Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
...Rupert Murdoch owns the largest media company in the world, including loads in the U.S.?...Fox News may have hacked 9/11 victims voicemail?That's not enough for ya? Nothing to see, move along?
...because it allows the LSM to strike out at the Murdoch Media here in the states, who have been making them look very bad indeed.
I give up. The NYT cares because of shades of Freud?Some sort of envy?
franglo,Got any evidence to support your assertion that:"...Fox News may have hacked 9/11 victims voicemail?"Or are you just another mindless member of a baying pack of progressives?
Or are you just another mindless member of a baying pack of progressives?Fox didn't hack, but you know the libtards are going to caterwaul until it becomes their new "truth"Just like "Bush Lied"
Blood in the water.
Much of the alleged "hacking" is a joke. Mobile phones in the U.K. were sold with simple passcodes like 0000 or 1234 and many buyers simply never changed them. But calling guessing at common passwords "hacking" makes it sound really sinister.
The most important issue to the Government Media is to see to the arrest and imprisonment of the owners and employees of the free media.That is how it works in Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, et cetera and in all George Soros approved provinces.
But calling guessing at common passwords "hacking" makes it sound really sinister.Hiring hackers sounds pretty sinister, even if their job was trivial.
Rupert Murdoch has never been briefed on one thing in his entire life. Didn't even know he owned newspapers.I'm live blogging.
They're covering it because their audience wants them to -- just like the excessive coverage they give that Diana woman and her offspring.
...with the awesome investigative results they got scouring Sarah Palin's emails they want to keep the ball rolling. The public is owed the "truth."
I luuved watching CNN's Don Lemom straining TIME AND AGAIN with all his might while interviewing Dan Abrams to get Abrams to opine that Murdock was somehow legally implicated in all of this based solely on current evidence. When Abrams seriously balked and refused to be led that far Lemon was visibly disappointed and cut the interview short..
to feed the quasi-religious tent revival quality of the fervor of the left-wing to hate Fox News based on conspiracy theories, fantasies and mass hysteria.
Phone hacking is now called "voicemail interceptions".
The left so desperately wants to smell blood in the water. They have invested a great deal of energy in despising Murdoch, Fox, WSJ, et al. They believe there must be substance in the allegations, and enough substance to bring their bogeyman down.Watching them hyperventilate is far more exciting than the actual story.
Shouldn't the NYT apologize now for the unlawful release and publication of the Pentagon papers? I know its a bit much to ask for consistency from the NYT. In the meantime the NYT,LAT and the Washington Post aren't exactly swimming in profits. And the Murdoch group is making money and will survive the demise of the NYT.
Rupert should have appeared in a bathrobe. It would have accentuated his case of forgetfullness.
Apparently it's huge news that Fleet Street tabloids have low ethical standards. Who knew?
It isn't. Just like all that royal family crap. Who cares?
Phone hacking is now called "voicemail interceptions".That's "kinetic" voicemail intercetions, GM. Also, it has been determined that it does not require Congressional authorization or approval, so Murdoch is in the clear, right?
The Usurper's Chicago Mob is trying to take out Murdock at the knees, and therefore FOX News, just like it did to Toyota in support of Government Motors.You have helped elect a Criminal Usurper (born British). Imagine, a "law prof" yet.
Ann, Am I reading you correctly in suggesting this isn't at all newsworthy? If so, you seem pretty quick to embrace credulity and American-style solipsism. franglo nailed it w/ his/her comment: worldwide media company with newspapers and a major news channel in the US as well as reports of hacking of 9/11 victims. And you want to know why people want to know more about what's going on. Even if there were no American interests involved it would be worth learning about.Is this scandal newsworthy? Yes. Should we as Americans care? Noooooooo of course not.
My company has paid millions to settle law suits outside of courts, or to defend criminal activities, but I knew nothing about it is an honest defense most CEOs can make as they rake in million dollar bonuses so I don't understand why the fuss.
