Beta
×

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!

It's Official: News Corp to Buy DirecTV

chrisd posted more than 11 years ago | from the fox-news-on-500-channels dept.

Television 273

Guppy06 writes "According to this Washington Post article, the heads at both News Corporation (owners of Fox) and DirecTV have agreed to a $6.6 billion deal to secure the purchase of DirecTV by News, with GM getting a little less than half of that total in cash. All that remains now is the actual exchange. For the record, EchoStar was going to pay $30 billion before the FCC shot them down."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Murdoch-ing the world (-1, Troll)

Vendekkai (121853) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700155)

This has to be stopped, before Murdoch manages to get more eyeballs for his conservative propaganda outlets.

Slanderer! (5, Funny)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700183)

It's fair and balanced. They say so themselves. Why is everything a conspiracy with you liberals?

Propaganda (0, Troll)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700414)

Because we can prove it:

Mmm, propaganda [dailyhowler.com]

Re:Murdoch-ing the world (0, Troll)

Flounder (42112) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700200)

1 conservative propaganda outlet. Countless liberal propaganda outlets.

I think Murdoch has a ways to go to catch up.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world (-1, Flamebait)

sirinek (41507) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700625)

Name some. The "liberal media" is a term coined by Rush Limbaugh. Made up rubbish.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world (2, Funny)

Zigg (64962) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700210)

Oh no, people might watch something and agree with it!

Quickly! We must get the government to stop this! Only Vendekkai-approved news sources must be allowed to have audiences!

Re:Murdoch-ing the world (4, Insightful)

Gojira Shipi-Taro (465802) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700214)

Of course. Obviously holders of conservative veiwpoints can't be allowed to excercise free speech or press.

Do you somehow think that HBO will come off as "more conservative" over the satellite if Rupert Murdoch owns DirecTV? Will it Janine Garafollo suddenly stop in the middle of a Comedy Special and launch into a Pro-Bush, Pro-War propeganda dialog on the "DirectTV" version of the broadcast?

How about the News... oh wait he already owns FoxNews.

How exactly will this change things again?

I'm not a big fan of the guy, but aren't we being just a wee bit paranoid here?

Re:Murdoch-ing the world (2, Funny)

phyreman (169792) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700225)

Can it be? A voice of reason within the first 25 comments on slashdot....

Re:Murdoch-ing the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700233)

it's a re: it could be one from the bottom.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700297)

You have *seen* FoxNews haven't you?

Here's an accurate interpretation [fark.com]

Advertising (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700336)

How exactly will this change things again?

Earlier this year, a group of anti-war protesters put together a television advertisement. The major networks refused to run it because it was "too controversial". In order to get air-time, they had to go to cable companies and buy local advertisements.

With newscorp controlling DirectTV, one more advertising venue becomes consolidated under the same management structure.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world (1, Insightful)

foxtrot (14140) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700383)

How about the News... oh wait he already owns FoxNews.

Well, it was kinda nice back in the day when I had three cable news channels to choose from...

In truth, I don't see CNN or MSNBC going away any time soon. They're too big and would cause too much of an uproar-- and frankly, they're still profitable to carry [0]. I can, however, see some of the smaller channels go away-- you don't need this Jefferson Pilot affiliate, because you've got Fox SportsSouth. Never mind that SportsSouth doesn't carry Georgia Tech football games...

[0] One might think that given how CNN tends to lean left and FoxNews tends to lean right that the folks who own FoxNews might want use this sort of market power to squash CNN so that people would get right-slanted news. Thing is, many of NewsCorp's news channels on Sky and the like lean left-- Rupert Murdoch isn't interested in brainwashing you to think like he does. He's interested in your money.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world (1)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700420)

MSNBC isn't that profitable, and GE doesn't like being third in anything they do. If the war had drug on, MSNBC would have likely begun the beginning of their end.

Sky News does not lean left (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700460)

Sky News does not 'lean left', although it may not be as far right as FoxNews it is still fairly right wing by British standards.

