[Update] The News Corp scandal

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Osem

Not wanting to take this thread off course but I must say I do find watching Keith Vaz lecturing people on standards and integrity just a tad hard to stomach!

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Derek

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Not being the most intelligent forum member l can still work this one out as the pot calling the kettle black and yes l think he has conveniently forgotton about things and thats coming from someone who has a political allegiance to his party.

[TheDon]

Billy Bragg's weighed in, he's never one to keep quiet about the press.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Derek

You know, that's fantastic. I just love that pot kettle etc (right click, saves as)

I was discussing this with the mrs over dinner and it came back to what i said earlier in this thread.

WHY are MP's getting involved in the questioning?

IF it is deemed to be criminal, leave it to the Police. That is what they are good at, all the politicians will do is spiiiiiiiiiiiiin.

Right, where did I leave my flame suit?

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by denphone

Utterly shocking and at least we have some consensus politically at last against Murdoch.

---------- Post added at 17:17 ---------- Previous post was at 17:09 ----------

Latest news is that Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks are to attend the Culture and Sports committee next week.

Murdochs Snr and Jnr have now declined to attend and as they are not British citizens, they cannot be compelled to appear. It seems that Brooks's days may be numbered.


"Yes Rebekah dear, we're right behind you."

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by Tuftus

WHY are MP's getting involved in the questioning?

IF it is deemed to be criminal, leave it to the Police. That is what they are good at, all the politicians will do is spiiiiiiiiiiiiin.

Because the police have done a GREAT job investigating this to begin with. All of this could have came to light YEARS ago, instead they did a rush job to just deal with the Royal hackings, and forgot about everything else despite having a ton of evidence that they'd targeted 4000 others!

Half the problem's that the police were accepting money from NI for information (within the law mind according to Ms Brooks, quite how you legally pay a police officer for information I don't know). They'll surely do a stellar job investigating those claims I'm sure, it's not like the met doesn't have a fabulous reputation for investigating their own.

[devilincarnate]

It seems to be spreading?

A key US senator has called for an investigation into whether reported hacking by News Corporation targeted any US citizens.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller said the authorities should consider whether journalists working for the media giant had broken US law.

He warned of "serious consequences" should that be found to be the case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14132168

[denphone]

Originally Posted by devilincarnate

It seems to be spreading?



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14132168

Its seems that News Corp has had its tentacles everywhere and has also corrupted many politicians.journalists, police. officials and criminals in the process and now its seems that people are getting the courage to stand up to the nefarious Murdoch and his company.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Damien

Plurality refers to the news media as a whole doesn't it? Which means you need to factor in News International with The Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times and their respective websites. News Corp would be quite dominant if they control that portion of the media. Single providers are pretty dangerous, after all it wouldn't have been any of those papers or Sky breaking the news about the hacking scandal.

Sure.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/pl...ntgomerie.html

Ignoring his rhetoric the charts are from the Ofcom investigation, so let's break up what is by far the largest source of news in the UK, given that single providers are pretty dangerous.

Newspapers in print format are on their last legs, online news is taking over and guess who has by a mile the largest share of that market, yep the BBC, followed by The Daily Fail, then The Guardian.

Plurality is a total straw man argument when it doesn't apply to the BBC also.

---------- Post added at 09:54 ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Tuftus

You know, that's fantastic. I just love that pot kettle etc (right click, saves as)

I was discussing this with the mrs over dinner and it came back to what i said earlier in this thread.

WHY are MP's getting involved in the questioning?

IF it is deemed to be criminal, leave it to the Police. That is what they are good at, all the politicians will do is spiiiiiiiiiiiiin.

Right, where did I leave my flame suit?

Because it makes them look 'tough' to the electorate.

It's actually none of their business, and the vote they are having on the takeover of BSkyB is again none of their business and a publicity stunt - on our wallet.

I can think of a few choice words to describe this opportunistic bunch of bumholes, I'll content myself with wishing that they would deal with genuine issues rather than having a competition of who can wring their hands the most.

---------- Post added at 09:55 ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDon

Because the police have done a GREAT job investigating this to begin with. All of this could have came to light YEARS ago, instead they did a rush job to just deal with the Royal hackings, and forgot about everything else despite having a ton of evidence that they'd targeted 4000 others!

Half the problem's that the police were accepting money from NI for information (within the law mind according to Ms Brooks, quite how you legally pay a police officer for information I don't know). They'll surely do a stellar job investigating those claims I'm sure, it's not like the met doesn't have a fabulous reputation for investigating their own.

Parliament is hardly in a more unbiased position given both the PM and leader of the opposition were partying with Murdoch just a few weeks ago.

---------- Post added at 09:57 ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 ----------

Originally Posted by dave6x

Listening to Gordon Brown today, and also some of the statements made by Cameron it is clear that they knew long ago that News International rags were gaining information by dubious means. The worrying part is that they chose to do nothing rather than upset the cosy relationship they had built up. The integrity of many senior politicians is again seriously in question!!!

