We're on Country #3 and Nobody Wants to Discuss News Corp???

Ahhhhhhh! Murdoch seems to be getting what he deserves.

A claim by Jude Law could bring Rupert Murdoch a whole new American headache

The actor is alleging that the News of the World--the now-shuttered tabloid whose industrial-scale hacking operation has plunged Murdoch's News Corp into its deepest-ever crisis--illegally listened to his voicemails while he was in the United States, according to a report in the Daily Mail.

Scores of celebrities and high-profile figures have allegedly had their phones hacked by the paper, and at least one--Sienna Miller--has received a formal apology and a six-figure settlement. But Law is the first to claim that he was hacked on American soil--something that, as the Mail writes, could open Murdoch to a U.S. prosecution.

The scandal has become so dire, however, that it is just one of several potential legal threats Murdoch faces in the U.S. The FBI is investigating claims that News of the World reporters tried to hack into the phones of 9/11 victims. There is also speculation that the company could be found liable under U.S. foreign anti-corruption laws if it is found to have bribed British citizens to keep them quiet about phone-hacking.

A few people eh?

 

Interesting!

Sean Hoare, the former News of the World showbiz reporter who was the first named journalist to allege Andy Coulson was aware of phone hacking by his staff, has been found dead, the Guardian has learned.

 

Was he Fosterized?

 

What turned into a can of Australian Larger!!!!

 

Stu, you're not turning to the conspiracy side are you? LOL!

 

I think he means Vince Foster. It's a Right wing fantasy.

 

Yeah, my attempt at a little humor (and to see who might get the reference lol).

 

Is the Conservative British Government having their own Watergate moment?

 

Nah not realy as the Labour party was equally cosy with News corp and it is not realy a Conservative goverment but a Lib-Con coalition
Some Mp's are making noises about Cameron hiring Coulson but at that time he had not been convicted of anything (and still has not) so far it is just allagations

 

I think the ball of yarn is still unraveling on this situation. Watergate wasn't fleshed out in the first couple of weeks. It took a little while until everyone came clean.

 

Oops! I must have listened after all.

How Facts And Pressure Forced Fox News To Cover News Corp. Hacking Scandal
July 20, 2011 1:56 pm ET

In the days after News Corp.'s long-simmering phone-hacking scandal reignited, a great disparity emerged in the amount of coverage given to the saga, with Fox News giving significantly less coverage to the story than CNN and MSNBC. But as other news organizations began to highlight Fox News' relative silence on the scandal, as calls for investigations into the corporation mounted, and as resignations and arrests of top News Corp. officials mushroomed, it became impossible for Fox News to ignore the crumbling of a global media empire.

 

Interesting how your source for the quote you copied (unreferenced, BTW) has announce that its new strategy amounted to a "war on Fox” (David Brock). You wouldn't think they my just be a little prejudiced, would you?

 

Their bias is not at issue here now is it?

 

Let me see now. Their announced objective is to destroy Fox and then they post (and you copy) a story that tries to slam Fox and you ask if the story is really biased. Hmmmm! I will tell you what, I will give you two guesses and the first one won't even count.

 

I doubt Media Matters said that "Our announced goal is to destroy Fox News", although I like the idea. And again, Media Matters isn't the one bribing politicians and law enforcement officials here. That would be News Corp., Fox's parent company. You also can't argue that Media Matters isn't correct about Fox's coverage or lack of coverage of the News Corp Scandal. Your only alternative is to attack the source. Typical! Is it just one big conspiracy theory and everyone is out to get Fox News? Anyone who criticizes Fox must be part of the conspiracy of lies? You make me laugh.

 

Another direct quote from David Brock (since you did not see or agree with my last quote of his);

BTW, you do know who David Brock is, don't you?

 

Of course I know who David Brock is. What I said was that there is no way that Media Matters ever said that, "Our stated goal is to destroy Fox News". That is your statement, your belief, your characterization, not that of Media Matters. Don't attribute words to people or organizations if they didn't actually say them.

Their Mission Statement:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

That is a better characterization of Media Matters goals that the one you made up. Where does it say, “Our stated goal is to destroy Fox News”? Honestly, the Kool Aid is strong with this one.

 

OK, if David Brock does not represent mediamatters, then you may be right. But that is like saying Rupert Murdoch does not represent Fox.

 

What David Brock actually said was that Media Matters plans "guerrilla warfare and sabotage" aimed at Fox News. While that is not qualitatively different than having a stated goal of destroying Fox News, it is an exact quote. The reason he refocused Media Matters more directly at Fox News is because Fox News is the biggest source of media misinformation. It only makes sense to redirect your efforts at the biggest offenders of the truth.

BTW You know who finances Media Matters don't you?

 

So now you admit they are biased? So, yes, their bias is at issue here - definitely.

Who finances Media Matters? Will, that depends on just how persnickety you want to get. Most of it comes from Soros, but he makes sure his donations are indirect for some reason. I am also an unwilling contributor at the moment as is every taxpayer in the country. Hopefully, that will change in the near future.