Murdoch Tabloid Scandal
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-07-12/murdoch-tabloid-scandal
Police bribes,illicit cell phone tracking, and allegations that UK News Corps journalists targeted a former prime minister and possibly members of the royal family: Allegations of phone hacking were thought to have been relatively isolated incidents, but now it seems the hacking was widespread, and the questions keep coming. Last week media mogul Rupert Murdoch, owner of the popular tabloid at the center of the controversy, shut it down. Murdoch’s holdings include film studios, television stations and news papers around the world including the Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Join us to discuss the tabloid scandal and the Murdoch empire.
Guests
Rem Rieder
editor and senior vice president,American Journalism Review.
David Folkenflik
media correspondent at NPR News.
Clive Crook
Washington commentator, Financial Times
senior editor, Atlantic Monthly
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Looking at the above photo reminds me, you would think that the almost constant cloud cover over the U.K. would produce less stressed facial skin. I have noticed this is not the case as a somewhat frequent traveler to the U.K. The similarity of white U.K. residents in their personal appearance to their U.S. counterparts is indistinguishable. I do not see a unfair advantage on the seesaw as well.
All empires must end. I am thrilled and overjoyed to see that Murdoch has problems of his own. After 2.5 years of trying to destoy President Obama with lies and misinformation, even going to such lengths as hiring his political opponents to of course preach his agenda. We can see now that this man had entirely too much influence with polical elites and not just in Britian. I believe his FOX network has no integrity at all and is nothing more than a propaganda machine treating the viewers like fools. He is now reaping the fruits of his labor.
NOTW also attempted to break into the phones of 9/11 victims. This disgusting, and illegal, behavior needs to be stopped.
How is Fox News covering these crimes? Isn't there a conflict of interests? Are the different arms of Murdoch's media empire separate from one another? Did any of his businesses in the U.S. benefit from the illegal activities of other arms of his business? For example did an American, South African or Australian news outlet use stolen and illegally obtained information in their stories?
Is this a case where RICO laws could be used to prosecute? Sorry I asked such a stupid question. I think we all know that nothing is going to happen to the big players in Murdoch's business conglomerate. To many layers of insulation- sort of like Reagan lying to Congress about Iran/Contra.
Robin Shoulders wrote"After 2.5 years of trying to destoy President Obama with lies"
If a news organization only reported what Obama said without any commentary at all, the coverage would still be full of lies!
What is the chance that Murdoch really contributed directly to authorizing the penetration of the phone message accounts? Can he get off himself by blaming the UK paper for going too far?
When I was a student at a British university over 30 years ago, I took a class that studied the cozy relationship between the government and the media. The British media is centralized and partisan and an important component of an election campaign.
monte,
I am with you part-way. News should be more than just publicizing the statements made by the government.
That being said- I think a fairly large amount of the 'news' on Fox News is for entertainment only. That is also the case for ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN. Well all of them in fact. The winner of American Idol is not 'news.' It is infotainment.
I really do think it is a stretch to say that Fox News is 'fair and balanced.' Some of their stuff is absurd and inaccurate- not saying they are the only ones- and some just inflammatory.
But I am one of those with my own bias- I think most of the media is conservative.
These are disgusting allegations, but we get what we deserve.
But, we can stop reading & watching Murdoch's papers and television, we can boycott his advertisers and companies can stop advertising.
He will be gone in weeks.
Can any of those involved in the hacking of individuals private communications systems be prosecuted in a court of law? My hope is that the Murdoch empire crumbles for their slimy and illegal activities..
Fox news will not be effected in the least, sorry libbies . Fox news never claims to be "fair and balanced". Fox news has filled a niche that apparently is huge, otherwise they would not be king of the hill for news coverage.
I find it hilarious (and somewhat sad) that so many people seem to be feigning outrage over this, yet are at the same time strangely quiet when it comes to illegal and unconstitutional phone taps, and the general invasiveness into our privacy by our own government.
Oh that's right, this has a vague and non-exsitent link to Fox news, and all the basement-dwelling warcraft players LOVE to hate fox news because jon stewart tells them to.
But hey, KFTC while our country burns to the ground. In 10 years this country will be totally unrecognizable, but at least we will have this insignificant BS to whine and moan about.
