posted July 28, 2011 12:01 PM            

and the evidence of the now DEAD WHISTLEBLOWER that the british police were being paid to provide access to people's private phone lines. NOT ILLEGAL?

as node says, agencies in three countries are now building an evidence file(s).

for most people it has been patently obvious over a span of decades that murdoch does not play "fair" and that he sells TRASH for profit. shame on the public for making him rich, but there have been plenty of politicians and officials helping him out for a handout.

posted July 28, 2011 12:18 PM            

Not what personnel at News of the World did. News of the World made up 1% of Murdoch's holdings and had it's own executive officers.

Do you think it's legal for House members and Senators to throw government contracts to family members OR throw government money and/or contracts to companies represented by lobbyists who are family members of Reps and Senators.

Lots of companies seek waivers from government. Some are granted.

For instance, more than 1400 waivers from the provisions of O'BomberCare have been granted. Most of those went to unions and companies who pushed for...O'BomberCare...including the utterly corrupt AARP.

posted July 28, 2011 04:00 PM            

but i am not talking about what some minor players at NOWT did. they were working a MO that rupert has been supporting for DECADES, and the man who "fixed" the monopolies commission waiver with thatcher was not a NOWT employee, but rupert's right hand man at the time.

i understand that corruption is everywhere. i HOPE that rupert is the thin end of the wedge that can bring about a real reformation in that scenario.

HOWEVER from what i can see of healthcare waivers they are going to people who ALREADY PROVIDE insurance for their members/employees. so that really is a non-issue isn't it?

posted July 28, 2011 04:27 PM            

What was it a "Real President" said? Oh yeah, now I remember.

posted July 28, 2011 04:30 PM            

but as i said, those people who are receiving waivers ARE ALREADY PROVIDING what the healthcare plan addresses! like you, they are entitled to keep the plan they have and like already.

posted August 03, 2011 08:11 PM            

computer hacking now alleged(i heard awhile ago that gordy brown's bank records had been hacked JUST BEFORE he stepped down but not being a detective or lawyer i have no EVIDENCE!) and managing editor of NOWT involved...bet rupee didn't know about THAT either, heh?

posted August 04, 2011 09:27 AM            

This discussion is about illegality.

The hew and cry of leftists to get Murdoch is typical. He must have done something...they say. Oh wait, Murdoch doesn't really need to have done anything illegal himself if any of his employees did.

OK then, let's put a hell of a lot of Leftist politicians in prison for a very long time.

Let's start with O'Bomber whose ATF, FBI, DEA and Justice Dept ran easily converted to full automatic weapons into Mexico.

posted August 05, 2011 07:42 PM            

it may NOT be illegal to turn the news business into a gossip parlour for the salacious-minded. but it IS illegal to say you are printing/broadcasting news when it is really rumour, innuendo and political campaigning...as per false advertisement issues...and it is criminal in a cultural sense.

posted August 07, 2011 08:38 AM            

Irrational.

You say this thread isn't about illegality on the part of Murdoch.

So, where's Murdoch going bye, bye to..and why is Murdoch going away?

posted August 11, 2011 06:03 PM            

murdoch can afford to buy whatever price he wants for newscorp, which means those figures mean SQUAT.

just like sarah palin's publishers can buy her onto the NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER list. notice that is not the NEWS OF THE WORLD bestseller list that every book aims to top.

posted August 16, 2011 11:03 AM            

the title of the article, "hacking reporter claims cover up" is a little misleading, since he was not just a reporter but the EDITOR of the royal division of NOWT's snooping society...

and he claims that hacking phones was widely and openly discussed in editorial board meetings - until around the time that the scandal about hacking into the royal phones came out...after which it was not to be discussed openly, but apparently no one said it was not to be DONE.

"three areas of concern were the difference of opinions between Murdoch and the two men, the size of the settlement and the payment of the legal fees for the investigator at the heart of the scandal."

posted May 03, 2012 10:30 PM            

quote:

---

The Real Mad Men: Following the Money Behind TV Political Ads

Posted on May 2, 2012
By Amy Goodman

May Day, Murdoch and the murder of Milly Dowler. What do they have to do with the 2012 U.S. general election? This year’s election will undoubtedly be the most expensive in U.S. history, with some projections topping $5 billion. Not only has the amount of spending increased, but its nature has as well, following the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which allows unlimited spending by corporations, unions and so-called super PACs, all under the banner of “free speech.” This campaign season will unfold amidst a resurgent Occupy Wall Street movement launched globally on May 1, the same day the British Parliament released a report on Rupert Murdoch’s media empire charging that he is “not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company.” Now more than ever, people should heed the advice of the famous Watergate source, Deep Throat: “Follow the money.”

Most money in our elections goes to TV stations to run political advertisements. According to writers Robert McChesney and John Nichols in the Monthly Review, the amount of political ad spending is skyrocketing, such that “factoring for inflation, the 1972 election spent less than 3 percent of what will be spent on TV political ads in the 2012 election cycle.”

For just one relatively small race, a recent Pennsylvania congressional primary between Democrats, journalist Ken Knelly provided a comprehensive analysis of the local TV news coverage compared with the amount of political ads that ran on the same TV stations. Knelly’s headline says it all: “28 hours of political ads (and a few minutes of news).” More than 3,300 ad spots were run on the stations serving the predominantly Democratic district. Lost in the hours of ads, Knelly writes, was the “very occasional news report on the race,” and he said the reports contained very little substance.

