×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

James Murdoch's Defense Crumbles

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the and-in-the-alternative-no-one-saw-me-do-it dept.

Cellphones 272

Hugh Pickens writes "Brian Cathcart writes that whatever happens to News Corp., it will surely happen without James Murdoch, the clever, dashing heir apparent to his buccaneer father, Rupert, who has become a liability with little hope of survival. James Rupert told members of Parliament that when he approved a payment of about $1.1 million in 2008 to settle the first lawsuit brought by a phone-hacking victim, he was not shown an email that suggested phone hacking was more widespread at the News of the World, and not limited to one 'rogue' reporter. 'He is saying one thing—that in briefing him they gave an "incomplete picture" — and, remarkably, in a statement Thursday, they publicly denied that,' writes Cathcart. All the News Corp. executives used to tell the same story but one by one as the pressure has grown these people have been cast off or have drifted away and now as the little group has splintered and scattered, and they all need to save their own skins. 'It's not just James who is done,' writes David Carr in the NY Times. 'Rupert Murdoch, as we have long known him, is done as well.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

272 comments

Unlikely (4, Insightful)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869260)

People forget the power wealthy people have, especially one who owns most of the media. I doubt it will impact him past a year.

Re:Unlikely (4, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869340)

People forget the power wealthy people have, especially one who owns most of the media. I doubt it will impact him past a year.

But the Murdochs are hated by many, including those in the media industry. They smell blood and the Murdochs are the chum de jour. I wouldn't be surprised if their phones have been hacked recently by a competitor.

I don't think Murdoch's company was the only one to use phone hacking. I bet we'll see other media companies getting hit with similar accusations (and maybe even companies that like to harass or sue the public).

Re:Unlikely (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869418)

But the Murdochs are hated by many, including those in the media industry. They smell blood and the Murdochs are the chum de jour.

The question to ask is why now? Its not like he was doing some Dr Jeckel and Mr Hyde thing and was a sweet little old lady up until last month or so. He's pretty much consistently been himself for longer than the entire "scandal". Who benefits in money or power by it blowing up RIGHT now? I don't really know.

The reason the superbowel winning football team is reported and fawned over with media puff pieces on the day after the superbowel is because its current news.

On the other hand, this "scandal" has been quietly festering for about a dogs life. So why have the powers that be blown it up right now? There must be a reason beyond "they're bored" or some anonymous / Lulz / goonsquad "sounds like fun to me".

Re:Unlikely (4, Insightful)

SenseiLeNoir (699164) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869464)

It didnt just "blow up right now". IF you lived in the UK you will know its been going on for some time now. It just was not reported outside. The key thing that changed was that until know it was mainly Celebs, etc who have been havign their phones hacked, and the general public was like "meh".

When it was found out that Millie Dowler's phone, July 7th victims, and other "normal" peoples phones got hacked that public opinion changed significantly.

Re:Unlikely (0, Redundant)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869558)

It didnt just "blow up right now"...the general public was like "meh"

When it was found out that Millie Dowler's phone, July 7th victims, and other "normal" peoples phones got hacked that public opinion changed significantly.

So it didn't "blow up right now" except that it did "blow up right now"?

I had to sit thru headlines about them hacking 9-11 victim's phones.... So that was sat on from 9-11-2001 until the summer of 2011... Who benefits?

I think you're making my point for me...

Re:Unlikely (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869790)

You are both dense and an idiot.

The 9/11 stuff did not surface until people started digging into this more deeply, after it became apparent that more people other than celebrities became affected.

It's not like competing newspapers have been sitting on this info for 10 years. Being such a sensationalist story, it would have been released right away.

Now piss off with your veiled and ridiculous conspiracy nonsense.

Re:Unlikely (2)

kno3 (1327725) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869592)

Well, it has been going on the ages, but I think that it is fair to say it has blown up now. The issue had been swept under the carpet by the police and government until recently. The Guardian have been telling the Met, the Government and the PCC for years that they have all of this information, and if it wasn't investigated properly they would run the stories. Eventually they called time. I don't think it is necessarily the change of public mood that has caused it to explode in such a manner. I think it is implications of criminal activity perpetrated by so many powerful people in Government and the Met. They have had to all come out and start blaming each other for it, as opposed to leaving it in the long grass where they wanted it. The public reaction hasn't actually been that great, it was a massive media and Westminster reaction though. In some ways you could still call it a storm in a teacup.

Re:Unlikely (3, Funny)

Relyx (52619) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869480)

The timing of recent events was in my view largely down to News Intl's BSkyB takeover bid. It was due to be greenlit the very week the Milly Dowler phone hacking revelation broke. Coincidence? I think not.

Re:Unlikely (3, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869578)

The timing of recent events was in my view largely down to News Intl's BSkyB takeover bid

Hmm. I wonder who had "interesting" stock options on that deal that profited by the collapse of the deal. There's a reason why the 9/11/2001 stock options positions have never been released, and probably never will.

