McMullan always comes across as the biggest douche on the planet. I'm surprised Murdoch hasn't sent someone to shut him up... The more he talks, the more the papers seem like heartless daft pricks
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
As sniffy as I tend to be about anything Vice-related, this piece from their UK site is pretty good.
Murdoch flew into london today to 'tackle the crisis'. The Church Of England is gunning for him. That's pretty bad PR. Fingers crossed for the downfall.
The Church of England, which holds shares in News International worth $6m at Thursday???s closing price, made its feelings clear on Saturday when it told News Corp it wants senior executives held to account.
The Church???s Ethical Investment Advisory Group said in a letter that closure of the News of the World was: ???not a sufficient response to the revelations of malpractice at the paper, nor does it address the failure of news international and News Corp executives to undertake a proper investigation and take decisive remedial action as soon as the police uncovered illegal phone hacking in 2006.
???We cannot imagine circumstance in which we would be satisfied with any outcome that does not hold senior executives to account at News Corp for the gross failures of management at News of the World,??? the advisers said.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Funny thing is, I remember a time not so long ago when Murdoch supposedly rediscovered his Christian faith, and decided he was going to change the tone of certain News International titles and use them to lead a crusade of moral rearmament. Obviously, that went well...
By 2003, such was Murdoch's access to Blair, that he was even able to put a call through to the prime minister on the eve of the Iraq war and advise Blair to join George Bush's invasion.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
OK, so it now appears that the way to treat the CEO of a company that's been revealed to have engaged in phone-hacking, illegal payments to the police, interfering with missing persons and murder enquiries and quite possibly lying to a HoC Select Committee is for her boss to give her an arm round the shoulder after The Week From Hell while the entire staff of a newspaper she's responsible for gets the sack.
Thank fuck the US takes corporate misdemeanour and its attendant blasphemy against the gods of capitalism a little more seriously than the UK does. Quote from here;
"Meanwhile, US law may enter the fray. A former Labour cabinet minister has alerted attention to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which makes an American company (News Corp) liable for colossal fines if any employee bribes a foreign official (the Met police) even if no one at head office knew. What's more, any whistleblower inside the company (sacked News of the World reporters), stands to win a percentage of that fine if they report acts of bribery."
Unless Brooks knows, both literally and metaphorically, where the bodies are buried, I can see no other reason for keeping her in a job at this point, except to act as a sacrificial lamb if the son and heir needs to be saved at some date in the future. Murdoch Sr, #2 son, Brooks and Coulson ought to end up in court. At least two of them deserve prison. Any plans to allow the sale of the remaining 61% of BSkyB not already in the hands of NewsCorp to proceed ought to be postponed pending the outcome of any relevant inquiries, investigations and, if necessary, trials.
Absolute scum, the lot of them.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Double post
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Additionally, The Guardian newspaper reported yesterday that Mr Murdoch's empire could face serious legal challenges in the US because of the claims that News of the World journalists had been hacking up to 4,000 people's phones and paying police tens of thousands of pounds in bribes.The newspaper also suggested that Mr Murdoch's son James, deputy CEO of News Corp and the man in charge of the company's British operations, could face prosecution under America's Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
"I would be very surprised if the US authorities don't become involved in this conduct," Mike Koehler, a specialist in the FCPA at Butler University law school in Indianapolis, told The Guardian.
"If money is being paid to officials, in this case the police, in order to get information to write sensational stories to sell newspapers, that would qualify [for an FCPA prosecution]."
...
Rebekah Brooks, a former News of the World editor and now News International chief executive, has reportedly told staff that the newspaper had to close because there was "worse to come" in the way of damaging revelations.
I wonder what the possible ramifications are for Fox now that News corp is in such hot water.
Might have to change the thread title to "Media in the US - Sh*t hitting the fan?" ...
Fingers crossed...
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Assistant news editor: "that is what we do - we go out and destroy other people's lives"
Maybe Rupe's trip to the UK wasnt so much about damage control, as it was getting the fuck out of dodge.
Turning a fast buck at the expense of 9-11 victims in the UK, while at the same time attacking 9-11 victims in the US, to further his political agenda.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
OK, it now appears that only the Mirror is running with this 9/11 allegation. The Grauniad are pointedly swerving it in their coverage, with their deputy ed describing it as "vastly oversold" on Twitter. Still, very interested to see how this plays when America wakes up. Even if NI try to shrug it off, which wouldn't be wise, the mere suggestion of any ghoulishness related to 9/11 will bring them more trouble than they need right now.
