What's surprising is that Murdoch decided to shutter the entire paper, rather than sack the individuals who actually committed the crimes. This seems to be a move to offer a sacrificial goat in order to get what he really wants: the British pay television company British Sky Broadcasting. He's trying to buy the broadcaster, but is meeting opposition from those who think Murdoch has too much power in the media.
These crimes have been swirling around for years now. Earlier this year Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron's press secretary, former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, resigned from that position earlier this year because of questions raised again this past January (he resigned from the paper in 2007). According to The Guardian, Coulson will be arrested tomorrow.
What does this British scandal have to do with the price of coffee in America? It shows a blatant disregard of the law and ethics in the management of News of the World, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox Broadcasting, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, etc. These practices have been going on for 10 years, and it's inconceivable that Murdoch knew nothing.
Politicians in Britain walked in fear of News of the World, and even Conservative PMs are rejoicing in its demise. In Fox News Murdoch has successfully created a media outlet in which truth is subservient to political machinations; those who watch Fox are the least well-informed news consumers. With The Wall Street Journal, Murdoch is able to shape and perhaps control the financial markets. With News of the World he has demonstrated he knows no shame, has no ethics and has outright contempt for the law.
Which brings us to the age-old question that must be asked of all men at the top of corrupt enterprises: what did Murdoch know about this scandal, and when did he stop knowing it?
6 comments:
And what parts of this argument, if any, do not apply equally well to ACORN, Planned Parenthood and the SEIU?
Yawn. I am a 'conservative' by your standards and I don't own a TV. Your argument is lost on me.
Way to go after those tabloids nikto. you care more about that than guns being shipped to mexico by the obama administration. why dont you look into who knew what and when on that one?
Hey, at least News of the World is being shut down. When was the last time a government agency got shut down for far, far more heinous abuses?
And Nikto, your foaming over the "power" of a gutter tabloid that's always been a combination of the National Enquirer, People magazine, and a bit of USA Today is just a bit tinged with paranoia.
It shows a blatant disregard of the law and ethics...
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271419/selective-shaming-mark-steyn
Anyone calling for shutting down the Atlanta Public School District and jailing everyone who doesn't just get fired?
Anyone calling for AG Holder to come clean on why stimulus money was used to buy guns for Mexican drug lords?
How about all that jail time done by MMS members who allowed BP to fill out their own rig safety reports without ever doing the inspections? Or the SEC members who played solitaire and watched internet porn while the financial crisis was building, and said nothing? Or the House Banking Committee Chairman, who demonized anyone who dared suggest a crisis was building right up until the last minute?
Anyone? Bueller?
This is priceless.
On the one hand, we have reporters who apparently hacked cell voicemails, a process so simple a chimpanzee could do it accidentally by pushing random buttons. Disrespectful of their privacy? Certainly. But basically that's all the effect it has, at least so far as I can tell. Has other damage been done that I am unaware of? Please enlighten me.
Obviously you consider this a reflection on Mr. Murdoch personally, even though it's an unknown person or persons at a company owned by his son. Much like you considered 9/11 and Katrina personal reflections on President Bush. Front page headline, you treat it like it's the equal of the fall of the Soviet Union. Hundreds or thousands of people got pink-slipped, the entire company has ceased to exist (unlike what would have happened to GM had they undergone actual bankruptcy instead of the scam Obama cooked up). You obviously consider that a good start, but only a start. Still, obviously something you consider worthy of celebrating.
On the other hand, we have safety inspectors who allowed the inspectees to fill out their own forms, rather than doing the actual inspections. As a direct result of this 11 people are dead and we had the largest oil spill in the history of the US. As an indirect result, Obama has largely shut down the economy of the Gulf Coast, throwing tens of thousands out of work, several rigs have left the Gulf never to return, and you personally considered it so important as to justify Obama working outside normal laws to "fine" BP twenty billion dollars.
No investigation of whose negligence killed those 11 people or trashed an entire economic sector. No arrests. No one even got fired.
Obviously you absolve Obama and Salazar of all responsibility connected to this, even though this is much more specifically Salazar's job than watching out for the ethics of NotW's employees is Murdoch's father's job.
No posts about it. Obviously you don't consider it newsworthy, or worthy of mention at all. Certainly not to the degree of Michelle Bachmann's religious views, or whatever Sarah Palin is saying lately.
And when someone points out the disparity to you? The only importance you concede at all to 11 dead, tens of thousands out of work, the economy of a fifth of the country deliberately shattered...
Sorry, anon, but "the left does it too" is a pretty weak response.
Classic Markadelphia, just classic.
Post a Comment