Yes I agree he is pretty good. I saw an article by him yesterday in the Times and he made some very interesting points on the subject of plurality with regard to the source of news in the UK based on numbers produced by Ofcom.
His conclusion was if plurality regarding the source of news is a concern it isn't Murdoch you should be concerned about but the dominance of the BBC. It wasn't a case of having a bash at the BBC who he has much parise for but simply pointing out it overwhelming dominates TV news which accounts for around 70% of the public's news source and also dominates the online news arena which is the main source of news for the under 30s. Meanwhile newspapers are the main news source for less than 10%.
I think he has a rare ability which we could do more of; he understands the perspective of others while making a calm a defence of his own position with clarity.
He is a great anthesis to the John Gaunts and the Meleine Philips in that even though I may disagree with him on some things he puts a very clear view without the need to tubthump and jump on any old bandwagon.
All the Lib Dems come out with credit over all this. They were the only main party that never sucked up to Murdoch or his media empire.
Does anyone reckon they could benefit from a lot of anti-Murdoch votes at the next general election?
Just one more thing. I was watching the live parliamentary debate today on phone-hacking and something bothered me. A Lib Dem woman MP was trying to ask the PM a question and she was shouted down the whole way through her question. Cameron rightly criticised the MPs for this as he answered her question. Why was she shouted down and why didn't the speaker intervene?
The lady's name is Jo Swinson. I believe she has a bit of form on complaining about Murdoch and/or the BskyB bid. I saw her question but couldn't properly make out what she was saying, due to the shouting. Dave was being plied with questions about his relationship with News Corp and Coulson. Swinson's question was about the relationship between recent governments and Murdoch's empire, (she may have mentioned Blair?), the question went against the flow of questions trying to pin Cameron down and Labour backbenchers didn't like it.
I think both Vince Cable and Nick Clegg have come out on the right side of the line. I'm in two minds about Tom Watson - I genuinely admire his persistence but, following his rush to the chamber a week or so ago to tell us that Cameron had been less than honest (a move politely slapped down by the deputy speaker) believe that he's not half as interested in the moral aspect of the story as he is in the political capital he can squeeze out if it. Chris Bryant - not in a million years. Only in it for himself IMVHO.
Tom Watson - believe that he's not half as interested in the moral aspect of the story as he is in the political capital he can squeeze out if it. Chris Bryant - not in a million years. Only in it for himself IMVHO.
Tom Watson to a tee - a very tribal politician masquerading as a statesman. Chris Bryant is in love with himself, but has a genuine interest in the moral aspect of the story, I think. Vince has been vindicated, Clegg and the rest of the Lib Dems come out with credit by default.
Do you think Murdoch allows people to court him - if Murdoch wants you then you are invited in.
Maybe you're right but I have a suspicion that Murdoch would always give the most favourable coverage -via The Sun- to whichever party promised the least restrictive policy on his media interests.
I guess that, at the time, they didn't think that they would need to, nor did they have the opportunity, being so far removed from the prospect of Government.
You're probably right the Lib Dems didn't seriously consider needing Murdoch's support during the eighties and nineties but during the past decade I think it became obvious Blair and then Brown were in Murdoch's pocket. So the Lib Dems must've known in recent years they would have to talk to Murdoch to possibly change their political fortunes, yet they still resisted. They have my admiration for that. And they were rewarded in the end by achieving getting into a coalition government despite never getting any support from The Sun. I'll always be pleased avout that. As for not having the opportunity, its the chicken and the egg question. Did the Lib Dems not get the opportunity to talk to Murdoch because they were unlikely to win power or were they unlikely to win power because the Lib Dems didn't get the opportunity to talk to Murdoch OR chose not to talk to Murdoch? Will we ever know?
Tom Watson to a tee - a very tribal politician masquerading as a statesman. Chris Bryant is in love with himself, but has a genuine interest in the moral aspect of the story, I think. Vince has been vindicated, Clegg and the rest of the Lib Dems come out with credit by default.
He was a grade A prat when he was president at my university in about 1992. It was clear then all he gave a toss about was the Labour party, and his marxism (he famously had the complete works of Karl Marx in his office).
He certainly makes a better impression these days, but I still can't forget the lumbering idiot we called "Sherrif Fatman".
(he famously had the complete works of Karl Marx in his office)..
You'd be surprised how many politicians - both left & right wing - have his works to hand. I would say that you can't be a good politician unless you have read him
Sadly Saint Milliband called for him to sacked when he (allegedly) spoke out against Murdoch, And Cameron gave in by pulling him off the Sky deal.
Ouch.
