News International.
8/7/11 19:33![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
johnny9fingers.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIn the wake of the Murdoch empire in the UK seeming like it might actually get something like its deserved comeuppance, I find myself experiencing a feeling of what can only be described as schadenfreude.
www.guardian.co.uk/media/phone-hacking (Too many pages to list individually.)
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/08/phone-hacking-emails-news-international
This is potentially the biggest story in the UK since the MP's expenses scandal, and has significantly altered the nature of the British political system, whereby political parties no longer feel they have to kow-tow to Rupert and his minions: and many, myself included, would regard this as a good thing.
However, it may be that Roops, with his customary skill, will evade his accusers, and find some foxhole in the media equivalent of the Tora-Bora cave complex, and still pull off one last audacious feat: gaining complete control of BSkyB with its annual revenue of some £6Billion.
Nevertheless, if this does not happen, because the UK watchdog that grants licenses for broadcast finds him, or his organisation, not a fit person/organisation to own BSkyB, he will have to retire and lick his wounds.
But it leads me to some overwhelming question (as always)....
What do folk in the US with its first amendment privileges think about such a situation? Is this censorship and an abrogation of free speech? Or does possible criminal behaviour (the suborning of the Metropolitan Police, phone hacking etc) change the picture?
I mean, when Conrad Black gets out, should he, if the question were to arise and he were to be backed by, for example a Saudi billionaire, be allowed to take over NBC? For that matter, for the sake of argument, should the Saudi billionaire be allowed to take over NBC, even if his name was Adnan_Gulshair_el_Shukrijumah? (Though actually he isn't a billionaire, but a terrorist.)
I've used these rather silly and extreme examples to illustrate that there may be limits to free speech, even perhaps in America. My question to the panel is: has Rupert and his organisation overstepped the line in this matter as far as you are concerned?
www.guardian.co.uk/media/phone-hacking (Too many pages to list individually.)
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/08/phone-hacking-emails-news-international
This is potentially the biggest story in the UK since the MP's expenses scandal, and has significantly altered the nature of the British political system, whereby political parties no longer feel they have to kow-tow to Rupert and his minions: and many, myself included, would regard this as a good thing.
However, it may be that Roops, with his customary skill, will evade his accusers, and find some foxhole in the media equivalent of the Tora-Bora cave complex, and still pull off one last audacious feat: gaining complete control of BSkyB with its annual revenue of some £6Billion.
Nevertheless, if this does not happen, because the UK watchdog that grants licenses for broadcast finds him, or his organisation, not a fit person/organisation to own BSkyB, he will have to retire and lick his wounds.
But it leads me to some overwhelming question (as always)....
What do folk in the US with its first amendment privileges think about such a situation? Is this censorship and an abrogation of free speech? Or does possible criminal behaviour (the suborning of the Metropolitan Police, phone hacking etc) change the picture?
I mean, when Conrad Black gets out, should he, if the question were to arise and he were to be backed by, for example a Saudi billionaire, be allowed to take over NBC? For that matter, for the sake of argument, should the Saudi billionaire be allowed to take over NBC, even if his name was Adnan_Gulshair_el_Shukrijumah? (Though actually he isn't a billionaire, but a terrorist.)
I've used these rather silly and extreme examples to illustrate that there may be limits to free speech, even perhaps in America. My question to the panel is: has Rupert and his organisation overstepped the line in this matter as far as you are concerned?
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 18:44 (UTC)"s this censorship and an abrogation of free speech?"
Yes, always and absolutely. This does not mean you can say anything you want with no repercussions, you can still be sued in civil court for slander or libel and if your speech is a direct incitement to violence or shows reckless indifference to the safety of others (shouting fire in a theater) you can face criminal sanctions but in general outside of these exceptions you can still say anything you want and our courts will protect you from government sanction and most of us see that is an absolutely good thing, even if it does mean having to put up with idiots like Fred Phelps.
"Or does possible criminal behaviour (the suborning of the Metropolitan Police, phone hacking etc) change the picture?"
