PDA

View Full Version : Rupert Murdoch admitted...



Soflasnapper
07-09-2011, 04:42 PM
That he'd tried to use his control over his media empire to influence the course of war policy.

Where did that happen? At the Davos Conference, answering a question by mild-mannered PBS talk host Charlie Rose.

Rose mentioned a claim by someone else that if a news organization wanted to, it could skew public sentiment and public policy by skewing its 'news' coverage, emphasizing things and de-emphasizing other things. He then asked if Murdoch had so influenced war policy in that fashion.

Murdoch said, succinctly, 'no.' A beat or two passed, and then he said, 'But I tried.'

[as seen on a video clip ran on the Lawrence O'Donnell show this week]

More or less how Bill Sammon has now admitted he told the on-air talent to push the 'Obama is a socialist' line/lie, which as he more recently admitted, he never thought was true, and found 'far-fetched.'

Qtec
07-10-2011, 02:44 AM
lest we forget (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428)

Everybody should watch the first 5 mins at least.

Internal Fox memo.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Moody on abortion:

[Le]t's spend a good deal of time on the battle over judicial nominations, which [th]e President will address this morning. Nominees who both sides admit are [qu]alified are being held up because of their POSSIBLE, not demonstrated, views [on] one issue -- abortion. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>This should be a trademark issue for FNC today and in [th]e days to come</span> (5/9/03).</div></div>

Fair and Balanced.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Moody on the 9/11 Commission:

The<u> so-called </u>9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer [sic] and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, <u>but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate.</u> Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that (3/23/04).

Remember that while <span style='font-size: 17pt'>there are obvious political implications for Bush,</span> the commission is looking at eight years of the Clinton Administration versus eight months (the time prior to 9/11 that Bush was in office) for the incumbent (3/24/04).
</div></div>


ie, don't do any real journalism . Don't ask questions or investigate because you might find out something that hurts OUR GUY.




Q

LWW
07-10-2011, 04:30 AM
Your village called.

Soflasnapper
07-10-2011, 01:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> lest we forget (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428)

Everybody should watch the first 5 mins at least.

Internal Fox memo.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Moody on abortion:

[Le]t's spend a good deal of time on the battle over judicial nominations, which [th]e President will address this morning. Nominees who both sides admit are [qu]alified are being held up because of their POSSIBLE, not demonstrated, views [on] one issue -- abortion. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>This should be a trademark issue for FNC today and in [th]e days to come</span> (5/9/03).</div></div>

Fair and Balanced.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Moody on the 9/11 Commission:

The<u> so-called </u>9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer [sic] and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, <u>but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate.</u> Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that (3/23/04).

Remember that while <span style='font-size: 17pt'>there are obvious political implications for Bush,</span> the commission is looking at eight years of the Clinton Administration versus eight months (the time prior to 9/11 that Bush was in office) for the incumbent (3/24/04).
</div></div>


ie, don't do any real journalism . Don't ask questions or investigate because you might find out something that hurts OUR GUY.




Q </div></div>

I don't know how many times Fox News Channel personalities have denied they receive any memo from the top as to what to say, and when to say it.

Unfortunately for those claims, we now have many of those exact memos released into the public domain.

Anyone who watches these guys knows they turn on a dime in unison like some crazy school of fish, to attack their next factoid prey in unison. If it seems like a coordinated effort, since it is so unanimous and constantly occurring, that's because it is.

Including, as per Sammon's later admission, having the network's "talents" all push a line that he himself said he found 'far-fetched,' didn't believe, and so far as he believed, was untrue.

What are the results of such propagandistic pounding over on FNC and their captive radio shows? Gosh, for some reason a lot of people now believe that O, a creature if anything of Wall Street and big business, making sure that the insurance and pharmaceutical companies keep large profit margins under his health care reform, is a LEFT WING SOCIALIST.

Even people here believe that, or at least, Fox-like, are willing to say it over and over again, whatever they may secretly know or believe to the contrary.

What is Murdoch famous for? Making and breaking politicians, through the use of his powerful media assets. Paying off politicians to get the kind of change he hopes to get to make himself more money and more powerful with million-dollar plus book deals through his book publishing company holdings. (See: Maggie Thatcher, Newt Gingrich, the head of China, and etc.).

