Murdoch hacking scandal latest

[Mandryka]

Conrad Black, in today's Telegraph, posits that Murdoch's only real and enduring loyalty is to his business (Black knows and likes RM): he will drop anyone when it becomes apparent that they are hindering rather than facilitating its activities (that applies to members of his own family, too).

The only other things that Rupe will respond to are the activities of the market (Capitalism is his god and he is its high priest); thus far, his actions have been entirely consistent with his guiding principles.

[Mr Pee]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4081&Itemid=98&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailymash+%28The+Daily+Mash.+It%27s+news+to+us.%29&utm_content=Netvibes

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FEnDU7qMjYs/SC5dkVlt_iI/AAAAAAAAADc/c_5D4AqF7cA/s320/greenland_icemelt_2002.jpg

it was the mums wot dun it

[Anna]

Well, Rupert met the Dowler family and according to their Solicitor apologised profusely, adverts will be in all of tomorrow's paper, including The Metro, apologising profusely. Brooks has gone. Are these crocodile tears?

How doth the little crocodile
Improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale!

How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little fishes in,
With gently smiling jaws!

Is this genuine remorse or just the result of some Spin Doctor? But, then I am just a cynic.

[mangerton]

I don't think the murdochs - or for that matter the wades - know the meaning of remorse. There's sure to be several ulterior motives behind their actions.

[Mandryka]

Well, Rupert met the Dowler family and according to their Solicitor apologised profusely, adverts will be in all of tomorrow's paper, including The Metro, apologising profusely. Brooks has gone. Are these crocodile tears?

How doth the little crocodile
Improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale!

How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little fishes in,
With gently smiling jaws!

Is this genuine remorse or just the result of some Spin Doctor? But, then I am just a cynic.

People with any kind of ethical code will struggle to understand characters like Brooks and the Murdochs.

By all accounts, Murdoch talked a load of pious horseshit at his meeting with the Dowlers...about how the standards of his papers had fallen short of the example set by his (Murdoch's) father and mother (who is still alive ). This from a scumbag who has based several fortunes around the lowering of standards and the locating of new lowest common denominators.

It doesn't take a cynic to realise that the humility was fake, the sincerity was fake, everything was fake.

There is only one solution to the threat posed by Murdoch and his associates to freedom and democracy: the whole family (including those not involved in the business) must be eliminated, along with all NI executives and NI itself must be forcibly dissolved. And those who had worked for the NI organisation should be treated like boorzhois were in early Soviet Russia.


Murdoch is a vastly bigger threat to the world than Osama Bin Laden was, so I don't think this is a drastic solution.

[Mr Pee]

here is only one solution to the threat posed by Murdoch and his associates to freedom and democracy: the whole family (including those not involved in the business) must be eliminated, along with all NI executives and NI itself must be forcibly dissolved. And those who had worked for the NI organisation should be treated like boorzhois were in early Soviet Russia.


Murdoch is a vastly bigger threat to the world than Osama Bin Laden was, so I don't think this is a drastic solution.

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume the above is some sort of rather sick attempt at humour. However, I am rather afraid that you are serious. God preserve us.

It doesn't take a cynic to realise that the humility was fake, the sincerity was fake, everything was fake.

From the above comment, I can only surmise that you were present at the meeting between Rupert Murdoch and the Dowler family, otherwise I fail to see how you can possibly comment. Do tell us what you saw or heard at that meeting that gives you the right to so vehemently contradict the view of the Dowlers, as conveyed by their lawyer? And I presume you will be passing your report of the meeting onto the Guardian?

Mandryka, your tirade of hatred, invective, and suggestion of murder, is as disturbing and sick as the whole phone hacking affair. And yet you seem to presume some sort of moral superiority. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

[johnb]

One of the curious (i.e. unpleasant) features of the media in the UK is how it drives itself into hysteria (often over relatively trivial matters) and how individuals are portrayed in as evil monsters (almost like pantomime villains but without the self awareness).