Not sure about suborning of the police or what that even means but phone hacking would generally be a crime which you could be punished for but committing said crime would not change your speech rights in the slightest.
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 19:57 (UTC)No-one is stopping him from saying whatsoever. What may happen is that he may be prevented from buying the largest vehicle available to him via which he can say it: does this constitute a violation of free speech?
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 20:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 20:31 (UTC)However, this case has brought up other issues, specifically the Press Complaints Commission. Who should be the guardians of justice in matters of redress in the inequality between major news organisations and ordinary members of the public?
Should there be regulation?
If News International behaves criminally, or even merely immorally, what systems should be in place to hold News International to account? And what oversight should there be to enable folk without the power, range, and influence of News International to obtain redress?
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 20:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 20:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 21:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 21:10 (UTC)It's the grey areas that worry me.
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 21:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 18:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 19:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 19:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 20:52 (UTC)Short on political reporting and commentary, and packed with scandals involving divorces,politicians caught having affairs and other 'human interest' stories.
It was never in the same league as the Sunday Times or The Observer. Even the Sunday Express and the Mail on Sunday were quite respectable and serious journals in comparison.
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 21:07 (UTC)All sacrificed now on the altar of Rupert's desperate attempts to corral the cable/satellite market.
Mind you, Rusbridger and The Observer is another story in defenestrating an ancient and much more noble Sunday Newspaper.
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 19:58 (UTC)No more than Yank.
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 20:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 21:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/7/11 13:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/7/11 13:35 (UTC)All they do is coldly stare and sip their tea
(no subject)
Date: 9/7/11 14:31 (UTC)LimeysBrits. If you'd been at a football hooligan's place the answer might have been very different. :)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 19:51 (UTC)No, that's the major punishment envisioned.
But he can always set up another cable network if he wants.
Nevertheless, does preventing him from buying a majority share in BSkyB constitute an abrogation of free speech? No-one is stopping him from saying what he wants, merely limiting the size of his soapbox.
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 21:18 (UTC)OVER THE LINE?
Dude, these humps are so far over the line they are in the opposition locker room shower!
Without ethics, nothing matters. Anyone can buy time and say something over and over until people believe it. If they used this misuse of trust to, say, uncover those WMD's we all know are hidden in the Sands of Arabia™ I could mitigate it slightly. But only slightly.
Instead, they used this as a way to make money off the private doings of individuals that is the electronic equivalent of a home or office break-in.
The police and the media, along with the politicians, now form the tripod of the police state. That one abused their power over another part of the tripod is the only reason why we even know of this. Thank the gods for the Guardian.
Eventually, if this is not addressed now, even the Guardian will be owned by The Corporation©
(no subject)
Date: 9/7/11 08:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/7/11 14:27 (UTC)Not NewsCorp, just the corporation mentality. :)
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 21:39 (UTC)Even in the US you can't get a broadcast license just because you feel like it. There's rules and procedures to go through, and yes rather significant criminal behavior on the part of a company could get that companies licenses yanked.
It's not a free speech issue, you don't have the inherent right to broadcast.
(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 21:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/11 23:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/7/11 01:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/7/11 08:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/7/11 12:06 (UTC)http://www.aim.org/press-release/saudi-billionaire-boasts-of-manipulating-fox-news-coverage/
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/8331/rupert-murdoch-fox-news-parent-co-increase-ties-w-extremist-saudi-prince-seeking-share-of-arab-street/
http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/06/alwaleed-murdoch-billionaires-cx_gl_0906autofacescan02.html
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2005/12/15/saudi-control-on-fox-news-coverage/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/08/21/fox-shareholder-funded-mosque-imam/
But then again the latter-day McCarthy running Nu-HUAC donated to the IRA.....
(no subject)
Date: 9/7/11 14:26 (UTC)Thanks v. much.
[Tips hat.]
(no subject)
Date: 9/7/11 15:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/7/11 00:49 (UTC)