Murdoch stands by news service that hacked terror and murder victims' phones

#26
#26
sjt18 said:
You got to understand. The Fox News/Tea Party boogeymen lurk behind every corner according to leftists like LG. Guilt by even the remotest of associations is perfectly valid as long as you are condemning conservatives.
Click to expand...


You mean like where some federal employee, 100 rungs down the ladder from Obama and who has never been within 1,000 miles of him, does something goofy and you and your similarly moronic ilk have a thread title that "Obama says/does x"?
 
#27
#27
lawgator1 said:
I think the point is not so much that there are individual incidents as much as that, when strung together, there seems to be an appeal to the outrageous, the slick, the sensational, rather than, in the case of his supposed news organizations, a thoughtful and reasoned approach to the events of the day.
Click to expand...

Please - liberals loved the Fox Network pre-Fox News because it was risk taking on the sensational and risque.

I bet all those Family Guy fans who love the shots the show takes at Republicans have no idea it's part of the evil empire.

This is akin to a podunk local newspaper owned by Gannet doing something wrong. If it was a local call it is no reflection of the larger conglomerate.
 
#28
#28
volinbham said:
Please - liberals loved the Fox Network pre-Fox News because it was risk taking on the sensational and risque.

I bet all those Family Guy fans who love the shots the show takes at Republicans have no idea it's part of the evil empire.

This is akin to a podunk local newspaper owned by Gannet doing something wrong. If it was a local call it is no reflection of the larger conglomerate.
Click to expand...

agree.
 
#29
#29
volinbham said:
Please - liberals loved the Fox Network pre-Fox News because it was risk taking on the sensational and risque.

I bet all those Family Guy fans who love the shots the show takes at Republicans have no idea it's part of the evil empire.

This is akin to a podunk local newspaper owned by Gannet doing something wrong. If it was a local call it is no reflection of the larger conglomerate.
Click to expand...


Ok, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
 
#30
#30
volinbham said:
Please - liberals loved the Fox Network pre-Fox News because it was risk taking on the sensational and risque.

I bet all those Family Guy fans who love the shots the show takes at Republicans have no idea it's part of the evil empire.

This is akin to a podunk local newspaper owned by Gannet doing something wrong. If it was a local call it is no reflection of the larger conglomerate.
Click to expand...

simpsons has been flaming republicans for years as well. murdoch cares about $$$$$. right wing media makes money.
 
#31
#31
When people are afraid of something, they tune in to get updates.

/fox news

lawl
 
Last edited:
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
Ok, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

enlighten me

from your story

The News of the World is just a piece of News International’s large footprint in Britain. The company also publishes The Times of London and The Sun.
Click to expand...

So this is one piece of one piece of a media conglomerate. It would be a stretch to say this tarnishes the The Times of London let alone other non-related media holdings for Murdoch.
 
Last edited:
#34
#34
volinbham said:
enlighten me

from your story



So this is one piece of one piece of a media conglomerate. It would be a stretch to say this tarnishes the The Times of London let alone other non-related media holdings for Murdoch.
Click to expand...


Its 168 years old and is the largest selling tabloid in the country. Comparing it to a "podunk local newspaper owned by Gannet" -- which is your phraseology -- is blatantly false.
 
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
Its 168 years old and is the largest selling tabloid in the country. Comparing it to a "podunk local newspaper owned by Gannet" -- which is your phraseology -- is blatantly false.
Click to expand...

That's me - blatant.

It is comparable in the scale of one piece of a business to the entire business as a whole. This tabloid is one part of one part of the print business which in turn is one part of the entire conglomerate.

Further the point is that the actions of one tiny part of a conglomerate are not indicative of the conglomerate as a whole or another part of that conglomerate.
 
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
Its 168 years old and is the largest selling tabloid in the country. Comparing it to a "podunk local newspaper owned by Gannet" -- which is your phraseology -- is blatantly false.
Click to expand...

You aren't trying to incriminate the whole by way of the separate actions of a small fragment are you?

(yeah, it's a trap)
 
#37
#37
volinbham said:
That's me - blatant.

It is comparable in the scale of one piece of a business to the entire business as a whole. This tabloid is one part of one part of the print business which in turn is one part of the entire conglomerate.

Further the point is that the actions of one tiny part of a conglomerate are not indicative of the conglomerate as a whole or another part of that conglomerate.
Click to expand...


I'll remind you that you said that the next time you say that Obama is supportive, behind, endorses, said, or proposed something that you cannot directly link to him.
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
I'll remind you that you said that the next time you say that Obama is supportive, behind, endorses, said, or proposed something that you cannot directly link to him.
Click to expand...

when has vbh ever done something like that?
 
#41
#41
lawgator1 said:
I'll remind you that you said that the next time you say that Obama is supportive, behind, endorses, said, or proposed something that you cannot directly link to him.
Click to expand...

please do - of course saying his administration or a particular agency is doing something will still be accurate.
 
#42
#42
Sounds like we are mixing issues. Is Murdoch ultimately responsible? Yes because it happened in a part of his organization.

Is what happened in one part of the organization indicative of a problem in another part? Eg. if the EPA does something dumb does it mean the FDA is jacked up as well? No.