Re:Sky News does not lean left (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700723)

No it isn't. They're on similar parallels to the BBC, with a more central stance, hoping to appeal to a broader audience.. remember the're not the UK's most popular news channel, BBC News 24 is. Sky news is competing with them for audience, so wants to cover as broad an audience as possible.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world (2, Funny)

ChrisNowinski (606426) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700597)

CNN leans left? Tell that to Wolf Blitzer and Aaron Brown. I'm certain they would be surprised to find that out.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world (3, Insightful)

amcguinn (549297) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700507)

You're missing the point if you think the purpose of News Corp is to advance any political position

Politics comes a distant second to business in News Corporation. In the UK, Murdoch is seen as the very definition of a dangerous monopolist, controlling all satellite TV (which is more popular than cable) as well as several of the most popular newspapers (The Sun, The News of the World, The Times, The Sunday Times). The Murdoch media are generally populist right-wing, but they pretty soon slotted in behind Blair when they saw which way the wind was blowing. They are populist right-wing because it sells, that's all.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world (1)

ChrisNowinski (606426) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700635)

Bullshit. If Murdoch was really a profiteer, why does he continue to fund the money losing Weekly Standard, or any of the other money-hole conservative journals he runs?

Re:Murdoch-ing the world (1)

amcguinn (549297) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700786)

I don't know: I'm giving you the perspective from a country where "Murdoch" is virtually a synonym for "the media" in the popular mind.

At a guess, and it's no more than that, I'd say it's for the same reason that his Chinese media interests are so pro-government: You can't reach the kind of dominant position he has in Britain without earning the support of some group in the government.

If you wish to disagree further, do you think you could do it politely?

and this means (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700156)

Rupert Merdoch DirecToYou

I don't see this being a big change (4, Insightful)

andih8u (639841) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700158)

Except for CNN and MSNBC mysteriously vanishing in favor of fox news

Re:I don't see this being a big change (1)

Flounder (42112) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700208)

Hey, two more channel slots to be filled with Pay per View!! Spiderman, every half hour on the half hour, whether you want it or not!

Re:I don't see this being a big change (5, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700618)

Except for CNN and MSNBC mysteriously vanishing in favor of fox news

MSNBC is accomplishing that quite nicely on its own, thank you very much. And although the war has driven viewership of all three cable newsers up, the real losers have been the Old School "News By Appointment" telecasts on the broadcast nets. Check the ratings [usatoday.com] for the past three weeks. I mean, really, who wants to wait until the "Friends" re-runs are over to find out what is happening in Iraq?

News on TV -- Now, Today -- must be two things: Immediate, and Entertaining. If I want deep analyses and differing perspectives (and I do), I get them on the 'net. Twenty years ago I read the NY Post, Times, Daily News and my local Gannett paper every day. Now I read twice as much news from papers around the world, and I don't have to wash the newsprint off my hands afterwards. The broadcast outlets fail at providing those two criteria. Fox succeeds in spades, and their numbers are reflecting this.

The Fox News "phenomenon" is better understood not as a "right wing conspiracy" but a failure of one by the left wing that has been percolating for 30 years. It is, rather, the "mainstreaming" of the news. People "enjoy" seeing the news delivered by preenters who clearly share their perspective on the events they are reporting. This may not be good journalism, but it is turning out to be good television. Golly, who knew...?

They may not float your particular boats, but it does seem that a not insignificant majority of people in the US share views closer to those of O'Reilly and Hannity than of your average Ivy League University Latino Studies Profeessor. And Murdoch would be insane to ignore that fact. The broadcast news outlets have had their collective heads in the sand on this topic for years, and are now imperiled.

Re:I don't see this being a big change (2, Insightful)

ChrisNowinski (606426) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700670)

The majority Americans are socially liberal and economically moderate when polled. Just because the conservative echo chamber seems loud dosen't mean that it is.

fp! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700161)

fp!

b0rk!

Re:fp! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700169)

Not even second, t0sser!

Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$ (5, Insightful)

joebagodonuts (561066) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700164)

"For the record, EchoStar was going to pay $30 billion before the FCC shot them down."

The article neglects to mention that Murdoch has offered more (much more) in the past
He had planned a more than $20 billion offer for the company in 2001, and an even larger, $30 billion-plus offer in 2000.

I found the above info in a google search. We do contract work for DTV and I remember kind of scratching our heards when the Echostar bid was the one accepted. Directv accepted the offer from Echostar, even though iirc Newscorp offerd more. No one was confident that the Echostar deal would get approved. The rumor was that the management at Directv was scared that if Murdoch bought the business they were all out of work.
Now Murdoch gets Directv at a much better rate.

Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$ (1)

GMontag (42283) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700188)

So, is this the "helping hand of government" or is it a case where someone just got the finger?

The people who support this meddling keep telling us it is somehow a good thing. Maybe good things are not that obvious here?

Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$ (2, Insightful)

stripes (3681) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700307)

So, is this the "helping hand of government"

Well to the extent that I think the goverment can ever help the "free" market out...yes, yes it is. DirecTV was beign sold, and the choices were to sell it to the only other USA satalite TV system, or to sell it to some media content conglomarate. One of those radically reduces the consumers avilable choices of satalite TV delevery (from "not much choice" to "no choice"), and even if you accept DISH/DTV's viewpoint that they compete with Cable TV systems then the choice goes from 3 to 2 in most places (some places from 4 to 2, a few places from 2 to 1 still).

So from the consumers viewpoint at least in the short to mid term DirecTV being bought by Sky, er, Fox, er, Murdoch is better then DISH. In the long term? Well who knows, it might have been better to let the 2 satalite componies merge and ovver more channels or something.

Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$ (3, Insightful)

s.a.m (92412) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700231)

Ummm, no.

They DON'T own DTV now, they just control ~34% of the stock. Sure they may be the largest stakeholders but by no means do they outright OWN it.

Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$ (1)

s.a.m (92412) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700243)

Just as a follow up, it's called a Stock takeover. If you don't sell directly, then I'll just buy out all your shares and become the largest stakeholder.

Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$ (2, Informative)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700430)

They will have enough interest to have decision making privledges over the company. Echostar was only going to buy roughly this stake as well.

What else do you expect? (3, Insightful)

Eric Ass Raymond (662593) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700170)

We're heading for a one world government that's not going to be feared but loved by the public because the media monopoly tells it that everything's just great.

Re:What else do you expect? (1)

sigep_ohio (115364) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700192)

It will be just like libria. can i have my next dose of librium please. i am starting to feel some emotions and libral thoughts coming on.

Re:What else do you expect? (3, Insightful)

Organic_Info (208739) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700249)

"We're heading for a one world government"

Actually I believe we are heading for three namely Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. The Ministry of Truth will tell me everything I need to know and the Ministry of Love will protect me.

Read a classic...........1984.
.

Liberal media! (0, Flamebait)

cmason32 (636063) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700173)

This is just more evidence of the liberal media bias.

What liberal media? (4, Insightful)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700186)

What liberal media?

Fox, CNN, NBC etc. are all run by corporations and have a strong conservative bias, which can be proven by the number of conservative 'specialists' they bring on their shows, and thus they don't offend their conservative owners/contributors. Works out nicely for Bush, since he's rarely criticized on TV, unlike Clinton.

What's disturbing to me about this is that there's actually a company called 'News Corp'. Talk about population control *shiver*. I'm stickin' with PBS. At least they consider all things ;-)

Re:What liberal media? (2, Interesting)

Flounder (42112) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700244)

1) Since when has CNN, NBC, etc had a strong conservative bias?? Obviously, I'm watching the wrong channel. When 90% of journalists working for a 24 cable news channel voted liberal in the previous 3 elections, that has a tendency to skew the reporting of that particular channel.

2) Notice that Clinton was never criticized on TV for the things that actually mattered. Campaign donations from foreign countries is the kind of thing that causes presidents to get impeached (and they actually get kicked out). CNN was more interested in cigars and stained dresses.

3) And if you consider PBS to be unbiased, what exactly do you call liberal?

Okay, I'll bite (4, Insightful)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700523)

1) Since when has CNN, NBC, etc had a strong conservative bias?? Obviously, I'm watching the wrong channel. When 90% of journalists working for a 24 cable news channel voted liberal in the previous 3 elections, that has a tendency to skew the reporting of that particular channel.

Uh...Do you have any evidence to back that up? A link to a survey? An exit poll? Anything? I know plenty of conservative journalists... (Having been, at one point, a journalism student in the state of Indiana.)
2) Notice that Clinton was never criticized on TV for the things that actually mattered. Campaign donations from foreign countries is the kind of thing that causes presidents to get impeached (and they actually get kicked out). CNN was more interested in cigars and stained dresses.