Re:Unlikely (1)

deains (1726012) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869880)

I'd imagine the motivation was more political than financial (insofar as the two are separate things). Remember that the news was broken by a rival newspaper, not some stock broker. They wanted to discredit NewsInt before they took over half the British media.

Re:Unlikely (-1, Flamebait)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869894)

> The timing of recent events was in my view largely down to News Intl's BSkyB takeover bid.

That is a common theory, but would only explain the story in England. The wall to wall coverage here requires a larger explanation. And isn't it just a hoot that the NYT is all over this story? If true it is a tale of sleezy journalism going under even the low bar for British tabloid journalism. But the NYT commits treason on a regular basis, it is the rare state secret that they don't consider part of 'all the news thats fit to print.' Sure they hated BushHitler but they have continued splashing secrets into print years after he left office. What sort of fudged up moral compass puts traitors who get their oen country's soldiers killed in a position to pontificate on the moral transgressions of their felllow journalists?

We already are discovering that the practice of cracking voicemail boxes of fools (who never set a pin or set a totally lame one) was a widespread practive in the british tabloid press, yet the official investigation has not opened up to question others. And we are expected to believe Rupert himself was aware of and approved of shady practices at a sleezy tabloid, or at least Jr. did? Like they wouldn't practice plausable deniability in industry the same as they do in politics, the military and elsewhere? And finally, we here in America are expected to give a crap about a scandal about tabloids in England when our own tabloids are just as awful?

No, this story and the timing is aimed at, if not forcing Murdoch out completely, at least putting Holder on his ass hard enough that Fox News over here shuts up through the '12 election cycle. A unified press singing the praises of the LightWorker is about the only realistic chance the idiot has of being releected and so that is what they intend to have happen. Chicago style if needed.

Re:Unlikely (4, Interesting)

SenseiLeNoir (699164) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869510)

In addition, the entitiy that "kicked this off" was actually the British Public, who after realising that Millie dowlers phone got hacked, as well as teh dead servicemen, and their families, plus 7th July victims. The PUBLIC started a campaign to force the advertisers to not advertise in the NotW. This campaign, which was very grass roots in origin, bit, and advertisers started pulling out. That is what effectively lead up to the closure of NotW, and what we have now. Sure NI's Competitors have been lapping it up, but end of the day it was the British Public, who for once actually stood up, and gave the power.

Re:Unlikely (2)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869514)

Because News International is public enemy number one. Before they messed with a dead girls phone it really was not worth getting worked up over investigation into celebs/politicians lives but they went too far and are now hated worse than the politicians who will cheered on for attacking NI.
Since they have lost the ability to use the press to defend themselves without risking this spreading to other papers they are a pretty soft target in the UK right now.

Re:Unlikely (5, Interesting)

Saint Fnordius (456567) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869538)

The reason why now is pretty obvious: the phone scandal was the crack in the dam. The reporter working the story made damned sure to cover all bases, or Murdoch and the entire pool of NewsCorp sharks would have chewed him up and spat him out. When he testified before parliament, he was supposed to be ripped to shreds by bought and paid for ministers, but they couldn't find any chinks in his armour. And then the skewer he was wielding suddenly seemed even more potent.

So now all of a sudden the meanest, biggest predator is wounded, and all those he intimidated now see the chance to get rid of the one they feared most. All of his riches no longer will help him, since tearing him down all of a sudden seems the more profitable route (profit in terms of power and influence, not mere money).

Re:Unlikely (1)

belthize (990217) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869634)

I'm curious if you listen to Amy Goodman. I was in a disagreement/argument this weekend with somebody who made exactly the same argument, same phrasing (hated by many, media industry, smell blood, etc) and their source was Amy.

Not saying it won't happen (or casting aspersions on Amy) but I suspect it may be wishful thinking. News Corp and Rupert are extremely powerful, even if Rupert was found guilty of something I personally doubt it would have that much effect on Fox or their viewing audience beyond re-affirming their notion of a liberal media out to get them.

We shall see, as long as the audiences are incapable of differentiating, news, entertainment and propaganda (both left and right) I'm not horribly optimistic.

Re:Unlikely (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869666)

I'm curious if you listen to Amy Goodman.

No. I had to Google her to find out who she was. I think Rupert Murdoch has been on a lot of people's radar for a long while and he's finally a piñata that is within reach.

Re:Unlikely (2)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869362)

People forget the power wealthy people have, especially one who owns most of the media.
I doubt it will impact him past a year.

You don't even need power or wealth here in the US...

Give it a year, and people won't even remember any of this.

We've got the attention span of gnats.

Re:Unlikely (3)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869364)

People forget the power 'we' have, espesically when it can bring about the closure of an 168 year old newspaper with close to 3million readers. It has impacted him already, and will continue to do so, for longer than just a year.....

Re:Unlikely (1)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869370)

Politicians and a lot of people in the public arena have had to put up with Murdoch for a long time, they don't do this because they want to or because they like him, they do it because they have to.

