July 16, 2011

"I test limits by publishing controversial material and paying people who are willing to step forward and expose political hypocrisy."

Larry Flynt says in a WaPo op-ed:
Murdoch’s minions, on the other hand, pushed limits by allegedly engaging in unethical or criminal activity: phone hacking, bribery, coercing criminal behavior and betraying the trust of their readership. If News Corp.’s reported wrongdoings are true, what Murdoch’s company has been up to does not just brush against boundaries — it blows right past them.

One cannot live off the liberty and benefits of a free press while ignoring the privacy of the people.

33 comments:

Mark O said...

But, isn’t the NYT a conspirator in treason by publishing the Wikileaks material. Uncharged, but criminal behavior nonetheless.

AllenS said...

One cannot live off the liberty and benefits of a free press while ignoring the privacy of the people.

I don't fully understand that last sentence.

PETER V. BELLA said...

Larry Flynt? Really?

flenser said...

I suspect that not many people have heard of the name Anthony Pellicano.

I wonder why. His clients had an infinitely closer connection to him than Glenn Mulcaire had to Murdoch.

ironrailsironweights said...

Yeah, well, I might have some respect for Larry Flynt if Hustler occasionally showed some full-flavor women.

Peter

rcocean said...

I thought he was dead!

Anyway, that the WaPo thinks some VD brain-addled porno publisher is worthy of ink, says it all.

Next week in the WaPo: 'Ron Jeremy' tells us how to get a bigger penis AND the solve the Debt Ceiling crisis.

chickenlittle said...

@Peter: It's no secret that Flynt loathed Bush too.

chickenlittle said...

Larry Flynt is the George Wallace of free speech. People find him odious yet try to deny that he's a Democrat.

Palladian said...

Wow, the sharks really do circle when they detect a few drops of blood in the water.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Is there any evidence that murdock, or anyone outsider of one british tabloid, had any idea that this was going on? I mean, there might be, but as far as I've seen, this seems a bit like blaming the white house for bad acts at a local social security office.

Old Dad said...

Shorter Larry Flynt: I got rich exploiting women and whoring out the First Amendment. Fox sucks. Buy Hustler. Oh, and I'm jealous of Rupert Murdoch. But at least the Wapo still kisses my ass.

Trooper York said...

That story about how Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother in an outhouse was a triumph of the first amendment

Moose said...

Ah, the term "fake but accurate" comes to mind...

Saint Croix said...

What's amazing to me is how divided our society has become over ideology. I was flipping stations on the radio and some liberal was going on and on about Rupert Murdoch. "It's Watergate all over again." The cover of Time magazine, Rupert Murdoch. WaPo, Rupert Murdoch. They've got Rupert Murdoch on the brain.

Meanwhile, the ATF controversy, nothing, nada, doesn't exist. My brother, who is liberal, had not even heard about it. "Fast and Furious, you mean the movie?"

We are in completely different worlds now, isolated by ideology. He gets his liberal news, and I get my Republican news. We get our news along ideological lines.

It's fascinating, and kinda scary.

How can you think the ATF scandal is not news? And yet so many news organizations have apparently decided not to cover it at all.

To me the obsession with Rupert Murdoch is because he will cover that story, and others like it. He covers the news that liberals do not want to hear.

The desire to destroy Rupert Murdoch is the desire to destroy Fox, to destroy Republicans, and to destroy the free expression of ideas and views.

It is sobering that people who do not really believe in free speech and the free exchange of ideas are in charge of so much of our media.

Hockey Bum said...

Fred Hiatt: When I want serious thoughtful commentary on ethical issues I publish Larry Flynt.

Fen said...

"I test limits by publishing controversial material and paying people who are willing to step forward and expose political hypocrisy." - Larry Flynt.

Ha. What a hypocrite.

I'm off to purchase a new Irony Meter.

rcocean said...

I find the Murdoch 'Scandal' incredibly tedious. Another "Valarie Phlame Affair".

I hope Althouse continues to ignore it.

edutcher said...

The WaPo scraped the bottom of the barrel with Watergate, a vendetta against the Nixon Administration by Katherine Graham for not being granted a TV station license by the FCC.

Having hit bottom, they continue to dig. Even the Empress Katherine must be spinning at this one.

bgates said...