Sorry, but you must have been asleep during those controversies. There was widespread press criticism of the president in that scandal. Also, the "focus" on cigars and stained dresses should be traced back to a witch-hunt launched by Clinton's political adversaries. Is it a coincidence that the first democrat to be elected and serve TWO FULL TERMS (since...what, FDR?) was "investigated" endlessly by conservative political appointees who, after many years and $40 million of tax money could only "get" him on the technicality that he didn't wish to disclose an extra-marital affair when the investigation was supposedly focused on a real estate deal?
3) And if you consider PBS to be unbiased, what exactly do you call liberal?

The biggest white elephant ever from the conservatives is the "liberal media" one. If the widespread "liberal" bias really existed, I would expect to see widespread outright opposition to President Bush's policies, since he is a Republican.

Yet the opposite is true. The networks are giving us non-stop, nearly pornographic (positive) coverage of this war and there are very few dissenting voices on the airwaves right now.

Again, you'd think if the media was so "liberal" they would show civillian casualty numbers which (once again) it appears will end up in the multiple thousands. I haven't heard even ONE PEEP on American television about civillian casualties... Except for when they hit a busload of civiliians with a missile, we heard about THAT "accident." But after the bombing of a residential area where potentially hundreds of civilians could have been affected... nothing. Not one peep.

Re:Okay, I'll bite (1)

calbanese (169547) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700867)

Again, you'd think if the media was so "liberal" they would show civillian casualty numbers which (once again) it appears will end up in the multiple thousands. I haven't heard even ONE PEEP on American television about civillian casualties... Except for when they hit a busload of civiliians with a missile, we heard about THAT "accident." But after the bombing of a residential area where potentially hundreds of civilians could have been affected... nothing. Not one peep.

According to the Iraqis, who have been known to inflate the number of civilian casualties reported, nearly 600 civilians have been killed, with 4,000 wounded [yahoo.com] . And while the networks haven't shown many pictures, civilian casualties have been reported. And as for the Syrian Bus we hit, I wouldn't be too surprised if it was full of Arab fighters and less of an accident than a targeted strike. I mean, while there have been tons of reports of fighting in northern and southern Iraq, very little fighting seems to have occured (unless not reported) near the Syrian border. The 600 dead is truly a tragedy, but ask an Iraqi if we hadn't done anything for the next 2 years, if more than 600 would have been killed by Husein.

Re:What liberal media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700566)

I've noticed something strange. Look at the countries that went to war in Irak. England, Australia, and USA.

Am I the only one to notice that they are the only country where murdoch's news are successful ?

I'm not saying he created the opinion, maybe his channels are successful there because of mob mentality. But it's amazing how pro-war goes hand by hand with murdoch's news. I don't know the anwser to the question of which one (pro-war, murdoch's news service) created the other, yet, i find that disturbing.

Re:What liberal media? (2)

ChrisNowinski (606426) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700706)

Bullshit. 1. Your 90% number is a misquote. It's based on a poll of all kinds of "Washington" reporters - but it's weighted such that the Middle Of Nowhere Gazette has an equal weight to the Washington Post.

2. Bullshit. Kosavo?

3. Paul Begala is liberal. Fox News is Conservative. PBS is unbiased.

Re:What liberal media? (0)

ryanvm (247662) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700826)

And if you consider PBS to be unbiased, what exactly do you call liberal?

You know you're talking to Michael Moore, right?

Hey Hippy (-1)

MAKE IT STOP ARRGGHH (644754) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700261)

Just because a news outlet is owned by a corporation, does not mean it's conservative. Many charities sponsored by corporations are very liberal and the strange phenomenon of rich media tycoons supporting Leftist politics has been pondered for years. Please look at the statistics on the number of "specialists" they bring on every show over the past few decades. ALL the major television news outlets had a greater number of liberal "specialists". Bush was slammed in the media for quite some time as dumb or bumbling and it still happens often today, however if it seems he's not being criticized as much today, it's because lately, HE'S BEEN DOING A GOOD JOB! To someone as far to the Left of the political spectrum as yourself, everyone who doesn't believe in socialism is a "right wing fascist" who you think probably has connections to "Big Oil". Fox News is popular because the vast majority of Americans want nothing to do with failed ideologies like socialism and are smart enough to recognize that Fox doesn't mindlessly push it. Please go back to protesting and whining about how MY tax dollars should pay for your dipshit public broadcasting.