Robert Fisk: Why I had to leave The Times
When he worked at The Times, Robert Fisk witnessed the curious working practices of the paper's proprietor, Rupert Murdoch. Despite their jocular exchanges, the writer knew he couldn't stay...
Monday, 11 July 2011
Rupert Murdoch, 1981
S
He is a caliph, I suppose, almost of the Middle Eastern variety.
You hear all these awful things about Arab dictators and then, when you meet them, they are charm itself. Hafez al-Assad once held my hand in his for a long time with a paternal smile. Surely he can't be that bad, I almost said to myself – this was long before the 1982 Hama massacres. King Hussein would call me "Sir", along with most other journalists. These potentates, in public, would often joke with their ministers. Mistakes could be forgiven.
The "Hitler Diaries" were Murdoch's own mistake, after refusing to countenance his own "expert's" change of heart over the documents hours before The Times and The Sunday Times began printing them. Months later, I was passing by the paper's London office on my way back to Beirut when the foreign editor, Ivan Barnes, held up the Reuters wire copy from Bonn. "Aha!" he thundered. "The diaries are forgeries!" The West German government had proved that they must have been written long after the Führer's death.
So Barnes dispatched me to editor Charles Douglas-Home's office with the Reuters story and I marched in only to find Charlie entertaining Murdoch. "They say they're forgeries, Charlie," I announced, trying not to glance at Murdoch. But I did when he reacted. "Well, there you go," the mogul reflected with a giggle. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained." Much mirth. The man's insouciance was almost catching. Great Story. It only had one problem. It wasn't true.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/robert-fisk-why-i-had-to-l...
In all the coverage regarding the NOTW scandal, I don't hear anyone commenting on the fact that there is a market for this material. While we are analyzing what happened and how it occurred, should we also not reflect on the fact that our society is equally responsible for generating the desire for such appalling stories?
Robert Fisk on Rupert Murdoch:
But things changed. Before he was editor, Douglas-Home would write for the Arabic-language Al-Majella magazine, often deeply critical of Israel. Now his Times editorials took an optimistic view of the Israeli invasion. He stated that "there is now no worthy Palestinian to whom the world can talk" and – for heaven's sake – that "perhaps at last the Palestinians on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip will stop hoping that stage-strutters like Mr Arafat can rescue them miraculously from doing business with the Israelis."
All of which, of course, was official Israeli government policy at the time.
Then, in the spring of 1983, another change. I had, with Douglas-Home's full agreement, spent months investigating the death of seven Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners of the Israelis in Sidon. It was obvious, I concluded, that the men had been murdered – the grave-digger even told me that their corpses had been brought to him, hands tied behind their backs, showing marks of bruising. But now Douglas-Home couldn't see how we would be "justified" in running a report "so long after the event".
In other words, the very system of investigative journalism – of fact-checking and months of interviews – became self-defeating. When we got the facts, too much time had passed to print them. I asked the Israelis if they would carry out a military inquiry and, anxious to show how humanitarian they were, they duly told us there would be an official investigation. The Israeli "inquiry" was, I suspected, a fiction. But it was enough to "justify" publishing my long and detailed report. Once the Israelis could look like good guys, Douglas-Home's concerns evaporated.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/robert-fisk-why-i-had-to-l...
Z_Harris , Right on brother!
So much of this criticism is rooted in politics, especially the specific referencing of Murdoch. Obviously many are envious of his economic success and disagree with what they believe is his politics. The Guardian and NPR seem especially bent on self-righteous criticism.
The same people who cry umbrage at these tactics buy these newspapers and feed the beast. Journalists cross the line all the time, because the public pays for scoops, the more salicious the better. Tabloids are here to stay.
Take away the tabloids and we'll be left with celebrity and politician manipulation of their image through tightly controlled PR campaigns. Tiger would still be squeaky clean and Obama would be our savior.
It bothers me that some people see this scandal as a general problem with the news media, rather than a problem with certain individuals or with the whole corporate ownership model. I think if we started making shareholders libel for corporate misdeeds, we would see corporate misdeeds virtually disappear -- and maybe some bad corporations, too.
