Jump to content

Murdoch Scum


snowychap

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, snowychap said:

giphy.gif&f=1&nofb=1

 

:blush:  , With my fat fingers , imagine if I happened to be the creator of  Sesame street , we'd have Oscar the crouch who loved thrash

 

grumpy sesame street GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of a friend worked at The Sun, he left them to work at The Daily Mail. Really unsure where his next move will be. He is and was a fairly middle of the road fella. Not right wing. I guess to him its just a job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...
On 01/03/2020 at 23:32, HanoiVillan said:

During the election campaign, Tom Newton Dunn - the Sun's political editor - put out a bizarre, conspiracy-theory style 'network analysis' of people connected to the Labour leadership, which subsequently turned out to have been largely sourced from neo-Nazi websites, and he has faced no apparent professional consequences whatsoever for that.

Happy Tom Newton Dunn Day!

As shown in a previous post on this topic (see last page, as it is for me), he has in fact responded to Dawn Foster on this topic, accusing her of 'untrue slurs', but it's extremely hard to see what is untrue. He literally did publish a network-style conspiracy theory, and it literally did turn out to be largely sourced from a neo-Nazi website, and the Sun quietly deleted it later without explanation. 

As I have said repeatedly, he has not faced any professional sanction for doing this, and continues on his merry way with the vast majority of the British media happy to work with him.

Turns out he's a complete Representative for Wellingborough as well:

EokatHrXIAc7fk6?format=jpg&name=large

(from: https://twitter.com/jrc1921/status/1335628130409705474) (the article is from Private Eye)

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Quote

LONDON — Beset by declining ratings, upheaval in its on-air ranks and a multibillion-dollar defamation suit related to its election coverage, Fox News is staggering out of the Trump era — blamed by many for seeding the poisonous political culture that brought a violent mob into the halls of the United States Capitol.

Yet in Britain, where television news is regulated to avoid political bias, Rupert Murdoch and a competing group of investors are seizing this moment to create two upstart news services that will challenge the BBC and other broadcasters by borrowing heavily from Mr. Murdoch’s Fox playbook.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/16/world/europe/murdoch-uk-news-channel.html

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

This is truly shocking stuff... The Murdoch press implicated in all sorts of crimes in this piece, which I guess is just a prelude to the Daniel Morgan report due out soon 

Jacqui Hames: My Line of Duty

Rarely is your whole life experience captured in a moment.

Such a moment arrived for me on 28 February 2012 as I walked up the imposing steps of the Royal Courts of Justice to give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry.

As a police officer, I had given evidence in many courtrooms so the prospect of another session in the witness box shouldn’t really have worried me. But this was different, I was about to challenge the combined might of the country’s biggest police force, and the national tabloid press.

https://hackinginquiry.org/jacqui-hames-my-line-of-duty/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Shocked 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 months later...

Grimly amusing:

It's a complete embarrassment for them that their above-the-fold article on page 1 is completely false and made up - they can't even get the gender of the minister right! Or it should be an embarrassment anyway, but as usual they will blithely ignore it and continue pumping garbage into the media ecosystem.

When people talk about 'fake news' they usually mean something to do with low-follower bot accounts on Twitter, but this is every bit as fake and many times more pernicious.

'Who to believe' indeed?

 

Edited by HanoiVillan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always the most galling thing about News International is the sheer shamelessness. Here is one of their employees, burnishing his humanist credentials on the morning after dozens died attempting to cross the Channel:

Hmmm, why on Earth could anyone 'in mainstream politics' feel afraid to challenge said failed strategy?

Coincidentally, this cartoon appeared in David's paper a couple of years ago:

FFBXLnXVQAAcXiC?format=jpg&name=900x900

Why does this fear of the topic exist? Hmm, truly a three-pipe problem eh David.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Always the most galling thing about News International is the sheer shamelessness. Here is one of their employees, burnishing his humanist credentials on the morning after dozens died attempting to cross the Channel:

Hmmm, why on Earth could anyone 'in mainstream politics' feel afraid to challenge said failed strategy?

Coincidentally, this cartoon appeared in David's paper a couple of years ago:

FFBXLnXVQAAcXiC?format=jpg&name=900x900

Why does this fear of the topic exist? Hmm, truly a three-pipe problem eh David.

I’m unsure what your point is?

 It seems to me that his tweet is correct.

It seems equally clear that the reason politicians don’t address different approaches is the double standards not just of the politicians, but of the population. “We” both want to control/limit migration, especially of brown people, because of fears around terrorism, cultural change and straight up racism, but “we” also are appalled at desperate souls being people trafficked to their watery deaths in the channel.

”We” are also of the view that controls around identity (cards), employment and such like which would alter the current impression of the uk as a soft touch would be an unacceptable imposition on our rights.

“We” are also of the view that making the seeking of refuge safer and easier “would only encourage more people to try it on”

”We” are only too aware of the Bataclan, Charlie Hebdo, Manchester,Liverpool, Tower Bridge and many other attacks and demand control.

So I think the vast majority of Brits would be and are individually sympathetic and kindly disposed to individual cases and people, but as a collective issue, we are the opposite of that. And so it is too with politicians.

Could we be better? Yes, definitely, but the reason for the problem is that the different imperatives are pulling in completely different directions, as is kind of illustrated by the tweet and the cartoon. Yes we want to be kind and stop people drowning and being exploited, and no we don’t want to encourage more people to “game the system”. The problem will not go away. It can’t go away, nothing can be done that will fix it, it will only get worse. Migrants will grow in number due to climate change, poverty, war, oppression, religious fundamentalism. Be more kind and the population will get angry about “swamping” as more migrants take up the opportunity . Be nasty and people drown.

So it is a 3 pipe problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, blandy said:

I’m unsure what your point is?

My point is that it's absolutely galling for this man to constantly cash his Murdoch cheques on the one hand, while doing a so-sad-isn't-it-terrible face on the other.

I don't have to like the ****, and I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â