Who would like to save the world?

[donny70]

In 48 hours, nearly half the British mass media could be bought by one of the world's worst media moguls.

Rupert Murdoch has exploited his vast media empire to push war in Iraq, elect George W Bush, spread resentment of muslims and immigrants, and block global action on climate change. He undermines democratic government across the world by threatening elected leaders with vicious and often false media coverage unless they do his bidding.

Britain plays a key role in Europe and the world. If Murdoch has a lock on British media, he will use it to undermine UK, EU and UN support for human rights and democracy. The UK is up in arms over the Murdoch bid, and even the government, elected with Murdoch's help, is split down the middle as it makes a decision this week. Global solidarity bolstered Egypt's pro-democracy protesters -- it can help Britain's. Let's build an urgent global outcry to stop Rupert Murdoch. Sign the petition to Prime Minister Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Clegg!


>>>SIGN THE PETITION HERE<<<


.

 

[Red Rocket]

In 48 hours, nearly half the British mass media could be bought by one of the world's worst media moguls.

Rupert Murdoch has exploited his vast media empire to push war

I'd be interested in seeing examplesof articles that specifically push or advocate war in Iraq. While The Australian et al. are Murdoch's papers, he doesn't run them. I doubt very much he has much of a hand in their day to day operations at all. You should be blaming editors and sub-eds if you think they are pushing a case for the Iraq war. Murdoch handles next to none of the actual journalistic content filtering (see Margaret Simons on this one)

Britain plays a key role in Europe and the world. If Murdoch has a lock on British media, he will use it to undermine UK, EU and UN support for human rights and democracy.

I think you'll find that Murdoch's primary motivation is making money. The guy may not be a philanthropist, but that doesn't mean that his sole determination is to purposefully endanger human rights and democracy. A capatalist democracy is what has allowed Murdoch to succeed. Why would he want to hinder future chances of success by biting the system that supports his businesses?

To be honest it sounds like you've launched into an emotion-fueled conspiracy theory here without even the most tenuous connection to fact.

 

[Regan of Gong]

I'd be interested in seeing examplesof articles that specifically push or advocate war in Iraq. While The Australian et al. are Murdoch's papers, he doesn't run them. I doubt very much he has much of a hand in their day to day operations at all. You should be blaming editors and sub-eds if you think they are pushing a case for the Iraq war. Murdoch handles next to none of the actual journalistic content filtering (see Margaret Simons on this one)

Murdoch owned 168 papers worldwide at the time of the Iraq invasion. Not one questioned the motivations, legitimacy or ethics of the invasion, and it's purportedly said these orders came straight from the top.

Source: Dr Anthony Ashbolt, Convenor of Politics, University of Wollongong.

Also, this video from the World Economic Forum in 2007 is pretty straightforward.

[video=youtube;JF9HpuZm6-g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF9HpuZm6-g[/video]

 

[scblack]

Tin foil hat alert!

 

[Misplaced]

He's just a sleepy ol' man, what harm can he do?

 

[g-fish]

murdoch can and does manipulate the content in the australian.. its very common for the owners of nespapers to filter the content in their papers indirectly through sub eds.

Both my mum and dad have worked for newspapers for 30+ years. Including in editorial positions.

However, saying that he played a role in all the things listed is a bit drastic.

And i dont think an internet pettiton will change anything, i dont think an internet petition has ever changed anything...

 

[rabatt]

And i dont think an internet pettiton will change anything, i dont think an internet petition has ever changed anything...

I knew a guy who Got a haircut because over 50 people liked a status on facebook... Does that count?



Pretty sure someone already made a thread for conspiracy theories!

 

[ademb]

murdoch can and does manipulate the content in the australian.. its very common for the owners of nespapers to filter the content in their papers indirectly through sub eds.

Both my mum and dad have worked for newspapers for 30+ years. Including in editorial positions.

However, saying that he played a role in all the things listed is a bit drastic.

And i dont think an internet pettiton will change anything, i dont think an internet petition has ever changed anything...

Of course this isnt going to work, everyone knows things only get done on the internet if you post it on facebook with pictures made up of keyboard characters and let everyone know they will die in a weeks time if they don't pass this petition on to 30 friends in 2 days..

Der.

 

['Ross]

If you don't like it make your own newspapers...having a cry and signing an online petition is so incredibly futile you should be embarrassed.
The people who actually consider the stuff in mainstream media to be 'newsworthy' or 'based on fact' can be easily influenced in almost any facet of their lives, if you want to hate on someone, hate on the stupidity of society!