Yep they were more worried about News International dishing whatever dirt it had on them than exposing this.

We're all getting a little insight into the dirty little machinations between politicians and media.

---------- Post added at 09:59 ---------- Previous post was at 09:57 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

Its seems that News Corp has had its tentacles everywhere and has also corrupted many politicians.journalists, police. officials and criminals in the process and now its seems that people are getting the courage to stand up to the nefarious Murdoch and his company.

Not really, he's just having the spotlight shined on him and his lot as their dodgy behaviour is out in the open somewhat. It pretty much goes without saying, although given the amount of gloating going on perhaps it does need saying, that this total lack of morality in pursuit of a story is far from exclusive to News International, and no doubt other media groups are soiling themselves wondering when the spotlight will shine on them and their own dirty dealings.

I personally would love to see them pack it in in the UK and in the process dish all the dirt they have on our politicians and other media sources. That would be entertainment

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Sure.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/pl...ntgomerie.html

Ignoring his rhetoric the charts are from the Ofcom investigation, so let's break up what is by far the largest source of news in the UK, given that single providers are pretty dangerous.

Newspapers in print format are on their last legs, online news is taking over and guess who has by a mile the largest share of that market, yep the BBC, followed by The Daily Fail, then The Guardian.

Plurality is a total straw man argument when it doesn't apply to the BBC also.

The BBC is in a unique position. It has a historical presence in the UK, would be almost impossible for it to be created today, and unlike News International it doesn't editorialise or 'campaign' via it's news presence. As such they react to the news agenda more than they set it.

Also to be honest the BBC has proved far more willing to report on it's own misdeeds and scandals than News International has.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Damien

The BBC is in a unique position. It has a historical presence in the UK, would be almost impossible for it to be created today, and unlike News International it doesn't editorialise or 'campaign' via it's news presence. As such they react to the news agenda more than they set it.

I don't see the relevance of the BBC's history. I entirely disagree about the claims that the BBC don't editorialise or campaign. They have their own agenda and pursue it accordingly. The demographics of the staff within the BBC are quite abnormal within the UK, they have a far higher proportion of Guardianistas and Europhiles and their news output corresponds with this, they aren't robots who leave their own personal bias at home.

The stories they don't see fit to cover on TV speak volumes, as do the parts of stories they do and don't cover.

One really easy case that comes to mind - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...-international

In an interview with the BBC and the Guardian, Brown confirmed that shortly after the birth of his son Fraser in October 2006, Rebekah Brooks, then editor of the Sun, telephoned his wife Sarah to say the paper had obtained details from the boy's medical records, revealing that he was suspected to be suffering from cystic fibrosis.

Originally Posted by Damien

Also to be honest the BBC has proved far more willing to report on it's own misdeeds and scandals than News International has.

I'm at a loss as to the relevance of that to plurality within the news.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Damien

The BBC is in a unique position. It has a historical presence in the UK, would be almost impossible for it to be created today, and unlike News International it doesn't editorialise or 'campaign' via it's news presence. As such they react to the news agenda more than they set it.

Also to be honest the BBC has proved far more willing to report on it's own misdeeds and scandals than News International has.

Most definitely and although the BBC has its faults it is still a cherished organisation to a lot of the public.

[devilincarnate]

1014: In Australia, Rupert Murdoch's News Limited firm is conducting a "thorough review" of all editorial expenditures over the past three years. However, chief executive John Hartigan says he has "absolutely no reason to suspect any wrongdoing"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14134599

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I don't see the relevance of the BBC's history. I entirely disagree about the claims that the BBC don't editorialise or campaign. They have their own agenda and pursue it accordingly. The demographics of the staff within the BBC are quite abnormal within the UK, they have a far higher proportion of Guardianistas and Europhiles and their news output corresponds with this, they aren't robots who leave their own personal bias at home.

The stories they don't see fit to cover on TV speak volumes, as do the parts of stories they do and don't cover.

The BBC's history is relevant because I am pointing out that it would be far more difficult to break it up than it would be to prevent to obtaining such dominance in the first place. There is a legacy and a public affection that makes the BBC different to a standard commercial provider. So using a public service broadcaster as a reference point to a commercial provider is rather pointless IMO.

The BBC isn't perfect but they do not intentionally set out to promote an agenda. They often do reports into their reporting and have found, as you mention, that there sometimes is a bias because of the staff that is typically employed by the BBC. Although it should be remembered that most this complaints are generated from their standard, non-news, programming which is quite often left wing.

The BBC also has a charter which is intent on preventing bias which was pointed out in the Ofcom report which also noted it not present in a commercial provider as a News International which also has a history of intervention on the part of it's owner. Which is important because...

I'm at a loss as to the relevance of that to plurality within the news.

One of the largest issues within plurality of news is if the agenda can be set by it's owner. Murdoch being able to set an agenda across all platforms including Sky, News International's Papers is not a welcoming thought.

Not sure where the BBC Staff are 'Guardianistas' comes from either.