[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by CRTHD

I suspect that it is no coincidence, that the Guardian sat on the phone hacking allegations, (that all took place under Labour's watch) until Labour were safely in opposition and able to use the fall-out, for their own political gain.

In support of Transient1, Nick Davies broke the story Wednesday 8 July 2009 17.33 BST -

Murdoch papers paid £1m to gag phone-hacking victims
• News of the World bugging led to £700,000 payout to PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor
• Sun editor Rebekah Wade and Conservative communications chief Andy Coulson – both ex-NoW editors – involved
• News International chairman Les Hinton told MPs reporter jailed for phone-hacking was one-off case

[lundavra]

How much has the Guardian done about the Labour supporting Daily Mirror group? There is evidence of them being involved in hacking / blagging but no one knows how far it goes.

[Transient1]

Originally Posted by lundavra

How much has the Guardian done about the Labour supporting Daily Mirror group? There is evidence of them being involved in hacking / blagging but no one knows how far it goes.

You can bet there are loads of people looking into that not just the Guardian. I would imagine NI reporters have done their best to find evidence that the Mirror did hack and it amazes me that they haven't found anything concrete yet. It's unfair to frame the question the way you have though. It's as if because one conspiracy theory has failed miserably someone has to think of another one.

[sparkie70]

If I was a shareholder in newscorp & I would want to offload the papers as they earn peanuts compaired to SKY & could be a bargaining chip to any attempts to get News Corp to sell the tv side.

[lundavra]

Originally Posted by Transient1

You can bet there are loads of people looking into that not just the Guardian. I would imagine NI reporters have done their best to find evidence that the Mirror did hack and it amazes me that they haven't found anything concrete yet. It's unfair to frame the question the way you have though. It's as if because one conspiracy theory has failed miserably someone has to think of another one.

I think Newscorp are keeping the heads down regarding wrongdoing in other newspaper groups because they would be accused of trying to divert attention away from themselves. There had been evidence of some hacking by the Mirror (and the Guardian of course!) but much relies on the much higher number of complaints to the Information Commissioner about the Mirror and Mail groups than about Newscorp.

I am not into conspiracy theories but don't like hypocrisy which of course the Guardian is well known for.

[dean michael]

I am a SKY customer should I be worried over the OFCOM decision when it comes out?

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by sparkie70

If I was a shareholder in newscorp & I would want to offload the papers as they earn peanuts compaired to SKY & could be a bargaining chip to any attempts to get News Corp to sell the tv side.

Will under-fire Rupert Murdoch sell UK titles?

Murdoch declared before the Leveson Inquiry in his witness statement last week that
"As on 30 June 2011, approximately 8 per cent of News Corporation's revenues were generated in the UK,
of which approximately 60 per cent were generated by News International."

News Int. 60%

BSkyB <40%

HarperCollins and others the remainder!

[Transient1]

Originally Posted by dean michael

I am a SKY customer should I be worried over the OFCOM decision when it comes out?

No. There is every chance that they will compromise on Rupert selling his share anyway. Even if they don't it is inconceivable that BSkyB would stop broadcasting. Nothing will change for the viewer.

[flashgordon1952]

these two are something else !
They both unfit for being in charge of any company let alone a international one. Too me they should be forced to sell there shares in sky,the sun and the times and in fox in the usa and lose their us citizenship as well.
Did not the two deserados go to mexico ?maybe nothern cyprus would be a better place for those two !
Without the milly dowler illegal phone tapping , they would more than likely got away with it and there cronies too. (the red head and the rest of the sun/times and NOW editors and chief reporters who have been arrested and the police that was involved too).
The day of reckoning is comeing very soon!

[Nosegay]

It is rich for Parliament to say that Murdoch is unfit to run a business. Pots and black kettles come to mind.

[Transient1]

Originally Posted by Nosegay

It is rich for Parliament to say that Murdoch is unfit to run a business. Pots and black kettles come to mind.

That is a very poor defence of the Murdoch's. Parliament are our elected representatives. Parliamentary committees are part of the democratic process.

[StevenNT]

Originally Posted by lundavra

I think Newscorp are keeping the heads down regarding wrongdoing in other newspaper groups because they would be accused of trying to divert attention away from themselves. There had been evidence of some hacking by the Mirror (and the Guardian of course!) but much relies on the much higher number of complaints to the Information Commissioner about the Mirror and Mail groups than about Newscorp.

I am not into conspiracy theories but don't like hypocrisy which of course the Guardian is well known for.

So given you lay the charge toward The Guardian for hypocrisy. Would you have preferred The Guardian kept silent on the topic and pretend everything is totally fine and there is nothing to look at and keep NI's routine criminal acts covered up?

I totally applaud the The Guardian for taking several years of hard work to reach the point to blow the lid wide open on the goings on at News Int. The Mirror Group and the Guardian have been at the leveson Inquiry and as far as I know, I could be wrong The Guardian have nothing to hide compared to News Int. News Int have been way way deep in the phone hacking activity and went back a long long way much further back than was talked about at Leveson.

