Murdoch's Scum Credentials All In Order I See

[Spy Bee]

Michael Wolff: News Corp is considering selling off remaining UK newspapers | The Wire | Press Gazette

[Section_31]

Unless I've not seen something you have mate then I'm really struggling to understand why you would think this.

 

Ed has said he still wants the press to be self regulatory, hardly a control freak measure.

 

He's been laying into the PCC with a few comments, calling it 'toothless', when in actual fact the PCC isn't a regulator, it's more of an ombudsman. From his comments it was clear he doesn't even know what the PCC does and wants something with 'more teeth', which to my mind takes us into worrying territory. The press's freedoms aren't guaranteed here the way they are in the states and their press has far more legal protection for what it prints, and yet America's written press still manages to stray more on the side of decency than ours do, which says to me that it's not about regulation it's about newsroom culture. Murdoch was once described as a 'cultural Chernobyl' for the British media and that's exactly what he is.

 

I simply don't trust the politicians when they start talking about regulating the press, they are not doing it for noble reasons.

[lifetime fan]

He's been laying into the PCC with a few comments, calling it 'toothless', when in actual fact the PCC isn't a regulator, it's more of an ombudsman. From his comments it was clear he doesn't even know what the PCC does and wants something with 'more teeth', which to my mind takes us into worrying territory. The press's freedoms aren't guaranteed here the way they are in the states and their press has far more legal protection for what it prints, and yet America's written press still manages to stray more on the side of decency than ours do, which says to me that it's not about regulation it's about newsroom culture. Murdoch was once described as a 'cultural Chernobyl' for the British media and that's exactly what he is.

 

I simply don't trust the politicians when they start talking about regulating the press, they are not doing it for noble reasons.

 

I agree Ed is being opportunist here, I posted earlier that a cynic would think Ed is putting the boot in simply because he knows the MUrdoch press would never back him no matter what.

 

I also believe he has a point on the regulation of the press.

 

I want a 'free press', of course I do.

 

However, I don't want a press free to print absolute shite, known lies, and information they have gathered through illegal means (possibly very rare exceptions to the last point I'll concede).

[piscinin]

Interesting that it's not just the NOTW, but also the Sun and Sunday Times which have been implicated in the Brown hacking affair. Evidently this is a disease that infects News International as a whole. Certainly appears to vindicate those of us who have argued against NI all along.

 

This from the information commissioner's report in 2006 about peddling in confidential information. This is all SOP.

 

[Section_31]

I agree Ed is being opportunist here, I posted earlier that a cynic would think Ed is putting the boot in simply because he knows the MUrdoch press would never back him no matter what.

 

I also believe he has a point on the regulation of the press.

 

I want a 'free press', of course I do.

 

However, I don't want a press free to print absolute shite, known lies, and information they have gathered through illegal means (possibly very rare exceptions to the last point I'll concede).

 

Neither do I mate, but I think the political class will use that as the excuse to increase regulation of the press. As I say, the American press has far more freedom than ours does, even against the likes of libel laws, but it exercises far more restraint.

 

Maybe if the Government took more interest in who actually owns these media organisations (Russian shadesters and tax exiles among them) and worries less about imposing strict rules on investigative means, that'd make more sense - but of course that won't happen.

 

As soon as a politician, who himself has tried to control media perception, starts crying the blues about the press's behaviour, it sets all of my alarm bells ringing.

[lifetime fan]

Not at all, indeed I remember copping some flak on here for pointing out that NI actually had fewer such infractions recorded against them than other news organisations. But News international has always had a whiff of evil that the other papers didn't come close to. And I am also probably still a little bitter about the flak I got on this forum for referring to the Times as an upmarket Sun.

 

You must have quoted me before I finished editing my post.

 

Recorded against them is the key.

 

There is no way that table shown in this thread is an exhaustive list. A cynic would ask could those PI's who used illegal means not be still receiving payments to implicate other papers and make them look worse than the NI papers?

 

I agree NI is a horrid organisation and the Times isn't the greatest paper going, far from it. I wouldn't go as far as an upmarket Sun though, even though the link between the papers is well established.

[Anubis]

That second secretary, Clare, from the solicitors needs her arse kicking for just handing out that information without an authority. I'd sack her.

