Murdoch: Ouf! Is this meltdown?

[french frank]

Well, getting back to Murdoch: more important, in my view, than the general point about phone-hacking (which is journalistic dirty tricks to get good copy, and unacceptable), is the closeness of politicians, especially those in government, to powerful media moguls. So Blair's extraordinarily close relationship to Rupert Murdoch is important. This will be reinforced, if the latest reports are accurate, in that the publicity surrounding the Murdoch christenings, for example the Hello magazine report, failed to even mention that Blair was there. Why? Too sensitive? How was it kept out of the news?

Indeed, the matter of how news reports are or can be manipulated comes under scrutiny.

[mercia]

baptism on the banks of the river Jordan, Blair "robed in white" - it all sounds a bit creepy (to me)

[french frank]

Absolutely right on all points Mr P. Fair and balanced - impossible to argue against. Many thanks.

I argued against it. I argued that it was important to know about the close relationships between politicians and media moguls. And suggested that the christening reporting suggested that there might have been deliberate media manipulation: who, what, why?

[Simon]

Well, getting back to Murdoch: more important, in my view, than the general point about phone-hacking (which is journalistic dirty tricks to get good copy, and unacceptable), is the closeness of politicians, especially those in government, to powerful media moguls.

Some time ago I said I was going to start a thread about my concerns about the relationship between media, business and government. Someone was even kind enough to say they would look forward to such a discussion. I never got around to it, though.

I haven't really time now, either, but I'm even more sure that it needs to be discussed - not in the current climate of the left's frenzied "we hate Murdoch and anything remotely to the right of centre and we're so glad we've got the chance to kick him", but in terms of the terrible symbiotic relationship that has grown up between all three, whereby they each provide for a need for each other and each feed off each other.

Nothing wrong there, some might say.

But I think there is. Because the losers in all of this are the ordinary people of the country, who are conned, gulled, deceived, patronised and fed a diet of such utterly destructive pap that society is disintegrating because of it.

"Cui bono?", one has to ask. And the answer is the few at the top of all the three. Firstly, the showmakers/"celebs" who manipulate the news so well and who build fake story on fake story, fake drama on fake drama, fake crisis on fake crisis and outdo themselves each year in the extent of depravity they can manage to get into their grubby, sexualised, demeaning, predatory "shows".

Secondly the tabloid journos/owners and the news programme makers who do exactly the same and twist any story to get more shock/horror drama - "you've got the slant - now make me up a story to fit it". But guess what? They need the first lot to sell their papers/increase their audience share, and the first lot, in turn, need them to publicise their shows.

Lastly, there are the politician/lawyers (note how many are both) who have to curry favour with the powerful in the media - journalists as well as owners - to stand any chance of getting across any of their policies - but the media people can't push it TOO far, as the last thing they want is any form of regulation. "I think self-regulation for us is the best way", said the Alan Rusbridger recently, echoed no doubt by every other editor. No surprise there then.

So there they are - all jostling, pushing, deceiving, blaming, sucking up to one another - even to the ones they detest - because nobody can afford to stop the bandwagon of decline, hypocrisy and corruption.

The advent of TV/radio was bound to change the face of politics in all democracies. What a shame it's done so much damage as well as a bit of good.

[Serial_Apologist]

Some time ago I said I was going to start a thread about my concerns about the relationship between media, business and government. Someone was even kind enough to say they would look forward to such a discussion. I never got around to it, though.

I haven't really time now, either, but I'm even more sure that it needs to be discussed - not in the current climate of the left's frenzied "we hate Murdoch and anything remotely to the right of centre and we're so glad we've got the chance to kick him", but in terms of the terrible symbiotic relationship that has grown up between all three, whereby they each provide for a need for each other and each feed off each other.

Nothing wrong there, some might say.

But I think there is. Because the losers in all of this are the ordinary people of the country, who are conned, gulled, deceived, patronised and fed a diet of such utterly destructive pap that society is disintegrating because of it.

"Cui bono?", one has to ask. And the answer is the few at the top of all the three. Firstly, the showmakers/"celebs" who manipulate the news so well and who build fake story on fake story, fake drama on fake drama, fake crisis on fake crisis and outdo themselves each year in the extent of depravity they can manage to get into their grubby, sexualised, demeaning, predatory "shows".

Secondly the tabloid journos/owners and the news programme makers who do exactly the same and twist any story to get more shock/horror drama - "you've got the slant - now make me up a story to fit it". But guess what? They need the first lot to sell their papers/increase their audience share, and the first lot, in turn, need them to publicise their shows.