Individually, they all see an opportunatity to get a monkey off their collective backs.

Re:Unlikely (1)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869458)

It we were talking about the Alcoa (or Sony) CEO, then yes. The basis of their bussiness and power would be unrelated to the issues at hands, so they may face a public onslaught and continue to have influence.

OTOH, Murdoch influence is due the ability of his newspapers and media to influence people. If they are not well received by the public, then his influence will suffer a lot.

Re:Unlikely (1, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869504)

What I still don't understand is how when the original "climategate" broke, nobody seemed interested in finding the hackers/source.

And now we know who it was they still aren't locked up. If it was an ordinary person doing this there would be an Interpol arrest warrant out and massive punishments. I guess Murdoch has enough embarrassing photos in his collection to prevent this.

Re:Unlikely (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869714)

"And now we know who it was they still aren't locked up. If it was an ordinary person doing this there would be an Interpol arrest warrant out and massive punishments."

OT, but who was it? I missed this.

Re:Unlikely (3, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869566)

Well, that and a Norwegian terrorist attack followed by the death of a drug addict skank means the whole thing is all but forgotten now. Not to mention the British political class are all off on their holidays for the summer for a few weeks now so simply wont care until late August or September or so when it'll all have conveniently blown over.

Worse, much of the rest of the British press has found the spotlight shining uncomfortably on it now, The Daily Mail has spent the last week or so trying to deflect attention away from the whole scandal because it knows that what will be dug out of it's closet will likely make the News of the World scandal look quite tame, Murodch's press will want to try and silence the issue, and The Daily Mirror amongst others are also looking quite suspect, so I similarly wouldn't expect the press to try and ressurect it in a month or so's time.

Hopefully I'll be proven wrong, but oh well, seeing Rupert and his empire get a well deserved kicking was fun whilst it lasted at least.

Re:Unlikely (5, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869826)

"All the News Corp. executives used to tell the same story"

Right there is the first indication that they were all lying. When everyone is telling the truth, or as much truth as they know, there will ALWAYS be inconsistencies. When there are no inconsistencies to be found, then you are looking at a conspiracy. Simple human nature tells you that much. You don't even need to have 20 years of investigative experience behind you to figure it out. Hell, ten years of parenting teaches that much to uneducated lackwits! Common sense, people - use it!

Re:Unlikely (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869862)

You are completely right, at the most he will sell his media empire and buy another lower key empire or simple not advertise that he controls the news as much as he currently does.

James Rupert? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869262)

Is he new then?

And in the meantime... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869264)

It looks like nobody sees this is 'just' a politically-motivated attack on the freedom of the press. Another step towards Russia and China.

Re:And in the meantime... (4, Insightful)

wjousts (1529427) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869272)

Freedom of the press doesn't mean they are free to commit crimes.

Re:And in the meantime... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869302)

Thank you for that response. I was actually having trouble understanding what the other AC was trying to argue until I read your post.

Re:And in the meantime... (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869326)

Freedom of the press doesn't mean they are free to commit crimes.
I know just like when GE was charged w/ bribery [washingtonpost.com] and Jeff Immelt was called before Congress. Oh wait... That didn't happen instead Jeff is now working for this administration. Perhaps there is a political element to all this fuss.

Re:And in the meantime... (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869352)

Perhaps there is a political element to all this fuss.

Wasn't one of the former News of the World editors the right-hand man of a high ranking politician in the UK? I'm sure that former editor has stories to tell on both sides of this.

Re:And in the meantime... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869294)

It looks like nobody sees this is 'just' a politically-motivated attack on the freedom of the press. Another step towards Russia and China.

Glen, is that you?

Re:And in the meantime... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869300)

I agree! This is just another lame attempt to keep Glenn Beck off television. I have a monitor in my house dedicated to Fox News because, as we all know, it's the only news network not controlled by communists that want to further islamo-fascist interests. Since all these networks are controlled by tree-hugging hippies and Nazis they obviously shouldn't be listened to, and hopefully when the Bachmann/Palin ticket is elected in November this type of filth will be shut down in the name of free speech!

Re:And in the meantime... (4, Insightful)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869312)

You have to be stupid to believe either of the following:
NewsCorp did nothing wrong.
NewsCorp is the only company that does this.

Re:And in the meantime... (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869388)

I don't believe either, but I am not sure why the "everyone does it" defence is relevant. NewsCorp is the one with evidence against it on the table right now. If Time/Warner or NBC or Gannett or whoever has similar evidence it will hopefully come out as well, but that doesn't have anything to do with this situation right now.

Re:And in the meantime... (2)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869680)

You'd also have to be stupid to believe that:
This makes it right.

The problem is not that others are doing this (that's a matter for THOSE cases), it's a problem that this one was known to be doing this for years, even up to the top levels of the police force, and nothing was done about it by the judiciary or politicians until everyone started to say "Now, hold on, that's not right".

