Murdoch: Ouf! Is this meltdown?

[french frank]

The debate can be continued in the thread 'Murdoch diversion'.

Apologies if relevant posts have been removed there. There were rather a lot of posts. I have tried to leave the arguments of both sides on the main thread.

The Murdoch topic now, please.

[Serial_Apologist]

Would a completely separate thread entitled "War of Left and Right" be helpful? Then we could just have any posts about left wing this and right wing that referred to it and leave the other topics free of such stuff.

It will be fascinating to see how many a self-proclaimed left winger twists in his or her seat about, say, the notion of ending all inheritance so that the Government takes every penny. Similarly, the self-proclaimed right-wingers can explain how they feel about a widespread right to gun ownership in the aftermath of the riots.

Really - sorry - but it just seems to me like a discussion that often isn't even what it says it is.

Speaking as a self-proclaimed left-winger (surprise, surprise!) I would be in favour of abolishing inheritance provided I could buy the stuff back from the confiscatory government ministry concerned at the going market rate. :winkeye: :whistle:

Some left-wingers used to advocate workers' militias. I guess therefore I must be a liberal now.:erm:

[french frank]

If even people who are interested in discussing the topic keep derailing it, it will be closed as redundant.

Start another thread if you want to talk about something else :smiley:

[Serial_Apologist]

:ok: :blush:

[ahinton]

The debate can be continued in the thread 'Murdoch diversion'.

Apologies if relevant posts have been removed there. There were rather a lot of posts. I have tried to leave the arguments of both sides on the main thread.

The Murdoch topic now, please.

Indeed. The two principal issues at stake appear to me to be
1. the right of the police to bring to book those who may have committed criminal acts and/or civil offences and that of the judiciary to try those charged with either or both and
2. the lack of possible control over ownership of media.

In challenging those few members who have more than once attempted to brush aside rafts of potentially or actually suspect activities carried out by and under the auspices of certain news media as though those activities lacked importance and were accordingly being afforded undue amounts of media coverage, I sought merely to question whether they felt that it's acceptable practice for certain media staff to break the law and for media bosses to condone and encourage such lawbreaking by those staff; that's surely a simple matter of questioning certain people's apparent views of the rule of law and its validity.

In dealing with the question of whether attempts to control ownership of media organisations might impact upon certain information gathering activities of those organisations and their staff, I have observed that the more controls and restrictions that governments might try to impose upon who owns whom, the more they may be challenged in national and international courts and the more efforts those firms subjected to such government controls and restrictions will feel it incumbent upon them to make in order to conceal who owns whom, which is relatively easy to do as long as one has the money to do it.

I am unaware that my responses in repect of either of these can reasonably be described as having their origins in any particular "wing" of political persuasion and I do believe that these are the isssues that we face when considering what has happened and continues to happen, who is responsible for it and how it should be dealt with under the law.

[eighthobstruction]

central to the debate should ideally be the notion of the threat, and increasing possibility of the death of political ideology - not least, because this is literally what is at stake, in allowing media/etc monopolies. logically, we should all detest what is happening globally... that is unless people arent bothered about 'the death of political ideology', or the threat of 'the death of the democratic process'.

I'm worried that all the red brick graduates from the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's are all now just pursuing 'lifestyle politics'....running after that gite in Brittany, Normandy, the trip to Machu Picchu, Ankor Wat, the Landrover Discovery parked outside of the Rural Idle, the Second Home in Dorset or Devon....it is so sad that there has been this polarisation and the marginalised [you'd know if you had ever been marginalised] are left in swamp of innercity marginalisation....and all anyone can think about is ...."what can someone else do", "what can the government do"....
Those who were relying on the 'product' from shares and iniquities to finance their dream retirement, should maybe have found their dream locus in investing in the community in which they live....

[ahinton]

I'm worried that all the red brick graduates from the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's are all now just pursuing 'lifestyle politics'....running after that gite in Brittany, Normandy, the trip to Machu Picchu, Ankor Wat, the Landrover Discovery parked outside of the Rural Idle, the Second Home in Dorset or Devon....it is so sad that there has been this polarisation and the marginalised [you'd know if you had ever been marginalised] are left in swamp of innercity marginalisation....and all anyone can think about is ...."what can someone else do", "what can the government do"....
Those who were relying on the 'product' from shares and iniquities to finance their dream retirement, should maybe have found their dream locus in investing in the community in which they live....

I fail to understand what any of this has to do the the Murdoch situation; ff has made it clear that what's required here is a discussion of that, which is perfectly reasonable so, unless I'm being especially dense, it seems to me that the above does not fit into such a discussion.

