×

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!

Fox News Parent NewsCorp May Face Corruption Investigation

timothy posted about a year ago | from the semi-absolute-power dept.

Crime 145

rtfa-troll writes "The Guardian reports that News Corporation may face FCPA investigations after an 'official of the British ministry of defence' was charged 'for allegedly receiving £100,000 from Murdoch's tabloid newspapers.' News Corporation, headed by Rupert Murdoch, is loved by most of the readers of Slashdot as the owner of Fox News and as the company which put the overly complicated paywall on the Wall Street Journal. The article states that the charges 'would be hard for the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to ignore and would warrant investigation under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which could lead to risks for 27 TV licences within the Fox network.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

145 comments

Well one thing is certain... (5, Insightful)

3seas (184403) | about a year ago | (#42069339)

You know who is not going to be covering this story.

Re:Well one thing is certain... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42069377)

You know who is not going to be covering this story.

I was hoping it was going to be /. but that bubble has already burst.

Re:Well one thing is certain... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42069429)

Of course Fox News will cover the story!

But they will begin every sentence with, "The lib'rul biased media says that..."

Re:Well one thing is certain... (4, Insightful)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year ago | (#42069751)

You know who is not going to be covering this story.

You know who is not going to be covering this story.

They will cover it, but put so much spin on it that it will make Murdoch look like the victim.

Re:Well one thing is certain... (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year ago | (#42069851)

They will cover it, but put so much spin on it that it will make Murdoch look like the victim.

So you mean... just like every other story they cover?

Re:Well one thing is certain... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#42069921)

What? Bribes are the free market at work. Murdoch is just an entrepruner tring to give jobs to the unwashed masses, and the government is persecuting him for doing so in a free-market way.

Re:Well one thing is certain... (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year ago | (#42070257)

They will cover it, but put so much spin on it that it will make Murdoch look like the victim.

So you mean... just like every other story they cover?

Yep, pretty much.

Re:Well one thing is certain... (5, Funny)

guttentag (313541) | about a year ago | (#42069797)

You know who is not going to be covering this story.

Oh, Fox will cover it... Via The Simpsons. There is a provision in the contract that specifies the Fox network may not interfere with the show's content. And it results in awkward things being broadcast by Fox, like this (from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]):

The Simpsons also often includes self-referential humor. The most common form is jokes about Fox Broadcasting. For example, the episode "She Used to Be My Girl" included a scene in which a Fox News Channel van drove down the street while displaying a large "Bush Cheney 2004" banner and playing Queen's "We Are the Champions", in reference to the 2004 presidential election.

I'm sure many slashdotters could cite even more awkward examples of The Simpsons poking the Fox bear.

Re:Well one thing is certain... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#42069983)

I'm sure many slashdotters could cite even more awkward examples of The Simpsons poking the Fox bear.

Fox turned into a hardcore sex channel so gradually I didn't even notice!

Re:Well one thing is certain... (3, Informative)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year ago | (#42070383)

I loved Futurama's return after being cancelled. They were quite blatant with the insults against Fox.

http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/mw3sok/futurama-back-in-action [comedycentral.com]
http://theinfosphere.org/Box_Network [theinfosphere.org]

Re:Well one thing is certain... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42072243)

Yeah, I used to love Futurama... but the guys who do it are liberal and now that they are at Comedy Central they have become as obnoxiously childish as all the other twerps who hang out there like Colbert and Stewart... nothing but left-wing propaganda for a new generation of "useful idiots" (look it up). Sure, they poke fun at Fox news, and Jews, and Christians, etc but it turns out that when confronted by Muslim nutcases they tuck-tail and run away... not so very iconoclastic after-all... they really only have the "guts" to insult people who are too decent and civilized to hurt them back... and that's the classic bully routine.

All the supposedly dangerous "edginess" of the Simpsons and Futurama was exposed as a sham by that

Re:Well one thing is certain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42069919)

When the BBC has a scandal, the people covering it the most are the BBC :-) it's their favourite topic after all! They can get journalists to interview themselves about their feelings and not even leave the parking lot. I have to switch to watching Al Jazeera to see some actual news about the world around us :-)
Is Fox somehow different?

Re:Well one thing is certain... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42070099)

Well, that's not true at all.

You have exposed your ignorance to what actually happens on that channel. The myth of Fox News is wholly different than the reality.

Re:Well one thing is certain... (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#42070587)

The myth of Fox News is wholly different than the reality.

See, here's the thing: if you're going to deny the existence of something, you're going to have to be more careful about choosing something that we can't just go look at with our own eyes.

And if you're going to pick global warming, you better hurry because that window's closing too.

Re:Well one thing is certain... (2)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year ago | (#42070483)

You know who is not going to be covering this story.

Sure they will. And they will "balance" it out with data and rationale completely in-line with their original defensive statement.