The BBC is the scandal! You're forced to pay for it, in England, even if you abhor their shows. And, don't watch it!Rupert Murdoch just has an empire these left wing idiots want to conquer.(It also seems that Rebekah Brooks in an idiot. For letting her husband toss out a laptop and a phone! Let's hope it's encrypted. But she's no great brain. And, is probably "The Family's" weakest link. A story Drudge broke, yesterday!)
FOX news "hacked" 9/11 victims? HELLO! People didn't know if a family member was a victim, or not. Everybody went into the street!Everybody raced to the media! Everybody hung pictures of loved ones in public places!The media HELPED! It ran24/7 ... commercial free!And, ya know what? The media doesn't have to hack !!! It gets its stories these days from people who carry cell phones with cameras in them.The lamestream can't lie anymore!And, Rupert Murdoch's empire is to the RIGHT. Which has driving all the lamestream. And, all the old politicians ... ape ... shit ... bats & bonkers ... crazy!You think these things are unknown in England? Hooey.
It's the beginning of a great, huge scandal, because journalists never cross the clear, hard ethical lines drawn around acceptable behavior.
I think that Rebecca Brooks is kind of hot.I love her hair.Could you imagine that hair flying all over the place while she is fucking?That is the first thing I thought about when seeing her.Flying hair while being fucked.Head turning side to side as hair falls down in her face.Grunting, yelling fuck me you stud.Hair everywhere.Rebecca Brooks
This isn't going to affect Page 3, is it?
Hey, Garage, remember the halcyon days of 1997? When that salt of the earth couple, Alice and John Martin, claimed they innocently picked up a telephone conversation between Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Dick Armey and Tom Delay dicussing ridiculous "ethics" charges against Newt on their police scanner?And how they said, golly gee, they were so excited to hear a real politician's voice that they began recording the call as a present for their grandson?And that, like the typical Democrat scum they were, the Martins gave the tape to Jim McDermott, ranking douchebag on the Ethics Committee?And how the private phone call ended up on the front page of the NYT?Did you protest that? Did it stoke your ire as much as this silly Murdoch kerfuffle? Or are you going to bluster that "this is different!" and out yourself as the partisan hack we know you to be?
After franglo's first line, accuracy disappears and wishful (I use the term loosely) thinking takes over.Considering how Murdoch Media has been handing the Gray Lady its head on a regular basis, destroying Murdoch is very important to the Slimes.
Murdoch was not needed to make the LSM look bad. I came to that conclusion on my own when my own newspaper tried to Johnsonize W. one year after the Dem dominated Congress gave him the ok to attack Iraq. That demonization of W was what led me into political blogs. Before that I was just into music and fyi info (like Scottish food, info about movies, etc)online
I wonder if Rebecca Brooks is a Red Head everywhere.Does she have a Carrot Cunt?
The "crimes" involved are exactly the same as when the tabloids hacked into the cellphones of the royals and other celebrities, and the public that is now so "outraged" lapped it up.This is a make-believe tempest whipped up for an attack on Murdoch and his NewsCorp, possibly instigated from here, since over there, NewsCorp is one among many, while here Fox is the only TV channel and WSJ the only major newspaper in opposition.
franglo: Did you know that the first person/newspaper to make the charge about 9/11 hacking was someone from a rival newspaper? Ya think they may have vested interest in making any Murdoch paper look bad to boost their own profits?Got to look at things from all perspectives if you want truth here - or are you too far gone in drinking the kool-aid to even begin to believe there are other parties who have an interest in bashing old Rupert and his family?
"worldwide media company with newspapers and a major news channel in the US as well as reports of hacking of 9/11 victims."And how many people died as a result? Now compare and contrast with Operation Fast and Furious. This scandal (and I won't use scare quotes because it is a scandal) is what's being covered breathlessly by the likes of CNN while Fast and Furious isn't newsworthy.