Originally Posted by lundavra

How much has the Guardian done about the Labour supporting Daily Mirror group? There is evidence of them being involved in hacking / blagging but no one knows how far it goes.

Look at Leveson for all your answers, all the newspaper groups gave evidence. The Guardian investigation was over News International solely and took them several years.

[samwalk]

Originally Posted by David Wright

If Labour had won the 2010 election and Gordon Brown was still Prime Minister,The Browns and Murdochs associates would all still be having pyjama parties with one another and everything would be well with the world.

Murdoch is even godfather to Blairs youngest child.

Its quite amazing how Labour has made themselves look seperate to Murdoch, but the truth is Blair and Brown were far more personally involved with Murdoch than any Tory Prime Minister has ever been (including Thatcher)

A staggering error of judgement that raised eyebrows at the time.

[captham]

Found this old letter from News International Ltd to Ofcom

"12 March 2004

Please find enclosed News International Ltd's comments on Ofcom's guidance on the public interest test for media mergers.

News International Ltd has been very concerned throughout the consultation process on the Communications Act (2003) about the proposal to give Ofcom a role in newspaper matters.

It should not be forgotten that newspapers were not regulated by any of the bodies that have been brought together to form Ofcom because newspapers, unlike the rest of the communications sector now under Ofcom's remit, have not traditionally been subject to statutory regulation in this country.

In the case of broadcasting, spectrum scarcity has meant that this sector has, to date, been licensed and heavily regulated by the state. Such conditions not do apply to newspapers and there has therefore been no justification for intervention by the state in newspaper editorial content.

Newspapers have historically been allowed the freedom to be partisan; to provide forums for debate and exchange of views and to campaign and try to lead debate through strident leaders and stories. In a democracy, the role of newspapers is of vital importance - they must hold to account the institutions of power on behalf of readers. That is why it is crucial not to give those institutions a policy stick with which to threaten newspapers.

We therefore remain very concerned about protecting the freedom of the press from statutory intervention. Our response focuses on the urgent need to define more clearly and to restrict Ofcom's role in a way that allows it to discharge its responsibilities without threat to press freedom.
(continues)"
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin.../ni_letter.pdf

(My emphasis)

How times change.

[peter05]

Originally Posted by captham

Found this old letter from News International Ltd to Ofcom

"12 March 2004

Please find enclosed News International Ltd's comments on Ofcom's guidance on the public interest test for media mergers.

News International Ltd has been very concerned throughout the consultation process on the Communications Act (2003) about the proposal to give Ofcom a role in newspaper matters.

It should not be forgotten that newspapers were not regulated by any of the bodies that have been brought together to form Ofcom because newspapers, unlike the rest of the communications sector now under Ofcom's remit, have not traditionally been subject to statutory regulation in this country.

In the case of broadcasting, spectrum scarcity has meant that this sector has, to date, been licensed and heavily regulated by the state. Such conditions not do apply to newspapers and there has therefore been no justification for intervention by the state in newspaper editorial content.

Newspapers have historically been allowed the freedom to be partisan; to provide forums for debate and exchange of views and to campaign and try to lead debate through strident leaders and stories. In a democracy, the role of newspapers is of vital importance - they must hold to account the institutions of power on behalf of readers. That is why it is crucial not to give those institutions a policy stick with which to threaten newspapers.

We therefore remain very concerned about protecting the freedom of the press from statutory intervention. Our response focuses on the urgent need to define more clearly and to restrict Ofcom's role in a way that allows it to discharge its responsibilities without threat to press freedom.
(continues)"
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin.../ni_letter.pdf

(My emphasis)

How times change.

Yes I bet they wished they could have got rid of OFCOM back then,

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by David Wright

Murdoch is even godfather to Blairs youngest child.

Have you got that the wrong way round - or is it as well as Tony Blair is godfather to Murdoch's daughter? Now it all makes sense ?

[pocatello]

Originally Posted by David Wright

If Labour had won the 2010 election and Gordon Brown was still Prime Minister,The Browns and Murdochs associates would all still be having pyjama parties with one another and everything would be well with the world.

Murdoch is even godfather to Blairs youngest child.

Its quite amazing how Labour has made themselves look seperate to Murdoch, but the truth is Blair and Brown were far more personally involved with Murdoch than any Tory Prime Minister has ever been (including Thatcher)

Whats amazing is just how this has become about censorship of your enemies. The inconvenient fact is that murdoch only succeeds because people support his companies. You can't attack the people, so the ideological enemies of murdoch try to attack him directly instead.

[samwalk]

Originally Posted by Dan's Dad

Have you got that the wrong way round - or is it as well as Tony Blair is godfather to Murdoch's daughter? Now it all makes sense ?

Are you suggesting that the Murdoch's moral compass was damaged in some way because Tony Blair was responsible for the family's moral guidance?

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by samwalk

Are you suggesting that the Murdoch's moral compass was damaged in some way because Tony Blair was responsible for the family's moral guidance?