Re:What liberal media? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700406)

Get real!

TV has a strong liberal bias - always showing protests, stories about the homeless, blah blah blah. These are liberal topics that no one with a TV is interested in, except maybe my old grandmother who is stupid enough to believe that crap.

It's about time that conservatives have had a voice in the media. Yeah, I have to agree that radio is for total kooks, but only kooks listen to Savage and Rush. But mainstream TV and newspaper is certainly all about liberal causes like homeless and religion and health crap.

Give me a potatoe and steak and more Chris!

Re:What liberal media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700544)

These are liberal topics that no one with a TV is interested in, except maybe my old grandmother who is stupid enough to believe that crap.
Most likely, your grandmother came from a time when the USA was building up and it was ppl like her that built it into what it was in the 50-60's. The USA literally took on horrible countries that invaded not just one disbuted area, but was truely seeking global conquest.
Now, we take on 2 bit dictators that we installed and suddenly think that we are great???? Please.
If you wish to see how great we are doing, check our economy. Likewise, check our current deficit. Finally, if you want to do a bit more observation, notice who all the re-build contracts are going to: not just USA companies, but more specifically most are going to Texas. The only state in in the union that is more polluted and decrepted than the country that it will be trying to rebuild

Mod Parent UP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700232)

I think the guy was just making a joke.

No, they withdrew (1, Informative)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700178)

Re:No, they withdrew (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700291)

Please don't dredge up facts.

Like the fact Bush won Florida, and the economic began in 2000 downturn (18 mos before Bush's first budget).

The people here don't want to hear them.

FOX? (5, Funny)

johnkoer (163434) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700184)

I couldn't help thinkin of the Simpsons on this one:

Lisa: It's wonderful to think for ourselves again.
Bart: You said it, sister!
TV: You are watching Fox.
All: [Zombie-like] We are watching Fox.

Re:FOX? (0, Funny)

laughing_badger (628416) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700292)

Coffee --> nose as I remembered:

Homer:

We apologize for misleading you and urge you to watch as many Fox shows as possible.

So in summary, NBC bad. Fox good.

*pause*

CBS great-*gunshot, thud*

Avoid Atmel AVR (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700301)

AVR's are buggy, obsolete microcontrollers. Invest in Microchip [microchip.com] PICMicros (TM) instead.

Advantages of PICMicro(TM):

*True RISC Design. Only 35 instructions to Learn!
*20ma drive current per I/O pin
*40 Mhz operation (PIC18xxx, Using 4x PLL multiplier)
*Simplist In-Circuit Programming in the industry

Disadvantages of Atmel AVR(TM)

*Based on obsolete pseudo-RISC design
*Only 32 registers
*Badly Implemented Peripherials (ADC is slow and innaccurate, and EEPROM loses contents often)
*fragile - easily destroyed by ESD
*Poorly supported.

Don't Delay, Learn PICs (TM) Today!

PIC(TM) and PICMicro(TM) are registed trademarks of Microchip Technology

The hell with Directv (2, Informative)

Joshuah (82679) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700187)

I had Telocity DSL. GREAT SERVICE! then Directv buys them to make Directv DSL. I had that service until i had to move, and with 1 month left on the contract, they said i had to pay a $150 early cancel fee, i even offered to just pay the last month, no deal. so, after being kinda pissed about that, i move, find out that directvdsl is the best service i can get, i give them a call up and they give me $40/mo. static ip 1.5/256 connection for 12 months to make up for the $150 they robbed me.

well, that lasted an entire month before the division shut down!

directv does have great sport packages, but no G4 channel, no Fox news, no Cricket. The only thing i like about directv's service now is their menu system. i sure hope that selling the company means that i can break my contract to go with someone else now...

Re:The hell with Directv (1)

andih8u (639841) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700207)

fox news is channel 360

Re:The hell with Directv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700269)

directv does have great sport packages, but no G4 channel, no Fox news, no Cricket.

So you're trying to tell me there's a channel just for Mac users, people watch Fox news, and people can be entertained by cricket? Well I can believe the channel just for Mac users :)

Re:The hell with Directv (1)

blueorder (578434) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700581)

actually G4 is a gaming channel...

