Bombertalk

.....in the English speaking world, the power of Murdoch....MUST....be destroyed. Guthrie was a Hun editor.

The Brits have been having conniptions last week over his control of 40 per cent of their newspapers. If it was 70 per cent, they'd be tearing down Big Ben. And, of course, they're outraged by News's trashing of journalistic ethics.
....................


No wonder Hartigan was on the front foot last week, trying to quell any suggestions of poor corporate or journalistic behaviour here. The last thing he wants is for the British reader and advertiser revolt to spread to Australia. He doesn't support an inquiry into journalistic conduct either; in fact, he thinks it would be ''totally unnecessary''. So I suppose we'll just have to take the company's word that it's behaving ethically and responsibly here. But what if they're not or, at least, don't in the future? Who would uncover it?


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi ... z1SJRTrKmC

STOP BUYING HIS SHIT! We have the media we deserve.

Sismis wrote:STOP BUYING HIS SHIT!

I haven't bought a piece of shit for about 7 years now. And I'm proud of that fact.

I get it home delivered in the winter time as it is good for the fire.

Sismis wrote:STOP BUYING HIS SHIT! We have the media we deserve.

I don't Sis!!

you know I once spent almost 6 months working in a remote part of Canada. did not check the internet, read a newspaper or watch TV in that time.
I got to say it was one of the most happiest times in my life.

(it was over the off season with the footy)

I am convinced consuming news in its current form is not good for you.(thats not just murdochs press)

little_ripper wrote:you know I once spent almost 6 months working in a remote part of Canada. did not check the internet, read a newspaper or watch TV in that time.
I got to say it was one of the most happiest times in my life.

(it was over the off season with the footy)

I am convinced consuming news in its current form is not good for you.(thats not just murdochs press)

Interesting comment little_ripper and one I agree with.

We are just so saturated with information these days and so much of it is of little use.

Remember the "old days" pre internet, mobile phones, e-mail etc

Life was so much simpler. (ah the good old days )

[quote="filthy2"].....in the English speaking world, the power of Murdoch....MUST....be destroyed. Guthrie was a Hun editor.

The Brits have been having conniptions last week over his control of 40 per cent of their newspapers. If it was 70 per cent, they'd be tearing down Big Ben. And, of course, they're outraged by News's trashing of journalistic ethics.
....................


No wonder Hartigan was on the front foot last week, trying to quell any suggestions of poor corporate or journalistic behaviour here. The last thing he wants is for the British reader and advertiser revolt to spread to Australia. He doesn't support an inquiry into journalistic conduct either; in fact, he thinks it would be ''totally unnecessary''. So I suppose we'll just have to take the company's word that it's behaving ethically and responsibly here. But what if they're not or, at least, don't in the future? Who would uncover it?quote]

Why of course we have the Press Council of Australia, perhaps the most ineffective toothless tiger in exisitence. In fact, where have you ever seen an example of self regulation ever working???

I would not mind an inquiry into journalistic conduct here as maybe as a result we not only fend off any chance of going down the toilet with New Ltd. but we might change the mind set of some editors and get some balanced and informative reporting rather than the sensationlistic shit we have been fed since 1986.

We couldn't be that lucky could we?

If, as some media observers predict, chief operating officer Chase Carey ends up running the News Corp empire – and/or the Murdoch dynastic pretentions fall short and the company is broken up – the commitment by New York headquarters to a bunch of newspapers in this far flung corner of the globe may be tenuous to say the least.

In that event, power in this country and the dynamics of the Australian media scene may change for good.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/world ... z1SaYvEeRe

filthy,

do you think fairfax media has a bias to one particular political party?

Definitely Centre Left LR but much more balanced that Murdochs douche bags.

The Age has Peter Costello writing an article this very day with regular contributions from Remanda In Custody Vanstone, Ruddock (shiver), Gerard Henderson and Shaun Carney has a weekly Labor Bash. Plenty of spread both ways.

What is needed is the taking away of the 70% ownership Murdoch has in print media not to mention Foxtel and his runt runs Ch 10.....into several diverse media groups not just one old crook owning the lot and influencing elections.

little_ripper wrote:filthy,

do you think fairfax media has a bias to one particular political party?

What do you think Little Ripper?

Does Murdoch control 70% of newspapers, or 70% of circulation?

gringo wrote:

little_ripper wrote:filthy,

do you think fairfax media has a bias to one particular political party?

What do you think Little Ripper?

