It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rupert Murdoch: I decide The Sun's politics

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Rupert Murdoch decides the political line of the Sun and News of the World, but not the Times and the Sunday Times, he has told a parliamentary committee.

The News Corporation chairman said he was "a traditional proprietor" as far as the red-top papers were concerned.


Source: BBC News

I don't know where to begin.

1) What right does someone who was born in Australia and holds US citizenship have to single-handedly decide the political slant of the UK's most-read tabloid newspaper? (A newspaper that, sadly, affects the views of millions of British voters)

2) What kind of back room deals have politicians made to Murdoch in return for his support at election time? How have these affected the democratic process?

3) What future plans does the Murdoch media empire have for dominating our media?

4) Can Britain truly be said to have freedom of the press? In this case it isn't the government but corporate interests that are threatening that freedom.

He also wants Sky News to become more like Fox News. Just... eugh...


The implications this has for a free market and an independent press is extremely concerning... why do we allow people like Murdoch and Rothermere (owner of the Daily Mail, Sunday Mail, the Metro etc. and his ancestors supported both the Nazis and the British Union of Fascists) to own great swathes of the media? The Daily Mail wants to run a City Academy, for goodness sake! ("You couldn't make it up!", to nick a catchphrase from Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn
)




posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
in a long line of publishers who have shaped the intellectual and political landscape of a nation with their control over the news... lest not forget perhaps the most influential of all... Randolph Hearst who brought about an age of deforestation and oil supremacy by having the growing of Hemp outlawed through the constant pressure on politicians and depictions of mexican pot smoking banditos...



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I don't give a toss if he snorts hemp, but he can damn well leave The Sun independent, and check his own offices for coc aine rather than parliaments alone.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652
I don't know where to begin.

1) What right does someone who was born in Australia and holds US citizenship have to single-handedly decide the political slant of the UK's most-read tabloid newspaper? (A newspaper that, sadly, affects the views of millions of British voters)


Ain't that the million pound question...non-domicial tax status for one. He is part and parcel of the screwing of the ordinary tax payer, therefore he wants to ensure that we keep not caring enough to stop it.



2) What kind of back room deals have politicians made to Murdoch in return for his support at election time? How have these affected the democratic process?


See above - no backroom deals necessary - money talks all by itself. I am sure you remember a couple of years ago when he publically threatened the Labour Party with the withdrawal of his financial support if they did something or other (can't remember what it was off the top of me head).

I don't really have an answer for 3...how long is a piece of string?



4) Can Britain truly be said to have freedom of the press? In this case it isn't the government but corporate interests that are threatening that freedom.


We have NEVER had freedom of press, it is an illusion...ask any journalist and they will tell you that certain stories cannot be run...ask the Guardian why they were stopped from printing their investigations into Saudia Arabia.



He also wants Sky News to become more like Fox News. Just... eugh...



Actually I have to say this would be an improvement..Sky News is pants, but then I rarely watch Fox either, also pants.



The implications this has for a free market and an independent press is extremely concerning... why do we allow people like Murdoch and Rothermere (owner of the Daily Mail, Sunday Mail, the Metro etc. and his ancestors supported both the Nazis and the British Union of Fascists) to own great swathes of the media? The Daily Mail wants to run a City Academy, for goodness sake! ("You couldn't make it up!", to nick a catchphrase from Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn
)


Actually, there is light at the end of this tunnel, however faint....Murdoch is starting to make a number of enemies. While he may be ingratiating himself to all the other non-domicile tax dodgers he is doing himself some damage in the 'establishment'. Lord Rothermere's father may have been a pen-pal to Hitler but that doesn't mean he is behind Murdoch. There are many groups who are none too happy with Murdoch's arrogance. If he keeps pushing their buttons then he may find himself out on his ear. They can and will make it very difficult for him. They may even go as far to lobby for restrictions to non-domicile tax status. Which even though it would be a back-handed victory, it would still be a victory.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   
The Sun (like much of the UK press) has always been politically slanted and certainly since 1979 very right-wing.

As unwanted & wrong as it is this is nothing new at all.

When you look at who owns what it's true that a relative handful control outrageously large sections of the UK media.

Sadly I don't see any political parties rushing to do anything about it.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Sadly I don't see any political parties rushing to do anything about it.


That's part of the problem... none of the political parties will because they know that the moment they try, they receive a bad press from newspapers like The Sun, the News of the World, the Daily Mail, the Sunday Mail and so forth. And, rather ironically, it's only the political parties that can genuinely sort this out since it's they who make the laws of the land. What's more Murdoch and his equals know this... they've got it made.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Good post!!
This is an issue which has annoyed me for years, I think you'll find Murdoch controls 175 news titles worldwide, and at the time (in 2003) all 173 supported the war in Iraq.
Murdoch also controls Sky News as well as Fox News, the Times, Sun, Star and News of the World and a large stake in Channel Five.

I once made a joke: “Why is Murdoch the son of God?
Because he owns all the Sun, Sky and News of the World.”

But Murdoch is by no means alone.
Pretty much all the other news-entertainment groups are controlled politically, and once more controlled by very few people. This is a worldwide issue for all but the few countries who restrict foreign ownership-influence of their press; and often these turn out not to be doing it for the common good, but simply because they must being dictatorships.

My preferred solution is just to criminalise all deliberate bias, unless they will print "deliberately biased" on their front page. I think deliberately misleading people should be a crime unless they would likely consent to it.

For now you can always set up you're own media (like whoever set up this website did). But the people who watch it will always be a minority, and in a democracy it's the busy majority, and not the intellectual few who really count.
It's in an important difference between our system and a real dictatorship since where the Soviets used to kill dissents, we in the West just give them the vote and manage to ignore them.
Our way is superior as killing people is a waist of human resources, which is bad for the economic well being; not least you're government’s image!!!



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join