OJ 'confession'

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by punky

Well, how relevent is Murdoch to the article? Not at all. It doesn't matter who's publishing or not publishing it. Its interesting to know who publishing it, but it shouldn't constitute the major direction of the article. It should be about OJ, shouldn't it?

I just think its ridiculous and makes The Granuiad look stupid. Its not even subtle. I am not saying most other media outlets are better, as people read what they want to read. I don't think TG should be so holier-than-thou about it though.

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?
2. murdoch himself felt compelled to make a statement pointing out he felt there was an error of judgement. isn't that rather telling.
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

[punky]

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.

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.

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.

[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?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

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? 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 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

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

Isn't OJ keeping that $3.5 million, so what was the error of judgement then, rewarding a murderer?

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Isn't OJ keeping that $3.5 million, so what was the error of judgement then, rewarding a murderer?

he's spenty the money allergedly. the error of judgement was clearly in commissioning the book (and related broadcast spin offs) in the first place. the advance paid just adds insult to injury.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

he's spenty the money allergedly. the error of judgement was clearly in commissioning the book (and related broadcast spin offs) in the first place. the advance paid just adds insult to injury.

I wonder if he used it giving his victims families compensation? No, thought not

[Jules]

The man should have been locked up and the key thrown away!

[punky]

Firstly, I just saw a mistake in my post. It said: "Why not just punish fact and let the reader decide?", when it should be "Why not just publish fact and let the reader decide?" Although I guess most knew what I meant.

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

<snip>

With all due respect, I think you're really stretching the argument thin to try and take an issue abour OJ and wrap it around Murdoch.

Let me ask you this... If you were a reporter, would you write a different article if it was another PR firm that wasn't backed by Murdoch? Because surely if you did, then that's bias. I could only speculate that if it didn't involve Murdoch, then the article would have a completely different spin on it, but if it could be proven, i'd stick money on it.

I am not going to say any other media outlet is better, because I don't think any are, but, I really do resent Guardian's holier-than-thou attitude of itself, but also some of its readership, when to me at least, its far from that.

Incidently, its odd you seem to hate Fox News but don't know who Bill O' Reilly is. He's a commentator for Fox News, who's punished for having an opinion different to the far-left which is unacceptable in the day-and-age. Although I think he is an a******e about it, but he's still entitled to it.

[hatedbythemail]

punky, your argument would hold so much more water if it was only the guardian taking this line. as it is the good ship punky is holed below the waterline on this one

just scroll through those 3000+ news stories and see how many say pretty much exactly the same thing.

incidentally you should maybe read the monday media guardian section to see if the paper is as anti-murdoch as you suggest. they've been quite nice to young james of late and admiring of the he boldness and business acumen which lead to snaffling up those itv shares - albeit with coverage of those who criticise the move as anti-competitive (which is the way i see it )


ps. i didnt say i hated fox news (but i did discover who bill o'reilly was as soon as i'd replied to your post)

---------- Post added at 15:25 ---------- Previous post was at 15:04 ----------

pps. if the guardian article got your goat just look what this well known pinko lefty broadsheet published on the story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...amurdoch22.xml

---------- Post added at 15:28 ---------- Previous post was at 15:25 ----------

ppps and these anti rupe commies http://entertainment.timesonline.co....9-2463103.html

---------- Post added at 15:34 ---------- Previous post was at 15:28 ----------

pppps as for these pinko liberal bedwetters they even quoted a loony left fringe publication, broadcast and cable, saying "Fox should cancel this evil stunt" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1773

OJ keeping 3.5 million is nothng compared to the greediness shown by the famlies of the dead who seemed to think that suing OJ for the deaths and receiving 33million would make matters better.

**** them **** them all.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

OJ keeping 3.5 million is nothng compared to the greediness shown by the famlies of the dead who seemed to think that suing OJ for the deaths and receiving 33million would make matters better.

**** them **** them all.

I think it would, if they can't deprive him of his liberty, why not deprive him of his cash? No one say's they have to keep it or spend it on themselves, they could set up a memorial fund for their dead children for instance.

[punky]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

<snip>

Good post, I have to say. 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.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by punky

Good post, I have to say.

well , i think we can end this there cheers for that

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................

[hatedbythemail]

hery you are punky, one from the guardian to cheer you up http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...957931,00.html


and last letter here to bring you back down http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediagua...957599,00.html

[punky]

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

hery you are punky, one from the guardian to cheer you up http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...957931,00.html


and last letter here to bring you back down http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediagua...957599,00.html

Cheers for that. Couldn't read the bottom one, but the top one really shocked me, just unbelievable, that that letter could grace the pages of the Guardian. Guardian readers call The Sun unprofessional?

(Someone should tell Mr Brooker has 2.8 million registered users (and who knows how many anonymous ones), not "a few hundred").

So yeah, it did cheer me up, in a sort of immature sadist way.