Re:The hell with Directv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700814)

A gaming channel just for Mac users? What do they do -- show Mac users going to the store to buy gaming consoles? Do they tape-delay all of their shows by two months to pretend like Mac games are new and innovative?

This is great news (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700189)

Direc TV has always been a potentially great service but it has been consistently held back by lack of investment and poor marketing. Hopefully the Murdock millions will allow it to become truelly viable to the large number of Americans who just want to watch TV as easily and painlessly as possible.
WHat I want is a PVR that will allow me to pause live TV, have digital and analogue recording to a massive hard drive and to record programs that I might want to watch as easily as possible. Throw in the ability to play OGG/WMA and I'd be a happy man.

Re:This is great news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700275)

tivo.

Yay! Finally a great deal for everyone! (4, Funny)

standards (461431) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700194)


It's great to hear that the world-wide media industry is getting more and more efficient over time. With only a few large players in the industry, billing can be consolidated and redundancy of equipment and programming can be minimized, saving globs of cash.

In the end, this is sure this will bring higher quality service and programming at significantly lower prices!

Alas, the savings and increase in quality will happen only over an extended period of time.

And with inflation and government regulations, we customers might perceive lower quality and higher prices.

But no... it'll be much better than it would've been... just look how radio has improved in the past 20 years!

Re:Yay! Finally a great deal for everyone! (3, Funny)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700245)

No, I disagree - DirecTV should have gone to a small, independent outfit like Clear Channel Communications...

Re:Yay! Finally a great deal for everyone! (1)

pr0nbot (313417) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700384)



It's great to hear that the world-wide media industry is getting more and more efficient over time.

Absolutely! With all those different channels offering differnt viewpoints in the news I was getting confused!

With only a few large players in the industry, billing can be consolidated and redundancy of equipment and programming can be minimized, saving globs of cash.

Yes! Naturally, the large players won't pocket the savings, they'll pass it on to us!

In the end, this is sure this will bring higher quality service and programming at significantly lower prices!

Yes! Those with the most power and the least competition always deliver the best products! That's why I use Windows XP!

Alas, the savings and increase in quality will happen only over an extended period of time. And with inflation and government regulations, we customers might perceive lower quality and higher prices. But no... it'll be much better than it would've been... just look how radio has improved in the past 20 years!

*POP* ok now I know you were being sarcastic too.

Re:Yay! Finally a great deal for everyone! (1)

blueorder (578434) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700606)

sweet lord!... this made me laugh so hard... thanks for the laugh so early in the morning...

I'd rather have cash (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700195)

GM said it would receive about $3.1 billion in cash, and the remainder would be paid in News Corp. preferred American Depositary Receipts (ADRs).
ADR's? No thanks. [adr.com]

a lot of money (1)

tankdilla (652987) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700198)

...a little less than half in cash....

$3 billion dollars in cash??? IN CASH???

I guess he's gonna build a money vault like Scrooge McDuck next, convert some of the paper bills into gold coins, and go swimming in money next.

Re:a lot of money (1)

pyrote (151588) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700266)

...convert some of the paper bills into gold coins, and go swimming in money next.

Hell I would...less papercuts.

For us non-usians (2, Interesting)

rf0 (159958) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700205)

Could someone explain which coporations on what? Here in the UK its basically the BBC + Sky but not sure about any other major players

Rus

Re:For us non-usians (1)

s.a.m (92412) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700222)

AFAIK Sky is owned by News Corp.

Re:For us non-usians (1)

I-Rev (101115) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700238)

There is also ITN and CNN Europe.

And then there are all the news agencies, that supply news to TV channels - Reuters, etc.

Ian.

Re:For us non-usians (5, Informative)

ItaliaMatt (581886) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700313)

O.K. - for the people who aren't in the states here is the breakdown: There are 5 major and 1 minor (based on Nielsen ratings) television news outlets in the states. This is in no particular order of importance, preference, or popularity.... 1. American Broadcasting Company - ABC - Owned by the Disney Corporation 2. National Broadcasting Company - NBC - Owned by General Electric 3. CBS - Owned by Viacom 4. Cable News Network - CNN - Owned by AOL Time Warner 5. Fox News - Owned by News Corporation The one minor player is the Public Broadcasting Service and is funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the annual support of viewers like you. Thank you. ;)

Re:For us non-usians (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700440)

Could someone explain which coporations on what?