Very rarely have I seen the news "balanced" with something that completely disproves the topic being presented; it would make all news null. People still believe that there is such a thing and that it works, however.

Re:Well one thing is certain... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42070611)

As a professional rule journalists generally aren't supposed to discuss stories where they might have a bias or conflict of interest in covering and I think the reasons are obvious. As a journalist, you aren't going to feel comfortable asking hard questions to your own CEO and then publishing them. You'll either put out a soft story, because you're afraid of your job, or you'll ask too many difficult questions and get in bad favor with your management. The public will never believe that you're telling the truth, no matter what you do.

I'm no fan of Fox, but don't sit here and think that CNN, NBC, and the other alphabet soup networks would be any different.

Re:Well one thing is certain... (0)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year ago | (#42070701)

Corruption?!? Corruption is government intrusion into market efficiencies in the form of regulation. That's Milton Friedman, and he got a goddamn Nobel prize...

-Syriana

Re:censorship trolls - /. is turning into digg (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42071175)

it's too bad that petty shoot from the hip political crap is turning /. into a digg or reddit. If you don't like Fox news don't watch it.

Re:censorship trolls - /. is turning into digg (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#42071391)

"Don''t like" Fox Noise? Dude, it's not even news. It's nothing more than a propaganda channel, funneling the wishes and opinions of one of the richest and crookedest bastards in the world into American living rooms.

Have you noticed how divisive American politics has become? There is plenty of blame to lay at the feet of liberals and conservatives alike. Lots of blame for ALL of the big media channels. But Fox? Fox gets the lion's share of the blame for that. Those rotten bastards come into the living rooms of millions of Americans every day, to explain why Obummer is the Anti-Christ, and to explain for all the morons that America's end is nigh.

News? Fox is adamantly opposed to offering news. It's all propaganda noise.

More moronic anti-Fox ranting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42072205)

Dude, it's not even news. It's nothing more than a propaganda channel

"Dude", it's every-bit as much of a news outlet as ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC, the NYT, etc. You just don't like any news story that runs contrary to your beliefs... That's ok... closed-minded simpletons are like that. Just don't turn to Fox if it hurts your precious feelings so much... you have all those other outlets.

funneling the wishes and opinions of one of the richest and crookedest bastards in the world into American living rooms.

Actually, there are plenty of other far more crooked people pumping propaganda... Like actual Hitler-era Nazi collaborator George Soros, who is probably the single most evil bastard on planet Earth (cannot think of ANY others who actually personally assisted in ANY way in the Holocaust and Soros has actually bragged about how good he felt about it) He's a criminal in Europe, and he has funneled or is currently funneling huge stinking piles of cash into nearly every popular liberal website/organization people can name. The modern Democrat party and all their associated orgs turn to this dirt bag for cash on a regular basis.

Have you noticed how divisive American politics has become? There is plenty of blame to lay at the feet of liberals and conservatives alike. Lots of blame for ALL of the big media channels. But Fox? Fox gets the lion's share of the blame for that.

No, Fox does not get the blame. The reason is that the Democrats of today are not John Kennedy's Democrats. Modern Democrats are for legalized drugs, abortion, gay marriage, gays in the military, reduced national defense, raising taxes, insane levels of government regulation on everything from nuclear energy to the air we exhale, etc (Kennedy was for NONE of these things NOT ONE) ... and the modern Democrats are using the government to SHOVE this stuff down the throats of people who disagree. Obama swept into office in 2008 and let it be known that he was going to ram through his agenda no matter what his opponents said and he would not negotiate with them. If you only watch MSNBC, you probably do not realize that it was AFTER Republicans in the senate ran into this attitude from Obama that the Republican Senator announced it was his #1 priority to oppose Obama's reelection. No president in modern US history has taken this arrogant attitude toward people who disagree with him. Even Democrats of 20 years ago who were "pro-choice" never dreamed of using the government to force the Catholic church, for example, to pay for abortions. Fox does not need to stir anybody up about this stuff... the anti-Obama reaction is a natural and normal push-back against evil. period. It would happen even without Fox. In fact, if there were no Fox, the push-back would probably be MORE angry. It's not going to end until the evil ends.

Those rotten bastards come into the living rooms of millions of Americans every day, to explain why Obummer is the Anti-Christ, and to explain for all the morons that America's end is nigh.

Nope, Fox news has never called Obama either "Obummer" or labelled him the "Anti-Christ"... though they certainly would have been on reasonably solid ground had they labelled some of his policies "Anti-Christian" (which some guest or editorialist on the channel might have done, although I do not recall such an instance). As for the line that the "end is nigh"... you clearly do NOT watch Fox or you would know that less than 48 hours ago they aired a program specifically debunking any "end is nigh" talk... DOH! You really should not advertize your ignorance like that.

News? Fox is adamantly opposed to offering news. It's all propaganda noise.