I'm not saying that the hacking etc at the NotW is trivial but I do think there is a massive amount of hypocrisy by the media and the politicians. Is anyone truly shocked and amazed by any of this? We have all known this kind of thing goes on but we have chosen to avert our gaze.

[Mandryka]

Mandryka, your tirade of hatred, invective, and suggestion of murder, is as disturbing and sick as the whole phone hacking affair. And yet you seem to presume some sort of moral superiority. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

I re-read my post in the light of your comments and decided to delete my comment about the Murdoch Matriarch, who is no more blameworthy than Clara Polzl Sicklegruber.

Sadly, though, I feel I must stand by my comments: Murdoch and his organisation are far too dangerous to the free world to be tolerated. And I wasn't suggesting murder - that's why I specifically used the word 'elimination', though 'civil execution' might be a better term for what I am advocating.

Surely it's blindingly obvious to any government in the western world that Murdoch ultimately is aiming to create a dynaty that will dictate the politics of the developed world? He's not on anyone's side but his own. As such, he and his organisation need to be destroyed. Ever heard people speaking wistfully of how 'they' could have stopped Hitler in 1933? Well, we're a long way from our own 1933, but the point holds....

Btw, Mr P, would you happen to be Kelvin Mackenzie in the 'real world'? If so, I can quite understand why you took exception to my comments, though I'm afraid I stand by them.

[Lateralthinking1]

From an IQ level, life experience, etc point of view, I am rarely surprised. However, my feelings of how things should be, including a wish to believe that these are similar to those felt by most, have an almost endless capacity to be shocked, even traumatized. It is the sheer disappointment. It really strikes me in the head, the heart and the gut. I experience it emotionally and physically. People power seems to be growing. With more knowledge, citizens are prepared for the worst as never before and they are increasingly able to make effective waves. This though is a double edged sword. While striving to apply constraints, it accepts the principle of those with influence being unethical. A pyrrhic victory at best then if the excesses are curbed simply by legitimizing some shortfall on meeting much earlier recognized norms. No wonder each day of this Murdoch debacle feels positive and yet also full of doubt and rather hollow. If the banks have been baled out, what of all the ongoing dilution of constitutional rights and principles?

As sparks fly, there is still a lot of sloshing about the decks on the vessel we are told is reform. That sinking feeling doesn't go away as the vehicle is one our peer groups have chosen to build. And backgrounds matter here. Obviously it is a question of who steers and who prays to be somehow kept afloat. Those from ordinary homes, whether they wish for it not, have a dialogue on aspects of morality linked very closely to limited income - the work ethic v laziness, saving v profligacy and debt, economically secure relationships v insecure relationship patterns, relative sobriety v alcohol or drug dependency. Even to come through that minefield is an achievement and often it takes aspiration to do it before ever facing the thought of further travel. Teachers in all parts of the education system are there to drive that through - make the most of it, learning is good for you, look how far or how high it could take you. Automatically, this carries an inference of morality. Be good, try to be great is the precise route on to better things apparently. This is what the politicians and managers always say they want and people understand it subconsciously.

But then comes Stage Two, the working arena, and in virtually every part of it - this includes journalism as well as the police and the banks and all of the other modern day dragons - the methods tend to be very far indeed from ethical. The thinking there is more about retention of income and status. It is an impulse mainly in those for whom life has never been economically tough to ensure that they are never dragged down. The MPs and their officials wrote the handbook. The mantra? Whatever it takes, even if that is a cowardly instinct towards brute force. And, of course, never, ever apologise. Very risky in the courts. This leaves most ordinary folk in a dilemma. Once in work, can they adjust away from lifelong objectives of self-improvement and become similarly amoral or do they just earn a living, sticking to their original drives and roots? A few do make the transition and generally they are unsuited to ethical leadership. How could they not be? So then you have at the helm not only people who never had to worry financially about rights and wrongs but those who once had that worry but felt able and willing to sacrifice all, including principles.