We are in completely different worlds now, isolated by ideology.

He is isolated. You're not. How many people do you think have heard of Fast & Furious but not the News of the World story?

Paco Wové said...

"If News Corp.’s reported wrongdoings are true..."

Interesting how "News of the World" got conflated into "News Corp.".

The Crack Emcee said...

And you, a feminist,...

Saint Croix said...

He is isolated. You're not. How many people do you think have heard of Fast & Furious but not the News of the World story?

Well, that's true, good point. I get most of my news from Instapundit and Althouse links. Either they are more open-minded than the typical lib rag, or liberalism so dominates our popular culture that I couldn't avoid their news even if I tried.

Shouting Thomas said...

The pornographers do push the limits of freedom of expression for all of us. They aren't very nice people... that's for sure.

The exposing political hypocrisy bit has gotten pretty stale. I'm not sure why that's so important.

Little noticed or (apparently) discussed is the onslaught of the International Peep Show and Whore House on the web.

Seems like half the girls (and a good percentage of the guys) in this world have a webcam in their bedrooms and are willing to masturbate and screw for the camera if you will plunk down your credit card.

I'd be interested to know, Althouse, what you think are the legal implications of this internet boom. (See pornhub.com for the details. Click "Live Sex.")

This is where free speech is really being pushed. The Holodeck is not far off. The porn business will become a contact sport.

Phil 3:14 said...

I stopped at
Flynt: Rupert Murdoch went too far

It should have had a quote byline stating:

And I know a lot about "going to far"

Next up on the WaPo opinion page:

OJ Simpson discusses domestic violence

timmaguire42 said...

If I'm reading that right, Flynt's problem with Murdoch is that Murdoch's organization does its own dirty work whereas Flynt pays other people to do his for him.

clint said...

I'll admit I haven't been following this too closely, but is there anything here at all to criticize Murdoch about?

Is there reason to believe he knew about what was going on before the scandal broke?

Is there reason to believe that his response to the scandal (firing everyone involved and closing the paper) wasn't exactly what we'd like to see companies doing in the wake of such crimes?

If there is, I'd love to hear about it.

Bob_R said...

I might have to buy a copy of the WaPo just to be one of the few people who can say the read something by Larry Flint while holding the reading material in two hands.

rcocean said...

Yeah, "I haven't been following this too closely" either, 'cause its boring and has little to do with the USA.

If you're a Brit - indulge.

phx said...

It's gotta be galling to be lectured to about ethics by the likes of Larry Flynt.

William said...

Reporters are cheering the loss of hundreds of jobs and hoping that hundreds more will follow. Their ideology trumps their self insterest. Murdoch had a successful business model. Apparently hacking phones of murder victims is more profitable than hacking State Dept. cables.

shana said...

The Guardian, a left-wing paper, timed its initial article about the NOTW allegations to coincide with Rupert Murdoch buying all of Sky, the UK's largest noncommercial broadcaster and the only real competition to the BBC. The British left has had a grudge against Murdoch since he broke the printer's unions in 1981and the Guardian (along with the BBC) did not want to see Murdoch get this deal because it would have netted News Corp billions.
So why do Americans care? Because a lot of "progressives" read the Guardian ("I learn so much about world news, man") and don't temper their unrelenting belief in what the Guardian has written with the fact that the Guardian is actively trying to destroy the competition by any means necessary. They've already had to apologize for running a fake story about the Sun (another Murdoch title) engaging in phone hacking.
No, all the "progressive" cares about is killing Fox News, and when they hear Murdoch, that's what they think. Even now, Sen. Rockefeller is posturing sbout about calling Fox News execs if it's proven NOTW journos hacked 9/11 victims' phones (though I can't imagine what he thinks he'll get). It is all about stopping Fox News, any way they can, legally or illegally.

shana said...

Sorry, meant to say that Sky is the UK's largest *commercial* broadcaster. It is in fact the largest television broadcaster in the UK.

A. Shmendrik said...

I'm not all that interested in the News of the World scandal. It may be huge, it may be something less. What is interesting is the coverage, which is very much driven by the fact that most of the commentators are on the losing end of the battle with various Murdoch media. So, you really have to adjust the volume for that.