[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by punky

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.

my point is that al jazeeera would be condemned for broadcasting as i'm sure you can imagine; in fact i think they may have been condemned for broadcasting such stuff when they didnt.

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.

it really is simple - the pr machine kicked in for the book. the pr machine instigated by the murdoch imprint which paid a $3.5m advance (i think) for the book. the pr machine stumbled when the world went "ay up, don't like this idea much", indeed that process started at fox news. murdoch is inextricably intertwined in this story. take another example. if a british newspaper were to pay ian hunter or some such for is memoirs do you not think that paper would be a big part of the story?

Shouldn't it be "now US turn on OJ", as its his book? About OJ's words and events in OJ's life?

of course oj is at the heart of this but we are all familiar with his trial etc - the angle on who and why is publishing and why they decided not too is very much the story. murdoch recognised the damage to his businesses going ahead with publication which is why he halted them and made a statement.

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?

the contents would remain the same; the story is in why any sane publisher would want to touch them with a bargepole. it would not have had to been murdoch for this to have been a story but i concede that the fact that it is murdoch makes it a stronger one. he's high profile, the world's biggest media magnate and elements of his empire effectiveltytold him where to shove the oj book

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.

what's not factual? has there not been a masdsive outcry about publication of this book in the us? (and pardon my ignorance, but dunno who bill o'reilly is )

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.

well a lot of liberals take issue with way fox, for example, reports things - you'll be aware of the allegations - so if the planned publication of this book has hurt his empire then they have succeed where liberals have failed. but there is a touch of hyperbole there.

[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.

not my definition. he can spend money on tv sations, radio, publishing - that doesnt mean he cant be criticised for the content those media bring to the public eye. (funnily enough, you're criticising the guardian which, in a libertarian way, is free from proprietal influence courtesy of the scott trust)

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.

telling of murdoch's understanding that as his company commissioned the book it bore responsibility. they paid the man millions of dollars. also telling that he saw the potential damage to his empire which is he and not the head of the publishing firm* made the statement



* bet she's polishing up her cv right now though

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.

to quite jim royle, peripheral my -rse. incidentally, do you think another publisher would have touched this book?

---------- Post added at 13:12 ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 ----------

ps. i did a little experiment and searched google news again under "oj simpson murdoch". i ignored the first result because it was from the uk, and more pertinently the independent who's agenda I figure you would think too close to the guardian. so, the first non uk result: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...n/16091634.htm

second sees ebay cominbg into the story http://www.actressarchives.com/news.php?id=2978 and an allegation by oj that regan books came up with the titel and that he didnt pitch the book to them., not sure how authoritative actressacrhives is mind

third result, from lafayette indiana: http://www.jconline.com/apps/pbcs.dl...NION/611260310

fourth from salem oregon: http://159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/a.../61124038/1048

should I go on?