Actually, unless you think Obama is our new and perfect Messiah, then all the other networks are the propaganda outlets... they are all parroting his lines and not doing the customary "journalist" job of critical questioning. They'll swerve-back in the general direction of "journalism" when they finally ask the their prince a critical question. As long as they stay in the extreme dishonesty camp with Candy Crowley, they're just propagandists. Fox airs plenty of news which nobody on the left (and therefore no other outlet) is willing to touch... without Fox we would not know about the thousands of guns the administration intentionally allowed into the hands of the Mexican drug gangs, would not know that the Obama administration lied to the public for several weeks about the death of our ambassador in Libya, would not know that the other news outlets had aired footage of a child who was killed in Syria as though it was killed in Gaza by Israel, etc.

If you want to be ignorant, stay away from Fox news... Oh, I see you have that covered, nevermind.

Re:Well one thing is certain... (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#42071333)

Haven't read TFA yet - but it says "may face" corruption charges in the title. Meaning, if Rupert can apply enough pressure and cash at strategic points, the charges are going to disappear. That will probably take all of his pocket change though, and he may have to do without a few gourmet meals. It would sure be rough if he had to eat plain old filet mignon, like some commoner!

Oh, this is sweet!! (4, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#42071365)

http://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-filings/entry/crew-petition-fcc-deny-renewal-news-corp-fox-broadcast-licenses-murdoch [citizensforethics.org]

Washington, D.C. – Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), asking the agency to deny renewal of three broadcast licenses held by Fox television stations. Because their licenses are set to expire in October, two Fox stations in Washington, D.C. and one in Baltimore – which are wholly owned subsidiaries of News Corp. – filed to renew the licenses this past June.

CREW is objecting to the renewals because under U.S. law, broadcast frequencies may be used only by people of good “character,” who will serve “the public interest,” and speak with “candor.” Significant character deficiencies may warrant disqualification from holding a license.

One thing is truly certain... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42072015)

Actually, Fox news has covered the scandal quite well and without attempting to make any of their corporate cousins look good.

The thing that was actually obvious/predictable is that an anti-Fox post like yours which was factually wrong would get rated "Score: 5, Insightful" on Slashdot. The irony is just amazing. Ignorant idiots see all sorts of enlightenment and insight in the postings of other ignorant fools... and critics of Fox news are among the most ignorant of all fools (they actually brag about not watching the network that they slam... so they are self-admitted ignorant critics.)

Yup... Slashdot... where young rebels go to cheer for a big bloated government that irradiates/gropes them at airports, snoops on E-mail, helps giant corporations use intellectual property laws to squish consumers and competitors, etc. Yup, when the people running that government (the Obama people) tell them not to watch Fox News, you left-wing slashdotters do what any rebels would do... OBEY

Pathetic

Rupert will ... (2)

deskjet (2766693) | about a year ago | (#42069351)

Mr Murdoch will be able to buy his way out of trouble, if not, I'm sure he has something on anyone with something to lose.

Re:Rupert will ... (5, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#42069365)

Mr Murdoch will be able to buy his way out of trouble...

If you mean pay huge fines that are still less than his yearly caviar tab, and then continue on "business as usual", then yes you are correct...

Re:Rupert will ... (1)

deskjet (2766693) | about a year ago | (#42069457)

If you mean pay huge fines that are still less than his yearly caviar tab, and then continue on "business as usual", then yes you are correct...

No not really, more contributions and the like, he already has a track record of paying out to officials, why stop now?

Re:Rupert will ... (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year ago | (#42070491)

Mr Murdoch will be able to buy his way out of trouble, if not, I'm sure he has something on anyone with something to lose.

How much do you think he'll pay Dice, uh I'm sorry, Slashdot, to make this story disappear?

Re:Rupert will ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42070925)

Rupert Murdoch (D)

Fox reports on itself? (2, Insightful)

rockiams (12481) | about a year ago | (#42069357)

Yeah, what he said....I don't watch Fox News, but it seems if they are as crooked as it has been reported, will they even report on this? And if they do, I wonder how they will spin it..."Liberal lefty media trying to discredit Fox again!"

Re:Fox reports on itself? (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#42071021)

Have you met anyone who watches Fox News regularly? They can tell those people anything. I'm not even sure "spin" is needed, straight propaganda is sufficient. Just say to their viewers "Rupert is being persecuted by the liberal media, he's innocent. This is the spin-free report you won't find on those other networks." Their viewers will not question it.

Re:Fox reports on itself? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42071925)

This is just too rich... a bunch of ignorant fools on Slashdot all announcing that they don't watch fox news but they're certain they know what's on it and how rotten it is... Go back to Kos or HuffPo or return to your delusional "news" sources on comedy central where you might not have noticed that they edit all their video of people they do not like; they are clowns who twist things Republicans do/say to make them as funny as possible. Do you think Romney said "Let Detroit go bankrupt" or that Sarah Palin said "I can see Russia from my house"? If so, you have been duped by your mainstream press and your comics; The newspaper that published Romney's editorial created that line about Detroit, and it was Palin impersonator Tina Fey who said the Russia line on Saturday Night Live.

