Skip to main content

After the criticism of the Wall Street Journal for failing to maintain any journalistic integrity in its coverage of the impact of a ethics scandal on a large US corporation, the editor has resigned.   No one expected Fox New broadcasting to actually cover the story, so no harm done there.  The downfall of the WSJ since being purchased by Murdoch is sadly not unexpected.   US shareholders are going to insist that News Corp sell off the UK assets in hopes of not tanking the value of the US operations. 

 

In the UK, turns out Murdochs son actually signed the checks for paying off the early victims of the phone hacking, including Jude Law, whose phone was hacked while he was in the USA, which brings the FBI fully on board. 

 

And in other news, JKRowling as admitted that Murdoch was the inspiration for the character Voldemort. 

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by b50m:

Nice except for the fact that Fox has covered the story daily.  More lies from liberal land.

Yep, I saw a Fox News spokesman yesterday trying to put a spin on the matter.  He was saying that the real concern about hacking ought to be hackers who obtain sensitive information such as defense secrets.  He seemed to be clueless about the big-time privacy issues involved in this massive Murdochian SCANDAL!

 

The Wall Street Journal has many good people who were highly concerned about  the outcome of Murdoch's takeover of that paper.  Their concerns were well-founded!

Nobody cared when details of Prince Charles and Camilla's love life  was hacked.

 

The only reason this is news is because of the liberal hatred for Murdoch. They line up waiting for the slaughter like gladiators. I won't be surprised to hear "Off with his head!".

 

The people who hacked were scumbags.  They have been arrested. The police even worked with the tabloid. Also disgusting. As well as the Prime minister. 

 

If this was the US, it would be CBS on the chopping block for being Obama's lackey.

Our values say a lot about us.

Murdoch leaves wife one for wife two--no complaints.

Murdoch leaves wife two for wife three--not complaints.

Murdoch gives up his Australian citizenship to own US television stations--no one blinks an eye.

Now his major tabloid behaves like a...tabloid, and suddenly it's front page news. Yes, it's karma, but a bit late, doncha think?

Ditzy,

 

Don't know how you determined that WSJ isn't reporting on the News of the World scandal.  Both Bing and Google yield a number of stories.  Are you showing your lack of tech skills, demogoguery, or your dottage!

 

Reviews show the WSJ has improved since its ownership passed to News Corps.  Same for Barrons. 

 

As the print portion of News Corp. is about 3.5 percent of their entire business, selling the UK portion would be small change. Personally, I'd dump all but the Times and the Sunday Times.

 

As News Corp is buyin up their stock, they must expect it to rise in value.  Murdoch's son signed the checks, because like most companies checks over a certain size must be approved up the line.  Its an internal control thing.

 

As for hypocrisy, the NYT holds the prize.  Simpering over this nasty business, but crowing over WikiLeaks.   

 

 

The criticism from real journalists is over the quality of the coverage, not the lack of coverage.

 

The WSJ being popular is also not indicative of journalistic integrity or quality.  See "Fox News Channel".

 

Buying their own stock is an effort to keep the value from tanking when there is lots of cash available, cash that was intended to purchase Sky. 

 

By valuing each of News Corp.'s businesses separately, the New York-based media conglomerate would be worth $62 billion to $79 billion, estimates from Barclays Plc and Gabelli & Co. show, indicating News Corp. trades at an almost 50 percent discount to its units. Murdoch, 80, is facing increasing scrutiny over his management of News Corp. after the phone-hacking revelations forced him to abandon a takeover of British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc and deepened a slump that's left shareholders with a 16 percent loss in the past five years even as rivals gained.

"There's just sort of this generic Murdoch discount, which encompasses the concern that he will make decisions that are not consistent with other shareholder interests," said Michael Morris, an analyst at Davenport & Co. in Richmond, Virginia. "The sum of the parts on News Corp. is huge compared with where the stock trades."

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

Ditzy,

 

Don't know how you determined that WSJ isn't reporting on the News of the World scandal.  Both Bing and Google yield a number of stories.  Are you showing your lack of tech skills, demogoguery, or your dottage!

