Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bickster

Murdoch Scum

Recommended Posts

I'm fascinated by the words Brooks has chosen to defend herself.

I hope that you all realise it is inconceivable that I knew or worse, sanctioned these appalling allegations

The far simpler way of expressing it would be to say "I did not know of or sanction these appalling deeds". But she doesn't say that. She doesn't say she didn't know, she just says no-one would believe she knew - a quite different proposition.

The way she speaks of it being inconceivable refers to her position, not herself; she almost refers to herself in the third person, attempting to distance herself from the flak.

I wonder why she stops short of a simple, direct denial, and instead takes refuge in unusual phrasing.

Guilty as charged! Let's hang her from the nearest lamppost, and her skiving taxdodging associates with her!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm fascinated by the words Brooks has chosen to defend herself.

I hope that you all realise it is inconceivable that I knew or worse, sanctioned these appalling allegations

The far simpler way of expressing it would be to say "I did not know of or sanction these appalling deeds". But she doesn't say that. She doesn't say she didn't know, she just says no-one would believe she knew - a quite different proposition.

The way she speaks of it being inconceivable refers to her position, not herself; she almost refers to herself in the third person, attempting to distance herself from the flak.

I wonder why she stops short of a simple, direct denial, and instead takes refuge in unusual phrasing.

Guilty as charged! Let's hang her from the nearest lamppost, and her skiving taxdodging associates with her!

My favourite part of that quote is the fact she's not actually talking about the act of voice mail hacking, but she's saying it's inconceivable she knew about the allegations of voice mail hacking.

Essentially she's just saying "I didn't know anyone would say I had anything to do with it".

Of course she could just be an idiot with a poor grasp on the English language and actually mean "these alleged acts", but she's the CE of a news group, surely she should have a firm command of the English language, or at least a good enough one to be able to tell the difference between the allegations themselves and the acts which they relate to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes the media still has the power to shock, but through their actions rather than their insight.

I can't recall a single example of red top behaviour that is worse than this. Truly evil.

Agreed, I would also add that IMO they absolutely love horror. Kids been killed, bombs, murders and general disasters. If I picture their news room on days like 9/11 or 7/7 I imagine they were all rubbing their grubby little hands with glee. The more the better for them and this is clearly shown in how they report the stuff and the investigation methods used (as in Dowler).

:shock: I was only guessing yesterday about the bombings but it seems I was correct for once.

I heard that Ford have pulled the plug on advertising with them so that's good.

Considering the reach of the organisation and the infiltration exercises they do within organisations (such as mosques etc after 9/11)to get a story at any cost it is not such a stretch to suggest they might have known the 7/7 bombings were planned or nailed on in the planning process. If they knew they were coming there is no way on earth they would have stopped them or informed anyone. Why lose a horror story and the opportunity to pile pain onto people. Sounds mad and unbelievable but so does deleting voice mails of a dead girls phone so they can get more, I wonder what their limits are ? I suggest none at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like the pistol idea, btw. :mrgreen:

But it was traditionally associated with "honourable chaps" taking responsibility and atoning for their actions, which hardly fits the bill here.

What about pump action shotguns, and assisted suicide? No shortage of volunteers to assist, I should think. Could go pay-per-view.

I wouldn't use Sky pay per view. It crashes when there is a high demand like it did during the fight the other night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we'd better get used to Murdoch owning 100% of BskyB. It's not as if anyone's going to stop him is it, Dave has got him on his side and Cable **** up blocking it. It really does looked nailed on the head now that if News International want something, whoever is in charge has to bow to their wishes. What a sad state of affairs we live in.

I wouldn't have minded so much (as I have a brain) apart from their television service happens to be awful. I really need to stop putting money into his coffers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard that Ford have pulled the plug on advertising with them so that's good.

Armando Iannucci has kindly provided this list of News International's major ad clients, with e-mail info of course.

No need to be rude, just say you'll have no truck with any company that deals with the Murdoch empire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to be rude, just say you'll have no truck with any company that deals with the Murdoch empire.

out of curiosity are the "Boycotting Murdoch" people reserving it purely for the NOTW and Sky sports or extending it to 20th Century Fox and Harper Collins etc

will you be doing turning off the TV whenever one of their films come on , walking out the cinema etc ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to be rude, just say you'll have no truck with any company that deals with the Murdoch empire.

out of curiosity are the "Boycotting Murdoch" people reserving it purely for the NOTW and Sky sports or extending it to 20th Century Fox and Harper Collins etc

will you be doing turning off the TV whenever one of their films come on , walking out the cinema etc ?