How Knelly was able to probe these details is crucial. The Federal Communications Commission requires that TV stations maintain a public inspection file, and any member of the public can view it. Within the disclosures are the details of the political advertising purchases made, the amounts paid and what entity bought the airtime. Recent efforts have been made to compel these hugely profitable broadcast entities to publish these files online. The broadcasters have vigorously fought such efforts and, although they usually prevail in the industry-friendly halls of the FCC, have lost this battle. On Friday, April 27, the FCC voted 2-1 to require stations to transition from paper to online filing over a two-year period. ProPublica reporter Justin Elliot notes the files will not be provided in a standard format, and will likely not be searchable.

Most of the major U.S. broadcast networks lobbied against the new disclosure rules, including Fox Television, one of the crown jewels of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. media empire. Murdoch received a stinging rebuke this week with the release of a British Parliament report on the phone-hacking scandal that has racked his newspapers in Britain. The scandal exploded in 2011, when The Guardian reported that News of the World reporters had hacked into the voice mail of 13-year-old murder victim Milly Dowler in 2002. While Dowler was still missing, reporters deleted some of her voice mails, which gave false hope to her family that she still might be alive.

Journalists, along with both a judicial inquiry and parliamentary hearings, have uncovered a culture of criminality behind much of the newsgathering facade at Murdoch’s now-defunct News of the World newspaper in London. The parliamentary committee released its report this week, saying the Murdoch-controlled company “stonewalled, obfuscated and misled and [would] only come clean, reluctantly, when no other course of action was sensible.”

The scandal also led to the discovery of bribery of British police officials, which, because News Corp. is a U.S. corporation, could fall under the U.S. federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribery by U.S. companies overseas. In response, the nonpartisan group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington petitioned the FCC to strip Murdoch of the 27 television broadcast licenses he controls in the U.S.

While it is a crime to bribe a police officer in London, it is perfectly legal to spend $5 billion to influence the course of U.S. elections, and for powerful broadcasters thereby to reap enormous profits. The FCC is to be applauded for its new transparency rules. Ultimately, political candidates should have free airtime to present their platform to the voters. Until then, it’s up to journalists, activists and regular citizens to follow the money.

---

posted May 03, 2012 10:35 PM            

CREW Calls for FCC to Revoke Murdoch’s Broadcast Licenses

posted May 03, 2012 11:28 PM            

Crew consists of 2 leftists and a fax machine. I'm just certain Congress is going to react positively to their whining, screeching, howling and shrieking about Murdock.

So far, I haven't seen any evidence AT ALL that Murdock personally broke any laws...not in Britain, not in Australia and not in the US.

posted May 03, 2012 11:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
Oh yeah.

Crew consists of 2 leftists and a fax machine. I'm just certain Congress is going to react positively to their whining, screeching, howling and shrieking about Murdock.

So far, I haven't seen any evidence AT ALL that Murdock personally broke any laws...not in Britain, not in Australia and not in the US.

When are YOU going to get around to posting what Murdock did...personally...that broke any laws? Failing that, when are YOU leftists going to admit you have NOTHING but hot air and vitriol for Murdock...most of which you spew out of your lower orifices?

---

Thanks Jwhop
I can just support people who speak the truth.I have no stomach to argue with these people.

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted May 04, 2012 02:25 PM            

the fact that murdoch is known to run his companies with an "iron hand" control-freak MO makes his "i didn't know" all the more reprehensible.

speaking of which, it won't be long before the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is aired out and explained to mr murdoch.

The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA prohibit:

Issuers, domestic concerns, and any person from making use of interstate commerce corruptly, in furtherance of an offer or payment of anything of value to a foreign official, foreign political party, or candidate for political office, for the purpose of influencing any act of that foreign official in violation of the duty of that official, or to secure any improper advantage in order to obtain or retain business

and if not mr murdoch himself, should he prove too slippery to pin down, (after all he does little personal investigation and probably did NOT hand over any money to the bent cops in question) his corporation is liable under these provisions.

posted May 04, 2012 05:29 PM            

i really don't care if murdoch himself did anything illegal. i would like to see these practices aired and obliterated from the media. i actually think rupert is enjoying leading those that would shut him down around the garden maze. he is so taken with "getting away with it" that he doesn't care - and has said so - that what he does as a way of life is wrong, legal or not.

hostile takeovers are not illegal. encouraging your employees to rob and pillage private information probably not either. certainly that is very hard to prove...however, sooner or later it will be outted that he DID know. and then he is no longer innocent.

because bribing the police to ignore evidence in investigations, to divulge confidential info, etc, IS illegal. and paying people to do it for you is also.

if you think there is some excuse for blanketting the airwaves with garbage masquerading as news, enjoy it while you can. i believe the heyday is OVER.

sure if newscorp goes down it won't be the last of its kind. after all rupee takes his lead from our own jr hearst, doesn't he? it's been done before and will be done again

so repeat all you like what the point of this thread is...there are plenty of crimes that are not technically illegal. he is on his way out.

posted May 05, 2012 01:51 PM            

i await the "proof" that rupert dirtied his own hands as eagerly as you, madeira. like i said, i'm not a lawyer. parliament has satisfied itself that murdoch DID know and had such contempt for the truth he supposedly champions, and for the process of investigation, that he basically just used the "deny everything" method...

i expect this story will continue to unfold. meanwhile you continue to assert knowledge of the MOTIVES of obama which are pure speculation - without proof.