No.

I am simply asking if is true that a Murdoch is a godparent of a Blair child - I am not aware that it is so, and all I can find about Leo Blair's god parentage is

One godparent was one of Cherie Blair's childhood friends from Liverpool and the other an old school friend of Tony Blair in Edinburgh.

[Transient1]

Originally Posted by pocatello

Whats amazing is just how this has become about censorship of your enemies. The inconvenient fact is that murdoch only succeeds because people support his companies. You can't attack the people, so the ideological enemies of murdoch try to attack him directly instead.

So people aren't bothered about the culture of lawbreaking that happened within Murdoch's empire or trying to find out how he nearly got away with it? Or why politicians of all elected parties found it necessary to cater for his every whim and put his interests before the citizens of this country? That isn't censorship, it's finding out what went wrong and making sure it doesn't happen again.

[pocatello]

Originally Posted by Transient1

So people aren't bothered about the culture of lawbreaking that happened within Murdoch's empire or trying to find out how he nearly got away with it? Or why politicians of all elected parties found it necessary to cater for his every whim and put his interests before the citizens of this country? That isn't censorship, it's finding out what went wrong and making sure it doesn't happen again.

Its clearly gone way beyond that, I'm pretty sure newsnight and ch4 devote 1/3 or more of their daily broadcasts to rehashing the same information on this story since it began. Politicians always cater to the press, and as long as there isn't a monopoly there is no issue with this. People are pretending there isn't a left leaning bbc in existence and the only source of news is the daily mail, its basically false outrage fueled by underlying ideological motivations. Its become so disproportionate that it has become a joke.

People seem to forget, politicians are far more dangerous than the press. The most screwed up countries are never run by the press, they are run by corrupt politicians, in such countries the politicians always run the press, they force control of the press for whatever reasons they drum up, you see this in russia and other places.

[Transient1]

Originally Posted by pocatello

Its clearly gone way beyond that, I'm pretty sure newsnight and ch4 devote 1/3 or more of their daily broadcasts to rehashing the same information on this story since it began. .

They clearly are not rehashing the same information all the time. We have constantly seen new information to keep this story in the news. In the last fortnight we have had the Jeremy Hunt emails and the media committees report. With Cameron, Blair. Coulson and Brookes still to appear before the committee you had better get used to it. This story is going to run and run.

Originally Posted by pocatello

Politicians always cater to the press, and as long as there isn't a monopoly there is no issue with this. People are pretending there isn't a left leaning bbc in existence and the only source of news is the daily mail, its basically false outrage fueled by underlying ideological motivations. Its become so disproportionate that it has become a joke.

Politicians have always pandered to the press. When it comes to the press thinking they are above the law and politicians having to go to meet one media baron to get their blessing off him before they are allowed to be Prime Minister then that is clearly a step too far. As for this being false and fuelled by ideological motivations you should remember that it is a right leaning Conservative PM who finally decided after the appalling Milly Dowler case that this had gone to far and needed a full inquiry.

Originally Posted by pocatello

People seem to forget, politicians are far more dangerous than the press. The most screwed up countries are never run by the press, they are run by corrupt politicians, in such countries the politicians always run the press, they force control of the press for whatever reasons they drum up, you see this in russia and other places.

Politicians shouldn't control the press and the press and media barons shouldn't control politicians.

[pocatello]

Originally Posted by Transient1

They clearly are not rehashing the same information all the time. We have constantly seen new information to keep this story in the news. In the last fortnight we have had the Jeremy Hunt emails and the media committees report. With Cameron, Blair. Coulson and Brookes still to appear before the committee you had better get used to it. This story is going to run and run.


Politicians have always pandered to the press. When it comes to the press thinking they are above the law and politicians having to go to meet one media baron to get their blessing off him before they are allowed to be Prime Minister then that is clearly a step too far. As for this being false and fuelled by ideological motivations you should remember that it is a right leaning Conservative PM who finally decided after the appalling Milly Dowler case that this had gone to far and needed a full inquiry.





Politicians shouldn't control the press and the press and media barons shouldn't control politicians.

Yes but being invited to this or that is no proof of anything. It relies unsupported assumption that the media control the voters to a ridiculous degree. People are fickle, and the press is hardly the power is used to be so the assumptions behind this fear are getting a bit silly.


It boils down to this, press doesn't control politicians, the politicians play to the press the same way they pander to the voters, making too much of this gets you in trouble.

[flashgordon1952]

Nor was hitler ! but he did ...

[mikw]

Originally Posted by pocatello

Yes but being invited to this or that is no proof of anything. It relies unsupported assumption that the media control the voters to a ridiculous degree. People are fickle, and the press is hardly the power is used to be so the assumptions behind this fear are getting a bit silly.


It boils down to this, press doesn't control politicians, the politicians play to the press the same way they pander to the voters, making too much of this gets you in trouble.

That's the way it SHOULD be, but the lines have been blurred on this one, and the media DOES have an effect on people's behaviour and perceptions.