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

[Guns Guns Guns]

The public backlash against News International saw sales of Rupert Murdoch’s other newspaper titles slump at the weekend, according to the latest industry figures.

While the final souvenir edition of the News of the World sold 3.8 million copies, the paper’s stablemates, The Sun, The Times and the Sunday Times, suffered some of their worst circulation figures this year.





And as the furore over phone hacking and illegal payments to police officers spread to the other titles in the group, questions are being raised over their long term future.


Such was the anger over the affair that many disgruntled people set up Facebook pages and Twitter accounts calling for a boycott of Murdoch owned newspapers.








http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...rs-suffer-sales-slump-over-phone-hacking.html

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Whereas you wouldn't happen to be supporting him because his organization is a RW shill that panders to conservatives?

You have an odd sense of 'support'. I am stating that he is innocent until proven guilty. Which he is. I am saying YOU are wrong in stating he is guilty when you have shown NO evidence at all, not even the slightest thread of guilt.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't know. You'd have to ask Obama that one.

Here's a question for you: Who gives a shit?

Well, as RAMPANT as it has become you would think he would have stepped in and corrected the problem.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

 

[Bonestorm]

Well, as RAMPANT as it has become you would think he would have stepped in and corrected the problem.

Asinine.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

As are you.

Yes, and I have stated just that. Whereas you previously have condemned Murdoch and proclaimed him guilty based on opinion. I have not stated he is innocent or guilty, I have simply pointed out that it is rather absurd to think that a person who owns over 100 media outlets would be involved to the level you are suggesting.

No, it's disgust based on the fact that this organization stooped so low to bring down people whose views they disagree with. Not to mention the shameless and despicable hacking into the murdered girl's phone. This wasn't even under the guise of politics, it was pure shameless use of a tragedy to sell papers.

yeah, I do agree that the hacking (especially of the murdered girls phone) is shameless. I do find it rather funny though that so many on the left are harping on the 'stooping so low' aspect of it though. Not to go all 'they do it to' on you, but ask yourself.... all those classified leaks that take place daily in DC.... what do you suppose makes those people leak the info? Do you really believe other news sources aren't going all out to bring people down whose views they disagree with? Should we look at the article history on Palin, Bachmann, etc... from places like huffpost, moveon.moron, etc...???

No, I don't hold him to that standard but you can't pretend conservatives don't. And those examples aren't even on the same level.

Actually, they ARE on the same level. Murdoch has thousands of employees at hundreds of firms that he owns. Obama has thousands of employees at hundreds of branches of the government that he is in charge of. They are very similar indeed.

Murdoch said they're going to take steps to "address[ing] these issues fully and have taken a number of important steps to prevent them from happening again." Why wasn't this done in 2007? Why are they only taking the steps now?

I am not Murdoch, so I cannot say for sure. My guess would be he was unaware of the extent of the occurrences. That he thought the issue resolved with the arrest and conviction of the two employees.

That the organization said it's working with the cops isn't in dispute. Yet in 2007, the cops were being paid for their silence so why should I give their statement of cooperation any credibility now? I'd rather wait until the full investigation is completed. Read this link about missing emails.

ROFLMAO.... so, you condemn Murdoch before the full investigation is completed, but you want the full investigation completed to determine the police credibility????

I'm saying that every day more news is coming out about all the cover-ups and complicity; that it wasn't limited to two employees in 2007; that police were bribed for their assistance and/or silence; and that the whole thing is a much bigger deal than you're trying to paint as a random issue at one paper.

yes, every day more news is coming out....

No, I am not trying to paint it as a random issue.... I am suggesting we wait until the investigation is over before proclaiming 'Murdoch is da evilzz' as you and others have done.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It's just the same standard reply Yurt has when he can't debate the facts on their merit.

what facts? your OPINION and SMEAR tactics are not facts.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Asinine.

yes, you are.... and????

 

[Bonestorm]

yes, you are.... and????

FARGLE BARGLE.

 

[zappasguitar]

Now you are just being a twat. I expected more of you.

It's the part he's chosen to play more often than not these days...he must feel we don't get enough twat on these boards since ID and disloyal stopped posting regularly.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I am an idiot.

Yes, we know... and?

 

[christiefan915]

You have an odd sense of 'support'. I am stating that he is innocent until proven guilty. Which he is. I am saying YOU are wrong in stating he is guilty when you have shown NO evidence at all, not even the slightest thread of guilt.

I first became aware of Murdoch back around 1990 or so, when his newspaper published intercepted phone calls between Princess Diana and James Gilbey. So he and his organization have a history dating back long before the latest incident.