Rupert Murdoch has never been briefed on one thing in his entire life. Didn't even know he owned newspapers.I'm live blogging.Stream of consciousnesses blather doesn't suit you.When there's evidence that Murdoch authorized, or at least knew about, illegal activity that took place at a subsidiary of a subsidiary of News Corp. I'll take your sarcasm seriously.
I am shocked, shocked, that a sleazy tabloid did sleazy, illegal things to obtain information. It seems like the only thing driving this story is the fact that a segment of the population, a segment that includes most national journalists, hates Murdoch and despises Fox.Otherwise, what's the big deal? Investigate, find the offenders, punish them. Fin.
"Hacking" other people's cellphones is illegal in the U.K., including just trying out the manufacturer's default codes, but notice that there is very little about the criminality in this hubbub, just ooh and aah about how horrible it all is.That is a pretty good indication that the attackers feel they are on weak grounds legally, so they are going for mau-mauing the politicians.
The practice of blackmailing and buying politicians is sometimes necessary to maintain the free marketplace of ideas.
Crimso said,"And how many people died as a result? Now compare and contrast with Operation Fast and Furious. This scandal (and I won't use scare quotes because it is a scandal) is what's being covered breathlessly by the likes of CNN while Fast and Furious isn't newsworthy."Useful idiots covering for the Usurper, pointing to the shiny thing over there.
paminwi: Michelle Malkin just spoke out against this scandal. Is she drinking the liberal kool-aid too?
Nobody involved in the case turned up dead today. So there's that.
Nobody involved in the case turned up dead todayAh yes, the infamous News Corp. assassination team. I hear they were behind the grassy knoll in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Because, you know, when it's an enemy of the people, like Rupert Murdoch, no smear is beyond the pale.
"The phone-hacking scandal is important to the United States, because.... "Duh. Murdoch = Fox = conservative = Tea Party = Wingnuts = Palin + Limbaugh + Bachmann + Demint + Ryan = logical solutions to problems that will expose Obama's incompetence and socialist agenda = One Term President. Therefore, Murdoch must be destroyed. That was too easy.
The liberals are hoping it will bring down Fox News.
Ah yes, the infamous News Corp. assassination team.I'm sure you can understand why some people might raise an eyebrow when the whistleblower turns up, well, dead.
I'm sure you can understand why some people might raise an eyebrow when the whistleblower turns up, well, deadNot when 33% of the last round of Obamacare waivers coming out of Pelosi's district doesn't raise your eyebrow.
As I said yesterday I think 4 times:Show me a link to what you're talking about.
I might have missed that. I thought you were asking for proof, of which I don't have. I'm going on the same amount of intuition you are in suggesting that guy being dead has anything to do with the Murdoch scandal.Frankly, I'm willing to grant you that. You don't seem to be capable of granting the same doubt at Pelosi over those waivers.
I'm sure you can understand why some people might raise an eyebrow when the whistleblower turns up, well, dead.Because, you know, it was in Rupert Murdoch's best interests that the whistle blower turn up dead just before Murdoch is to appear before Parliament. Good thing the whistle blower hadn't already blown the whistle. [/s]But, hey, why let facts and logic get in the way of a good smear?
One nice thing about focusing on Murdoch is that it helps one avoid thinking fast and furiously about gun running...You know, where people actually died.
No serious person believes this will eliminate Fox News or other Murdoch holdings in the USA, but it will cost the shareholders more money to pay for all the out of court settlements etc and as Gross points out:In the years since Murdoch took over, the Journal has lost many of its stars to Bloomberg, Reuters, the New York Times, ProPublica and Fortune. The Journal used to get a discount on labor. Now, increasingly, it has to meet the market. And it may have to exceed it.