They believed they could get away with it and, well, now it turns out that they can't. The fact that every other major newspaper is probably shitting themselves and shredding evidence of similar stuff right now (which would also be illegal, by the way) is neither here nor there. They shouldn't have been doing it in the first place, and they were allowed to get away with it, and allowed to pay off certain settlements, and allowed to continue as if it was a mere nuisance having to pay off the settlements rather than a punishment for a big illegal operation. It's like big companies that deliver goods in Central London - they all get park where they like and get parking fines and just pay them as part of operational life (even adding it to the cost of delivery) - the parking doesn't benefit any, and nobody really suffers except some poor sod who lives/works in the wrong place.

The "freedom of the press" is one of the things that's ALWAYS bugged the shit out of me. Yes, you need to be able to report in case we get a corrupt government, but equally you should have no more access to information than I do. If I can't access something, there should be a DAMN GOOD reason behind that, and that reason should apply to the press too. I am *NOT* allowed to flash my camera through the windows of vans that are in motion, get photographs of people I haven't asked permission of, and publish those front-page nationwide with whatever kind of assertions I like without bothering to check facts just by adding "allegedly". I'd be in jail before I got past the first step.

And when it came to the UK super-injunctions (where the press were banned from identifying anything or anyone about a particular series of perfectly true events, or even the existence of such an injunction, because footballer X couldn't keep it in his pants) they did the media a disservice - they held the junctions where necessary and kept pointing to their jobs and saying "we need this to provide proper freedom of press", but didn't bother to breach them for months because they would be shouldering the risk and burden of those actions (and creating so much fuss that EVERYONE knows it was Ryan Giggs now, even if they didn't give a shit and wouldn't have cared if it hadn't been the subject of a super-injunction). When it comes to freedom of the press, they didn't care. But when it comes to freedom to obtain juicy gossip illegally, suddenly all the bets are off.

And when it comes to actual *news*, it does not mean you can tap into people's phones, even "accidentally", camp outside their house and harass them, take photos over the garden fence, obstruct their exit from buildings, chase them on public highways in cars through tunnels, or whatever else you "think" is necessary.

Why is it one rule for the press and another for anyone else? The rules should allow ME to do those same actions, otherwise the press becomes this special little clique that are allowed to break laws because they are in favour with the politicians of the moment. And if there's something that the press can't report, I shouldn't be able to report it either and vice versa - and the reasons for not being able to report that should be open enough that a government CAN'T just censor everything in the hopes of not having frauds and expense claims and everything else found out.

The press are worthless, as they currently stand, and are allowed to break laws that we aren't. As such, they grew complacent, and greedy, and believed themselves to be powerful. Now, however, it's got to the point where the public are recognising this and will (with any luck) fight for equality. If a NewsCorp newspaper can print names, addresses and pictures of convicted paedophiles in nationwide campaigns, then either we all should be able to, or nobody should be able to. Neither solution is perfect but it's a damn sight better than letting a newspaper run the country via a third-party (the public) on its own whim.

Hopefully, NewsCorp will go to the wall in every fashion possible and we'll finally start seeing some decent reporting for a change about stuff that actually matters, rather than what sells papers.

Signed,
A person who's not bought a paper or watched TV news in over 10 years.

Re:And in the meantime... (1)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869336)

Nope. It's the just the British public doing the kicking this time. If it hadn't of been for public pressure (getting the advertisers to pull out of the notw), notw wouldn't have closed. If it hadn't of been for public anger (wrt, Milly Dowler), the MP's wouldn't have the balls to stand up to murdoch. Murdoch has angered *us*, the British public, and now *we* are getting our own back. If there is one thing us Brits love - it's kicking someone when they are down - especially when that someone answers to the name of Murdoch...

Re:And in the meantime... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869408)

But that's the thing... Don't you have the feeling this is just a manipulation from your politicians, aimed at distracting you (the public) from other, more important problems? Milly Downler who was murdered in 2002, and since then (almost) everybody has learned to protect his/her mailbox with a password. Why are we still talking about the Murdoch family? The real culprits are the public servants who let themselves corrupted too easily, and they are leading the show.

Re:And in the meantime... (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869684)

But that's the thing... Don't you have the feeling this is just a manipulation from your politicians, aimed at distracting you (the public) from other, more important problems? Milly Downler who was murdered in 2002, and since then (almost) everybody has learned to protect his/her mailbox with a password. Why are we still talking about the Murdoch family? The real culprits are the public servants who let themselves corrupted too easily, and they are leading the show.

I don't believe her mailbox was hacked because of a default password.

The reason I don't believe this is as far as I'm aware (please correct me if I am wrong), UK mobile phone providers have never let you get your voicemail from anything other than the mobile phone the voicemail relates to unless a non-default password is set - but at the same time, if you ARE accessing it from the mobile phone (well, more accurately the SIM) it relates to, you don't get prompted for a password. I'm pretty sure this has been the case since before 2002.