Sure, it's pretty simple really. Directly or indirectly, News Corp (the owner of everything with FOX in it's name) pretty much owns half of all of the noteworthy media companies in the USA, and has global conquest on it's mind, so watch out!

For more details, check this out http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool /giants/ [pbs.org] , and prepare to realize that there are really only 6 companies providing all the media in the US.

Whatever (-1, Troll)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700212)

Boring!

News for conspiracy theorists. Stuff that doesn't matter.

Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700213)

In Soviet Russia the media owns Murdoch!

Moving towards a unbalanced view of the news...? (4, Interesting)

I-Rev (101115) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700217)

Does this mean that there is less choice in the US over who supplies the news? If it is, it's got to be a bad thing.

You only have to look at the past few months, with camera men being sacked for editing photos for publication in major news papers, and footage of the Iraqi war to show that news groups need to be more honest - and have competition to measure their views.

Views on the push by the US forces ranged from "Hurrah, the people are free", to "Look how the Americans allow people to loot" - with all the channels showing the same footage. One side said it was the whole city rising up, with another saying only a few hundred were celebrating.

So far this morning, the BBC have said both!

I find modern news channels being more political than ever before, and views on the same thing seem to contradict each other.

It all makes it harder to find out the real facts - especially if a company wants to be classed as friends of a political group to get more information - would they really state the facts if it was going to hurt a 'friendly' political group?

Ian.

Re:Moving towards a unbalanced view of the news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700938)

Get Dish Network and watch foreign news! atleast you will have more options to form an opinion, and a good chance to learn a foreign language.

Security (1)

st0rmcold (614019) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700228)


I wonder is security measures are gonna be upgraded, or maybe prices. Many claims that prices go up are due to piracy and illegal use of the satelite system. Something is gonna happen when Newscrop gets into that mess, and it won't be nice for the consumer :)

This is GOOD news (1)

bosabilene (655365) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700236)

This is the best thing to happen for subscribers. The only party getting screwed here is GM (and maybe some Directv employees who are dead wood). Newscorp now has the ability to put some capital into the business and make it run better because they got it for so cheap. They are also in the media business which means they will take a bigger interest in getting network channels to everybody and more type of service. Directv was the stepchild of GM. Now it will be run by a successful company. PS - Newscorp controls SKYTV. 1 more thing - CNN sucks.

Has people stopped watching TV yet? (3, Interesting)

lingqi (577227) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700239)

A lot of posts has been about "we well all be brainwashed" etc. But really - I stopped watching TV a long time ago, and never missed it.

I do, however, miss DirectTV DSL, which used to be Telocity, the ONLY nationwide provider that does static IP for 50 bux a month, and don't mind if you run servers, NAT, whatever.

Why did they go under, anyhow... sigh. SBC is just not the same... not the same....

Murdoch is cool (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700263)

Fox and Friends.

Fair and Balanced.

We report. You decide.

Fox News [foxnews.com]

This News Paper, TV Network, etc. seized by the fe (1)

Vodak (119225) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700278)

Isn't it against some anti-terrorism law to transfer that much cash? See News Corp being charged under the Patriot Act with the papers and websites "owned" by the federal government like they were some warez site. =]

Goodbye HDTV on DirecTV (3, Informative)

1337_h4x0r (643377) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700286)

Murdoch is famously against HDTV, so I think this is the kiss of death for HDTV on DirecTV. Which is too bad, I've enjoyed High Definition on DTV for over a year. Wonder how cheap I can pick up some Dish Network hardware..

Re:Goodbye HDTV on DirecTV (1)

xanasin (612377) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700484)

"Murdoch is famously against HDTV", what are you smoking. He is the only one that has met every deadline by the fcc. If you bother to check the news, all of murdoch's television stations have not only met every date by the fcc, but has even shown HDTV movies. He wants HDTV and always wanted satalite, I am guessing you have never heard of ASKYB. Do a google search on that go back to 1997.

Re:Goodbye HDTV on DirecTV (1)

1337_h4x0r (643377) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700519)

Murdoch is the owner of FOX, which, as you may or may not know, is against HDTV, and uses Digital TV as a means to show nothing but standard-definition shows.