I watch Fox frequently, and I also watch ABC, NBC, CBS, MSBNC, and CNN... most of the people I know also watch Fox ( and also tune into their competitors ) which makes all of us far better informed than you and the people you apparently associate with. Fox news has reported many times on the phone hacking scandal including live airing of hearings over in England... and no, they did not put lipstick on the pig. Fox viewers were also well aware that Obama's justice department arranged for a large number of so-called "assault weapons" to be transferred to mexican drug gangs (Fast&Furious) for about a year before NBC finally told their viewers the details. This would never have been ignored by all the other networks if George Bush had done it. I have never seen a Bush scandal that was reported on other networks while being suppressed on Fox... I have, however, seen a number of Obama scandals that were reported by Fox while being suppressed by everyone else... and that's VERY telling.

I'm a life-long news junkie and am old enough to remember when Ted Koppel started Nightline on ABC during the Carter administration... I even remember watching Walter Cronkite report on the Vietnam war... it always used to be the case that the press acted as a super-critical watchdog on the president, but that's no longer true. These days, the only news outlet that has not completely rotted into a PR-wing of the Democrats is Fox news, and that's precisely why there is a constant screech by people on the left demanding that Fox is evil and nobody should watch it. (yeah, the parent company of Fox owns some other entities in England that did some atrocious stuff... I guess that means GE jet engines suck because their parent company was also the parent company of MSNBC, right?) Any of you younger posters should see if you can find YouTubes of journalists like Sam Donaldson or Helen Thomas going after president Reagan or Bush41 like a junkyard dog chasing a mailman... and then ask yourself when any journalist has ever asked Obama an even slightly critical question... Univision was better than all the "manistream" media in the US when they gently asked why he did nothing on immigration reform during his 1st two years in office (when he had total control of the government and had promised to do it in his 1st year) but even Univision could not get a straight answer out of him and they were unwilling to yell at him as journalists have often done to every other president. The basic problem is that the vast majority of American journalists openly admit to being liberal Democrats... and they are just not going to go after one of their own. Older generations of Democrat journalists covered-up any negative personal stories of Democrat politicians they liked, but would at least hammer them on policies and successes/failures... this has changed. Barack Obama could commit murder in front of a packed white house press briefing room... ABC, CBS, and NBC would not report it, CNN would report that there had been an "incident", MSNBC would report that George Bush had caused yet another death, and Shep Smith at Fox would shed a few tears that he was having to report that the president had done something bad ... before enthusiastically switching to one of his "bear alerts". Later in the evening, Hannity of Fox would editorialize that Obama was a servant of the devil who sacrificed somebody in the press room. Guess what? In this hypothetical, only people who watched Fox would get the point that the president had killed somebody; people who watched the other channels would be as blissfully-ignorant as the Democrats want them to be. Sure, Hannity would have gone over-the-top... regular Fox news viewers, being apparently much smarter than non Fox watchers, actually know the difference between the editorial people like Hannity and the hard news team... for you NYT readers: that's like the front page vs the editorial page.

I'd feel like a complete idiot if I was ranting about how bad a channel was without actually watching it... the reason I feel free to criticize all the other channels and guys like Steven Colbert, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, etc is because I actually watch them and know just how bad they are. It's shocking that the youngest generation of voters actually consider the aforementioned 3 comics as "news sources" and do not realize that they are little more than walking, talking strawman arguments who, when challenged on anything they do, just smirk and say "I'm a comedian"

The FCC has no control over fox news on sat / cabl (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#42069359)

The FCC has no control over fox news on sat / cable.

Re:The FCC has no control over fox news on sat / c (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42069421)

Am I misreading something? Where was the FCC mentioned?

1) The FCC has no jurisdiction over what goes on in the UK
2) Fox doesn't JUST broadcast on cable and satellite. Fox has a number of affiliates, and they rebroadcast Fox news programs and contribute to local news programming.

Re:The FCC has no control over fox news on sat / c (4, Informative)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a year ago | (#42069609)

yeah, you were misreading (or not reading) TFA:

The latest legal difficulties to hit News Corporation could also potentially have ramifications on its 27 TV licences within the Fox network â" the real financial heart of the operation. Three of the licences are up for renewal, and in August the ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) filed a petition with the US broadcasting regulator, the Federal Communications Commission, that called for them to be denied on the grounds that the company did not have the requisite character to run a public service.

The FCC is being asked to deny renewal for 3 of the 27 Fox licences. Whatever regulates the sat/cable industry might be asked to consider if Fox is a reputable enough company to own a licence to broadcast - the UK has such requirements, and I can't really believe the US has a totally deregulated media industry (a corrupt one, maybe).