Shit is far from over. Still hoping for intensely damaging stateside revelations and escalation.
Michael Wolff, Rupert Murdoch's biographer, with a shock claim:
Twitter MichaelWolffNYC Get out of Dodge strategy being discussed at News Corp: Sell all of News Int.
??? Sun allegedly obtained Gordon Brown's son's medical records
??? Sunday Times 'tricked Brown's lawyer and bank to gain files'
??? Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall may have been hacked
??? Police claim 'deliberate campaign' of leaks to undermine inquiry
??? NOTW 'bought Royal family details from police officer'
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
staxwax said:
??? Sun allegedly obtained Gordon Brown's son's medical records
??? Sunday Times 'tricked Brown's lawyer and bank to gain files'
??? Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall may have been hacked
??? Police claim 'deliberate campaign' of leaks to undermine inquiry
??? NOTW 'bought Royal family details from police officer'
4.37pm: On the Sun website you can still see its trumpeting of its 2006 story that Gordon Brown's son has cystic fibrosis, under the headline "The Sun online - we break news". The article notes:
THIS year has seen your No1 Sun online break some cracking news stories.
We set the news agenda on November 30, breaking the sad news that Gordon Brown's baby boy Fraser has Cystic Fibrosis.
As well as telling the devastating news, the story was used to increase national understanding of the condition, in partnership with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust.
Today my colleague Nick Davies reveals:
In October 2006, the then editor of the Sun, Rebekah Brooks, contacted the Browns to tell them that they had obtained details from the medical file of their four-month-old son, Fraser, which revealed that the boy was suffering from cystic fibrosis. This appears to have been a clear breach of the Data Protection Act, which would allow such a disclosure only if it was in the public interest. Friends of the Browns say the call caused them immense distress, since they were only coming to terms with the diagnosis, which had not been confirmed. The Sun published the story.
I'm no great fan of Gordon Brown, but dang. That sh*t is darkness.
I don't really trust statements that come out about Anonymous any more. There seems to be too much misinformation, either coming from 'newfags', or more sinisterly, unknown parties keen to disorganise and besmirch them.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Duderonomy said:
4.37pm: On the Sun website you can still see its trumpeting of its 2006 story that Gordon Brown's son has cystic fibrosis, under the headline "The Sun online - we break news". The article notes:
THIS year has seen your No1 Sun online break some cracking news stories.
We set the news agenda on November 30, breaking the sad news that Gordon Brown's baby boy Fraser has Cystic Fibrosis.
As well as telling the devastating news, the story was used to increase national understanding of the condition, in partnership with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust.
Today my colleague Nick Davies reveals:
In October 2006, the then editor of the Sun, Rebekah Brooks, contacted the Browns to tell them that they had obtained details from the medical file of their four-month-old son, Fraser, which revealed that the boy was suffering from cystic fibrosis. This appears to have been a clear breach of the Data Protection Act, which would allow such a disclosure only if it was in the public interest. Friends of the Browns say the call caused them immense distress, since they were only coming to terms with the diagnosis, which had not been confirmed. The Sun published the story.
I'm no great fan of Gordon Brown, but dang. That sh*t is darkness.
Whatever anyone thinks of Gordon Brown, these latest revelations/allegations/whatever are fucking disgusting. It's one thing to go after a politician you suspect of being corrupt, but illegally trawling for dirt (or indeed anything they'd prefer remained confidential) just for the sake of gaining political and commercial leverage...can someone tell me why only one of these cunts has been arrested instead of the whole fucking lot?
Are you insufficiently repulsed by the Sun's mysteriously-obtained exclusive on Brown's son's cystic fibrosis? Don't worry - like everything about the hacking scandal, there are always more details to emerge to compound the horror. I've been speaking to a source close to Gordon Brown at the time of the story, who recalls that it was served up with a chaser of threat.
Gordon insisted - despite a heavy brow-beating from Rebekah - that he was not willing to let his son's medical condition be the stuff of a Sun exclusive," recalls this source. "So he put out a statement on PA to spike their scoop and make clear that despite his condition, Fraser was fit and healthy. The Sun were utterly furious, and Brown's communications team were told that if Gordon wanted to get into No10, he needed to learn that was not how things were done."
Yes, how DARE the then-chancellor refuse to accept that his child's health was not technically a commercial Murdoch property? I'd like to tell you there's a sick bag located in the rear pocket of the seat in front of you. But I'm afraid you're on your own.
