settle legal cases arising from the criminal and dirty practices of the 'journalists' he employs in the UK, yet he continues to operate a business which has a large stake in the UK media. It remains to be seen if the revelations about yet more millions paid out to settle suits, in the latest case involving sex-pest Bill O'Reilly, will undermine Murdoch's attempt to purchase the remaining shares in SKY to give his family firm full control of yet another media outlet in the UK. Murdoch appears to preside over companies which employ crooks, sex-pests, liars, and con-men for whom truth is an elastic band wrapped around a firework. And yet, he survives. Proof that there is no justice in this world, or just not yet.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...eilly-cover-up
The news in recent days has been about Murdoch selling assets to Disney-
Under the terms of blockbuster deal, Fox is selling scores of assets to Disney, including its 20th Century Fox movie and TV studios, cable networks and other international operations.
If the deal goes through, Disney will be the new owner of Fox’s FX and National Geographic cable channels, India’s main network Star, and its stake in Sky, which of course is listed here in the UK.
It is also buying Fox’s stake in Hulu, a video streaming service.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a8110166.html
Less well reported has been the ongoing probe into corruption in the governing body of football, FIFA and the revelation that Fox Executives have been implicated in bribes-
Senior executives at Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox corporation are alleged to have agreed for millions of dollars in bribes to be paid to South American soccer officials to secure major broadcast deals, according to US prosecution documents unmasked by sworn testimony.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...a-libertadores
If true, and there seems to be strong evidence that it is, does it not prove yet again that there is in the Murdoch Empire a culture of indifference to the law, wherever it takes place, be it the UK or Latin America? When is Rupert Murdoch and his clan going to be held responsible for the 'dirty deals' done under their noses by their -well-primed?- executives? Or is law breaking so common in the corporate world that nobody cares?
Edit: My post doesn't make sense now that I read Fox News won't be sold.
I didn't see the post before you edited it, but the point might be that Murdoch retains his so-called 'News' outlets because they feed his colossal ego as a political agitator who can walk into the White House of Downing Street any time he wants and expect to be listened to, to even have his ideas put into practice -such as his persuading Ronald Reagan -via the Federal Communications Commission- to drop the Fairness in Broadcasting in 1987. One wonders why it is even called 'news' when Murdoch has established a media culture in which so-called journalists are expected to invent the news that doesn't exist, or distort the news that does, all in the name of some vague libertarian idea of 'freedom' which enables Murdoch to be mates with Bill Clinton and Tony Blair (godfather to one of Murdoch's children) and the con-man sitting in the Oval Office today. A nasty piece of work. But that's not news.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Surely Tony Blair is no longer a mate, given all the reports about his relationship with Murdoch's ex-wife.
You may be right, they were certainly close at one time, have not looked into it closely enough these days to know. I guess it depends on how useful they might be to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
The post basically said that if he unloads his news empire, there is a chance over time that the culture would change. Disney would be paying partly for its right-wing customer base but its only imperative would be to deliver news with a right wing slant to satisfy that base.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
The way Murdoch runs things is not just based on making money through sensationalism but also seems deeply personal. As you point out there's also a lot of vanity and ego-gratification involved. I was just thinking with new ownership it might over time develop some standards of decency and be an outlet for conservative talking points but require its commentators to steer clear of conspiracy theories and outright lies. That is all mooted by the fact that Murdoch really does want to hold onto it...probably for the same or similar reasons he runs it the way he does.
You may or may not be aware that Murdoch has been trying for some years to purchase the remaining interest in the Sky network in the UK he doesn't already own. The deal is being investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority but with the sale of 20th Century Fox to Disney there are hints that if Murdoch doesn't get Sky he will sell it, and that the Sky News Channel will either fold or be put up for sale. His original bid floundered because of the revelations and trials around the phone hacking scandal, but in any case Murdoch has never been able to transport his poison into tv news, retaining newspapers like The Sun for that. I don't get Sky News on my tv but I have seen it on other people's boxes and it is nothing like his papers and is a fair and sound broadcaster, though that may also be due to the laws on balanced reporting we have in the UK which do not exist in the US. We also have an issue here with market share and the view that Murdoch already owns enough with regard to news print and broadcast journalism, or too much from where I sit.