 

[Red Rocket]

Murdoch owned 168 papers worldwide at the time of the Iraq invasion. Not one questioned the motivations, legitimacy or ethics of the invasion, and it's purportedly said these orders came straight from the top.

Source: Dr Anthony Ashbolt, Convenor of Politics, University of Wollongong.

Also, this video from the World Economic Forum in 2007 is pretty straightforward.

[video=youtube;JF9HpuZm6-g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF9HpuZm6-g[/video]

It's a pleasure to be proved wrong with actual evidence.

I still stand by my point though - I don't believe Murdoch's acquisition of UK media will have a substantive effect on his ability to manipulate opinion - he can pretty much do that already. Like I said, he's a businessman with a vested interest in his business. I think it's reasonably fair to say, based on the facts that we have available, that Murdoch didn't support Iraq for reasons that were intentionally anti-humanitarian. I think he probably supported war in Iraq because it benefited his economic interests. Whether or not the Iraq war was necessary or not is another kettle of fish.

 

[mtb1611]

If you don't like it make your own newspapers...having a cry and signing an online petition is so incredibly futile you should be embarrassed.
The people who actually consider the stuff in mainstream media to be 'newsworthy' or 'based on fact' can be easily influenced in almost any facet of their lives, if you want to hate on someone, hate on the stupidity of society!

Utter hilarity; a grown man who runs around town with a backpack full of spraypaint defacing concrete with silly little pictures, has the audacity to deem the activities of others to be futile and worthy of embarrassment. Oh the irony. Please let us know when you're next performing your stand-up routine.....

Back on topic....the whole Murdoch conspiracy nonsense has been done to death, however we need to consider the fact that the vast majority of the populace takes tabloid news as gospel. Therefore, can you really blame a man with the power and the means to take advantage of the ignorant masses, for doing so? Not saying that I agree with his motives or agenda but hey, if ya got it......as for saving the world, it's too far gone, let the demise of our species and its habitat take its course

 

[rabatt]

Mtb1611 really hates graffiti doesn't he haha? Pretty sure we ascertained that Ross does legals and so it's no worse then any other artform... So a grown man who writes poetry is also looked down on by you?

OT but who likes rise against?

on topic, I can't see things improving ever, havn't they been trying to acheive peace since the 60s? About 50 years, ok so probably longer.

So this guy getting another country under his "power" probably won't change much, but if it does then I guess that could suck.

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

Not too fussed.

Murdoch isn't the almighty bogeyman he used to be. His well publicised stance against the internet* is quite frankly hysterical and just smarts of a bewildered old man refusing to accept social change. Print media is sadly dying but with it goes some of his stranglehold over the populace. Sure he has the likes of Fox News and Sky still keeping the airwaves a Murdoch-Approved zone but their geriatric audiences are growing older and older with each passing year and as NewsCorp continues to both dumb down and fire up it's followers, they just cause more and more people to switch to more respected and mature news sources and others to give up altogether and spend all their time on TMZ.com.

He's had his day and it would be nice if he'd just f*** off quietly into retirement and breed pigeons or something.



*he believes he can crush it and it's free, uncontrolled media in the same way he used to crush small independent newspapers.

 

[Shredden]

OT but who likes rise against?

Me, and I am pumped for their new album....

 

[Drizz]

Tin foil hat alert!

Look its all part of The Chinese master plan to take over the world ok? They had one of their agent infiltrated the Murdoch's empire with her best asset deployed.

And I definite believe he used his power to shape the public opinion and not just on war in Iraq.

http://gawker.com/#!295896/murdochs-minions-fixed-up-wendi-dengs-wikipedia-entry

*Yes its gawker; its not a news site, deal with it!*

 

['Ross]

Utter hilarity

The thing I like you MTB1611 is that you always speak as if what you say is reasonable, logical and completely correct....despite the fact that you post a fair amount of complete garbage.

If you want to have a graffiti argument go to the relevant thread or send me a PM, for the sake of the thread though I was labeling the original posters actions futile and embarrassing as it was an attempt to change the behaviour of another who it will have absolutely no effect on....in fact its exactly the same thing as you are attempting to do to me, and failing miserably!

