Murdoch: Ouf! Is this meltdown?

[Mr Pee]

So the BBC alone got it right in the shallow world of the media.

A quick Google for "News events 3rd October 1995"- the date in question- brings up "OJ Simpson found not guilty" in entry after entry. Even on the BBC site. Not a mention anywhere of Tony Blair's exercise in self-promotion. Funny that........:erm:

[Mandryka]

Wikpedia is not an authoritative guide to anything.

Besides which, O J Simpson was barely known in the UK prior to his trial...he was only a celebrity in the USA, due to the popularity of basketball over there, a sport that has never gained a foothold in the UK.

The BBC was right to lead with Blair's speech, regardless of Campbell's bullying.

[french frank]

I was going to say: international cause célèbre v. domestic politics.

I'd be far more interested to be reminded now what Blair said in his speech than anything about the Simpson case - throwaway news.

Actually, Wiki says he was a footballer - or did they get that wrong? :smiley:

[Mandryka]

I was going to say: international cause célèbre v. domestic politics.

I'd be far more interested to be reminded now what Blair said in his speech than anything about the Simpson case - throwaway news.

Actually, Wiki says he was a footballer - or did they get that wrong? :smiley:

You're quite right, ff - he was an AMERICAN footballer, though - like basketball - American football has never gained wide currency in the UK.

[David Underdown]

(American) Football, he'd Made some film appearances too

[Mr Pee]

Wikpedia is not an authoritative guide to anything.

Who said anything about Wikipedia?

[Chris Newman]

If people would like to help persuade Parliament to debate limiting the ownership of the Media in Britain here is a link to an E-Petition begun today:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/murdoch_media_regulation/?cl=1253814458&v=10154

[ahinton]

If people would like to help persuade Parliament to debate limiting the ownership of the Media in Britain here is a link to an E-Petition begun today:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/murdoch_medi...814458&v=10154

I'm not convinced that restrictions on ownership of anything, however vociferous and determined the imposing government may be, can be guaranteed to be effective; it's rather the same with private equity firms to the extent that these tend to be far harder to pin down. Legislation on those lines might end up forcing a situation where it might look as though no more than a certain percentage of UK media or any other branch of activity is owned by any one organisation but, with phoenix outfits, private equity firms, instant changes of corporate ownership profiles and the rest in the market-place, the results of any such efforts will likely be no mor than cosmetic.

[handsomefortune]

Who said anything about Wikipedia?

google/wiki are not necessarily reliable.

(although i love em both dearly, as they can be really useful sometimes).

[handsomefortune]

thanks for that chris newman.

> cosmetic. <

i hope not ahinton.

however, evidently we wouldnt be reviewing the death penalty, if there hadn't been a (slightly mysterious) petition. did anyone ever see this petition ..... or was it russled up by friends and family of a strong advocate of this specific method of elimination ....(even though proven not to work).

[french frank]

I'm not convinced that restrictions on ownership of anything

This is a special case in that 'ownership' here amounts to giving one individual and his family/appointees global influence on the stories the public sees/hears and the slant given to them.

[Serial_Apologist]

however, evidently we wouldnt be reviewing the death penalty, if there hadn't been a (slightly mysterious) petition. did anyone ever see this petition ..... or was it russled up by friends and family of a strong advocate of this specific method of elimination ....(even though proven not to work).

Hanged if I know.... :winkeye:

[ahinton]

This is a special case in that 'ownership' here amounts to giving one individual and his family/appointees global influence on the stories the public sees/hears and the slant given to them.

Yes, I know that it is, of course - but the only difference that I can see between the present situation and that which miught pertain under a revised legislative structure that would seek to impose restrictions on such ownership is in the transaprency that would pertain following its imposition - in other words, all that such legislation would likely impose is a considerably greater requirement to conceal who really owns what.

[Simon]

Well, if any petition is being sponsored by that shady group of leftists "Avaaz", there's no question that it should be opposed for all it's worth.

The BBC has a similar monopoly on the UK news. Despite my being a big admirer of much that the Corporation does in its programming, there is no doubt that its political coverage is very much biased to the left. (At the moment it's trying its hardest to damage NI even more, by spending half its bulletins discussing what James Murdoch may or may not have known). Meanwhile, other stories - about life and death - go begging. Do we see Avaaz campaigning against that sort of influence? Pigs might fly...

[Chris Newman]

Simon,
Why do you believe the Murdochs to be such unimportant and upstanding citizens?