[aeolium]

Indeed. The two principal issues at stake appear to me to be
1. the right of the police to bring to book those who may have committed criminal acts and/or civil offences and that of the judiciary to try those charged with either or both and
2. the lack of possible control over ownership of media.

I'm not sure the first of these really is an issue. The police have an obligation to take action against those suspected of committing criminal acts (not civil offences which are matters for private dispute), and the judiciary has an obligation to try anyone charged with a criminal offence, and to arbitrate between civil disputes arising. No-one AFAIK has questioned this. However, the competence and integrity of the police in pursuing that first obligation has been severely challenged and in fact has resulted in the resignation of two senior offices in the Met.
As to the second issue, I think it could be broken down into three separate questions: a) the issue of whether tighter regulation is required of the press as a whole b) the question of preventing too much concentration of ownership in the media and c) tangentially, the question of whether foreign ownership of any part of a country's media is appropriate. The last question would of course not merely be directed at News Corp's ownership of media in Britain, but e.g. the Lebedev ownership of the Independent and (majority ownership of) the Evening Standard.

[eighthobstruction]

....

[ahinton]

So very very very sorry A Hinton.....

An apology, genuine or otherwise, was neither expected nor requested nor required.

if you look back in this thread and the original thread/ dicussion that goes some months back [before you decided to grace the political threads on this forum rather than TOP

I am still a contributor at TOP, so your chronology and your assumption are misplaced and, in any case, my responses in this one are a good deal less politically oriented (at least in the sense of "wings") than those of certain others.

you would see and know that i have contributed and been a main instigator in this debate. IF i veer off, a bit, well tough. TOUGH.

I haven't doubted it and there's nothing wrong with the occasional veering off, provided that the topic is returned to but, in any case, I am not accusing you of anything here but pointing out that I do not understand the connection between your previous post and the topic; it might therefore have been rather more helpful and acceptable had you explained it rather than indulged in the over-sensitive assumption that you're being accused.

At least I do not subject folk to long winded cicum-navigation and endless point scoring, endless quoting, the proscription of a scrivenor, and the enactment of the darn right boring and multitudinous just to prove a laboured point....

Again, I had not claimed that you do any such thing though, once again, the need for you to provide a litany of those things that you purport not to do is less than obvious.

....Get off your high horse....we can all see the shortness of your legs....:ok:

It's very difficult to dismount from a horse when one has no horse and, as to my leg length which I have never declared anywhere other than when purchasing garments where that statistic is pertinent, it is unclear to whom you refer with your "we" and "all" here.

[Simon]

Indeed. The two principal issues at stake appear to me to be
1. the right of the police to bring to book those who may have committed criminal acts and/or civil offences and that of the judiciary to try those charged with either or both and
2. the lack of possible control over ownership of media.

In challenging those few members who have more than once attempted to brush aside rafts of potentially or actually suspect activities carried out by and under the auspices of certain news media as though those activities lacked importance and were accordingly being afforded undue amounts of media coverage, I sought merely to question whether they felt that it's acceptable practice for certain media staff to break the law and for media bosses to condone and encourage such lawbreaking by those staff; that's surely a simple matter of questioning certain people's apparent views of the rule of law and its validity.

For the record, as Alistair seems so often to lump things together and make erroneous conclusions:

In challenging those few members who have more than once attempted to brush aside rafts of potentially or actually suspect activities carried out by and under the auspices of certain news media as though those activities lacked importance and were accordingly being afforded undue amounts of media coverage

It is possible both to believe that these matters are important and also that they have been accorded undue ampounts of media coverage by those whose political views are generally opposed to those prevailing in NI and who have a problem with RM's ownership of media assets. That is exactly my position, and also, I suspect, that of some other posters.

I sought merely to question whether they felt that it's acceptable practice for certain media staff to break the law and for media bosses to condone and encourage such lawbreaking by those staff;

I don't think that you sought "merely" to question that, but never mind.

I do not think it acceptable for those in the media to break the law. I do not think it acceptable for those in the media to break confidentiality, to leak confidential information or to harrass individuals under the false flag of "public interest" either.

And if the furore about the criminal dishonesty of wikileaks and the Guardian were as vociferous from certain quarters as that about the criminal dishonesty of some at NI, then I'd say that a fair balance had been reached. But of course it hasn't.