There is an article on the Sky bid here-
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-...-news-at-risk/
It is even possible that Murdoch is not that much interested in the UK as he used to be. He was at The Times victory party on election night earlier this year and allegedly stormed out when the exit poll revealed his relentless attacks on Corbyn and the Labour Party had failed. He does not have as close a relationship with Theresa May as he had with David Cameron and Tony Blair, though that is probably because nobody has a close relationship with her, other than her husband. He may see the prevarications over Brexit as an important fight, being a keen leaver, but he can't compete with the hysterical Daily Mail which has become the primary voice of angry Britain, or angry Paul Dacre, its absurd and often nasty editor.
Murdoch is said to have deep emotional ties to newsprint, because he inherited his father's business, and it seems his outfit has missed the boat on new developments in streaming which is why he doesn't see 20th Century Fox as worth competing with Netflix and the new kids on the block, but newsprint is no longer lucrative -or influential- as it was in the days of Citizen Kane so it remains to be seen how he manages his businesses -in Asia as well as in the US-, as well as who gets what out of the various children he has had from three marriages.
Here is a cute irony -the most effective challenge to Murdoch's media empire may take place and be most effective where it all began: in Australia.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...murdoch-empire
From a purely business perspective, it is hard to deny that Murdoch has been one of the most successful businessmen of the 20th century, considering both the global scale of his businesses and the shareholder value that underpins the success of business in monetary terms. To what extent the newspaper segments have suffered in recent years is not clear, given the diversiity of his titles, but to some it may not be the fact that Murdoch is successful, but the means whereby he achieved it, and what he did with it.
Here, there are some emerging trends which may challenge Murdoch, apart from the enquiry in Australia.
The first is that within his own family, James Murdoch has all but jumped ship owing to a disagreement with the parent company's dismissal of/denial of/ critique of climate change. Whether this means he loses his inheritance or sells his shares, I don't know. He can consider himself a lucky man for escaping prosecution over the phone hacking trials that took place in the UK when he was CE of News International.
The second, perhaps the most remarkable, is the position Fox News in the US has taken on the outcome of the 2020 election, where even an extremist like Tucker Carlson could not stomach the outragous drivel peddled by Sidney Powell, even though she remains Michael Flynn's lawyer, and it is clear she has been dumped for media reasons, whereas it would be quite typical if the President believed Hugo Chavez, Bill Clinton and George Soros denied him a second term. For a man who regards loyalty as one of his most nobel values, the dis-loyalty of Fox News has unleashed a fury once associated, prosaically, with jilted lovers.
But the significance is not so much commercial -Murdoch's empire can survive without Fox News, but political. For Murdoch has used his media influence for over 40 years to make a link betweeen what 'the man in the street' thinks with government policies in the UK, the US and his native Australia. From this perspective, Murdoch has been the classic libertarian businessman, a man who believes markets are better than goevernment, who has promoted low taxation and low-to-non existent regulation of business, and who has opposed what he sees as 'cartel' like market manipulation by the European Union.
For the US in particular, he played a key role in persuading Ronald Reagan in 1987 to abandon the Fair Broadcasting principle that has meant the emergence of a vicious sectarian media.
In the UK he is associated with a culture of vulgarity and gossip replacing news, but also a racist reporting of the news, not as fact, but as opinion, often supplied without any journalistic investigation, by the police. When a policeman was murdered in a gruesome manner during the Broadwater Farm riots in London in 1985, it wasn't long before The Sun had identified the killer and embarked on a campaign of accusation and vilification, even though some years late it was proven the man targeted wasn't even in Tottenham when the policeman was killed. As for the notorious Page 3 girls, it has rarely been reported in the US, I think, that the feature more than once used topless 16 year old girls, this being the kind of soft porn that would land Murdoch in prison in much of the US, and forced to register as a sex offender.
Losing his political influence with the US President, be it the 45th of the 46th might not matter to a man who can't be far away from reporting directly from eternity, yet just as important to me is how, so many years after he was an adviser to Reagan and Thatcher, their legacy is being trashed, but by Conservatives, so called, rather than by wicked Socialists or Communists, whether they arrived in his native land as Convicts, or chose to become so because they live there.
After all, Thatcher was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the Single Market or the European Union. She campaigned in favour of the UK remaining in the EEC as it was in the 1975 Referedum, and for all her scepticism about 'Ever Closer Union' and monetary union in particular, I doubt she would have voted Leave. Yet the Leave campaign has relied on depicting the EU in terms which are almost opposite to hers, while Boris Johnson's use of Brexit as the ideology that identifies who a Conservative is -leading to the expulsion from the party of so many life-long Conservatives, would I think have at least puzzled her. For in reality, she was more pragmatic than idealist. And as a manager, her leadership of the Party for 16 years is unlikely to be repeated, while her almost obsessive attention to policy detail sits in complete contrast to Boris Johnson, whose ignorance and indifference to the detail has often made him look stupid in public.