What does his Orwellian FNC claim to be? Fair and balanced.

If they are, and it is to laugh, it would be the ONLY part of Murdoch's empire that is. And it isn't, naturally.

LWW
07-10-2011, 02:09 PM
The funny thing is that thinking people can see that every major media news outlet has a bias ... leftists are convinced that only FOX has one.

Soflasnapper
07-10-2011, 02:48 PM
A bias of what individuals think and therefore say is different from a bias sent down in memo form from the top.

I haven't seen any examples of institutional bias, that is, directives from top management to the on-air editors or talent, with two exceptions I can think of.

One, the CNN guys brought a team of military psy-ops guys into the newsroom to handle, I guess, pro-war propaganda reporting out of its newsroom.

Two, the MSNBC suits fired their then-top-rated show host, Phil Donahue, out of the perception that he was overly anti-war. Prior to firing him, they insisted that whenever he had on any anti-war proponent, it had to be matched by two pro-war proponents. He himself required two pro-war proponents as well. So if he had on one anti-war voice, with himself, he was required by corporate policy to have FOUR anti-war voices on that same show.

MSNBC didn't want to be the sole voice where anti-war people were given air-time, and checking back on the whole universe of broadcast and cable news coverage, in total, about 94% or more of guests brought on were pro-war, and anti-war voices were that tiny remnant.

So at least in the case of the war, the bias was profoundly pro-war, including a cable network firing their top rated show's host over their bias that they wanted to be pro-war.

LWW
07-10-2011, 03:48 PM
MSNBC was pro war?

Now that's comedy.

Soflasnapper
07-10-2011, 05:15 PM
They feared being seen as anti-war, and enforced a 2-1 pro-war guest list onto Donahue, until they fired him over his anti-war stance.

I'd call that pro-war.

What would you call it?

Do you remember that MSNBC is owned by NBC? Do you recall which top 5 military contractor owned NBC at the time?

Yucks on you for your insistence that your ideological take trumps facts on the ground.

LWW
07-11-2011, 03:24 AM
I would call it a semblance of balance on an opinion show.

The typical Madcow show offers up e POV's besides Rachel's:

1 - A moonbat.

2 - A howling moonbat.

3 - A shrieking moonbat.

Qtec
07-11-2011, 05:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would call it a semblance of balance on an opinion show. </div></div>

LOL. The topics and the tone being set from the top down is fair and balanced?

Don't make me laugh.

Q

eg8r
07-11-2011, 10:01 AM
Great so what we now know is that he "tried" to influence war policy through his news organization and it was a failure. What is next? Are we going to hear from you that Obama "tried" to reduce unemployment but he was a failure? Come on, we already know all this stuff.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
07-11-2011, 11:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> lest we forget (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428)

Everybody should watch the first 5 mins at least.

Internal Fox memo.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Moody on abortion:

[Le]t's spend a good deal of time on the battle over judicial nominations, which [th]e President will address this morning. Nominees who both sides admit are [qu]alified are being held up because of their POSSIBLE, not demonstrated, views [on] one issue -- abortion. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>This should be a trademark issue for FNC today and in [th]e days to come</span> (5/9/03).</div></div>

Fair and Balanced.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Moody on the 9/11 Commission:

The<u> so-called </u>9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is its eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer [sic] and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, <u>but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate.</u> Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that (3/23/04).

Remember that while <span style='font-size: 17pt'>there are obvious political implications for Bush,</span> the commission is looking at eight years of the Clinton Administration versus eight months (the time prior to 9/11 that Bush was in office) for the incumbent (3/24/04).
</div></div>


ie, don't do any real journalism . Don't ask questions or investigate because you might find out something that hurts OUR GUY.

Q </div></div>

All good points, but not the highlighting of the use of the term, 'so-called 9/11 commission.' That is actually accurate, as it was only so-called that (as shorthand), and had a different real name which didn't include 9/11: The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks.

Soflasnapper
07-11-2011, 11:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great so what we now know is that he "tried" to influence war policy through his news organization and it was a failure. What is next? Are we going to hear from you that Obama "tried" to reduce unemployment but he was a failure? Come on, we already know all this stuff.

eg8r </div></div>

No, this is new, at least for non-liberals. The left has been saying all along that Fox slants the news for a political purpose, and they and their supporters have long denied it, claiming their 'fair and balanced' claim is accurate.