So, the price we pay for a free press is that self-same press - and not just the tabloids, it now appears - engaging in criminal activity for the benefit of whatever agenda their proprietor is pushing. Frankly, I think we've got the shitty end of the stick on this one. Again.
hmmm.. but hang on, he's the prime minister. he could have said something. he could have rang the alarm bells. i agree it's disgusting but what is just as disgusting is that - knowing how scandalous, how manipulative and how demonic they all were, both parties continued to court news international, to go to their dinner parties, to take their late night phonecalls, rather than speaking out. its all of this ass-watching and damage limitation that makes me feel just as ill as the hacking.
the impression i'm getting today is that gordon brown actually softened legislation that would have made these kinds of privacy intrusions illegal.. i'm not sure if fear of retribution is an excuse for some of this poor decision making, particularly from a victim.
Check Paul Dacre, daily fail editor, in a speech circa 2008 - http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/kb/articles/paul_dacres_speech_to_2008_society_of_editors_conference.aspx
The fourth issue we raised with Gordon Brown was a truly frightening amendment to the Data Protection Act, winding its way through Parliament, under which journalists faced being jailed for two years for illicitly obtaining personal information such as ex-directory telephone numbers or an individual's gas bills or medical records. This legislation would have made Britain the only country in the free world to jail journalists and could have had a considerable chilling effect on good journalism.
The Prime Minister ??? I don't think it is breaking confidences to reveal ??? was hugely sympathetic to the industry's case and promised to do what he could to help.
Over the coming months and battles ahead, Mr Brown was totally true to his word. Whatever our individual newspapers' views are of the Prime Minister ??? and the Mail is pretty tough on him - we should, as an industry, acknowledge that, to date, he has been a great friend of press freedom.
So, the price we pay for a free press is that self-same press - and not just the tabloids, it now appears - engaging in criminal activity for the benefit of whatever agenda their proprietor is pushing. Frankly, I think we've got the shitty end of the stick on this one. Again.
and this is probably the bottom line - shit-smearing and dirty laundry will continue to be a feature of our press for decades to come. it's what we excel at, and it's an integral part of the tone of our media, whether ryan giggs or kerry katona getting taken down, or the bankers, or the mp's expenses scandal, or the pakistani cricket players. but when the attacks fall into a wider strategy or agenda, with political aims driven by parent companies with their own goals, only then do we disapprove. ethically this is really not as cut and dry as it looks.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Ulysses31nicholas said:
DocMcCoy said:
So, the price we pay for a free press is that self-same press - and not just the tabloids, it now appears - engaging in criminal activity for the benefit of whatever agenda their proprietor is pushing. Frankly, I think we've got the shitty end of the stick on this one. Again.
and this is probably the bottom line - shit-smearing and dirty laundry will continue to be a feature of our press for decades to come. it's what we excel at, and it's an integral part of the tone of our media, whether ryan giggs or kerry katona getting taken down, or the bankers, or the mp's expenses scandal, or the pakistani cricket players. but when the attacks fall into a wider strategy or agenda, with political aims driven by parent companies with their own goals, only then do we disapprove. ethically this is really not as cut and dry as it looks.
I don't know if I entirely agree. Certainly, there are characteristics of the British press (or parts of it) that are all too familiar but, on the understanding that there's always another newspaper to read if you don't like the contents of one in particular, people usually find a way to live with it. It's a bit like eating meat; much as you might enjoy the taste, you probably wouldn't want to spend too much time thinking about how it got to your plate.
I think what we're seeing here is the confirmation of things that many people previously only suspected, namely that the influence of the so-called Murdoch Press goes far beyond what's both healthy and necessary for the good of a functioning democracy. This is real-life Citizen Kane shit. The difference between what's interesting to the public and what's in the public interest has been chewed over quite a bit during the last week, but I'm at a loss as to where the legitimate public interest justification is for engaging in criminal activity to access the bank account and health records of the second most powerful politician in the country (he wasn't PM at the time). If Gordon Brown was moralising in public whilst dallying with hookers in private, I could understand it. In this instance, it's almost within the realm of intimidation; "See how far our reach is, and what it's possible for us to get on you if you give us cause to? Now, you will take a look at how the BBC's financed when you're in No.10, won't you? That's a rhetorical question, by the way..."
Nah, this goes way, way deeper than just "seedy UK tabloid over-reaches its brief", and the issues of police corruption, potential threats to national security and so on put a completely different complexion on it. Moreover, I don't think you can just wave it away by saying, well, they shouldn't have got into bed with them to begin with. The question people ought to be asking is; why did they feel they couldn't afford not to?