In their mutually backslapping vacuums, both types are motivated to find all the right words for remaining defensively blase, the cover-up becomes a part of their character, there is a sort of unspoken in-club knowingness that is arch and there is an absolute lacuna on remorse. In fact, the latter is probably the biggest no go area. Some of them wish to be nasty and clearly have sadistic streaks. Others just find that they disconnect on cause and effect selectively in their own interests. Some are just plain wrong. I do believe that there are a few who are so skilful at the age old game they simply cannot comprehend adverse reaction. Even when it is there, they quickly regroup with a shrugging of the shoulders and, yes, I think that is a personality disorder as much as any other and built into the structure. At the end of the day, employment is use. The vast majority are used and the few in charge are the users. Being the antithesis of egalitarianism, it is no perfect church and almost by definition it is the devil to democracy.

Decent managers exist but are a systemic blip, a random happening, able to work with the dubious rules and apply them as sensitively as is possible. There is always that point of having to negotiate between the indefensible and the morally reasonable. To what extent can they temporarily abandon who they are in substance for some or other largely notional requirement? Even the better people have to find an answer to that one. As for the law, it too is not geared towards enlightenment - people are told that they may well have a moral case but not a legal case and so on. Better suited for cage fights than protecting or enhancing civilised lifestyles. Never a blanket. Depending on age of career entry, if in this climate it occurs at all, individuals sell their souls at 16, 18, 21, 24, whatever field they enter. The addiction to its benefits tends to warp them forever more. It also gives them no morally legitimate authority or meaningful connection to those who begin life on the lowest rungs. This, in a nutshell, is where the ship is sailing now. Root and branch reform is needed but only then will it fine tune. We all know it is much too late to disembark.

[MickyD]

One of the curious (i.e. unpleasant) features of the media in the UK is how it drives itself into hysteria (often over relatively trivial matters) and how individuals are portrayed in as evil monsters (almost like pantomime villains but without the self awareness).

I'm not saying that the hacking etc at the NotW is trivial but I do think there is a massive amount of hypocrisy by the media and the politicians. Is anyone truly shocked and amazed by any of this? We have all known this kind of thing goes on but we have chosen to avert our gaze.

Hear, hear, johnb. I am sure most people have always been aware that there are no depths to which such newspapers will stoop in order to get a juicy story. And millions regularly buy those papers. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just a fact.

[scottycelt]

Hear, hear, johnb. I am sure most people have always been aware that there are no depths to which such newspapers will stoop in order to get a juicy story. And millions regularly buy those papers. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just a fact.

Of course, and the accusation of hypocrisy regarding others is also valid.

However, the point is that the newspapers (and police) will now be forced to clean up their act ... just like the politicians over their expenses!

Whilst there will always be an element of corruption in any walk of life, the press in this country will now have to be much more careful how they behave. One journalist said recently that private phone-hacking is a 'grey area' in the pursuit of a story. What amoral balderdash! It's both illegal and an affront to personal privacy and dignity.

Surely the enforced end of such obviously widespread and abhorrent practices has to be 'a good thing' .. ?

[amateur51]

Surely the enforced end of such obviously widespread and abhorrent practices has to be 'a good thing' .. ?

With you all the way there, scotty

What about incorporating a detailed module on ethics theoretical & applications practical into Media Studies & Journalism courses?

And the Police training manual?

And in-service training for MPs?

[Mr Pee]

Sadly, though, I feel I must stand by my comments: Murdoch and his organisation are far too dangerous to the free world to be tolerated. And I wasn't suggesting murder - that's why I specifically used the word 'elimination', though 'civil execution' might be a better term for what I am advocating.

If you genuinely stand by those comments, then I am disgusted. I take it that you are also in favour of the death penalty for terrorists, paedophiles, and serial killers? Or is the ultimate sin in your strange morality to be a media baron whose views you disagree with?

I've read some nonsense on these boards over the years, but rarely anything as offensive as your postings on this thread.

[scottycelt]

With you all the way there, scotty

Has our 'raison d'être' on this Forum now seemingly coming to an end as we appear to be increasingly in accord with each other these days, amateur ... ?

Never mind, it cannot possibly last ...