I seriously doubt this event will make a dent in mainstream media leanings towards distortion by influence of power, or whatever reason...
I will never trust mainstream media, they have too many reasons to lie...
It's naive to suggest that RM did not know what was going on. He is responsible for the results. He is familiar with the tactics of media, tabloid or not. When faced with the results that his paper was getting, do you honestly believe he never asked 'How did you get that info?' I 'm disgusted with the deferential treatment we give to the rich, that doesn't apply to the rest. There was no hesitation to rush to judgment on the subjects of the tabloid reports. To suggest that we need proof to hold RM accountable is nothing short of a double standard. Not surprisng to hear that come from an established media outlet. The police have their 'thin blue line'. What do you Talking Heads call there self preservation justifications?
The last thing that Rehm wanted to hear is that there is zero evidence tying Rupert Murdock into these hackings.
Rem Rieder says that FOX News is a "Republican and right wing partisan," but MSNBC only " tilts to the left." This is the sort of partisan commentary that passes for journalism on the DR Show.
Clive Crook said that "we all have an axe to grind" in this scandal regarding competing media and this hacking story. I wonder If Diane recognizes he was including her as well?
Remember when 60 Minutes did a story about what turned out to be faked memos on Bush the Second's military career? Remember how conservatives screamed this was proof CBS (and the "mainstream media" in general) were just "liberal tools"? Remember how both Dan Rather and the producer of that story resigned (or were fired) over this? And remember, most of all, that 60 Minutes didn't create the memos, but was simply negligent in accepting them at face value?
Funny, isn't it, that mere negligence is cause for condemnation from the "right", but active wrongdoing, malice, and criminality by Murdoch's empire is excused, if not justified, by these purveyors of "moral values".
That being said, Rupert Murdoch is entitled to due process, the presumption of innocence, and to be judged based on facts, not implication. Rights our "conservative" friends tend to denounce when applied to others. (Though, in civil law, under the doctrine of respondeat superior he may ultimately be liable.) Let's refrain from "casting stones" until the investigation is completed.
P.S. - Oh, and monte, I guess you don't bother actually watching Fox. They use the slogan "Fair & Balanced" constantly. Heck, they even trademarked the phrase!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_balanced#cite_note-foxsuit-40
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92042790&pty=CAN&eno=1
Caller Susan in Ft. Worth, Texas said, "politics in the U.S. were very civil until Murdock got his hands on our news, TV, our papers, it's so divisive now." This women's grasp of the history of American political discourse is as disturbing as her accent.
Wait for it...Now Rehm is embracing Susan's notion that Murdock is responsible for the "incivility" in the American political sphere.
cicero on July 12, 2011 @ 12:33 pm wrote: "This is the sort of partisan commentary that passes for journalism on the DR Show."
As contrasted with what? The partisan commentary that is purveyed as "fair and balanced" by Fox?
Once again, cicero, you seem to forget that one of a host's job is to play "Devil's Advocate", and ask questions designed to give guests the opportunity to provide responses. Don't assume Ms. Rhem personally favors "guilt by association" tactics (routinely employed by the right-wing and your beloved Fox).
As for Fox vs. MSNBC: there have been plenty of reports that Fox gets it's "talking points" straight from the Republican Party, ever hear claims MSNBC does the same? Does Fox frequently, if ever, criticize Republican politicians, policies or politics? I've regularly seen the "dreaded" Olbermann condemn Democrats (even Obama) for things he disagreed with.
Oh, and if an argument defending Murdoch is "the last thing that Rehm wanted to hear", please explain the fact that this point was raised frequently during the show, and was the last listener's comment Rehm read!
Like monte and hainc, you never let little things like facts get in the way of your rants, do you?
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"Oh, and if an argument defending Murdoch is "the last thing that Rehm wanted to hear", please explain the fact that this point was raised frequently during the show, and was the last listener's comment Rehm read!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you actually listen to these shows? The last comment Rehm read was an email from Dean indicting Murdock, not defending him. Did you miss Dean's idiotic brake analogy? You are squeaking more than Dean's pads.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"As for Fox vs. MSNBC: there have been plenty of reports that Fox gets it's "talking points" straight from the Republican Party, ever hear claims MSNBC does the same? Does Fox frequently, if ever, criticize Republican politicians, policies or politics? I've regularly seen the "dreaded" Olbermann condemn Democrats (even Obama) for things he disagreed with."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please cite these reports. Or are you embarassed about your source for this drivel? Olbermann criticized those liberals whose pov deviated from his own.