Lastly, there are the politician/lawyers (note how many are both) who have to curry favour with the powerful in the media - journalists as well as owners - to stand any chance of getting across any of their policies - but the media people can't push it TOO far, as the last thing they want is any form of regulation. "I think self-regulation for us is the best way", said the Alan Rusbridger recently, echoed no doubt by every other editor. No surprise there then.

So there they are - all jostling, pushing, deceiving, blaming, sucking up to one another - even to the ones they detest - because nobody can aford to stop the bandwagon of decline, hypocrisy and corruption.

The advent of TV/radio was bound to change the face of politics in all democracies. What a shame it's done so much damage as well as a bit of good.

Well, you have found the time then, Simon, (if you're still able to read this). This is part of the criticism, but what lies behind what has made newspapers what they have become? That is the question.

[Simon]

I argued against it.

I don't think you did, IIMSS.

Please find below the section of Mr P's sensible post that I quoted and referred to. I can't locate any post of yours opposing these particular points. I suppose that your general argument might be construed as disagreeing with the penultimate sentence, but apart from that...

But I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong...

...the Guardian have been awaiting their chance to put the boot into Murdoch for many years, and now they have that opportunity, they're making the most of it. The same goes for much of the Labour party and indeed the Lib Dems, as well as the wider left within Britain. Murdoch represents everything they detest- success, wealth, power and -as they see it- the wrong kind of politics.

And it is not just anti-Murdoch lefties getting their knickers in a twist, although that's a large part of it. It's also the meeja in general, who are caught between jumping on the bandwagon whilst at the same time being fearful that their own underhand skulduggery over the years will soon also be exposed. And of course the media love nothing more than reporting on themselves whilst at the same time seeing a competitor being hauled over the coals.

In short, it's a storm in a teacup that has been blown out of all proportion by the media and the anti-Murdoch brigade. The fact that newspapers sometimes employ underhand tactics has always been a given as far as I'm concerned.

[Simon]

Well, you have found the time then, Simon, (if you're still able to read this).

Yes, I can see it, S-A. I hadn't got around to ignoring you. And if you're going to put sensible questions, then I'll grant you a reprieve. :laugh:

This is part of the criticism, but what lies behind what has made newspapers what they have become? That is the question.

And one that perhaps we can have a sensible and unhysterical debate about.

[french frank]

But I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong...

I argued about two things in this statement of Mr Pee, which you quoted: "In short, it's a storm in a teacup that has been blown out of all proportion by the media and the anti-Murdoch brigade. The fact that newspapers sometimes employ underhand tactics has always been a given as far as I'm concerned." I will expand on them.

1. The matter of how close politicians (especially those in government) were to media moguls was not a 'storm in a teacup'. I said it was important, because deals between politicians and those who have the power to influence the opinions of the general public affect our whole system of democracy.

2. It is not simply about the newspapers employing 'underhand tactics': in fact I said that the phone-hacking was less important, because in the case of the NotW most of it was only concerned with celebrity gossip anyway. It is the newspapers and the politicians. Hardly a 'storm in a teacup' since according to Ms Deng Blair and Murdoch were very close and therefore one may presume the relationship had been cultivated over a long time. Most important was NI's bid for BSkyB. Politicians have the power to block such deals if they are not in the national interest. In the US people believe what Murdoch's Fox News tells them, even though it's scandalously biased. That's another reason why Murdoch should not be allowed to increase his power in this country and influence both the print and the broadcast media as he wishes.

[Lateralthinking1]

I wonder if Blair and Murdoch ever laid down their pitchforks to pray together.

[Lateralthinking1]

No one mentions this guy. Thought he had an important advisory role. You can tell by the strong, believable smile -

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...-CXMbhUa5_weqf

And then of course there was this one. He was the main man when smoke appeared from Italian towers to declare that the youngest Murdoch was indeed among the truly blessed -

http://www.zoa.org.uk/px/0andrew.jpg

[Simon]

I argued about two things in this statement of Mr Pee, which you quoted: "In short, it's a storm in a teacup that has been blown out of all proportion by the media and the anti-Murdoch brigade. The fact that newspapers sometimes employ underhand tactics has always been a given as far as I'm concerned." I will expand on them.

1. The matter of how close politicians (especially those in government) were to media moguls was not a 'storm in a teacup'. I said it was important, because deals between politicians and those who have the power to influence the opinions of the general public affect our whole system of democracy.