Freedom of information is always going to be a ropey area. Bring in legislation to stop the press digging, it invites something akin to the Expenses scandal or is covering up for the Royals being lizard people. Let the press run amok, the PM is in tears.
Doesn't help to create a balanced approach when most of these journos are moral-less scum.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
But, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the British press has become markedly less moral since Murdoch decided he was going to break the print unions and up sticks to Wapping. Someone I know mentioned a conversation he had in around 2000 with a showbiz journalist at one of the tabs, and she told him that their paper had resorted to hacking voice messages of celebs because they'd got wind of the NOTW and the Sun doing it. They felt uneasy about the ethics of it, but equally they were fed up with being beaten to untold scoops. So there's some more anecdotal evidence about how Murdoch's journalistic values have had a detrimental effect on the culture as a whole; you're now less likely to find a paper that doesn't engage in hacking than one that does.
Again, I'm not convinced it's as big a grey area as some are suggesting. When a paper can present a legitimate public interest defence, I think most reasonable people will wear a journalist doing something ethically questionable. But when hacks start acting all Woodward and Bernstein when what they're most interested in is who Robbie Williams is shagging...well, fuck that noise.
Comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andreas-whittam-smith/andreas-whittam-smith-bullies-and-cowards-who-have-killed-a-newspaper-ndash-for-nothing-2309532.html
Calls for Chase Carey to take over in the NYT.
Full Financial Times article
Deluded.
Two days ago it was immoral, now it's a sad day for British journalism.
Fickle, fickle people.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/10/rupert-murdoch-downing-street-wapping
Thank fuck the US takes corporate misdemeanour and its attendant blasphemy against the gods of capitalism a little more seriously than the UK does. Quote from here;
"Meanwhile, US law may enter the fray. A former Labour cabinet minister has alerted attention to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which makes an American company (News Corp) liable for colossal fines if any employee bribes a foreign official (the Met police) even if no one at head office knew. What's more, any whistleblower inside the company (sacked News of the World reporters), stands to win a percentage of that fine if they report acts of bribery."
Unless Brooks knows, both literally and metaphorically, where the bodies are buried, I can see no other reason for keeping her in a job at this point, except to act as a sacrificial lamb if the son and heir needs to be saved at some date in the future. Murdoch Sr, #2 son, Brooks and Coulson ought to end up in court. At least two of them deserve prison. Any plans to allow the sale of the remaining 61% of BSkyB not already in the hands of NewsCorp to proceed ought to be postponed pending the outcome of any relevant inquiries, investigations and, if necessary, trials.
Absolute scum, the lot of them.
US prosecutors may go after News Corp
I wonder what the possible ramifications are for Fox now that News corp is in such hot water.
Might have to change the thread title to "Media in the US - Sh*t hitting the fan?" ...
Fingers crossed...
:game_over:
If the story below is anything to go by, I'm guessing she wasn't too sentimental about 9-11.
What Rebekah Brooks was doing 3 hrs after 9/11
Maybe Rupe's trip to the UK wasnt so much about damage control, as it was getting the fuck out of dodge.
Turning a fast buck at the expense of 9-11 victims in the UK, while at the same time attacking 9-11 victims in the US, to further his political agenda.
Fox needs to go
Whoops - already mentioned above. Changed his name by deed poll?!?!
and this looks like it might be a joke
2.47pm: Sky News's Alistair Bunkall has just tweeted:
Rebekah Brooks has just left News International HQ in a black Lexus. Can't be 100% sure but looked like she was reading the Guardian.
:lol:
Why OfCom probably won't rule against a takeover.
All you need.
Basically, Newscorp are fucked seven ways until Sunday. They can't go down quick enough or hard enough, as far as I'm concerned.
??? Sun allegedly obtained Gordon Brown's son's medical records
??? Sunday Times 'tricked Brown's lawyer and bank to gain files'
??? Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall may have been hacked
??? Police claim 'deliberate campaign' of leaks to undermine inquiry
??? NOTW 'bought Royal family details from police officer'
here's another good live feed - Telegraph Live feed
All of which, if proven, Newscorp are liable for.
THIS year has seen your No1 Sun online break some cracking news stories.
We set the news agenda on November 30, breaking the sad news that Gordon Brown's baby boy Fraser has Cystic Fibrosis.
As well as telling the devastating news, the story was used to increase national understanding of the condition, in partnership with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust.