In the years since Murdoch took over, the Journal has lost many of its stars to Bloomberg, Reuters, the New York Times, ProPublica and Fortune.And the Journal is profitable, its news coverage has grown, and it is now the largest daily newspaper in the U.S. They're doing far better than they did under the Bancroft family, which treated it as a piggy bank.Perhaps the Journal should take business lessons from the money pit over on 8th Avenue that is in the process of slowly being bought by Carlos Slim.
The extremely stressed guy who has drug and alcohol problems and who neighbors say has been looking ill turned up dead?Must be foul play!
Huckabee and Palin are really earning their paychecks defending their employer, aren't they?
Well we know Clinton didn't kill him. Fucker would have been dead long before any whistle blowin'
We just now find out that the 'bloke' that started all this falderal was a drunken ex-employee with an ax to grind who runs to his former employer's biggest competitor with a 'scoop'.Though the wild-eyed mob is running in the streets, I smell a NY Times rat behind the stampede.
Must be foul play!I heard that O'Reilly was seen outside the guy's flat that evening with a loofah. And a falafel.Very suspicious.
Huckabee and Palin are really earning their paychecks defending their employer, aren't they?That must be it. It used to be that conservative politicians were in the pocket of their Zionist paymaster. Now they're in the pocket of their News Corp. paymaster.Will the evil right-wing conspiracy never end?!?
Fact, conspiracy theory, same difference right?
RV said:"....the Journal has lost many of its stars to Bloomberg, Reuters, the New York Times, ProPublica and Fortune."Liberal fishwraps all.
Fact, conspiracy theory, same difference right?Facts? You've got facts? Where?All I see are spurious unsupported allegations.
Hey AJR: paminwi: Michelle Malkin just spoke out against this scandal. Is she drinking the liberal kool-aid too?Did you actually READ my statement? See my statement:"Got to look at things from all perspectives if you want [the} truth here"So, yes, I do question people at this point in time making judgements when the are are SOME FACTS and a whole shitload of conjectures. I do think there is a problem here - yes - but I also think there are some who drink the MSM meme just because they hate anything to do with Murdoch/Fox news.See this video that pretty clearly states what I think is happening here: http://tinyurl.com/3nj3j2kwv: deckya - as in I'll deckya if you continue to misrepresent what I say
Huckabee and Palin are Murdoch's employees, they take money from him. That's a fact. Are they out defending him? Not yet, as far as I know. The comment is intended as sarcastic, get it?
worldwide media company with newspapers and a major news channel in the US as well as reports of hacking of 9/11 victims.News of the World is not a worldwide media company and owns nothing in the United States.Its parent company, News International, IS a multinational media company, but owns nothing in the United States.Its parent company's parent company, News Corporation, is a multinational media company, but does not own a major news network in the United States.What it does own is Fox Entertainment Group -- which owns Fox News, a major news network in the United States.So the essence of your argument is that we should be worried because Fox News's parent company's parent company's subsidiary's subsidiary's reporters and editors hacked people's phones to get material for an English tabloid. To which I say: huh?That's like saying the shoddy construction used on Universal Studios sets should worry us because GE Hitachi makes nuclear reactors -- and the last thing we want is shoddily constructed nuclear reactors. :)
What a bunch of bullshit.
Huckabee and Palin are Murdoch's employeesSarah Palin is a commentator. A lot of people are contracted commentators on TV and do plenty of other things, besides. For example, Palin's Alaska appears on TLC, which is owned by Discovery Communications, LLC.Huckabee has a TV show that appears on Fox, but he is no more Rupert Murdoch's tool than David Letterman is Sumner Redstone's tool.This grasping at the loosest of connections in order to tie people into a conspiracy is the hallmark of a conspiracy nut.
I swear to god Murdoch looks just like the umbrella man on the grassy knoll.
A conflict of interest does not a conspiracy make. Let the free press report, mainstream America will decide who's fair and balanced. As for the Fox audience, you'll whine about how oppressed you are and spin endless paranoid conspiracy theories.
That was one hell of a slap Wendi Murdoch landed on that goofball!