Anyway, keep your eyes open, this time next week the Leveson Inquiry publishes its report [telegraph.co.uk] into News Corp.

Re:The FCC has no control over fox news on sat / c (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#42069815)

So an incident in a subsidiary branch 6000 miles away from the US should induce major headaches for a US-based organization at the hands of the US government.

Well, if it's good enough to tear down all of Acorn over one jackass office...

Alternatively...

Re:The FCC has no control over fox news on sat / c (5, Informative)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#42069963)

So an incident in a subsidiary branch 6000 miles away from the US should induce major headaches for a US-based organization at the hands of the US government.

That's what often happens. For one, foriegn bribes are illegal in the US. That is to say, if a fooreign subsidiary uses bribery, it is a crime (under US law) that can be charged against the parent company. That's why one company I worked for with more than 30 foreign subsidiaries had very very liberal expense accounting. You were expected to pay for bribes yourself, then charge them back as "dinner" or such, no receipt needed, and unprosecutable as far as the feds are concerned.

It was a requirement of doing business, as some countries require bribes. One specific example would have a US analog of:

What would you do if the Elbonia TSA made you pay $5 to get your laptop bin back at the security check? They are government employees, so slipping them $5 for your laptop would be a federal crime in the USA.

So yeah, if he gets convicted of bribery in the UK, then his company is on the hook for breaking the foreign corrupt practices act, and should lose all US licenses.

Why do you want to reward people who break the rules, so long as they break them creatively enough to satisfy you?

You're off on a few regards. (1)

raehl (609729) | about a year ago | (#42070655)

One, your accounting gimmick doesn't shield you from prosecution. It MAY make prosecution more difficult, but the company - and you personally - are absolutely criminally liable for paying the bribe, no matter how you attempt to obfuscate it. All you need is affirmative knowledge of an intent to influence an official's duties with some sort of compensation.

Whether the FCPA covers your example of paying to get your laptop back out of the bin is less clear. There's actually a case or two going through the system now that will define who, exactly, counts as a "foreign official", specifically, does every employee of a government count as a foreign official?

It's unlikely that a conviction for paying a bribe to get your laptop back would survive an appeal, as the payment didn't secure your business an advantage, it just got your property back.

Re:You're off on a few regards. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#42070893)

There's actually a case or two going through the system now that will define who, exactly, counts as a "foreign official", specifically, does every employee of a government count as a foreign official?

The current definition is that anyone paid by a foreign government or employed in a government facility or capacity is a foreign official.

What they need is an official US recognition that some governments *require* bribes for regular daily operation. For example, I worked somewhere that had equipment in a place with security guards that were off duty cops (government officials under the current definition) and they extracted extra money by refusing entry without a fee. You either pay it, or you don't work. There are no other options.

It's unlikely that a conviction for paying a bribe to get your laptop back would survive an appeal, as the payment didn't secure your business an advantage, it just got your property back.

It gets you an advantage when your competitor doesn't pay and doesn't hes back.

And I never asserted that the accounting tricks made it any more legal, but putting "$5 bribe" on an expense report would be a little more likely to draw attention or be used against you later.

Re:You're off on a few regards. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42071559)

Facilitating a bribe is just going to say that it's okay to do, when it's not. People should be doing their jobs not dependent on "gifts".

Re:You're off on a few regards. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#42072145)

If you are being held at gunpoint with a $20 fee for your release, and the person holding you is a police officer, what do you do about it? Start quoting your US constitutional rights when you aren't in the US? Or pay the bribe and face charges when you get back home?

Re:You're off on a few regards. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42072253)

The law specifically exempts this scenario and other less ridiculous ones

In our training exercise it was "The company office in Country X has been damaged by an earthquake, there is a smell of gas from damaged pipework, you are concerned that an explosion could happen, you evacuate the company employees and ask the local authorities to disconnect the gas and make it safe. They demand $500 facilitation payment". The correct answer was to pay, then report it to the company's anti-corruption team via telephone hotline or secure email at the first opportunity. But the next question is "To authorise repairs on the building after the earthquake the planning official demands $1000 bribe". It is forbidden to pay this bribe, no-one is in any danger.

Re:The FCC has no control over fox news on sat / c (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42070669)

Um.... of course? If subsidiaries didn't count, they you could just spin off a subsidiary to do your bribes for you and you'd be safe. In fact, companies would go further and spin EVERYTHING off into subsidiaries and only keep the top execs in the main company, Then they could have their companies do anything and be isolated from legal responsibility.

Re:The FCC has no control over fox news on sat / c (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#42071435)

Rupert Murdoch personally paid off celebs in the UK, for them to NOT bring charges against the companies he owned there. It's not an "incident in a subsidiary" company. Rupert was directly involved. Rupert made the decision that it was cheaper to pay people off, then to continue with "business as usual". Rupert did NOT direct his underlings and cronies to stop breaking the law - he paid off, and gave his tacit consent to keep on keeping on.