Today my colleague Nick Davies reveals:
In October 2006, the then editor of the Sun, Rebekah Brooks, contacted the Browns to tell them that they had obtained details from the medical file of their four-month-old son, Fraser, which revealed that the boy was suffering from cystic fibrosis. This appears to have been a clear breach of the Data Protection Act, which would allow such a disclosure only if it was in the public interest. Friends of the Browns say the call caused them immense distress, since they were only coming to terms with the diagnosis, which had not been confirmed. The Sun published the story.
I'm no great fan of Gordon Brown, but dang. That sh*t is darkness.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/11/anonymous-police-phone-hacking-julian-assange
Whatever anyone thinks of Gordon Brown, these latest revelations/allegations/whatever are fucking disgusting. It's one thing to go after a politician you suspect of being corrupt, but illegally trawling for dirt (or indeed anything they'd prefer remained confidential) just for the sake of gaining political and commercial leverage...can someone tell me why only one of these cunts has been arrested instead of the whole fucking lot?
Marina Hyde is dead-on, as usual;
So, the price we pay for a free press is that self-same press - and not just the tabloids, it now appears - engaging in criminal activity for the benefit of whatever agenda their proprietor is pushing. Frankly, I think we've got the shitty end of the stick on this one. Again.
the impression i'm getting today is that gordon brown actually softened legislation that would have made these kinds of privacy intrusions illegal.. i'm not sure if fear of retribution is an excuse for some of this poor decision making, particularly from a victim.
Check Paul Dacre, daily fail editor, in a speech circa 2008 - http://www.inpublishing.co.uk/kb/articles/paul_dacres_speech_to_2008_society_of_editors_conference.aspx
The fourth issue we raised with Gordon Brown was a truly frightening amendment to the Data Protection Act, winding its way through Parliament, under which journalists faced being jailed for two years for illicitly obtaining personal information such as ex-directory telephone numbers or an individual's gas bills or medical records. This legislation would have made Britain the only country in the free world to jail journalists and could have had a considerable chilling effect on good journalism.
The Prime Minister ??? I don't think it is breaking confidences to reveal ??? was hugely sympathetic to the industry's case and promised to do what he could to help.
Over the coming months and battles ahead, Mr Brown was totally true to his word. Whatever our individual newspapers' views are of the Prime Minister ??? and the Mail is pretty tough on him - we should, as an industry, acknowledge that, to date, he has been a great friend of press freedom.
and this is probably the bottom line - shit-smearing and dirty laundry will continue to be a feature of our press for decades to come. it's what we excel at, and it's an integral part of the tone of our media, whether ryan giggs or kerry katona getting taken down, or the bankers, or the mp's expenses scandal, or the pakistani cricket players. but when the attacks fall into a wider strategy or agenda, with political aims driven by parent companies with their own goals, only then do we disapprove. ethically this is really not as cut and dry as it looks.
I don't know if I entirely agree. Certainly, there are characteristics of the British press (or parts of it) that are all too familiar but, on the understanding that there's always another newspaper to read if you don't like the contents of one in particular, people usually find a way to live with it. It's a bit like eating meat; much as you might enjoy the taste, you probably wouldn't want to spend too much time thinking about how it got to your plate.
I think what we're seeing here is the confirmation of things that many people previously only suspected, namely that the influence of the so-called Murdoch Press goes far beyond what's both healthy and necessary for the good of a functioning democracy. This is real-life Citizen Kane shit. The difference between what's interesting to the public and what's in the public interest has been chewed over quite a bit during the last week, but I'm at a loss as to where the legitimate public interest justification is for engaging in criminal activity to access the bank account and health records of the second most powerful politician in the country (he wasn't PM at the time). If Gordon Brown was moralising in public whilst dallying with hookers in private, I could understand it. In this instance, it's almost within the realm of intimidation; "See how far our reach is, and what it's possible for us to get on you if you give us cause to? Now, you will take a look at how the BBC's financed when you're in No.10, won't you? That's a rhetorical question, by the way..."
Nah, this goes way, way deeper than just "seedy UK tabloid over-reaches its brief", and the issues of police corruption, potential threats to national security and so on put a completely different complexion on it. Moreover, I don't think you can just wave it away by saying, well, they shouldn't have got into bed with them to begin with. The question people ought to be asking is; why did they feel they couldn't afford not to?
Doesn't help to create a balanced approach when most of these journos are moral-less scum.
Again, I'm not convinced it's as big a grey area as some are suggesting. When a paper can present a legitimate public interest defence, I think most reasonable people will wear a journalist doing something ethically questionable. But when hacks start acting all Woodward and Bernstein when what they're most interested in is who Robbie Williams is shagging...well, fuck that noise.