2. It is not simply about the newspapers employing 'underhand tactics': in fact I said that the phone-hacking was less important, because in the case of the NotW most of it was only concerned with celebrity gossip anyway. It is the newspapers and the politicians. Hardly a 'storm in a teacup' since according to Ms Deng Blair and Murdoch were very close and therefore one may presume the relationship had been cultivated over a long time. Most important was NI's bid for BSkyB. Politicians have the power to block such deals if they are not in the national interest. In the US people believe what Murdoch's Fox News tells them, even though it's scandalously biased. That's another reason why Murdoch should not be allowed to increase his power in this country and influence both the print and the broadcast media as he wishes.

So, as I intimated, you argued against the penultimate sentence. Fair enough. You can't argue about the last one, as the fact that newspapers emply underhand tactics is " a given " for Mr P is simply a fact that relates to his own view. Even so, I expect most would agree with him on this point.

As regards:

Most important was NI's bid for BSkyB. Politicians have the power to block such deals if they are not in the national interest. In the US people believe what Murdoch's Fox News tells them, even though it's scandalously biased. That's another reason why Murdoch should not be allowed to increase his power in this country and influence both the print and the broadcast media as he wishes.

Well, that's one view. In the US Fox News is hated by a certain section of the US public as it doesn't peddle the politically-correct, neo-liberal, west-coast message. You say it's scandalously biased: others say how important it is to balance the stuff churned out by the left. It's no more biased on politics than the BBC - I listened to Today a week or so ago with absolute horror at the agenda that Naughtie was openly pushing. As regards BSkyB, I'd be delighted to see a group willing to err on the side of traditional values and common sense take a larger slice of the media in the UK, to balance the Guardian, the Mirror, the BBC and ITN/C4 - so what you see as not in the national interest others would see as very good for the country.

[Lateralthinking1]

Simon - LBC in London. Nick Ferrari at breakfast and James Whale at teatime sound like the Express/Mail while James O'Brien in the main part of the morning could be the Guardian/Mirror if those papers could talk rather than simply write. I find them all too one sided but their overtly journalistic styles enable one to know roughly where they stand. If the ways in which we traditionally understood/understand politics can still be comprehended via references to specific papers, I am not sure that it applies to other papers or the parties themselves. Bizarrely, it was a very neutral sounding Telegraph which broke the story on MPs expenses. The Times under Murdoch is not what it used to be. Even the late Queen Mother commented to that effect. In the main political arena, Blair was that quaint mixture of Wilson and Thatcher. Cameron is never sure whether he is Thatcher or Macmillan.

The BBC moved from being a pillar of the establishment in the days when radio announcers wore dinner jackets to something very different in the sixties. It isn't John Snagge or Alvar Liddell. Perhaps that is partially because there isn't a war as such. And from this dog's breakfast of media and politics, it and we are all supposed to comprehend concepts like traditional values and political neutrality. I actually think that to do so 100% of the time is nigh on impossible. It might be that the BBC can be perceived by some as being to the left because it opposes cuts and mucking around with the licence. If so, I would simply observe that such things are not just ambitions among Conservatives. Brown had the potential to be equally difficult in that regard.

So then you have the issue of what happens if someone like Murdoch becomes very cosy indeed with someone like Osborne. Well, not a lot spectrum wise, I would suggest, when someone like Murdoch was also very cosy indeed with someone like Blair. I don't think that traditional values, however one might perceive them, are likely to be heard consistently in that situation. On one level, Murdoch is there to swing whichever way the wind and money blow. On another, he hardly needs to move at all other than in terms of who he chooses to have as chums because Cameron, Clegg and Blair, they are all liberals aren't they, and at a time when even liberalism isn't at all as we knew it. He and Nigel are unlikely to be doing business, nor indeed he and Caroline Lucas.

Increasingly I find that I am less bothered by the opposing views on topics. People will believe one thing or they will believe another. That is the human way. No, what concerns me now is that the entire dialogue has been swamped by crookedness and corruption, not to mention ineptitude and insanity, in so many areas. No wonder everything is going to pot. When Nadine Dorries complains that her own party is effectively applying a whip to a debate where members should have a free vote, how can there be any confidence that democracy will prevail? It has to fight for its right to exist even before the debate can take place. In a sense, on the rare occasion that an MP stands up and moans, that is the voice of the people, irrespective of her pet subject or specific views. The rest tends to work as if we are the enemy and a good part of the reason is the influence of Government friends.

[Simon]

No, what concerns me now is that the entire dialogue has been swamped by crookedness and corruption, not to mention ineptitude and insanity in so many areas.

Ah, Lat. I wonder if you know how right you are about the first two. The third was always there in some way. The fourth is maybe overdoing it a bit but I know what you mean.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

....

... it resumes

[Mr Pee]

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?2657-Murdoch-Ouf!-Is-this-meltdown&p=78942#post78942