Not to mention that your geography isn't real good. 6000 miles? It's less than 6000 miles from Los Angeles to London.

http://www.freemaptools.com/how-far-is-it-between-london_-uk-and-los-angeles-california_-usa.htm [freemaptools.com]

Hmmmmm - the same page also says that Anchorage and Honolulu are both less than 6000 miles. Honolulu? Hmmm . . . Whatever - your geography sucks.

Re:The FCC has no control over fox news on sat / c (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#42071405)

I kinda think that you're the one who is missing something. The FCC does have authority over SOME of Fox's news outlets. Television stations, specifically. Shutting down some TV stations won't stop Fox spewing their poison over cable, or internet, but it will shut down those three television stations.

Re:The FCC has no control over fox news on sat / c (2)

riverat1 (1048260) | about a year ago | (#42070971)

If you had even read the /. post you would have noticed that they're talking about the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [wikipedia.org] being involved. Nothing about the FCC.

If fox get's pulled what happens to the NFL games? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#42069369)

If fox get's pulled what happens to the NFL games?

Will they have to open NFL Sunday ticket with no black outs and free for all? and get the out local feeds to cable as well.

Re:If fox get's pulled what happens to the NFL gam (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42069405)

"get's"? Really?

Re:If fox get's pulled what happens to the NFL gam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42070507)

"get's"? Really?

If they pull the NFL games from TV, base intelligence and spelling skills may exceed their current levels just a hair. Perhaps enough to make thing's better.
 
:-)

Re:If fox get's pulled what happens to the NFL gam (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#42070637)

If fox get's pulled what happens to the NFL games?

There will be a bidding war.

Don't worry, you're not going to miss anything if Fox disappears, except perhaps the singular experience of seeing Karl Rove shit his pants on live TV when the network declared Barack Obama re-elected.

And if you think maybe I'm being hyperbolic with the "shit-his-pants" description, it means you missed what happened on Fox when the election was called for the President. You could smell the fear-sweat through the TV screen when he realized he was going to have to tell a bunch of sociopath billionaires that they bought exactly nothing for the shipping containers full of money they gave to Rove on the promise that they'd get their own white president to own.

Bribery different in the UK (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42069375)

In the UK I guess the news has to bribe officals to talk. In the US the government pays the news agencies to not run bad stories (NBC's parent company got $16 Billion from Obama in his stimilus and they failed to mention what happened during Libya during the reelection)

Re:Bribery different in the UK (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42069633)

NBC's parent company got $16 Billion from Obama in his stimilus and they failed to mention what happened during Libya during the reelection

You've lost me here. Maybe it's because I'm in the UK so I got actual news coverage, but pray tell, what "happened in Libya" that you're so bent out of shape over?

Re:Bribery different in the UK (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#42069739)

He's lost himself. What parent meant to say was "NBC didn't report my conspiracy theory about Benghazi.."

Re:Bribery different in the UK (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#42070105)

He's lost himself. What parent meant to say was "NBC didn't report my conspiracy theory about Benghazi.."

I get the impression that for the past month or so FOX has given up on news-spin and just dispenses conspiracy theories now.

Re:Bribery different in the UK (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42070913)

I didn't realize that lying to the US public over the TV and to the UN, and not admitting it for two months then just today blaming someone else for the lie you told was a conspiracy. Perhaps conspiracy doesn't mean what you think it does. The lying happened, it was covered up for two months, NBC failed to mention it. Those are facts. Jack Clapper just today got blamed for the lie taking place at all. So sorry if you are so whacked that the truth you don't like is now considered conspiracy. Its not even up for debat over what factually happened anymore, except for you I guess.

Eyeroll (-1, Flamebait)

fat_mike (71855) | about a year ago | (#42069385)

What complicated paywall? I get the WSJ delivered and full access to their online articles. All I did was the click the "Subscribe" button, put in my payment information and clicked "Submit". I even got a month free!

When did Slashdot become so liberal, I'm sorry, progressive?

Unrelated, why does trying to post a comment turn my i5 into a 386SX?

Re:Eyeroll (1)

mspohr (589790) | about a year ago | (#42069445)

You're willing to pay for access so it is simple.
It's only complicated if you want "free" access.
I find it easier to just ignore the WSJ.
Why do you assume that complaining about a firewall is a liberal bias?

Re:Eyeroll (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42069623)

Why do you assume that complaining about a firewall is a liberal bias?

Because if you're conservative, everything that is true or even approaching the truth is "lib'rul bias."

Re:Eyeroll (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#42070117)

Why do you assume that complaining about a firewall is a liberal bias?

Because if you're conservative, everything that is true or even approaching the truth is "lib'rul bias."

Even the Wall Street Journal.

Re:Eyeroll (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#42069675)

I can't figure out why anyone would pay for the WSJ any more? I felt like I was being robbed when I could read articles for free.

