News Int. Inc. hack phone of missing (dead girl)

[Humodour]

News Corp may now lose control of Fox in America?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...ing-claims.html

 

I don't know how reputable the Daily Mail is. Is it a tabloid? But I'm guessing it isn't a Murdoch rag so it's already one up in my books.

[Calax]

It'd be interesting what would happen if Murdoch is ousted. I'd expect that once he did, the backlash of the stockholders might de-politicize to a degree the News sector.

[Zoraptor]

I don't know how reputable the Daily Mail is. Is it a tabloid? But I'm guessing it isn't a Murdoch rag so it's already one up in my books.

The Daily Mail (AKA, Daily Fail) is a garbage tabloid, though it is better than the Sun.

 

I think it's still owned by the same family who gave it a pro-fascist slant prior to WW2, but I'm not 100% sure on that. It's certainly not Murdoch owned.

Edited July 16, 2011 by Zoraptor

[Gorgon]

I hope this doesn't doesn't provoke a situation where reporters are afraid to do real investigative reporting, not that the News of the World did much of that, but there is momentum now that the outrage is so strong that could take a wrong turn, both in terms of legislation and self censorship.

 

 

I respect your opinion enough to know you don't mean it this way. But a variant of your argument is what got us into this mess in the first place.

 

The Press Must Get the Truth has been a mantra applied to an insane degree. We don't accept the police invading our privacy without some kind of elected oversight, and extremely strict rules (usually). Even IF you take the view that the fourth estate are our protectors and servants they must still be bound by our values and standards? Just saying...

You need the press for that role, who else. Unfortunately it requires more integrity than the press is able to muster these days.

[Tigranes]

I doubt Murdoch himself will get much more than slaps (on the wrist, in the face). Certainly not jail or a deposition. What we do seem to be getting is essentially his key vision for News Corp's future unravelling at a crucial juncture as BSkyB bid fails, and this makes life after Murdoch, who'll probably become too old for day to day running soon enough anyway, much more volatile.

 

Oh, and the Daily Mail is complete and utter ****. Don't bother.

[Darth InSidious]

I don't know how reputable the Daily Mail is. Is it a tabloid? But I'm guessing it isn't a Murdoch rag so it's already one up in my books.

It's like a less paranoid Daily Express, except with more words, fewer naked sluts, and more stories about fat immigrant single mother celebrities on benefits. It's the meeting-point of the tabloids and the right-wing broadsheets, and, increasingly, a sister-paper to the Telegraph, thanks to the latter's slide into unreadability.

[Calax]

I doubt Murdoch himself will get much more than slaps (on the wrist, in the face). Certainly not jail or a deposition. What we do seem to be getting is essentially his key vision for News Corp's future unravelling at a crucial juncture as BSkyB bid fails, and this makes life after Murdoch, who'll probably become too old for day to day running soon enough anyway, much more volatile.

 

Oh, and the Daily Mail is complete and utter ****. Don't bother.

Wasn't part of the BskyB strategy that he'd get that, then kill off the BBC's government support so that he could slowly move in and take a much larger marketshare?

[Darth InSidious]

Murdoch is now 80, and the years of dabbling in the dark arts have evidently not been kind to him. You can be sure if it does get to prosecution, he'll milk that for all it's worth. Not sure a criminal prosecution is necessarily the best idea, anyway. particularly since the US will probably want jurisdiction by the time it comes around.

[Malcador]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14194623

 

Well that was random.

[Tale]

particularly since the US will probably want jurisdiction by the time it comes around.

Why would the US want jurisdiction? It's an Australian, a UK tabloid, and some UK victims.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14194623

 

Well that was random.

That's terrifying. I'd wager it was a coincidence, but the merest hint that it's not is terrifying.

[Malcador]

Hm, police corruption is a big part of all this, isn't it ?

[ShadySands]

particularly since the US will probably want jurisdiction by the time it comes around.

Why would the US want jurisdiction? It's an Australian, a UK tabloid, and some UK victims.

 

 

Possibly because Murdoch is an American citizen and the alleged 9/11 victim hackings but I doubt it would come to that.

[Tale]

Possibly because Murdoch is an American citizen

That would be the part I missed.

[Walsingham]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14194623

 

Well that was random.

 

Mother of God.

 

That really is too ****ing far. Too ****ing far by half. Note he claimed to the Guardian that he had evidence or would give evidence that complicity in the hacking went right to the top.

 

I still think Cameron will bottle it.

[Malcador]

Didn't Cameron's aide recently die at a concert, that was also not suspicious ?

 

Spooky.

[WDeranged]

"unexplained, but was not thought to be suspicious"

 

How can an event with no explanation be categorised as unsuspicious?

[Walsingham]

"unexplained, but was not thought to be suspicious"

 

How can an event with no explanation be categorised as unsuspicious?

 

I believe the article (or an article I've read) mentioned that the deceased was a known abuser of drugs and alcohol. Nevertheless I find it rather unconvincing that he'd kill himself right at the moment when he was making money as one of the 'good guys'. And before anyone says anything I'd have an easier time insiting on innocent til proven guilty if Murdoch hadn't been peddling filthy innuendo his entire career and getting rich off it.

 

It's not as if US courts have a good track record of convicting rich people. Look at OJ and Jackson. Murdoch's fortune would hire literally a battalion of lawyers.

[Darth InSidious]

Didn't Cameron's aide recently die at a concert, that was also not suspicious ?

 

Spooky.

 

You might very well think that. The Prime Minister could not possibly comment.

[Humodour]

I just want to reiterate that it makes me really happy to see these scandals finally tearing News Corp apart.

 

News Corp's share price has fallen 20% since the scandals started, the Murdochs are about to lose control of the company, News Corp's reputation is permanently stained, and I would venture that this isn't even half-way over yet.

 

And yet, News Ltd continues to act like it is responsible for controlling how Australian politicians and Australian citizens think. I guess maybe their logic is that if they manufacture enough hysteria and fear of government it might make enough noise to drown out their deepening crisis and silence the growing calls for Senate inquiries into their behaviour down under.

 

Did you know that about 70% of the major Australian newspapers are owned by Murdoch over here? How's that for a ****ing democracy.

[Darth InSidious]

How's that for a ****ing democracy.

Increasingly typical?

[Humodour]

Here's a very good summary of the current situation for those interested: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-19/news...ection=business

[Gorth]

How's that for a ****ing democracy.

Increasingly typical?

How else would you explain Berlusconi?

[Malcador]

The Mafia ?

[Zoraptor]

 

You might very well think that. The Prime Minister could not possibly comment.

Whoah, Francis Urquhart. Verily you are a poster of impeccable taste.

[Walsingham]

Watching the parliamentary panel grill the Murdochs. I didn't have high hopes, but they are simply scuttling about from point to point.

 

MP: "When did you meet Mr Marracec <sic>?"

Rupert: "I don't know a Mr Marracec"

MP: "He worked for the company for 25 years."