Overall I think the standard of the age, the herald (melb & syd) has gone downhill over the years. I think its obvious when they are pushing a particular agenda.

Currently they are very pro labor(or pro centre left as filthy has said as Turnbull and cohorts also seem to get a fair run). Could really stick the boot in, but haven't.

Used to be credible broadsheets, now at times it seems they publish as much bullshit as murdochs tabloids. Could be cost cutting, but I reckon they often get some pretty shoddy free lancers in there.

the FIN is a balanced read.(but thats what you'de expect from a quality business paper).

70% of Print Media Dom.

Below.

dom_105 wrote:Does Murdoch control 70% of newspapers, or 70% of circulation?

As said elsewhere Dom 70% of newspapers.

Question to you as a well educated, intelligent guy...do you like the thought of a foreigner...a Yank... now under strong suspicion of being a crook.....
virtually deciding who runs Australia?

Is that Democracy?

filthy2 wrote:

dom_105 wrote:Does Murdoch control 70% of newspapers, or 70% of circulation?

As said elsewhere Dom 70% of newspapers.

Question to you as a well educated, intelligent guy...do you like the thought of a foreigner...a Yank... now under strong suspicion of being a crook.....
virtually deciding who runs Australia?

Is that Democracy?

Thats if you actually believe he is that influential. I struggle to find that many people who take such a biased point of view as his rags in political matters.

most ppl read the hun/terrorgraph/ for the footy, entertainment and fluff stories. its the male version of womans day.

if you ask me its the radio guys who are much more influential.

little_ripper wrote:if you ask me its the radio guys who are much more influential.

Me too, but I think there are enough idiots out there who read the HS and do what it says.

filthy2 wrote:

dom_105 wrote:Does Murdoch control 70% of newspapers, or 70% of circulation?

As said elsewhere Dom 70% of newspapers.

Question to you as a well educated, intelligent guy...do you like the thought of a foreigner...a Yank... now under strong suspicion of being a crook.....
virtually deciding who runs Australia?

Is that Democracy?

The fact that News Corporation is owned by an American is of little concern to me. Indeed, that's probably at the bottom of the list of issues.

I think the most important issue is consolidation of media and competition of media.

I'll say it like this. Both Melbourne and Sydney have newspapers owned by both News and Fairfax. Australia as a country has national newspapers owned by both News and Fairfax (although it must be said that the FIN has a much more targeted focus). Perth has newspapers owned by News and Stokes, but there is no real competition. Canberra has newspapers owned by News (I assume the Daily Telegraph is available in Canberra) and Fairfax.

The situation in Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney is adequate. People are not forced to read Murdoch newspapers. Murdoch does not have a monopoly. There are other choices. And Murdoch sells papers in unbelievable numbers. Murdoch's perceived power is not due to the fact that he owns newspapers, his power is derived from the fact that his newspapers are popular.

So I have no problem with the Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph, because you have The Age and the SMH to provide balance. The situation in the other capital cities is different, but then again despite the fact that Murdoch has a monopoly, it's not protected. Anyone can start a newspaper.

You can compare all that to the situation in Italy. Now I love Silvio Berlusconi for the crazy old fool that he is, but I wouldn't want him leading my country. He's not only Prime Minister, he also owns or controls 90% of Italy's television channels (which includes RAI. No charter of independence over there). Now that is a dangerous situation that has realised itself over and over and over again. The beautifully ironic situation over there is the fact that it's Murdoch's Sky Italia providing balance in Italy. Just think about that for a second. (Although apparently Murdoch and Berlusconi hate each others guts, so not too bad)

I'll just say something else about this. There is a push for an inquiry over News Limited's operations in Australia. Now I think that if there is any evidence of any London hijinks then it is something that should be looked into.

But I think we should be very cautious. The temptation is there for Labor and the Greens to really unload, to use phone hacking as a trojan horse to really give Murdoch a kicking. Because there is no doubt that the current Government are copping a beating worse than Danny Green copped last night. But if their motivation is being driven by the want for retribution, and if they respect the concepts of a free media, they should be running away from such a fight at a million miles an hour.

You have had Bob Brown saying in the context of the current discussion that News Limited's right wing views are of concern. That threw up an instant red flag for me. Their political stance should have no bearing whatsoever on the legality or otherwise of actions that they may or may not have conducted in this country.

Bob Brown could not guarantee that such a precedent would not be abused in the future by a right/left government against a left/right media any more than he could guarantee that he will be a part of the Government's coalition until the end of time.