 

Listen to how the Sunday Times blagged Brown's property details | Media | guardian.co.uk

[melons]

I would generally put it down to the fact that the majority of tabloid journalists are despicable, thunder cunts of epic proportions.

 

To get into the head of a cunt you have to think like a cunt.

 

That information would give them access to a massive 'weakness' in Brown.

 

Because anything that sells papers is allowed apparently? No surprise this, I found it quite difficult to believe that this was limited to just one of News Internationals papers. They are after all edited in the same building, sharing the same staff.

 

I wonder who was the editor at the time of the sun accessing details of Browns child?

 

Personally I'd suggest this has to be the end of NI and Murdoch in the UK full stop.

 

I struggle to comprehend how the intricate details of a child's illness becomes news. Goodness knows what they'd of raked up when Cameron's son died, well if they were interested in doing the witch hunt on him that is.

[dennis tooth]

I struggle to comprehend how the intricate details of a child's illness becomes news. Goodness knows what they'd of raked up when Cameron's son died, well if they were interested in doing the witch hunt on him that is.

 

Cameron would be made up if they did, he has shamelessly used his kids illnesses as PR.

[lifetime fan]

Cameron would be made up if they did, he has shamelessly used his kids illnesses as PR.

 

I'd love to see an example of that.

 

A very good mate was a research fellow at the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities and Cameron did a lot of work helping them before he won the tory leadership.

[lifetime fan]

I struggle to comprehend how the intricate details of a child's illness becomes news. Goodness knows what they'd of raked up when Cameron's son died, well if they were interested in doing the witch hunt on him that is.

 

It isn't news Melons, that is the point.

 

That information however can be used as a 'drip, drip' effect to slowly try to undermine Brown.

 

Remember the shite from Clarkson about his eye and the follow up to that in the right wing Murdoch press?

[melons]

It isn't news Melons, that is the point.

 

That information however can be used as a 'drip, drip' effect to slowly try to undermine Brown.

 

Remember the shite from Clarkson about his eye and the follow up to that in the right wing Murdoch press?

 

I gather that, British society baffles me sometimes. How people can take pleasure in such is beyond me.

[lifetime fan]

I gather that, British society baffles me sometimes. How people can take pleasure in such is beyond me.

 

No.

 

It's because there is a vast number of people in this country that are racist, xenophobic, ignorant, horrible cunts that couldn't give a shit about anyone else if their income tax drops by a penny.

 

See my earlier post.

[dennis tooth]

"My passion about this is both personal and political," he will say.

 

"Personal because I've experienced first-hand how dedicated, how professional, how compassionate our best public servants are.

 

"The doctors who cared for my eldest son, the maternity nurses who welcomed my youngest daughter into the world, the teachers who are currently inspiring my children, all of them have touched my life, and the life of my family, in an extraordinary way and I want to do right by them.

 

"And this is a political passion - and priority - of mine too."

 

"These reforms aren't about theory or ideology - they are about people's lives."

.

[piscinin]

He's been laying into the PCC with a few comments, calling it 'toothless', when in actual fact the PCC isn't a regulator, it's more of an ombudsman. From his comments it was clear he doesn't even know what the PCC does and wants something with 'more teeth', which to my mind takes us into worrying territory. The press's freedoms aren't guaranteed here the way they are in the states and their press has far more legal protection for what it prints, and yet America's written press still manages to stray more on the side of decency than ours do, which says to me that it's not about regulation it's about newsroom culture. Murdoch was once described as a 'cultural Chernobyl' for the British media and that's exactly what he is.

 

I simply don't trust the politicians when they start talking about regulating the press, they are not doing it for noble reasons.

 

The PCC, in actual fact, IS the body charged with the regulation of the press. The fact that it thinks whipping up a one page code of ethics and then acting as an ombudsman is all that's required to regulate the press is part of the problem.

 

The other part of the problem being that it is funded by News Corp et al, has a board packed full of the same editors writing the checks for all these shenanigans, and the code of conduct was the responsibility of Les Hinton for a large part of its existence.

 

And that is why it's toothless. And honestly, not much more than a drinking club for editors and an easy paycheck for professional bureaucrats.

[lifetime fan]

.

 

Hypocrisy.

 

If he is trying to use the NHS as a PR advantage that is a massive own goal.

[dennis tooth]

I'd love to see an example of that.

 

A very good mate was a research fellow at the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities and Cameron did a lot of work helping them before he won the tory leadership.