It's an illuminati game play (1, Funny)

Bruce66423 (1678196) | about a year ago | (#42069423)

For those of us who have played Illuminati, http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/28/illuminati-deluxe-edition [boardgamegeek.com] what we are seeing here is a further attempt by certain powers to destroy the visible power group 'News Corp'. The attack has been declared; we're now seeing the money being spent before the dice is rolled. We've already seen one successful attack to destroy - the News of the World newspaper in the UK. Will this attack be successful - or it might merely be to neutralise, leaving News Corp in play to be taken over...

Re:It's an illuminati game play (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#42069985)

I enjoy Illuminati! and own the deluxe boxed set, but I think INWO is a better model. So the question is, who is attacking to destroy newscorp with the aid of the United States and Big Media?

Re:It's an illuminati game play (0, Troll)

BlueStrat (756137) | about a year ago | (#42070995)

So the question is, who is attacking to destroy newscorp with the aid of the United States and Big Media?

That would be people like George Soros and his Open Society Institute as well as hundreds of other organizations (Tides, Ford, etc) he and his -sub-organizations fund in full or in part. Many attacks carried out by third-party proxies. But, Soros and others around the world wanting a single global government are but one of many other power blocs like the Muslim/Islamic blocs, the socialist and the communist blocs, and every other radical revolutionary organization and bloc both foreign and domestic that sees the chaos being caused as an opportunity for them.

Murdoch/News Inc has many enemies inside of various governments and outside of those governments, including many political and radical groups. No surprise they pile-on when they smell blood in the water. Doesn't matter if one group attacking is actually a mortal enemy of another attacker. For the time being to accomplish a larger common goal, the enemy of their enemy, etc. No active coordination needed, just self-interest in taking advantage of an opportunity to damage a major enemy.

To make major societal, cultural, and political changes takes time...unless one doesn't mind creating widespread chaos, panic, death, and destruction to "clear the way" for a new power bloc to grab control by telling the people; "Just follow us! We'll save you from this chaos!"...not mentioning, of course, that they have spent decades working to bring the chaos about and them to this point of desperation.

Desperate, starving, and frightened people will do pretty much anything that anyone that even looks like they might be able to help tells them to do or say. Help create/accelerate the chaos, then ride to the rescue. It's how most socialist revolutions have worked, and is even pretty much how things went in 1930s Germany.

It's a good thing for tyrants, tyrannies, genocidal butchers, and the revolutions that keep putting them into power, that people never learn from history and even attack anyone who tries, so deluded, fanatical, and closed-minded do they become.

Strat

Translation (1)

bistromath007 (1253428) | about a year ago | (#42069449)

"Only a hundred thousand? Come on, you can do better than that."

Re:Translation (2)

grcumb (781340) | about a year ago | (#42071151)

"Only a hundred thousand? Come on, you can do better than that."

Well, to be fair, that UK pounds, and a hundred thousand of those are worth about 42 billion US dollars now....

(Give or take.)

Loved? (1, Redundant)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year ago | (#42069483)

Rupert Murdock, is loathed by most of the readers of Slashdot as the owner of Fox News and as the company which put the overly complicated paywall on the Wall Street Journal.

FTFY

Re: Loved? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42069601)

Murdoch. FTFY.

what is love (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42069971)

baby don't hurt me no more

Re:Loved? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#42070335)

Rupert Murdock, is loathed by most of the readers of Slashdot as the one who canceled Firefly and Futurama.

FTFTFY

earn money (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42069599)

like Amy said I'm shocked that anybody can profit $8348 in a few weeks on the internet. have you seen this web site Cloud65.com

I wouldn't hold my breath. (-1, Troll)

Kid Zero (4866) | about a year ago | (#42069627)

Dear Slashdot,

You've heard of the phrase "Pot calling the Kettle Black", right? Slashdot has no standing to call anyone else "biased".

Re:I wouldn't hold my breath. (4, Informative)

grcumb (781340) | about a year ago | (#42070003)

Dear Slashdot,

You've heard of the phrase "Pot calling the Kettle Black", right? Slashdot has no standing to call anyone else "biased".

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between having an opinion about something and just plain Making Shit Up.

When someone has an opinion, no matter how tenuous, they have at least implicitly accepted that there is such a thing as objective reality, which gives you something to argue about.

When someone simply invents their own reality, then there's no common ground for argument or understanding.

And Slashdot, contrary to your construction of it, is far more diverse in its opinions than you seem to think. But when a collective bias does show (e.g. in anti-Microsoft diatribes), it's generally[*] based on commonly-held opinions that are derived from experience. My anti-Microsoft bias comes from trying to write and support stable server-based applications on an MS platform in the late '90s. Security and stability were such shit at that time that I moved to Linux simply in order to maintain my sanity (and professional reputation).

