Individuals who have worked for that newspaper have been accused of being involved in intercepting voice-mail from mobile phones belonging to celebrities, politicians, missing and murdered children, families of the vicims of crimes, and families of soldiers killed in action. Oh, and police bribery.
When the scandal came to light, it caused a large outpouring of outrage and disgust from the British public, and a withdrawal of advertising revenues as advertisers distanced themselves from the newspaper to avoid having their names tarnished by association.
News Of The World is owned by News Corporation, whose Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Rupert Murdoch, is today visiting the UK in an attempt to control the crisis. News Corp is currently in the process of trying to become the majority shareholder of UK satellite broadcasting company BSkyB, a move that has faced opposition from media rivals and politicians. Opposition to the deal has increased since the scandal broke, including claims that it shows that News Corp is not a "fit and proper" owner, as required by UK media regulator Ofcom.
I am interested to know how much coverage this story is getting in other countries, as News Corporation is one of the big players in the media worldwide.|||Rupert Murdoch also owns FOX NEWS so there's some attention here because of that fact.|||Hearing plenty about it here in Australia also.|||Heard about it. Didn't delve into it. Wasn't surprise. TBH Banning the corporation wouldn't be disproportionate.|||Add the victims of 9/11 to the list of possible hacking by Murdoch's tabloid: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/...154337461.html
Quote:
The British press Monday dropped two more bombshells in the News of the World phone-hacking saga.
First up: News of the World journalists, who have been accused of horrifically intrusive phone-hacking tactics in the U.K., may also have illegally accessed the cell phones of those who perished in the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks.
I can't say I'm shocked by all this. Though not nearly as controversial, Murdoch's other "news" outlet FOX has pulled multiple shady stunts in the past ranging from outright fabrications of stories, photo manipulation, misleading ticker titles and so on and so on.|||Less of this garbage being fed to gullible people is a good thing imo, hope they get some appropriate punishment (meaning a fine proportional to how much money they make/have)|||Is their site for real? People actually "read" that?|||It's not about the crap they printed, so much as how they went about getting their facts.
Scumbags. Best way to describe the people behind the wire taps, and the people further up the chain that covered up for them. People need to move away from Rupert Murdoch's slanted media sources. He might avoid legal troubles, but hitting him the wallet should hurt him far worse.|||Quote:
Scumbags. Best way to describe the people behind the wire taps, and the people further up the chain that covered up for them. People need to move away from Rupert Murdoch's slanted media sources. He might avoid legal troubles, but hitting him the wallet should hurt him far worse.
Don't pull that sort of hypocritical garbage. Really. Just because Vivendi withholds water to dying villagers in Africa doesn't mean that Universal is an evil empire. The New York Times knowingly published sheer fabrications and plagiarized material, protecting the author simply because of his skin color. Wikileaks published far more private and secret information, illegally obtained, and at potential risk to human life. But I don't hear people screaming for Pinch's or Assange's head.
That being said, I <do> want to know when charges will be brought. Both for the "reporters" and for "Ms." Brooks. Even though there's an anti-conservative feeding frenzy gripping the Left currently, this sort of behavior is still beyond the pale and should be punished harshly. Invasion of privacy just to get juicy details shouldn't be tolerated on anyone's part.|||First of all Wikileaks were not the ones that "steal" information, they merely publish the information much like FOX NEWS did themselves except that they did it in the guise of a third/fourth party screaming about what Wikileaks did.
Second, it's been claimed many times that Wikileaks leaked sensitive information that was a risk to human life, such as names of those working undercover. No such thing has happened and no one has provided any sort of evidence or pointed out where Wikileaks has done such a thing. Most of the leaks are about government corruption.
Third, Wikileaks did not publish any information from private citizens to sell a sleazy tabloid story the way Murdoch did. They never hacked nor published nor rummaged information from dead victims. They published stolen information from the government, period.
And since when is holding journalists and news organizations to a standard anyone else has to abide by, an anti-conservative feeding frenzy?
No comments:
Post a Comment