Which leaves two alternatives:

1. They were bruteforcing the password. But many people never set up a password on their voicemail because you don't need to if you only ever collect your voicemail using the mobile phone it relates to; therefore for a lot of people this would never work. Even if I'm wrong, this is an extremely good way of drawing attention to yourself - something that the journalist(s) managed to avoid doing for many years.
2. They were either bribing or tricking phone company staff into enabling remote access to voicemails.

Re:And in the meantime... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869378)

That's because it bloody well isn't a politically motivated attack at all.

News of the World broke the law and they did it -- not in the public interest -- but for the titillation of the masses (ie shits and giggles).

Up until now, it appears as though it was possible that the corruption was limited to parts of News International. The UK parliament gave the Murdochs a hearing, at which one of them appears to have blatantly lied. This allegation -- if true -- indicates the rot goes much higher.

Advocating that NewsCorp should get off scot-free for breaking the law just, because they're the press, essentially means there's no rule of law at all. The press is an essential pillar of a democratic society, but they're nonetheless part of society and subject to the same laws that you and I have to follow. Being a journalist (if that's what you call the News of the World employees) isn't a root-password around the law.

If anything, not subjecting NewsCorp to the same standards as everyone else is far more a step towards Russia and China.

Re:And in the meantime... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869474)

...and they did it -- not in the public interest -- but for the titillation of the masses...

Clearly, you don't understand British "journalism".

Re:And in the meantime... (1)

SenseiLeNoir (699164) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869516)

It wasnt politically motivated. In fact this time it was the British Public that motivated this one.

Get the hell off this planet (-1, Offtopic)

Mystery00 (1100379) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869280)

Any species that has gained intelligence should be striving to get off the rock they're on and off into space as fast as possible, all our eggs are in one basket right now. You don't know what's going to happen, a meteor, a world-wide disaster, world war 3, invading aliens, super viruses, there's a huge amount of things that could wipe us out at any given moment.

The longer we stay in one place the more chances there are we won't live long enough to get into space at all.

Re:Get the hell off this planet (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869366)

Any species that has gained intelligence should be striving to get off the rock they're on and off into space as fast as possible, all our eggs are in one basket right now.

Lucky for me I'm too stupid to get off of 'this rock'.

Re:Get the hell off this planet (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869526)

Do you have a rock for us to go to? How will we travel there? Where will we live? What will we eat? How many people do you think we can afford to send?

We're a log way from being able to get off this rock. The world will probably go titsup before we do, asteroid or no asteroid.

See no evil (0)

accessbob (962147) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869286)

People who get their news from Fox must wonder what all the fuss is about.

Re:See no evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869318)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9gOSsvLIO4

Indeed, they can't understand what the problem is.

Re:See no evil (2, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869344)

Yeah, it is a scary thing when a corporation owns a news conglomerate and spins the shit out of anything they want.
I would not be surprised if a behind the scenes "You dont want us to talk about this? Okay, give us money" thing was happening.
If anything, News Corp has proven the very thing people had been scared of for decades, corporate owned news is not "freedom of the press" and they can spin things to incite wars, sway politics, and cause chaos if they wanted.
We need to go back to how it was :(

Re:See no evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869406)

We need to go back to how it was :(

Right, because William Randolph Hearst was the epitome of journalistic integrity.

Re:See no evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869322)

Damn Nazis forced that truth telling Rupert to shut down the best damn newspaper in the world is what happened.

FNC had more coverage than others from what I saw (1, Informative)

Aqualung812 (959532) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869324)

I've actually been switching between CNN, MSNBC, and FNC to see how each are covering it.
While I expected CNN & MSNBC to have non-stop coverage out of schadenfreude & FNC to ignore it, my totally unscientific survey has shown the opposite. Several times, FNC had a live feed in the courtroom while the other two were talking about the debt or celeb news.

I watch TV for about 30 minutes a day on average, so I could be totally off.

Rupert didn't learn from Microsoft. (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869288)

When you are finding yourself in trouble, the first thing you need to do is seek out and buy new friends to help you. Microsoft's sudden interest in lobbying certainly paid off when the first judge was thrown off the case to be replaced by one who was more careful not to offend Microsoft's new friends in congress.

Seems like Rupert doesn't have many friends in the house and now is apologizing for his son who really is a nut which has demonstrated not falling far from the tree.

Re:Rupert didn't learn from Microsoft. (2)

dkf (304284) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869394)

Seems like Rupert doesn't have many friends in the house and now is apologizing for his son who really is a nut which has demonstrated not falling far from the tree.

Rupe and his minions have been terrorizing politicians and celebrities for many years. Now that he's in trouble where it looks like it's going to stick, is it any wonder at all that nobody at all is interested in stepping up to help him out? All the worms have turned; Rupe's only real hope is that an even bigger scandal or event will divert everyone's attention.

Re:Rupert didn't learn from Microsoft. (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869508)

All the worms have turned; Rupe's only real hope is that an even bigger scandal or event will divert everyone's attention.

Maybe he orchestrated it himself intentionally thinking its too small in a year of big news?