Does this mean (1)

JSmooth (325583) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700294)

a 24Hour Simpsons channel with NO watermarks?? ;)

Ok, maybe show the occasional Furturama EP now and then.

Me. I can't wait for the boot leg itchy & scratchy movie 'The best little mouse in texas'

All your media outlets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700304)

All your media-outlets are b3long to Murdoch.
Make your peace.

High priests of the world: (1)

jay-be-em (664602) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700308)

Gates, Murdoch, Turner, Oprah.

Not necessarily in that order.

Fear them.

Things that make me go, "Hmmm" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700354)

Gates
Oprah
Turner *pre-retired frittering his fortune away on civil war epics*

Eisner
Murdoch

And people say the US government isn't corrupt.. (5, Insightful)

kiwi-matgar (627781) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700328)

Funny how Murdock is the Republican party's largest donator, Fox is promoting the war 24/7 in the typical fashion of "all the way with GWB", and who would have guessed it, regulators "suddenly" allow the buy out with no questions asked.

Funny how on one hand we have GWB scream about the terrible and corrupt regeme of Iraq, yet, something like this just slips through and worst still, the US isn't like most countries. Most countries have a publicly funded television network that allows a voice of opinion to be broadcasted that isn't always "politically acceptable". Just look at Fox and the pro-war stance and the number of suckers sucked into the vacuum.

What the US needs first is a publicly funded broadcasting corporation that is at an arms length of government and receives no funding from the private sector. This is the only way to ensure media independence as the number of "media outlets" strink.

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt. (4, Funny)

DASHSL0T (634167) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700595)

What the US needs first is a publicly funded broadcasting corporation

I agree. We need something like Iraq TV. Baghdad Bob, come back, we need you for the 5 O'Clock Eyewitness News.

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt. (0, Troll)

kiwi-matgar (627781) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700717)

What are you going on about? is the US the only country on planet earth with the "private owned only" fixation? Just look at the average yank and their understanding of world affairs. If the average yank saw that when they choose a president the rest of the world suffers as a result, maybe we wouldn't get half-witts like GWB being voted in, or better yet, we might actually have some Americans exercise their democratic right and vote instead of relying on 30% of the voting public to turn out and hopefully represent their views.

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt. (1)

jcam2 (248062) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700642)

How can a publicly funded broadcaster be independent of the goverment - haven't you ever heard the saying 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'?

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt. (1)

kiwi-matgar (627781) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700676)

Maybe you should actually have a look at the legislation used in Germany, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Ireland and so-forth on how a publicly funded media can be independent of the government.

Hughes (1)

SirFlakey (237855) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700329)

The deal really is about Hughes [hughes.com] whose main product is DirectTV - but I think they also have some stakes in the wireless data sector. Let's hope he brings some of that back with him to Australia.

VOTE NO. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700429)

GHM stock holders (and perhaps GM stock holders)
can and should still vote "NO" to the sale.
DirecTV is better of independent; rather than be owned by Fox. Hughes is a great business and should vote to keep their DirectTV unit a part of Hughes.

Stock holders : vote NO!

Did you know (1)

CowardNeal (627678) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700434)

News Corp (NWS) is incorporated in Australia. All the profits going down under! yay!

Stoopid Law suits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700453)

I wonder if they will now call off those stoopid law suits against its own customers.

http://www.legal-rights.org/DTVBOX.html

Down with Dave!

Fox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700591)

Great News channel. Fair and balanced. NPR is the most unbalanced coverage there is.

That explains why my cable co. started chargin' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5700607)

That explains why my cable company started charging an extra $2 for the right to have the Sports-related Fox channels (including the Speed network -- gotta have my nearly-one-week-ex-post-facto WRC coverage, after all).

I'm happy to see this. (3, Insightful)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 11 years ago | (#5700783)

As a DirecTV customer, I'm very happy to see this happening. Any media service owned by News Corp. is one not owned by Microsoft. This is not a troll/flamebait -- I was truly worried about someday having to either switch or cancel because a company I refuse to give my money to takes over a service I use. It would be better if there were room for lots of small players, but at least the big players keep each other in check. It's best when they hate each other, too -- when they don't, they start cooperating, and that tends to screw any small/free players that are still around.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?