So, there may actually be pots and kettles here, but not where you're looking for them; comparing Slashdot to Fox is apples to oranges.

----------
[*] Generally. Statistically, there is a small but vocal cadre of clueless idiots in every group of a sufficient size.

Re:I wouldn't hold my breath. (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#42070171)

Nobody called anyone else biased. How bad is it that you hear "Fox News" and the first word to pop into your head is "biased"?

Fox News Coverage (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42069655)

Fox (Bill O'Reiley) has actually been covering this for several months now.

No meat to this article (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42069855)

After reading TFA, I see only two opinions being used for the basis of the article, and neither of them appear to have anything to do with the headline of the /. post.

"Mike Koehler, professor of law at Southern Illinois school of law and author of the blog fcaprofessor.com, said the charges "would be hard for the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to ignore. We have been hearing allegations for a year and a half now, now we clearly have charges against high ranking officials at a foreign subsidiary," he said."

Professor Koehler makes his living speaking and writing about these types of cases.

"Melanie Sloan, Crew's director, said the charges of the four former News International employees played into its petition. 'News Corp argues that the conduct in Britain shouldn't matter here in the US, but the Atlantic ocean doesn't have cleansing properties – if Murdoch is seen to be unfit to run a global company in the UK, then he's unfit in this country, too.'"

Ms. Sloan's organization (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - CREW) tends to go after conservative politicians (are they more corrupt than liberal politicians? I think it's about equal...) and receives the majority of their funding from liberal sources.

(Wikpedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Responsibility_and_Ethics_in_Washington)

So, what we have is an article published by a newspaper that has a financial interest in denigrating a competing news organization, and the two folks quoted in the article gain fame and fortune from these types of cases.

You'll also notice that the Fox News cable channel is not mentioned in TFA at all...The Fox Network was mentioned twice and the Fox Channel once.

Fair and Balanced? You decide... ;-)

Re:No meat to this article (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#42069885)

The fact remains that if a US company is convicted of bribing officials in a foreign country, that company can be prosecuted under domestic law. Whether NewsCorp will be or not is another question, but there have been strong hints dropped since the case really exploded in Britain that US authorities are carefully watching what happens in Britain.

Re:No meat to this article (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42070083)

They don't need a foreign conviction to trigger an FCPA proceeding here. They can have a trial here independent of overseas proceedings, just like the Lacey Act.

Re:No meat to this article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42071305)

NewsCorp is a multinational, not just a "US" company. Get it straight.

Re:No meat to this article (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#42070199)

"Melanie Sloan, Crew's director, said the charges of the four former News International employees played into its petition. 'News Corp argues that the conduct in Britain shouldn't matter here in the US, but the Atlantic ocean doesn't have cleansing properties – if Murdoch is seen to be unfit to run a global company in the UK, then he's unfit in this country, too.'"

Not to mention that acting illegally in foreign countries is often a US crime as well, even if you discount it as indicative of systemic lawlessness. See foreign corrupt practices act

PDF Of the FCC Petition (2)

guttentag (313541) | about a year ago | (#42069953)

Here's the PDF [3cdn.net] of the petition to deny News Corp's renewal of TV broadcasting licenses in the DC and Baltimore markets, based on its behavior in the UK.

FCPA is a joke. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42070069)

Bribery and corruption are the norm in other countries like Mexico. All they are doing is making it impossible for US businesses to do anything overseas.

But no problem in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42070313)

But that's no problem here in the US since the Supreme ruled that money is equivalent to free speech; effectively negating anti-bribery laws here

Fox that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42070905)

Look at that walker! Better hide into an open prison.

Sticking it to the hated class enemy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42071137)

for its crime of contrary opinion. Way to go, freedom lovers.

Re:Sticking it to the hated class enemy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42071363)

Death to socialism.

Give credit where credit is due (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42071425)

I'm no fan of Fox, but this channel runs @ my place of employment all day --

This controversy is a direct result of investigations into the News of the World cell-phone cracking scandal, and Fox has actually covered this in a factual and dispassionate manor since the original story broke (always caveated with "News-corp is the parent company of Fox News, etc."). The current corruption investigation has received coverage on Bill O'Reilly's show on at least three separate occasions since early October.

The (+5, Insightful) stuff at the top of the comments based on an assumed Fox cover-up is just bunk. I think Fox has been the *only* major US television media outlet to report on this scandal.

GOP won't let Fox be threatened (2)

jsepeta (412566) | about a year ago | (#42071799)

Fox owns the House, which is controlled by the GOP, so don't expect a full investigation stateside.

juxtaposition (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42072137)

Nice juxtaposition in the headline there... giving a jump-off point for the Slashdot approved group-think drones to blather on about how evil FNC is, even though TFA really doesn't deal with FNC.

The little slider widget that controls the hiding and abbreviation of comments based on score needs a reversing button so I can invert the scale on political stories and anything that has to do with FNC.

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...