20th Century Fox & Harper Collins aren't really hacking peoples phones, killing football or trying to exert undue influence over everyone's live's are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the thing is not to hand over any of your money for any of his goods?

I try not to - I cancelled Sky when he applied to take it over and don't buy his rags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should all start opening myspace accounts (he sold it last week for a $500m loss) and fill them with anti-murdoch rhetoric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armando Iannucci has kindly provided this list of News International's major ad clients, with e-mail info of course.

Good to see this note at the top of that page:

Viewing in simple list mode due to high traffic to this document.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard that Ford have pulled the plug on advertising with them so that's good.

Armando Iannucci has kindly provided this list of News International's major ad clients, with e-mail info of course.

No need to be rude, just say you'll have no truck with any company that deals with the Murdoch empire.

:lol:

As NOTW are a major vehicle in the NI Empire, I hope more companies follow Ford's example and put the brakes on any further advertising with them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

R4 had an interview with Simon Greenberg, the NI press person this morning. Sounded out of his depth.

A piece by Simon Jordan a few years ago gives some insight into his ethos and style:

The closest I've come to losing it with a journalist was in 2002, after London's Evening Standard, who'd always had great access and cooperation from us, started producing a string of barbed, personal piss takes.

I decided that if they wanted to write this stuff, fine, but they weren't going to do it on our premises, so I withdrew their accreditation. The sports editor's reaction was this: instead of calling me, he phoned our shirt sponsor to suggest they reduced payments to us because they'd be getting less exposure in the Standard. Then he warned me that banning Standard journalists would have a negative effect on Palace's results. I asked him what the hell he was talking about, and he implied that if I obstructed his journalists and restricted his press access, the type of coverage they'd be giving us would have a negative effect on morale.

So where is this guy now? Four years on, he's the top PR man at Chelsea, a club with a reputation for obstructing journalists and restricting press access. PR Week says 'Simon Greenberg is about to embark on a major charm offensive' in football, to boost Chelsea's image. Stand back, and watch him go.

As well as being a slimy little spiv, he's clearly out of his depth trying to deal with this. Jon Snow interviewed him, and it makes for an amusing couple of minutes. The Torygraph called him a rabbit in the headlights, and I think that's kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the thing is not to hand over any of your money for any of his goods?

I try not to - I cancelled Sky when he applied to take it over and don't buy his rags.

it's harder than it appears nowadays though isn't it , I wont buy French goods for example , wont eat French Golden Delicious apples or French Mustard ..needless to say I don't drink wine of any variety but if I did I wouldn't drink French wine .. ..sadly i think my electricity provider is French owned so I can't totally boycott them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the thing is not to hand over any of your money for any of his goods?

I try not to - I cancelled Sky when he applied to take it over and don't buy his rags.

it's harder than it appears nowadays though isn't it , I wont buy French goods for example , wont eat French Golden Delicious apples or French Mustard ..needless to say I don't drink wine of any variety but if I did I wouldn't drink French wine .. ..sadly i think my electricity provider is French owned so I can't totally boycott them

Silly boy. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to be rude, just say you'll have no truck with any company that deals with the Murdoch empire.

out of curiosity are the "Boycotting Murdoch" people reserving it purely for the NOTW and Sky sports or extending it to 20th Century Fox and Harper Collins etc

will you be doing turning off the TV whenever one of their films come on , walking out the cinema etc ?

Assuming people pay for it in the first place.

Paper - I don't know anyone who buys it.

Sky - I had a dream and the dream was stream.

Films / Cinema - Mr T. Orrent.

Harper Collins - Mr T. Orrent (Epub files for readers (eg Sony Reader))

Is it stealing if you steal from criminals ?

There is no need for people to give money to them, they just choose to IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Co-op

Co-operative Group suspends News of the World advertising

July 06, 2011

The Co-operative Group has taken the decision to suspend temporarily any further advertising and promotional activity with the News of the World until the outcome of the investigation is known.

The Group is a consumer-owned business which adheres to strong ethical standards. These allegations have been met with revulsion by the vast majority of members who have contacted us.

We would urge everyone involved to bring this matter to a speedy conclusion for the sake of all those who are affected by these events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...
Â