More accurately in this case, if the Colorado office of the USDA does something wrong does it mean the EPA is jacked up? No. Does it mean Obama endorsed it or it was on directive from him? No. Does he have ultimate responsibility to address the problem? Yes.

Okay?
 
#43
#43
regarding vbh's above hypothetical, the question then becomes "Will Obama take ultimate responsibility in the same way Rupert Murdoch has in regards to NotW?"

of course, it's a rhetorical question, since Obama has proven time and again that he will take responsibility for nothing.
 
#44
#44
volinbham said:
Sounds like we are mixing issues. Is Murdoch ultimately responsible? Yes because it happened in a part of his organization.

Is what happened in one part of the organization indicative of a problem in another part? Eg. if the EPA does something dumb does it mean the FDA is jacked up as well? No.

More accurately in this case, if the Colorado office of the USDA does something wrong does it mean the EPA is jacked up? No. Does it mean Obama endorsed it or it was on directive from him? No. Does he have ultimate responsibility to address the problem? Yes.

Okay?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be fair to say Murdoch has in fact set a pretty high bar with his decisive actions in addressing the issue?

There you go LG, we will now hold Obama to the same standard as Murdoch. That should be a cake-walk, right?
 
#45
#45
volinbham said:
Sounds like we are mixing issues. Is Murdoch ultimately responsible? Yes because it happened in a part of his organization.

Is what happened in one part of the organization indicative of a problem in another part? Eg. if the EPA does something dumb does it mean the FDA is jacked up as well? No.

More accurately in this case, if the Colorado office of the USDA does something wrong does it mean the EPA is jacked up? No. Does it mean Obama endorsed it or it was on directive from him? No. Does he have ultimate responsibility to address the problem? Yes.

Okay?
Click to expand...


Murdoch is not personally responsible, but he is indirectly because I think it clear that his approach to "news" is one that is based on marketing to the lowest common denominator (of people who have money), which is to say his organizations promote the shiny stuff, the salacious, the "rile 'em up" stuff.

He is not interested in the news or in owning a media empire devoted to journalistic values and integrity.

He's interested in making bazillions.

Nothing wrong with that, except that when your folks overreach then you gotta put the hammer down. And of course there is the message to those who consume his media, which is basically buyer beware.
 
#46
#46
hndog609 said:
Wouldn't it be fair to say Murdoch has in fact set a pretty high bar with his decisive actions in addressing the issue?

There you go LG, we will now hold Obama to the same standard as Murdoch. That should be a cake-walk, right?
Click to expand...


There are some obvious problems in comparing the two types of institution. I mean, Murdoch can unilaterally decide to shut down the paper. Obama can't do that. Obama also can't just on his own fire most lower level federal employees, there are rules for that.

And, Obama is a temporary holder of power. Most federal employees aren't there because they share his particular value set.
 
#47
#47
lawgator1 said:
There are some obvious problems in comparing the two types of institution. I mean, Murdoch can unilaterally decide to shut down the paper. Obama can't do that. Obama also can't just on his own fire most lower level federal employees, there are rules for that.

And, Obama is a temporary holder of power. Most federal employees aren't there because they share his particular value set.
Click to expand...

While the gist of this is fair the original observation was that Murdoch took clear action with the powers at his disposal. I think it's fair to hold Obama to that, don't you?
 
#48
#48
lawgator1 said:
Murdoch is not personally responsible, but he is indirectly because I think it clear that his approach to "news" is one that is based on marketing to the lowest common denominator (of people who have money), which is to say his organizations promote the shiny stuff, the salacious, the "rile 'em up" stuff.

He is not interested in the news or in owning a media empire devoted to journalistic values and integrity.

He's interested in making bazillions.

Nothing wrong with that, except that when your folks overreach then you gotta put the hammer down. And of course there is the message to those who consume his media, which is basically buyer beware.
Click to expand...

Yep - that Wall Street Journal is a lowest common denominator, rile-em-up, rag...as is the The Times of London.
 
#50
#50
lawgator1 said:
Murdoch is not personally responsible, but he is indirectly because I think it clear that his approach to "news" is one that is based on marketing to the lowest common denominator (of people who have money), which is to say his organizations promote the shiny stuff, the salacious, the "rile 'em up" stuff.
Click to expand...
Murdoch reached out into an untapped market... people who didn't want their news skewed to the left. Once again you attempt to be condescending toward people who are just as "smart" and informed as you are.

He is not interested in the news or in owning a media empire devoted to journalistic values and integrity.
Click to expand...
And the CEO of CBS is? CNN? NYT?

What values and integrity would that be? Skewing the news and editing to favor liberalism and undermine conservatism?

He's interested in making bazillions.

Nothing wrong with that, except that when your folks overreach then you gotta put the hammer down. And of course there is the message to those who consume his media, which is basically buyer beware.
Click to expand...
Oh but the same doesn't apply at say.... NPR?

Good grief. You are blind aren't you? The only way you've seen any "agenda" in the news media is because of Murdoch? Really? You are seeing just a bare glimpse of what conservatives have been complaining about for YEARS.... and you act like it is something novel.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top