We're busy with the US debt ceiling kabuki theatre, the country of greece financially collapsing along with Iceland, Ireland, and Portugal, while trying to drag France, Spain, and Germany down with them, this spring there were riots in the middle east, civil war in Libya, collapse in the value of fiat currencies vs metals, explosive inflation in food prices, the dead cat bounce in housing prices has ended and decline back to normal prices has resumed, endless saber rattling in Iran, some hot chick married a dude in England who has famous parents and it was all over TV for weeks, that congresswoman who got shot in the head in AZ had her husband fly in the space shuttle which is shutting down, the normal weather related disasters somewhere in the immense USA are being hyped more than normal, China is beginning to collapse both financially and infrastructurally, a bridge in CA was demolished on schedule, oh and in addition to the big news, there's this guy listening to voicemails, if you have any attention left to pay.

The only thing we're missing is some shark attacks, or maybe starting yet another war.

It didn't work out, but I can see why a guy would think people might be slightly distracted.

Re:Rupert didn't learn from Microsoft. (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869744)

Rupe and his minions have been terrorizing politicians and celebrities for many years. Now that he's in trouble where it looks like it's going to stick, is it any wonder at all that nobody at all is interested in stepping up to help him out? All the worms have turned; Rupe's only real hope is that an even bigger scandal or event will divert everyone's attention.

Murdoch controlled newspapers, and that made politicians, especially in the UK, fear him. What were they supposed to do if newspapers attacked them everywhere? Complain "no, I didn't do it, it was evil Murdoch who is behind that"? They would have been laughed at. But now, if a Murdoch newspaper were to attack a politician for disagreeing with Murdock, same complaint "no, I didn't do it, it was evil Murdoch who is behind that"! And this time the public would say "absolutely, I am sure this good politician did do nothing wrong, must have done something to upset evil Murdoch".

_That_ is not going to go away. He may be able to continue printing newspapers. But the power is gone.

First of all its not the US (1)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869402)

and far more importantly you have the Prime Minister who probably believes that he the tougher he is to News International the less bad involvement with them looks.

I think having influence over the PM has made NI situation much worse here.

Poor baby (0)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869296)

Poor lad, everyone turned on him.
Maybe daddy will buy him an island to play with. He obviously isn't crafty enough to become a despot like daddy.

Re:Poor baby (2, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869342)

In the U.S. we continue to have this myth that the super-rich got there only by being smart and making "good decisions" and that failures became that way solely because they made "bad decisions." Anyone that is super-rich in the U.S. that isn't trying to sell you something will tell you that getting that far is a combination of being smart and being in the right place in the right time.

Anyone with that much money is at least smart enough, however, to have enough contingencies in place that they will have a soft landing when something goes badly wrong. He won't be going hungry any time soon even though they seem to have obviously made a crap-load of "bad decisions."

Re:Poor baby (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869398)

Anyone that is super-rich in the U.S. that isn't trying to sell you something will tell you that getting that far is a combination of being smart and being in the right place in the right time.

Yes, like standing in a congressman's office with a big bag of money. Most of us don't have that option. Anyone that is super-rich in the US today is part of a legacy that goes back hundreds of years. Oprah Winfrey is about as close as you get, and she's not super-rich. Elvis gave away Cadillacs; the guy who signed Elvis' check is rich, but Elvis was just another druggie who died on the toilet.

Re:Poor baby (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869354)

Poor lad, everyone turned on him.
Maybe daddy will buy him an island to play with. He obviously isn't crafty enough to become a despot like daddy.

Well when daddy basically said that everyone underneath him was on their own [salon.com] then they will scatter and protect themselves and he can now only blame himself (although he won't).

Scum or average businessman? (3, Insightful)

loimprevisto (910035) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869310)

I started to write a comment about being glad that Murdoch is finally getting what's coming to him... then I realized that I didn't know why I felt that way. I have a generally negative opinion of him... but all that comes to mind when I think of him is a caricature assembled from various stories I've come. I gather that he's been consolidating several media markets into near-monopolies and there's controversy about him forcing editorial opinions onto his reporters... but is he the guy who single-handedly broke the news business, or just a businessman who got in over his head with yellow journalism?

Re:Scum or average businessman? (3, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869386)

I dont know what you mean by yellow journalism, but the reality is that his news corporations sway public opinions through lies, manipulation, and fear.
It is sad to see the state of Journalism these days, I would think anyone that has given into this type of tyranny should be ashamed for being a part of large amounts of bullshit that could very well send our country into worse than just political crazyness.

Re:Scum or average businessman? (3, Funny)

polle404 (727386) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869438)

for the average geek out there, he's the J Jonah Jameson to our collective Spiderman selves...

Re:Scum or average businessman? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869612)

And for the real geek, that should be Spider-Man not "Spiderman".

Re:Scum or average businessman? (1)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869440)

where do you draw the line? Aren't ALL businessmen scum in someone's eyes?