Murdoch or Fox biased? Huh? Whaaa? That's crazy talk!
A conflict of interestSo Palin and Huckabee shouldn't express an opinion, but Murdoch's opponents are free to smear him?As for the Fox audience, you'll whine about how oppressed you are and spin endless paranoid conspiracy theories.So, it's the Fox audience who have been spinning the paranoid conspiracies conflating a British tabloid with an American cable news network and implying that Murdoch has people murdered?
Hagar:when I saw that stupid wench get some flesh to the face I cheered like hell. Been dying to see one of those pie throwers get theirs. Bravo!
So Palin and Huckabee shouldn't express an opinion, but Murdoch's opponents are free to smear him?I didn't imply any such thing. I can't wait to see them express their opinion. Let's see what Murdoch's getting for his money.
Let's see what Murdoch's getting for his money.So Palin and Huckabee are corrupt.?Wow, I've learned so much these past few days. News of the World and Fox News are the same thing despite being parts of different News Corp. subsidiaries and a continent apart. Murdoch murdered a whistle blower, but only after the whistle blower had already blown the whistle and when it would be most embarrassing for Murdoch.And Palin and Huckabee are corrupt.
News of the World and Fox News are the same thing despite being parts of different News Corp. subsidiaries and a continent apart. Help me out here Hockey Bum, on what continent was Dow Jones CEO Les Hinton employed when he decided to resign?
Help me out here Hockey Bum, on what continent was Dow Jones CEO Les Hinton employed when he decided to resign?Wow. Talk about grasping at loose connections. Let's see if I can follow your logic in a different context. Paul Krugman was an advisor to Enron. Enron turned out to be a scam. Paul Krugman currently has a column in the New York Times. Ergo, Enron and the New York Times are the same!
Sorry Hocky Bum, you don't appear to know anything about the Murdoch's media business at all. I have no idea why you're posting on the subject.
Sorry Hocky Bum, you don't appear to know anything about the Murdoch's media business at all. I have no idea why you're posting on the subject.Absent the conspiracy nonsense you're pushing, I clearly know more than you do.
If Rupert Murdoch is personally responsible (other than in the sense of being the major shareholder of NewsCorp, etc.), then why was not Sumner Redstone personally responsible for Dan Rather and Mary Mapes buying into the "fake but accurate" documents about W.'s TANG service?And I still say the "outrage" expressed in the MSM seems quite hollow juxtaposed to their schadenfreude in reporting on the tabloids' hacking into the private conversations of the royals and the glitterati.(The MSM would never lower themselves to do such things themselves, of course, but reporting on the National Enquirer's doings, f. ex., that is just news reporting, and no way the kind of sleaze that the National Enquirer engages in!)
Funny, how the Internet works.Guy comes in with pie plate. No one is on the Murdoch side of the room. But Wendi jumps up. Puts her left hand on this punk's shoulder. And, hits him BROAD FACE ... Her right hand is open. Fingers are splayed out.Story changes on a dime.Wendi Murdoch is a hero.The "bobbling" cops barely made it in time to "make an arrest."But for a demonstration?The Murdoch family is competent.The "bobbies" and the labor politicians are not!
Hacking?This is a scandal about "hacking?"We've got the fucking Internet!Everybody's got a cell phone!Things end up on YouTube before they end up "circulating" on any front page, anywhere!As to the time Prince Charles said to Camilla that he wished he was her tampon ... came about because even though Prince Charles talks to plants. And, thinks he's got them listening ... he knew nothing about how "wireless" worked. To TAP you'd need to be using land lines!Man. Wendi Murdoch sure knows how to use her weight to an advantage!Lucky old man to have a wife like that!
Finally, I agree with garage mahal! At 1:04 PM ..."Nobody turned up dead today, so there's that."And, Wendi Murdoch used BOTH HANDS. She flew! And, she SCORED!