You earlier asked me to "prove" the left win g bias of the BBC. I can't. I could spend weeks trawling through items that indicate this is so, but I haven't the time. Nor would it achieve anything. It wouldn't be proof either, just circumstantial evidence. So we may just have to differ about it. Nonetheless, I'm happy to accept Peter Sissons' comments, coming as they do from vast experience inside the organisation. Ignore him, if you like. :smiley:

[Simon]

...and all anyone can think about is ...."what can someone else do", "what can the government do"....
Those who were relying on the 'product' from shares and iniquities to finance their dream retirement, should maybe have found their dream locus in investing in the community in which they live....

What a perceptive and important post, IIMSS.

Self-reliance, helping the community and gaining a local stake in something worthwhile. The way forward, I think.

[ahinton]

I'm not sure the first of these really is an issue. The police have an obligation to take action against those suspected of committing criminal acts (not civil offences which are matters for private dispute), and the judiciary has an obligation to try anyone charged with a criminal offence, and to arbitrate between civil disputes arising. No-one AFAIK has questioned this.

Indeed, no one has directly questioned it but those who have contrived to convince themselves that the entire issue is the kind of storm in a treacup that will be over and forgotten by yesterday evening have undoubtedly sought to undermine it.

However, the competence and integrity of the police in pursuing that first obligation has been severely challenged and in fact has resulted in the resignation of two senior offices in the Met.

True, but that's the rather different question of whether the police actually do all that they are charged to do and how efficiently they do it.

As to the second issue, I think it could be broken down into three separate questions: a) the issue of whether tighter regulation is required of the press as a whole b) the question of preventing too much concentration of ownership in the media and c) tangentially, the question of whether foreign ownership of any part of a country's media is appropriate. The last question would of course not merely be directed at News Corp's ownership of media in Britain, but e.g. the Lebedev ownership of the Independent and (majority ownership of) the Evening Standard.

In analytical terms, that's pretty much on the nail, I would say, but these three things do not and cannot of themselves necessarily lead to the problems being overcome. Let's consider them one at a time.

Tighter regulation of the press in the present context presumably means tighter regulation not so much of the content that it prints but how it goes about sourcing the information that it publishes and there are already laws that cover such issues, as we have seen; how well those laws might operate in practice and just how comprehensive and reliable they may turn out to be remains to be seen over the next months and years in which investigations, charging and trials occur.

Prevention of undue concentration of media ownership is a very difficult one to manage, especially when that ownership is out of British legislative reach; telling firms that they much not purchase other firms has so far only really occurred when such issues have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and I cannot see that, if such attempted controls become more widespread than the kind of thing that gets referred there, a raft of legal challenges to them will ensue.

It would again be well-nigh impossible to prevent or even reduce foreign ownership of media organisations, not least because transparency of ownership will be reduced in proportion to the extent that governments try to interfere in what goes on outside their legislative scope in order to maintain clear corporate ownership audit trails; it's also worth noting in this context that, given the sheer volume of British firms that are owned by non-British parent companies, legal challenge to any such attempts would very soon becaome a major growth industry.

[french frank]

True, but that's the rather differetn question of whether the police actually do all that they are cahrged to do and how efficiently they do it.

More than that - it was about individual police officers possibly cooperating with criminal wrong-doing, and the possibility of a deliberate cover-up by higher-ranking officers. This is another aspect which has been dragged into the NI/NotW affair.

On Simon's point: I think he dismisses the aspect of 'public interest' - on which there may well be differences of opinion in any given case - too lightly.

[ahinton]

all anyone can think about is ...."what can someone else do", "what can the government do"....
Those who were relying on the 'product' from shares and iniquities to finance their dream retirement, should maybe have found their dream locus in investing in the community in which they live....

There is indeed undue attempted reliance on what "someone else" or "the government" can do about certain things although, that said, the electorate does not elect nor the taxpayer pay for government to sit and do nothing.

Your reference to "iniquities" when you presumably mean "equities" is at least amusing, but how else would you expect anyone to finance anything through savings? Almost all pensions and other investments and savings plans are heavily dependent upon investment in shares and equities; this fact applies not only to individuals and firms but also to local authorities and the state. What exactly should anyone have invested instead in the community in which they live and from what source might you expect them to come by it in order so to invest it? Salaries are heavily dependent upon shares and equities too (although some of them these days are also dependent upon borrowings in oreder for them to continue to be payable). Retirment is in any case becoming more and more of a "dream" rather than a reality for increasing numbers of people today who will simply be unable to afford to retire and therefore continue to hope that they can get work past state retirement age (as long as there remains such a thing as state retirement age).