Do you really think Cameron removed Cable from the BSkyB decision because of what Miliband demanded? After what Cable said he was lucky to still be Business Secretary. No way could he continue to "deliberate" once it was clear his mind was made up. Had David Laws not been further discredited I think he'd be in Cable's job now.
I don't see how Cable emerges from this with credit. He's kept a fairly low profile.
The lady's name is Jo Swinson. I believe she has a bit of form on complaining about Murdoch and/or the BskyB bid. I saw her question but couldn't properly make out what she was saying, due to the shouting. Dave was being plied with questions about his relationship with News Corp and Coulson. Swinson's question was about the relationship between recent governments and Murdoch's empire, (she may have mentioned Blair?), the question went against the flow of questions trying to pin Cameron down and Labour backbenchers didn't like it.
I see. Thank you. You see, if they hadn't shouted I would've heard that. All I heard was her saying something about Murdoch and I heard her mention the Lib Dems but nothing else. That's quite disgraceful isn't it? Im glad the Labour MPs are finally putting their weight behind an attack on Murdoch but to be also desperate to use it to discredit Cameron when they know damn well their own party were arguably even worse than the Tories for sucking up to Murdoch shows how little class a lot of Labour MPs have, especially as the Lib Dems are the only main party to come out with credit over this so Jo Swinson deserved more respect from the Labour MPs than that.
Cameron has a lot to answer for as well on this issue and I've not agreed with everything he's said or done but overall I think he's been a good Prime Minister so it would be a shame if he had to resign over hiring Andy Coulson, especially if it meant Ed Milliband and Labour getting back into government.
Yes I agree he is pretty good. I saw an article by him yesterday in the Times and he made some very interesting points on the subject of plurality with regard to the source of news in the UK based on numbers produced by Ofcom.
His conclusion was if plurality regarding the source of news is a concern it isn't Murdoch you should be concerned about but the dominance of the BBC. It wasn't a case of having a bash at the BBC who he has much parise for but simply pointing out it overwhelming dominates TV news which accounts for around 70% of the public's news source and also dominates the online news arena which is the main source of news for the under 30s. Meanwhile newspapers are the main news source for less than 10%.
I also say Nick Davies, who plugged away for years, when most news sources refused to mention it for fear of newscorp "reprisals".
The BBC dominates tv news, because it's a non-commerical activity! Exactly what the BBC is for, and why it's impartial (in fact, slight right wing bias).
Contrary to Newscorp propaganda, nobody is stopping a rival commerical tv news service from starting up! Look at all those satellite channels
Comments
Wouldn't be difficult:rolleyes:
http://www.newstatesman.com/newspapers/2011/07/pilger-murdoch-media-press
I think he has a rare ability which we could do more of; he understands the perspective of others while making a calm a defence of his own position with clarity.
He is a great anthesis to the John Gaunts and the Meleine Philips in that even though I may disagree with him on some things he puts a very clear view without the need to tubthump and jump on any old bandwagon.
Jesus. How terribly, bloody frightening this is. Thank you for posting the link.
The lady's name is Jo Swinson. I believe she has a bit of form on complaining about Murdoch and/or the BskyB bid. I saw her question but couldn't properly make out what she was saying, due to the shouting. Dave was being plied with questions about his relationship with News Corp and Coulson. Swinson's question was about the relationship between recent governments and Murdoch's empire, (she may have mentioned Blair?), the question went against the flow of questions trying to pin Cameron down and Labour backbenchers didn't like it.
Tom Watson to a tee - a very tribal politician masquerading as a statesman. Chris Bryant is in love with himself, but has a genuine interest in the moral aspect of the story, I think. Vince has been vindicated, Clegg and the rest of the Lib Dems come out with credit by default.
He was a grade A prat when he was president at my university in about 1992. It was clear then all he gave a toss about was the Labour party, and his marxism (he famously had the complete works of Karl Marx in his office).
He certainly makes a better impression these days, but I still can't forget the lumbering idiot we called "Sherrif Fatman".
He's even one of Vince Cable's 10 Greatest Economists
I don't see how Cable emerges from this with credit. He's kept a fairly low profile.
Cameron has a lot to answer for as well on this issue and I've not agreed with everything he's said or done but overall I think he's been a good Prime Minister so it would be a shame if he had to resign over hiring Andy Coulson, especially if it meant Ed Milliband and Labour getting back into government.
I also say Nick Davies, who plugged away for years, when most news sources refused to mention it for fear of newscorp "reprisals".
The BBC dominates tv news, because it's a non-commerical activity! Exactly what the BBC is for, and why it's impartial (in fact, slight right wing bias).
Contrary to Newscorp propaganda, nobody is stopping a rival commerical tv news service from starting up! Look at all those satellite channels
No idea but I'd hazard a guess that you might find some answers in your own thread on this issue.