Here is a list of FOX News folks who routinely criticize Republicans:
O'Reilly
Geraldo
Dr.Marc Lamont Hill,
Dr. Michael Eric Dyson,
Jane Fleming,
Mora Liasson,
Jane Hall,
Jemue Greene
Leslie Marshall
Governor Ed Rendell
Patrick Caddell
Joe Trippi
Douglas E. Schoen
Judy Miller
Bob Beckel,
Kirsten Powers,
Ellis Henican,
Marvin Kalb,
Al Sharpton,
Lanny Davis,
Amy Stoddard,
Flavia Colvin,
Mort Kondracke,
Juan Williams,
Rachel Sklar,
Geraldine Ferraro
Susan Estrich
I'm not so naive as to think that the Murdoch brand of "journalism" will ever go away. Rather, it appeals much the same way as pornography does. And, once it is part of the "zeitgeist" it is here to stay.
That said, with respect to this particular dilemma and Murdoch's involvement, remember that old bit of wisdom... The Fish Stinks From The Head.
sfefyfas wrote:
"That said, with respect to this particular dilemma and Murdoch's involvement, remember that old bit of wisdom... The Fish Stinks From The Head."
Right. We learned that long ago when Pinch Sulzberger took over The New York Times
if i was murdoch i would tell all yall to "SHUTUP BEFORE I BUY YOUR HOUSES AND THROW U OUT OF THEM, or charge ur rent or something." lol. its like the kid with his hand in the cookie jar. u caught him but what about all the times u didnt catch him? so the fact that murdoch was caught now and there is some stuff coming out means nothing. this behavior was going on, was a standard practice, and is going on at other media agencies also. its like college football violations. its only the ones who get caught that get nagged about it. and thats all this is. its a nagging. that ol' boy dun did something in someones wheaties and he's upset someone powerful like he is or we would never know this story or that any of this happened.
same thing with the former imf leader. he upset someone, lol, got locked up for a little while, and by the time he got out some strangling had already took his job. lololol. when i saw him walking out of jail it was funny and i'm thinking man someone did u lovely dogg. lololol. i'm thinking he might as well just stay over here and kick it with us. cause its OVA. its a WRAP.
cicero wrote:
sfefyfas wrote:
"That said, with respect to this particular dilemma and Murdoch's involvement, remember that old bit of wisdom... The Fish Stinks From The Head."
Right. We learned that long ago when Pinch Sulzberger took over The New York Times
Love it.
LOL
cicero on July 12, 2011 @ 2:21 pm wrote: "Do you actually listen to these shows? The last comment Rehm read was an email from Dean indicting Murdock, not defending him."
Do you listen to the show? I admit the last e-mailer (Dean) made an argument about Murdoch's responsibility, but you seem to have ignored the last part where he said: "There should be evidence, also, that he took steps to fix the brakes, so to speak, and get rid of the people involved." That sounds to me like he's saying if there's evidence Murdoch took steps to fix the problem it's a valid defense.
By the way, legally he's correct (except for his comparison to criminal law). In civil law the doctrine of respondeat superior applies. Murdoch's corporate empire may indeed be responsible (i.e.: subject to a lawsuit) for what these reporters/editors did, the same way any corporation is legally responsible for what its employees do. (It's a complicated question though, which is why Murdoch and his company are entitled to due process, etc., as I said before.)
cicero on July 12, 2011 @ 1:02 pm wrote: "Wait for it...Now Rehm is embracing Susan's notion that Murdock is responsible for the 'incivility' in the American political sphere."
I guess you really don't bother listening to the show, do you? Rehm never "embraced" that notion, she simply asked her guests what they thought of it - precisely what you'd expect a host to do with a comment made by a caller.
I guess you're just too used to Fox, where they regularly shout down points of view they disagree with, so you assume a failure to behave in that boorish fashion indicates approval!