More broadly the Libertarian project Murdoch has championed has been, if only temporarily, felled by Covid-19 with the UK and US Governments spending other people's money without any concern for the long-term repayment of such staggering borrowing, though UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak has hinted we will have to pay more income tax to pay off the debts.
And that is where Thatcher came in, when in 1979 her election campaign pivoted on a promise to cut taxes, same as with Reagan in in the 1980 campaign, in both cases, with Murdoch's full approval.
Where are they now, we ask? In the dustbin of history. And for Murdoch, perhaps the bin men are on their way to his home.
Crikey! It's all going down, down under. Rumoured to be the laziest businessman in America, Lachlan Murdoch has decided his and his dad's firm should be allowed to broadcast verifiable lies on the grounds that free speech means giving air time to lies even when it may have defamed another commercial firm -making one wonder, did Fox Executives ever consider the consequences of broadcasting lies when it led not just to illegal attempts to overturn a democratic election by Trump (for which the Georgia investigation may be his nemesis), but the violence of Jan 6-?
Crikey, indeed!
‘What game is he playing?’: Lachlan Murdoch, Trump’s election lies and the legal fight against a small Australian website | Australian media | The Guardian
"A Fox spokesperson responding to Insider's queries about Hannity and Ryan accused Dominion of trying to "publicly smear" the company just for reporting the news."
Rupert Murdoch said Sean Hannity was 'privately disgusted' by Donald Trump for weeks after the election: court filing (yahoo.com)
If only it were that simple. To begin with Fox, as with other of Murdoch's outlets around the world, is often more concerned with creating the news than reporting it, which is what Tucker Carlson is there for.
Second, the denial of Biden's victory in the election was relentless, made day after day even though the people making such claims never believed it -so the news they were reporting was the bogus news, but not the news that as journalists, they could have investigated. One can assume journalists ask the day-to-day questions of people in public life, to find out what they think, or in events, to find out what happened. None of the journalists investigated claims of vote rigging, they didn't need to because they knew it was rubbish.
Can Fox and Murdoch get away with it again, as Murdoch did over phone hacking in the UK which has cost millions with some cases still in litigation? I am biased and don't think Murdoch is fit to run a business in the Uk, but he seems to do what he wants and get away with it. And he was central to the repeal of the Fair Broadcasting Doctrine in 1987 -but wouldn't this very Doctrine have prevented Fox News from reporting only one side of the story?
The greatest test for the Murdochs now seems to be whether they can deliver the Republican nomination for De Santis. It's clear they see him as a more reliable vehicle for delivering their policy objectives, but as always they are afraid of alienating the Trump fans in their audience.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...oting-00084839
Given that at the height of his Hacking crisis, Murdoch shut down the News of the World newspaper, is it so far fetched to believe that the Fox News brand is now so tainted -and a financial liability- that Murdoch will just shut it down? He can do as he likes, and he has done so in the past -but is the potential for Fox News to cost more than its worth a good reason?
In the meantime this article exposes what a worthless hypocrite Tucker Carlson is, though probably no surprise to Americans here.
So Tucker Carlson secretly hates Donald Trump … is anybody surprised? | Arwa Mahdawi | The Guardian
I'd say they were willing to sacrifice down News of the World because they still had other media outlets to advance their political agenda in the UK. There's no such alternative for Fox News. They will want to keep it going as long as it advances their political agenda, and what matters from that perspective is whether it is tainted with the target audience.
I'm not sure how Tucker Carlson's exposure will affect his audience - will they even know about it if they rely on Fox for their info? If your primary criteria for accepting something is whether it fits your prejudices, does it matter whether someone believes their lies or only how effectively they are performed?
Can Fox be sued for not telling the truth? If it is a News organization, is it not also the case that it can invent the news rather than report it; or report whatever it is that people say because they say it?
One thing that puzzles me is that if a journalist wants to be taken seriously, is it not a basic function to ask a counter question to a politician when he or she says, for example 'policy x is a great success' -not to ridicule or demean the politician, but to obtain through questions more detail as well as being critical?
It would mean that if someone, Y says the Earth is Flat, the journalist would ask for proof and so on. So if Giuliani or Trump says the election was 'rigged', ought not the journalist to ask for proof, and maintain an inquisitive stance?
But there is no law against it; unless by reporting a statement it knows to be false, that causes violence, and an insurrection against the US Congress, as defined by the Constitution. But then I assume there must be a proven link between the report on Fox News and the insurrection.