The man's a sleazemeister, always has been, always will be. My opinion of him isn't based on politics, it's based on his checkered history of dishonest, unethical practices.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

News Corp has announced plans to buy back $5bn (£3.2bn) of its shares in an attempt to halt the slide in value of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire.




The growing phone hacking scandal has sent News Corp’s shares down 13% since the story first broke. The share price collapse had wiped more than $5bn off the market value of News Corp.




The drop was most painfully felt by the Murdoch family, which with a 39.7% shareholding, saw its paper fortune reduced by more than $2bn.








http://www.politicususa.com/en/rupert-murdoch-bleeding-cash-plummeting-news-corp
​

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I first became aware of Murdoch back around 1990 or so, when his newspaper published intercepted phone calls between Princess Diana and James Gilbey. So he and his organization have a history dating back long before the latest incident.

The man's a sleazemeister, always has been, always will be. My opinion of him isn't based on politics, it's based on his checkered history of dishonest, unethical practices.

LMAO....as if all the lefty news owners are perfect...you never complain about them. and tell us....what dishonest, unethical practices (be specific) do you base your opinion on? and --> do you believe that the other news corps, like cnn, msnbc are innocent of the same?

 

[Lowaicue]

LMAO....as if all the lefty news owners are perfect...you never complain about them. and tell us....what dishonest, unethical practices (be specific) do you base your opinion on? and --> do you believe that the other news corps, like cnn, msnbc are innocent of the same?

The press, of all colours, is always under suspicion, however to knowingly use proven and convicted criminals to achieve their ends is, at the very least, unwise. When a scoop comes into the newsroom the editor MUST, obviously, know and he MUST, again obviously, ask questions to justify its publication.

The manager (editor) of any company is obliged by ethical considerations at the very least to report any findings that might suggest activities not to the usual standards of the company. In a company of several entities that information MUST go to the most senior person available at the time.

If that person decides not to pass the information upwards then he should, when discovered, lose his job and, where necessary face the law. The person who made the final decision to hire that person MUST accept that his decision jeopardised the company and should be fired.

OK. Simple so far.

Lets add this: Each journalist on the NOTW faced the daily threat of dismissal if he did not meet his target of bylines. That is fact. (No I will not. Do it yourself.)

Let's add this: No CEO faced with one of his companies being extremely profitable, will not ask why and will not expect other companies in the same stable to copy that success.
The executives of News Corp and News Int have known, ever since Murdoch first took control of the NOTW, his FLAGSHIP paper remember, that their jobs were on the line. To meet Murdochs requirements for profit and circulation would have been absolutely impossible without 'bending' some rules.

To conclude: Murdoch was in the hot seat and proud to be an associate of leading politicians and the mega rich. Look at his board members (yes, that's right, you can google them). If he did not know how his money was being made, if he didn't know what was happening in his FAVOURITE acquisition, then he was asleep at the wheel. He is motivated almost entirely by power. He knew.
Certainly his son, James, knew. Certainly Rebecca (cant be bothered with her stupid spelling) knew.

Murdoch, here is your solution: Off load all UK interests. Get out of the country. You are not welcome in the land of your birth. You are not welcome in the UK. And its a pound to a penny that when everything is revealed you will not be welcome in the US.
Afghanistan is nice at this time of the year.

PS. Some here suggest that people with anti Murdoch views support left wing politics. SO DID MURDOCH until shortly before the last UK ELECTION!

 

[Lowaicue]

BSkyB climbdown

Dirty Digger pulls out of BSkyB bid. Two down, two to go. City of London suggest Murdoch has been hurt. Cammers of the Lower Fifth vows that investigations will go right to the top.
Good news indeed.

 

[christiefan915]

LMAO....as if all the lefty news owners are perfect..

LOL. Same old yurt deflection: "they did it, too." You need some new material.

you never complain about them.

I condemned the person who hacked into Palin's email account a few years ago, and it didn't matter that my opinion of her is low, you liar. Now suppose you show where I gave criminal actions a pass, just because the crimes were committed by the left.

and tell us....what dishonest, unethical practices (be specific) do you base your opinion on?

This entire thread is about hacking, getting personal financial and medical information on public figures, and printing it in a tabloid. Is this illegal, yes or no?

and --> do you believe that the other news corps, like cnn, msnbc are innocent of the same?

First of all, I don't have cable so I really don't know what these corps. do unless I read or hear about it elsewhere. Second, CNN and MSNBC are considered mainstream news organizations while NOTW was a tabloid on the level of the National Enquirer, so your comparison isn't valid. But I do believe that National Enquirer, Star, Globe, etc. engage in shady practices because they've been sued for this kind of thing, and lost.

Boy, you're as dumb as a plank. Does your brain even comprehend what you're reading before you engage your fingers?