Here we have Murdoch admitting (and probably lying as to the effect) that indeed, he has used his news networks' resources to try to steer public policy, BY the use of selective citation, editing, use of deliberate rhetoric, and any and all manner of violations of strict journalism standards.

When did he admit those methods? That was in the setup question from Rose. NOT did Murdoch use the usual and more acceptable method of a strong editorial voice in properly labeled editorial pieces, to overtly attempt to steer world events. That is was covert, and done by tilting the news reporting itself. That was Rose's setup question, and what Murdoch agreed he'd tried doing.

Gayle in MD
07-13-2011, 03:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great so what we now know is that he "tried" to influence war policy through his news organization and it was a failure. What is next? Are we going to hear from you that Obama "tried" to reduce unemployment but he was a failure? Come on, we already know all this stuff.

eg8r </div></div>

No, this is new, at least for non-liberals. The left has been saying all along that Fox slants the news for a political purpose, and they and their supporters have long denied it, claiming their 'fair and balanced' claim is accurate.

Here we have Murdoch admitting (and probably lying as to the effect) that indeed, he has used his news networks' resources to try to steer public policy, BY the use of selective citation, editing, use of deliberate rhetoric, and any and all manner of violations of strict journalism standards.

When did he admit those methods? That was in the setup question from Rose. NOT did Murdoch use the usual and more acceptable method of a strong editorial voice in properly labeled editorial pieces, to overtly attempt to steer world events. That is was covert, and done by tilting the news reporting itself. That was Rose's setup question, and what Murdoch agreed he'd tried doing. </div></div>

Murdoch proved that Fox was not a "News" organization, at all, nor at all Fiar and Balanced, when he admitted that he used his cable station to push for the Iraq war.

That the right thinks that it is fine for a tremendously wealthy man, can buy enough media power to help to push the country into a war, is truly sick.

We've all seen the many examples of Fox, altering the news, faking the photos, and spreading lies and slander.

Anyone who tunes in to Fox, has no interest in truth.

G.

Sev
07-13-2011, 03:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great so what we now know is that he "tried" to influence war policy through his news organization and it was a failure. What is next? Are we going to hear from you that Obama "tried" to reduce unemployment but he was a failure? Come on, we already know all this stuff.

eg8r </div></div>

No, this is new, at least for non-liberals. The left has been saying all along that Fox slants the news for a political purpose, and they and their supporters have long denied it, claiming their 'fair and balanced' claim is accurate.

Here we have Murdoch admitting (and probably lying as to the effect) that indeed, he has used his news networks' resources to try to steer public policy, BY the use of selective citation, editing, use of deliberate rhetoric, and any and all manner of violations of strict journalism standards.

When did he admit those methods? That was in the setup question from Rose. NOT did Murdoch use the usual and more acceptable method of a strong editorial voice in properly labeled editorial pieces, to overtly attempt to steer world events. That is was covert, and done by tilting the news reporting itself. That was Rose's setup question, and what Murdoch agreed he'd tried doing. </div></div>

Murdoch proved that Fox was not a "News" organization, at all, nor at all Fiar and Balanced, when he admitted that he used his cable station to push for the Iraq war.

That the right thinks that it is fine for a tremendously wealthy man, can buy enough media power to help to push the country into a war, is truly sick.

We've all seen the many examples of Fox, altering the news, faking the photos, and spreading lies and slander.

Anyone who tunes in to Fox, has no interest in truth.

G.

</div></div>

Yah. As if CBS, NBC, ABC, CNBC and CNN dont have their own agenda.

Soflasnapper
07-13-2011, 04:19 PM
Yah. As if CBS, NBC, ABC, CNBC and CNN dont have their own agenda.

They shared Murdoch's war agenda, true.

However, with the sole exception of what MSNBC was saying behind the scenes to Phil Donahue (shut up about this anti-war stuff! and, you're fired!), we don't really have the top-down MEMO interference that puts management's goals in front of the on-air talent on a daily basis, as we've found takes place on Fox.

Well, there was that time when then-still GE's CEO Jack Welsh bellowed to the NBC newsroom covering the election results, "What do I have to do to get someone to call this election for George W. Bush?"