This aside from the defamation case, a matter in law that I cannot judge.
I think what Fox News provides is more entertainment than journalism - if entertainment is the right word for pandering to the audience's negative emotions. The question that is often asked in Australia is why do politicians and the rest of the media continue to treat the Murdoch media according to the standard journalism conventions when much of what they do looks more like partisan advocacy.
On another note, I see that Rupert is reported to have called off his latest engagement because he discovered that his fiancee was too much of a right-wing religious nutter. Talk about reaping what you've sowed.
The political influence of the Murdoch media definitely seems to be declining in Australia, probably because their partisanship has become too blatant. The Labour party was won a string of federal and state elections over the past year, despite strident opposition from the Murdoch media. The conservative Liberal/National parties now govern only in Tasmania. They have lost a bunch of previously-safe urban seats because well-educated middle class voters have become disenchanted with their negativity on issues like climate change, 'culture wars' and government integrity.
One similarity with the US is that neither the conservative parties nor their media backers show any sign of listening to the voters and changing their ways. Both seem too afraid of alienating their support base to stop pandering to their grievances. Unfortunately for them this doesn't work so well in Australia because we have an impartial electoral system and judiciary, so it's impossible to gain power without appealing to the majority.
We have a settlement:
Dominion, Fox News settle defamation suit for stunning $787M, averting trial
http://www.yahoo.com/news/dominion-f...205038134.html
I don't think anyone is that surprised, as Murdoch is a coward and has done this before, mostly with the phone hacking scandals in the UK, where cases are still going through the Courts. I wonder if Dominion didn't just go for the money, but require Fox to make a statement that cannot be buried in the middle of a programme at 3am. I even wonder, though I guess its a fantasy, if Murdoch will sack Carlson and Hannity. He did shut down the News of the World as noted above, but also as noted above I guess Fox News is too close to his American heart. But will be interesting to see what unfolds over the next few days. That said, there are the other cases, Smartmatic, for one.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
This show ain't over yet, folks...
If Murdoch is going to make a blood sacrifice and fire one of the on-air personalities, I think its going to be Maria Bartiromo. I don't think the recent stories about her coming out is a coincidence. She also is probably the least popular of the 4 (Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham being the other 3) and their wouldn't be push back from Fox News viewers if she was let go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Personally, I would love to see Carlson and Ingraham be the ones to be made an example of.
But if someone is going take the fall, I thinks its going to be the CEO of Fox News, Suzanne Scott. I think this is from Rupert Mudoch's deposition:
"I appointed Miss Scott to the job and delegate everything to her".
That sounds like someone who is about to be walked up to the metaphorical gallows.
What puzzles me is why they didn't settle earlier, before all the damaging revelations came out.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
And if Dominion were in so strong a position, could they have got closer to the $1.6bn they originally wanted? The shareholders, which includes funds owned by the States of Wisconsin and Alaska, don't seem too bothered, so I assume that unless the share price takes a tumble, victims in this will be the individuals, of the kind blackchubby has identified above. After all, consider how much the value of Twitter has taken a dive since Musk took over, but it is still there.
Historically, these cases have been hard to win, and Fox could have strung it out for a long time with appeals. Dominion exists to make profits, not to perform a public service, and they literally decided a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
That said, it's a pity they didn't insist on an on air apology/retraction as a condition of the settlement. They will probably be more careful about egregiously damaging another business, but Fox will just go back to gaslighting its audience, as they are doing on this settlement.
In related news, Lachlan Murdoch has decided not to pursue a defamation case against an Australian news site that described the Murdochs as an unindicted co-conspiritor in the January 6 riot. No doubt they were worried the case might lead to further embarassing exposures.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ghty-news-corp
Two down, how many more to go? If not precisely as you predicted.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
It is claimed that the lawsuit being brought by the producer of Tucker Carlson Tonight, Abby Grossberg is a prime cause. If her revelations about Carlson are aired in Court, I guess Rupert can at least claim 'he no longer works for us' -but I also read that Carlson was close to Lachlan Murdoch so that suggests a rift in the family, but also a vice-like grip on decision making from the Dirty Digger. There have been rumours that Elizabeth and James are not as right-wing as Rupert or Lachlan, but until the old man is dead and his will is read, if it confers title on his successor that aspect of this is just not clear -will Fox continue to support Trump if no other strong candidate emerges this year?
Tucker Carlson was abruptly fired from Fox News on Monday morning in direct order from Rupert Murdoch (yahoo.com)