 

Reviews show the WSJ has improved since its ownership passed to News Corps.  Same for Barrons. 

 

As the print portion of News Corp. is about 3.5 percent of their entire business, selling the UK portion would be small change. Personally, I'd dump all but the Times and the Sunday Times.

 

As News Corp is buyin up their stock, they must expect it to rise in value.  Murdoch's son signed the checks, because like most companies checks over a certain size must be approved up the line.  Its an internal control thing.

 

As for hypocrisy, the NYT holds the prize.  Simpering over this nasty business, but crowing over WikiLeaks.   

 

 ____

 

You, like many others, apparently have bought into the notion that WikiLeaks is inherently evil. Your assumption reflects establishmentarian success at castigating an organization--indeed any organization--that threatens the information control systems of governments and corporations. Some of those systems are themselves inherently evil and deserve exposure, as persuasively argued by Peter Singer in the August issue of Harper's. Anyone who wants to objectively pursue the complexities of this matter would be well advised to read Singer's thoughtful piece.  The jury is still out on WikiLeaks.  

Originally Posted by upsidedehead:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

Ditzy,

 

Don't know how you determined that WSJ isn't reporting on the News of the World scandal.  Both Bing and Google yield a number of stories.  Are you showing your lack of tech skills, demogoguery, or your dottage!

 

Reviews show the WSJ has improved since its ownership passed to News Corps.  Same for Barrons. 

 

As the print portion of News Corp. is about 3.5 percent of their entire business, selling the UK portion would be small change. Personally, I'd dump all but the Times and the Sunday Times.

 

As News Corp is buyin up their stock, they must expect it to rise in value.  Murdoch's son signed the checks, because like most companies checks over a certain size must be approved up the line.  Its an internal control thing.

 

As for hypocrisy, the NYT holds the prize.  Simpering over this nasty business, but crowing over WikiLeaks.   

 

 ____

 

You, like many others, apparently have bought into the notion that WikiLeaks is inherently evil. Your assumption reflects establishmentarian success at castigating an organization--indeed any organization--that threatens the information control systems of governments and corporations. Some of those systems are themselves inherently evil and deserve exposure, as persuasively argued by Peter Singer in the August issue of Harper's. Anyone who wants to objectively pursue the complexities of this matter would be well advised to read Singer's thoughtful piece.  The jury is still out on WikiLeaks.  

NO!  WikiLeaks have already compromised the lives and safety of those who worked with the US government.  Exposing the back channel messages of embassies does no good to anyone. 

 

Assange has proven himself a hypocrite in his words and personal actions.  He really doesn't like his personal activities and email exposed, either. 

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Its funny that the Ellsburg papers showed that the public was conned into a War, and now people just cant believe that we were conned into the War on Terror.  People are stoopid.  

So, 9/11 was either an illusion and the Towers still stand!  Or, it was orchestrated by Bush. Ditzy, are you finally admitting to being a truther.  Or, just stoopid!

Get a clue.

Your hero BushIIe, was the first POUTUS to cut taxes while campaigning to go to War.  Then, he passed the Medicare Part D Florida Reelection Funding Bill, the largest unfunded expansion of Medicare ever. 

 

OBama deficits are the largest in history because of the historic lows in tax payments, not increased spending. 

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:

Get a clue.

Your hero BushIIe, was the first POUTUS to cut taxes while campaigning to go to War.  Then, he passed the Medicare Part D Florida Reelection Funding Bill, the largest unfunded expansion of Medicare ever. 

 

OBama deficits are the largest in history because of the historic lows in tax payments, not increased spending. 

Once more, you obfuscate when faced with facts.  Come back with facts and figures and maybe you will be worth listening to.

 

Taxes were cut, while revenue increased -- increased beyond the amount projected by the COB. 

 

Personally, I'd like to see a war tax, which would end when $1 trillion was collected.   An excise tax on trading of precious metals -- gold, platinum, palladium and silver.  Coupled, with an import duty on personal import of more tha one troy ounce of the first three metals and over 8 troy ounces of silver.  However, attempted importation of cold pressed latinum would result in seizure of the item and extradition of the perpetrator.  Never liked Firengi trash.   

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×