The plot thickens...will Faux News be next?

Superfreak said:
Again Christie, do you expect Obama to take the blame should some IRS agent in TX break the law? Do you have ANY idea how many media outlets Murdoch owns and how many employees 'work for him'????

I posted a list of all the media he owns.... do you really think he knows what is going on day to day at each of them? While he certainly MAY have, for you and the others to proclaim his guilt based on what has been published so far is nothing short of absurd.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm talking about the facts in the original post, that dealt with Brown in the UK. Why are you bringing up the entire Murdoch empire when that's not part of the article?

Clearly proof of hacking exists, given that an editor was jailed for it in 2007. Are you going to tell me Murdoch was oblivious to this?

You guys crack me up. You (pl.) are praising RM to the skies for his business acumen, his holdings, his savvy deal-making, yet on the other hand you'd have us believe that proven hacking charges that led to an editor being jailed, plus all the other existing civil cases, plus the 7,000 other hacking allegations somehow slipped under his radar.

I need proof of this, not just supposition.
 
NOTW set up a fund to compensate hacking victims, now tell me RM was oblivious.

The owners of the News of the World have admitted liability for the hacking of celebrities’ phones by their journalists.

They have agreed to offer an ‘unreserved apology’ and substantial compensation to at least eight alleged victims.

Yesterday the paper’s parent company, News International, said it was setting up a compensation scheme for ‘justifiable claims’ with actress Sienna Miller, former culture secretary Tessa Jowell and ex-Sky Sports pundit Andy Gray among those expected to be offered payouts.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-victims-compensation-fund.html#ixzz1Ru0sDoEh


Rupert Murdoch's News International, which owns News of the World, one of England's biggest tabloids, apologized on Friday for hacking into celebrity voicemails, ending a months-long scandal that included some of the world's top athletes and royalty, as well as Murdoch's gigantic empire, still attempting expansion in the UK market. In a statement today, the company said it has "decided to approach some civil litigants with an unreserved apology and an admission of liability in cases meeting specific criteria," calling the misdeeds "a matter of genuine regret." The company previously blamed a "rogue" reporter and investigator, but seem now to just want the whole thing over with..."
 
christiefan915 said:
Again, I'm talking about the facts in the original post, that dealt with Brown in the UK. Why are you bringing up the entire Murdoch empire when that's not part of the article?

Clearly proof of hacking exists, given that an editor was jailed for it in 2007. Are you going to tell me Murdoch was oblivious to this?

You guys crack me up. You (pl.) are praising RM to the skies for his business acumen, his holdings, his savvy deal-making, yet on the other hand you'd have us believe that proven hacking charges that led to an editor being jailed, plus all the other existing civil cases, plus the 7,000 other hacking allegations somehow slipped under his radar.

I need proof of this, not just supposition.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO.... try READING the wiki link YOU posted. I am not suggesting that Murdoch didn't know about the 'royal' editor and the private investigator being jailed in 2007. I am asking YOU for proof that he KNEW AHEAD of time that this was taking place. Again, they are STILL trying to show that the PAPER's EDITOR knew about it. They haven't even found evidence of that as of now... yet you expect us to believe that Murdoch knew about it while it was happening?????
 
christiefan915 said:
NOTW set up a fund to compensate hacking victims, now tell me RM was oblivious.

The owners of the News of the World have admitted liability for the hacking of celebrities’ phones by their journalists.

They have agreed to offer an ‘unreserved apology’ and substantial compensation to at least eight alleged victims.

Yesterday the paper’s parent company, News International, said it was setting up a compensation scheme for ‘justifiable claims’ with actress Sienna Miller, former culture secretary Tessa Jowell and ex-Sky Sports pundit Andy Gray among those expected to be offered payouts.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-victims-compensation-fund.html#ixzz1Ru0sDoEh


Rupert Murdoch's News International, which owns News of the World, one of England's biggest tabloids, apologized on Friday for hacking into celebrity voicemails, ending a months-long scandal that included some of the world's top athletes and royalty, as well as Murdoch's gigantic empire, still attempting expansion in the UK market. In a statement today, the company said it has "decided to approach some civil litigants with an unreserved apology and an admission of liability in cases meeting specific criteria," calling the misdeeds "a matter of genuine regret." The company previously blamed a "rogue" reporter and investigator, but seem now to just want the whole thing over with..."
Click to expand...

So... the owners are doing the right thing. Thanks for clarifying that. Again... saying 'yes, the paper that I own screwed up and I take responsibility' is not the same thing as 'I knew what was happening all along and well, gee golly, now that it is public knowledge I will accept responsibility'.

You are attacking Murdoch because you don't like the fact that his opinions differ from yours. You have NO foundation for the assertion that HE knew what was going on as it was occurring.
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO.... try READING the wiki link YOU posted. I am not suggesting that Murdoch didn't know about the 'royal' editor and the private investigator being jailed in 2007. I am asking YOU for proof that he KNEW AHEAD of time that this was taking place. Again, they are STILL trying to show that the PAPER's EDITOR knew about it. They haven't even found evidence of that as of now... yet you expect us to believe that Murdoch knew about it while it was happening?????
Click to expand...

<sigh> I'm saying that RM either tacitly or explicitly approved of the hacking, because the gossip uncovered sold lots of papers. I'm saying that if RM and his organization had seriously condemned hacking after the 2007 incident, it wouldn't have continued unabated.