 

He may well have done good work but he capitalised on it without a shadow of a doubt and continues to do so while trying to privatise the nhs to shit and uses this as a tool to do so. Quite how he thinks selling your hospital to the cayman islands is going to help disabled people is beyond my imagination. He wheeled his son out as good PR for Murdoch's papers to sell him to the public while putting on the superman costume on the nhs and banging the drum.

There is a scum article I wont put on here about it.

The Sketch: Now lurking in the shadows: Labour's beast with two Eds - Simon Carr, Commentators - The Independent

The first indication came from this week's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party. John Healey (Health) gave the MPs a speech that must have been devised or at least approved by the three of them. He told his colleagues, in terms, that David Cameron had used the death of his disabled son to detoxify the Tory brand and to validate his party's position on the NHS.

[lifetime fan]

DT I have no doubt Cameron is a hypocrit of the worst kind.

 

Fuck it, I've just read the thread back and I've not made myself very clear.

 

Cameron has tried to use his Sons death as a PR advantage, I just don't think it has succeded.

[dennis tooth]

DT I have no doubt Cameron is a hypocrit of the worst kind.

 

Fuck it, I've just read the thread back and I've not made myself very clear.

 

Cameron has tried to use his Sons death as a PR advantage, I just don't think it has succeded.

 

Yeah, dont get me wrong he has my sympathies for that plight but lost then when he decided to parade his child for political ends or to further his career, no doubt he has rationalised it to himself somehow as acceptable tool to weild for the privatisation of the NHS, if it was a noble end I'd accept it to an extent, if it was cos he thought it was a noble end I would not as no one, least of all disabled people would vouch for him based on his policies. Also his son I doubt had any say in being used by his father for this. He had ended care for thousands of disabled people and basically used PR tools to make it look like the Uk is afflicted with loads of people pulling sickies for thousands of pounds of benefits to allow him to manipulate the public when kids like his son are put out all so he can save the money and plough it into bankers bonuses and many other things such as stealing Libya's oil and resources or more tax breaks for your Phillip Greens etc.

[Thomo123]

Neither do I mate, but I think the political class will use that as the excuse to increase regulation of the press. As I say, the American press has far more freedom than ours does, even against the likes of libel laws, but it exercises far more restraint.

 

Maybe if the Government took more interest in who actually owns these media organisations (Russian shadesters and tax exiles among them) and worries less about imposing strict rules on investigative means, that'd make more sense - but of course that won't happen.

 

As soon as a politician, who himself has tried to control media perception, starts crying the blues about the press's behaviour, it sets all of my alarm bells ringing.

 

A quote from the article

 

'Third, I do believe that we can move forward with reform of the system of self-regulation.

 

It is important at a time like this that we do not rush to statutory regulation of the press.

 

That is why I said on Friday that my instincts remain to continue with self-regulation.

 

But it must be on a different basis from the past in three particular respects:

 

Greater independence of the Board from current editors.

 

Clear investigatory powers to ensure effective scrutiny.

 

And the ability to enforce corrections of suitable prominence.

 

It is in the interests of the vast majority of decent people in the newspaper industry that editors and proprietors take the initiative to lead this response.'

 

 

I cant see how this can be construed as a leaning towards government regulation. If anything its leaning towards more self regulation, leaving the industry as a whole to sort its own shit out whilst also giving more power to hold them to account when they step over the mark.

[RobbieOR]

[lifetime fan]

Brown isn't helping himself when the Mirror were up to exactly the same shite.

[dennis tooth]

Mirror bigots

[Anubis]

Brown isn't helping himself when the Mirror were up to exactly the same shite.

 

The story was broken by The BBC/Gurdian, LF. The Mirror are just reporting it. It's not an exclusive.

 

Meanwhile, over at The Mail, Melanie Philips writes an ill-judged column and takes a kicking from her own readers.

 

News of the World: How can Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan pose as our moral arbiters? | Mail Online

[lifetime fan]

The story was broken by The BBC/Gurdian, LF. The Mirror are just reporting it. It's not an exclusive.

 

Meanwhile, over at The Mail, Melanie Philips writes an ill-judged column and takes a kicking from her own readers.

 

News of the World: How can Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan pose as our moral arbiters? | Mail Online

 

The Mirror was up to it, as was the Star, Express and the Mail.