Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
Good post, I have to say.
|
well , i think we can end this there
cheers for that
Quote:
Although I have said throughout this thread that no other papers are better. Although I was suprised by the Telegraph's article, I didn't think The Times & Daily Mail weren't bad at all. The Times, I thought got the article about right. It mentions Murdoch where it has to, but has the balance right. Daily Mail wasn't as good but not as bad as the Guardian.
Do you know what I find interesting though? Most people of a certain political persausion (and Branson) keep up this pretense that all his media outlets are sole mouthpieces to Murdoch and we are all just intellectual lemmings that just accept and go along with everything that Murdoch's companies want to say/andvote for (which I find very insulting, actually), but surely the much-trumpetted reaction by prominent people within Murdoch's organisations, must put very big holes in that paranoid theory.
|
bit more complicated than that i'd venture. this was an extreme case of particularly poor judgement by senior management. but the overall agenda is hardly going to change. but equally i accept your comment that a lot of people dont just believe what they see or read. a lot do though too. and one of the biggest issues is not so much what we read and watch as what we dont get to read and watch. this is a whole new debate though................