Quote:
Originally Posted by hatedbythemail
much as i admire your tenacity in suggesting that the guardian is simply promoting an anti-murdoch agenda:
1. the story is about the publication of a controversial book, one which has been condemned universally. the publisher of that book is clearly a significant part of that story. if al jazeera broadcast images of beheadings (which they havent) would that be part of the story?
|
Thanx for the compliment. I think.
Anyway, not sure what you're trying to say. Whats more important, the terrorists or Al Jazeera choosing to broadcast them? If so, then the terrorists, I would have thought. I am not saying Murdoch shouldn't have been mentioned, but this story (which is supposed to be about OJ, not Murdoch) isn't supposed to be stepping stone to give them an excuse to launch into a diatribe of him. I am suprised the author even leaves it until the 4th sentence to start. Actually, look at the title and preface. Before the article has begun, the author is setting the tone and direction (i.e. bias) by addressing Murdoch directly. Why address Murdoch, when OJ Simpson is actually writing the damn thing, I don't know. Shouldn't it be "now US turn on OJ", as its his book? About OJ's words and events in OJ's life? The publisher is quite irrelevent here, as its the contents that matter. If it was published by anyone else, would it make its contents any less repulsive? Caused less of a reaction?
And there's the second thing - why the diatribe? Why not just punish fact and let the reader decide? Rather than coercing them down an ever-narrowing thought-corridor. Ironicly Bill O' Reilly gets criticised for doing precisely that.
And thirdly, why the "what liberals have failed..." part? Why the divisive us-and-them mentality? Hardly the attitude of unity which the left are supposed to espouse. Incidently interesting turn of phrase. I class liberalism as allowing people to do things without hinderance from the government. Doing things like, I don't know, spending some of the money you've earnt into a TV station.
Quote:
|
2. murdoch himself felt compelled to make a statement pointing out he felt there was an error of judgement. isn't that rather telling.
|
Telling of what? A major book and TV deal had been scuppered, so the very least i'd expect is a comment from the companies involved. However, that doesn't give the author an excuse for point 1 above.
Quote:
|
3. try searching on googling news under "oj simpson murdoch". the 3000+ links do not i'm afraid all go back to the guardian.co.uk
|
Again, Murdoch is involved in this, but should not be hijacked the way it is. He's a very peripheral character in this at best. OJ should be the main focus here.