I used to work for a small mom and pop motorcycle accessory shop that did a lot of e-commerce nationwide. The owners were the nicest people around who would do anything for anyone. One day they get slammed by a drunk driver. The mess of medical and legal drama pretty much forced their business to go bust. If you search them on Google nowadays there's nothing but a bunch of dissatisfied customers and generally grumpy people ranting about how they are bad people.

In my community these people are in good standing, and to know them is to know how much drama a car crash can bring to one's life. Across the country they are known as assholes who couldnt deliver.

Re:Scum or average businessman? (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869482)

So you're saying they're both? Had to tell, because you don't provide any details, making it impossible to Google for. And I've no idea what "One day they get slammed by a drunk driver" means. Is that a metaphor? (I like metaphors as much as the next guy, but typically they need to be easier to understand that what it's a metaphor for, otherwise there's no point!)

Re:Scum or average businessman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869664)

Yes. It's a metaphor for "they were struck by a vehicle being controlled by an intoxicated individual".

Re:Scum or average businessman? (1)

thejynxed (831517) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869722)

Don't be fucking dense. Getting slammed by a drunk driver is exactly what it implies - they were involved in a serious accident caused by a drunk driver. The rest of the details are irrelevant to the point.

Re:Scum or average businessman? (1)

glodime (1015179) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869540)

David Carr at the NY Times [nytimes.com] sums up the reason why I think Murdoch deserves what he gets from the outfall of this media cycle. He's established a poor culture within his media subsidiaries, now he's reaping what he's sown.

Re:Scum or average businessman? (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869600)

I support firing Murdoch as soon as they fire all the other network heads for their bias in reporting the news as well, for slander, and for their unscrupulous and/or illegal acquisition of news sources.

Re:Scum or average businessman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869796)

Murdock makes a career of it, the others are pikers compared to him. Can you provide a link to support your claim about "all the other network heads for their bias in reporting the news"? Or are you assuming everyone is biased, and as long as *someone* is biased, it is OK for Murdoch to push it to the highest level it has ever been?

Re:Scum or average businessman? (1)

loimprevisto (910035) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869676)

Thank you! Your link and the AC's link below were exactly the sort of information I was looking for to fill in the gaps.

Re:Scum or average businessman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869746)

Using the lawyers of victims as sources of authoriative statements and analysis is poor journalism. Their job is to be biased, and you are in danger of outsourcing a bias to them.

Re:Scum or average businessman? (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869884)

of course the NYT is giddy with the prospect of News Corps demise, after all the NYT (like most media) is bleeding out.

No differnt than when Linux fanboys get all giddy whenever a new virus hits windows...

Re:Scum or average businessman? (4, Insightful)

Alarash (746254) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869574)

Being is a business man is okay. Owning media outlets is okay. But when you use the later to help with the former, it's not okay. That's why you're glad this is happening to him.

Re:Scum or average businessman? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869742)

Murdoch is part of the system, he is a problem of-course. So is the system, and the system is built by the conglomerate of certain businesses and government, and this is only possible because government is part of business and so business became part of government.

Think about this: governments around the world do this, what the paper did, on daily basis. They do all sorts of illegal activities to advance various agendas of various participants (politicians/businessmen/voters) but they have the power, which prevents them from being actually investigated and found guilty of various crimes they commit.

Is Murdoch an 'average businessman'? No, he is part of government system. An 'average' businessman is not part of the government system.

Re:Scum or average businessman? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869886)

I'm still convinced that Iraq would not have happened without his hideous propaganda machine. And honestly, that's all I need to consider him beyond none other than Mr. Montgomery Burns. ...and come to think of it, his son could bear a resemblance to Smithers.

uncle sam exhibiting classic symptoms (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869316)

disorientation, non-communicative, aggression, dishonesty, lack of conscience etc... reads like an anti-social primary disorder with paranoid/Schizophrenic features, in need of immediate intervention, before much more really bad stuff happens.

should it not be considered that the domestic threats to all of us/our
freedoms be intervened on/removed, so we wouldn't be compelled to hide our
sentiments, &/or the truth, about ANYTHING, including the origins of the
hymenology council, & their sacred mission? with nothing left to hide,
there'd be room for so much more genuine quantifiable progress?

you call this 'weather'? much of our land masses/world are going under
water, or burning up, as we fail to consider anything at all that really
matters, as we've been instructed that we must maintain our silence (our
last valid right?), to continue our 'safety' from... mounting terror.

meanwhile, back at the raunch; there are exceptions? the unmentionable
sociopath weapons peddlers are thriving in these times of worldwide
sufferance? the royals? our self appointed murderous neogod rulers? all
better than ok, thank..... us. their stipends/egos/disguises are secure,
so we'll all be ok/not killed by mistaken changes in the MANufactured
'weather', or being one of the unchosen 'too many' of us, etc...?

truth telling & disarming are the only mathematically & spiritually
correct options. read the teepeeleaks etchings. see you there?

diaperleaks group worldwide. thanks for your increasing awareness?