I note, Garage, that in all of this you blew right past the Martins. No word from you at all as to whether these Democrats who recorded a private phone call in order to bring it to the attention of another Democrat with a witchhunt to launch was a good or bad thing. Nope. Nothing at all from you but worthless, witless snarky "so there's that" and "Fox biased? Noooo!"I did at one time entertain the notion that you weren't as much a tool as Jeremy, a clown as much as House or as much a spittle-flecked lunatic as Alpha. I thought you capable of some rational thought.But then again, I once belived in Santa Claus, too.
...because"The government itself sets up operations that run thousands of guns to drug cartels, gets two Federal agents and hundreds of Mexican nationals killed, then the coverup goes right up to the Deputy AG (which means it goes at least to the AG: his deputy wouldn't want to be accused of going behind his back), an agency head goes defector. And the MSM is in "move on folks, nothing to see here" mode."(Link).(emphasis added.)
How amazingly boring this "scandal" is. I guess it helps if you're British or have some weird hatred of a newspaper publisher.
Because Fox News released confidential, classified national security information during the Bush administration that aided and abetted the terrorists in their efforts to do harm to Americans......oh wait, that was the N Y Times..
Wendi Deng Murdoch was a championship volley ball player!Jonnie Marbles head, if it wasn't connected to his shoulders. Would have gone flying over the net!And, the lady in the grey suit?One of Murdoch's lawyers!The politicians? In their own building ... which you'd call a "home court advantage" ... saw this happening in front of their eyes.Instead of "hacking." How about police incompetence?How, exactly, did Jonnie get into the room? How did his pie tin not set off alarm bells?And, why were the "bobbies" the last to reach him.The only reason Jonnie didn't turn and run ... is that Wendi Deng Murdoch made sure he got discombobulated.
I think NYT's should be covering a more interesting and important scandal:Do you realize that female millionaires are completely underrepresented at the Augusta Golf Club. Do you realize that the editor who broke this story & tried to correct this injustice was forced to resign? And no one gives a damn?Where is the justice?
Whatever happened to the Valarie Phlame affair?Now that was a scandal.
Titus: Rebekah on top. Thought crossed my mind too. I'm only human.
The News Corp people won the battle of appearances in a big way, but some interesting questions remain.Why were such large settlements made to Gordon Taylor and Max Clifford?Why has News Corp been paying the legal bills of Goodman and Mulcaire?Why do Harbottle and Lewis wish to be released from their confidentiality agreement? Especially considering Lord Macdonald says it took him minutes to ascertain the emails in question contained "blindingly obvious" evidence of criminal wrongdoing?Maybe there are perfectly reasonable answers to all of these questions, and maybe it doesn't even matter when faced with a bullied old man, his protective and earnest young son, a woman with an amazing mane of hair, and a left-wing dork with a plate full of shaving cream.Already polls say that only 6% of UK voters care about "hackgate."
We are in the Age of the Internet!Hacking, my foot.Everyone with a cell phone that has a camera inside ... wants to upload to YouTube!As to capturing signals that are in the air ... IF you want confidentiality ... Hire a Mohawk Indian ... that can CLICK messages. It's what was done on our battlefields in Europe during WW2. Drove the Germans bat shit crazy. Which was a great thing.As to news. NO ONE forces you to read tabloids.But when you go there ... there are no excused that to get to the "stories" ... journalists use every means at hand.Except? When the government tells you its a "one bullet theory" ... calling it bullshit gets you audited.The Brits are weenies.This is not news.And, when Rupert has to hand over his company's reins to anybody ... I hope he gives them to Wendi Deng Murdoch. With her fingers flayed open, she can knock an opponent unconscious. Rupert knows how to pick winners.(Harry Truman, brought up on a farm, new how to pick horses.) It's a talent. Rupert Murdoch also has his.
There is very little evidence that 9/11 victims' phones were hacked. Even the NY Times' Brian Stelter calls the claims flimsy.That dog won't hunt, kids.
Post a Comment