I do my own thing for my own reasons, with my own motivations, earning the things I want to get out of it so am therefore quite content with the whole process....you on the other hand gain nothing from my actions in fact my actions clearly agitate you. A reasonable and logical person would probably come to the conclusion that someone in your position trying to insult someone in my position....even though it will have no positive effect besides providing me with entertainment...well a reasonable and logical person would call that futile and pathetic!

 

[mtb1611]

The thing I like you MTB1611 is that you always speak as if what you say is reasonable, logical and completely correct....despite the fact that you post a fair amount of complete garbage.

If you want to have a graffiti argument go to the relevant thread or send me a PM, for the sake of the thread though I was labeling the original posters actions futile and embarrassing as it was an attempt to change the behaviour of another who it will have absolutely no effect on....in fact its exactly the same thing as you are attempting to do to me, and failing miserably!

I do my own thing for my own reasons, with my own motivations, earning the things I want to get out of it so am therefore quite content with the whole process....you on the other hand gain nothing from my actions in fact my actions clearly agitate you. A reasonable and logical person would probably come to the conclusion that someone in your position trying to insult someone in my position....even though it will have no positive effect besides providing me with entertainment...well a reasonable and logical person would call that futile and pathetic!

Your comments regarding a graffitti discussion are interesting; I do believe that quite a while ago I posed some questions to you in the graffitti thread, questions of a logical and rational nature, seeking to further my understanding of graffitti culture and the motivations and reasonings of its participants. Rather than answer them in a logical manner you instead chose to label me as an antiquated finger-waving do-gooder, without making any attempt whatsoever to answer my questions. In fact all that resulted were large red warnings indicating that graffitti discussions may only be held if they were pro-graffitti in nature. Yet here you are, labelling the actions of others as irrational, futile, pathetic and embarrassing. Quite ironic in an amusingly hypocritical kind of way, don't you think?

You state that you're content with your "process" yet become rather irate when it's questioned, yet here you are criticising the process of another forum member (the OP); more examples of rationality and logic, not to mention objectivity?

But there's more hypocrisy: someone in your position insulting someone in the OP's position, and then criticising me for insulting you. Quite frankly, I'm relieved that you consider my posts to be garabage; indicates to me that we're not on the same wavelength, something I take as a compliment.

 

[Regan of Gong]

Tin foil hat alert!

This is actually a really important issue- it's a great irony of western, liberal democracies that the general populaces access to information regarding their elected leaders is moderated by an oligarchy of those who can afford to produce mass media.

In Australia, we have rules such as the "2 out of 3" rule, where one media outlet can only produce media in an area in two out of three mediums: TV, print and radio. There's also the 5/4 rule, which states that in any urban area there must be at least 5 media outlets, and in rural areas, 4.

Media ownership may not be as dire as the OP suggests, but placing some form of limits on those who control and moderate access to political information for the vast majority of people is pretty essentail. Just consider this- most of the world's news is controlled by six massive media conglomerates- General Electric, Walt Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, NewsCorp and CBS. That's why Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr and Facebook (as well as other blogging sites) have such potential to reform the 4th estate- oridinary citizens can become jounrlaists and broadcast to millions of people.

For more info, check Free Press.

 

['Ross]

This one is for mtb1611...

 

[scblack]

This is actually a really important issue- it's a great irony of western, liberal democracies that the general populaces access to information regarding their elected leaders is moderated by an oligarchy of those who can afford to produce mass media.

In Australia, we have rules such as the "2 out of 3" rule, where one media outlet can only produce media in an area in two out of three mediums: TV, print and radio. There's also the 5/4 rule, which states that in any urban area there must be at least 5 media outlets, and in rural areas, 4.

Media ownership may not be as dire as the OP suggests, but placing some form of limits on those who control and moderate access to political information for the vast majority of people is pretty essentail. Just consider this- most of the world's news is controlled by six massive media conglomerates- General Electric, Walt Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, NewsCorp and CBS. That's why Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr and Facebook (as well as other blogging sites) have such potential to reform the 4th estate- oridinary citizens can become jounrlaists and broadcast to millions of people.

For more info, check Free Press.

Oh, I agree it is an issue of importance to everyone. An independent and free press is vital.

My tinfoil hat reference is basically reacting to the attached petition. How much effect do you think an internet based petition will have on Rupert's proposed transaction? Let me give you a hint - sweet f**k all.

Also the suggestion that Rupert Murdoch wishes to do so, or even has the power, to force governments to do his bidding. That is ludicrous. Sure he has some influence but to say that he is undermining human rights and democracy via government interventions is DEFINITELY tending toward the tin foil hat brigade.