New cellmates for Conrad (0)

Comboman (895500) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869338)

Perhaps the Murdochs can share a cell with Conrad Black. They can spend their time talking about the glory days of the newspaper business and how much better they are than the common people.

"As we have known him" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869346)

"As we have known him" is a clever addition to the sentence which converts it from "He is done" to "He isn't really done, but his situation will be slightly changed enough for us to milk it as reporters".

It's a shame, because I'd like to see him burned alive.

"Unlikely to survive" (2)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869492)

I don't quite understand the spin to this.
Unlikely to survive? They are still filthy rich, they own all those companies. They are not trying to win a popularity contest. They are not politicians who need votes to stay in power.
So, even if that guy gets sentenced to prison and branded as the most evil scum, he can still be the hair to that his father later on. How would public opinion be his downfall?
Not to mention that owning most of the media gives you a bit of an advantage when handling that...

Re:"Unlikely to survive" (2)

Tim C (15259) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869650)

The UK public has very much turned against the Murdochs; hacking celebs' phones is one thing, but the phones of the families of murder victims (especially when the victims are children)? That's just not cricket.

It would be a brave (or foolhardy) company that employed them now. No, this probably isn't going to see them unemployable and living in poverty, but it's going to deal their fortunes (both business and personal) a massive blow.

Re:"Unlikely to survive" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36869810)

The UK public might have temporarily turned against the Murdoch right now and NewsCorp has suffered a setback with its BSkyB takeover, but they aren't even close to being seriously wounded.

Closing one Sunday paper (ie News of the World), merely makes room for the expansion of The Sun to Sunday see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Sun_(newspaper)#Speculation_of_a_Sunday_edition [wikimedia.org]. Both sides of politics are in the pocket of the Murdochs. Likewise the police.

I predict the Murdochs and NewsCorp will apologise profusely, a few politicians will take very public swings to prove their independence, and in a year's time, everything will be back to normal.

Re:"Unlikely to survive" (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869734)

Unlikely to survive as a media mogul. Unable to survive as owner of said media. You know the normal usage as in : "Politican X is unlikely to survive sex with intern scandal".

The media is highly regulated in most places. If you are consider "unfit" then your company won't get approval to do things like takeovers (the BSkyB stuff for example). In fact in lost of places you can be deemed unfit to be on the board or be the CEO of such companies, in the UK for example has the Broadcasting Act of 1990:

"""
3)The Commission—

(a)shall not grant a licence to any person unless they are satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to hold it; and

(b)shall do all that they can to secure that, if they cease to be so satisfied in the case of any person holding a licence, that person does not remain the holder of the licence;
""" - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/42/section/3 [legislation.gov.uk]

Do you really think News would keep Murdoch on if it meant losing their broadcasting licenses? Or would they ditch him an an emergency meeting after the threat was made. Note that "person" includes actual people as well persons corporate and unincorporate.

Celebrities versus media tycoons (1)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869496)

I don't see what the big deal is with this guy.

and I see absolutely no connection to Microsoft, so I'm not sure why some of you are headed in that direction.

And please don't pull a Farkism. I'm not trolling, and though I'm not trying to add to the discussion, it's just my opinion is this thing is way over-blown.

Re:Celebrities versus media tycoons (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869754)

Because it's not just Celebrities, we're talking about politicians, business people, murder victims, families of murder victims, families of soldiers killed in action, families of those killed in terrorist attacks - even going so far as to delete messages when mailboxes started to fill up so that there was space for more juicy recordings - and they're just the ones that have been explicitly identified so far.

Now I'm not naive enough to think that News International were the only ones pulling these stunts, but they got caught and their actions are utterly reprehensible. So far, everyone up the chain seems to be claiming that there's no way that they could possibly have known what their subordinates were doing for years that were getting them all these lucrative stories and so far, everyone that Murdoch has tried to throw to the wolves has come back with some evidence or other that people above them were well aware of what was going on. The ultimate question is, how far up the chain did the knowledge & approval - explicit or otherwise - of these acts go?

And no, I have no idea what all the Microsoft stuff is about.

Couldn't be too soon (2)

The Second Horseman (121958) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869522)

In case anyone can't see why, check out the headline from News International's British tabloid, The Sun, on Saturday.

http://fleetstreetblues.blogspot.com/2011/07/sun-blames-al-qaeda-for-norway.html [blogspot.com]

Yes, that's right, they actually use the phrase 'AL-QAEDA' MASSACRE above the headline NORWAY'S 9/11. Now that it's a right-wing extremist, he'll just be a lunatic instead of it being a plot.

If the guy is that hated... (1)

rainer_d (115765) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869808)

...why do people insist on buying the family's newspapers and watching their tv-channels?

The best quote (1)

Tharsis (7591) | more than 2 years ago | (#36869816)

It's hard to imagine some saying this without trying to be funny:
“Not in a million years. Not in two million years. Six months, nine months or a year from now, that may happen, but it will not happen in the current circumstances.”

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...