This scandal broke in April, the organization admitted it, and set up a victims' fund. RM certainly knew enough to be cautious after the 2007 incident, even if he didn't know anything before it.
 
christiefan915 said:
<sigh> I'm saying that RM either tacitly or explicitly approved of the hacking, because the gossip uncovered sold lots of papers. I'm saying that if RM and his organization had seriously condemned hacking after the 2007 incident, it wouldn't have continued unabated.

This scandal broke in April, the organization admitted it, and set up a victims' fund. RM certainly knew enough to be cautious after the 2007 incident, even if he didn't know anything before it.
Click to expand...

LMAO.... which AGAIN is bullshit. He does NOT run the day to day operations of these papers. He puts people in place to handle these things. You again are simply stating your OPINION. It is what YOU WANT TO BELIEVE. You have offered NO evidence whatsoever that he tacitly or explicitly approved of the hacking.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO.... which AGAIN is bullshit. He does NOT run the day to day operations of these papers. He puts people in place to handle these things. You again are simply stating your OPINION. It is what YOU WANT TO BELIEVE. You have offered NO evidence whatsoever that he tacitly or explicitly approved of the hacking.
Click to expand...

And you have shown NO evidence whatsoever to show that he was oblivious to it.
 
christiefan915 said:
And you have shown NO evidence whatsoever to show that he was oblivious to it.
Click to expand...

Proving a negative? There is zero evidence suggesting that Murdoch was complicit in this. According to this criteria we should put you to death because you can't prove you didn't know about all the murders in your city. I mean you live there and stuff, we should just assume you know something and therefore are complicit.

Innuendo is enough, suggestions and assumptions, that should be enough to convict anybody that can't prove that they didn't know. Or we should put the convenience store manager in jail because one of his employees was caught stealing. He should have known... and can't prove that he didn't.
 
What Murdoch actually knew and what he ought to have known are two different things. The criminal conduct was so widespread and pervasive that, at the very least, the senior management of News International knew about it and did nothing (they are alleged to have actively encouraged it). It isn't too much of a stretch to suggest that Murdoch, if he didn't know what was going on, ought to have know and put a stop to it, particularly after the royal phone hacking scandal.
 
News Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch, his son James and another top executive have been asked to appear before a U.K. parliamentary committee to answer questions on the phone-hacking scandal.




Parliament's Culture, Media and Sport Committee has asked News Corp. deputy chief operating officer James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News International, News Corp.'s U.K. newspaper unit, to appear along with Rupert Murdoch at a hearing ...










http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812104576441822899595218.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
 
Damocles said:
Proving a negative? There is zero evidence suggesting that Murdoch was complicit in this. According to this criteria we should put you to death because you can't prove you didn't know about all the murders in your city. I mean you live there and stuff, we should just assume you know something and therefore are complicit. Innuendo is enough, suggestions and assumptions, that should be enough to convict anybody that can't prove that they didn't know. Or we should put the convenience store manager in jail because one of his employees was caught stealing. He should have known... and can't prove that he didn't.
Click to expand...



Fair enough, if you'll agree that Obama gets the same pass whenever a Dem gets caught doing something they shouldn't.

Deal?
 
christiefan915 said:
And you have shown NO evidence whatsoever to show that he was oblivious to it.
Click to expand...

which again is why I stated 'innocent until proven guilty' and why I objected to those who are condemning him for actions that have not been proven.

But again, do you honestly think he is aware of the day to day handlings of each of his media outlets? Or do you think he leaves it up to those in charge of each organization?
 
Damn Yankee said:
It looks like he did put a stop to it.
Click to expand...



LOL, after how many years?




Was that behind the scenes...or will you tell us a month from now, when the truth will come out?


In the meantime, I like watching the defenders of Murdoch's empire dance.


trolldance200op2.gif
trolldance200op2.gif
trolldance200op2.gif
trolldance200op2.gif
trolldance200op2.gif
trolldance200op2.gif
​
 
David St. Hubbins said:
What Murdoch actually knew and what he ought to have known are two different things. The criminal conduct was so widespread and pervasive that, at the very least, the senior management of News International knew about it and did nothing (they are alleged to have actively encouraged it). It isn't too much of a stretch to suggest that Murdoch, if he didn't know what was going on, ought to have know and put a stop to it, particularly after the royal phone hacking scandal.
Click to expand...

Yes, it actually IS a stretch. It is one of hundreds of companies Murdoch owns. He sees in 2007 a private investigator and the 'royal' editor get tossed in jail for what they had done. The police investigated and did not not charge anyone else. If I were Murdoch, I would have thought 'well, isolated incident, they were charged and convicted.... done deal'. We now see that it went deeper than that. While I agree the senior management of THAT paper should have known, it is a complete stretch to suggest that Murdoch should have known it was widespread etc....
 
(\(\(\/)/)/) said:
Fair enough, if you'll agree that Obama gets the same pass whenever a Dem gets caught doing something they shouldn't.

Deal?
Click to expand...

In most cases, yes. Like when he has to fire somebody for doing something stupid. You won't see me accusing Obama as if he were the one that did it.
 
Superfreak said:
which again is why I stated 'innocent until proven guilty' and why I objected to those who are condemning him for actions that have not been proven.

But again, do you honestly think he is aware of the day to day handlings of each of his media outlets? Or do you think he leaves it up to those in charge of each organization?
Click to expand...

Do I think he knows the quantity of newsprint ordered or the vacation schedule of the accounting department? No.

Do I think he knows that there's been a pervasive pattern of hacking, especially after one of his editors was jailed? Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top