21st Century Fox Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 I'd just like to direct a few people over here: http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_rupert_murdoch_uk/?cl=970280285&v=8537 Its worth a try, even if he has got Cameron & Clegg in his pocket. He's already ruined football, how many more wars and scandals will he create. Thanks
Zingari Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 I'd just like to direct a few people over here: http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_rupert_murdoch_uk/?cl=970280285&v=8537 Its worth a try, even if he has got Cameron & Clegg in his pocket. He's already ruined football, how many more wars and scandals will he create. Thanks good to see your concerns / priorities are in the right order this sounds like a massive conspiracy story ( that's not to say it isn't true )
21st Century Fox Posted 2 March 2011 Author Posted 2 March 2011 good to see your concerns / priorities are in the right order this sounds like a massive conspiracy story ( that's not to say it isn't true ) I did notice that after writing it haha. Some of it does sound far fetched but I don't think its worth the risk to end up with the kind of stranglehold he has on the U.S. media. Fox News!!!
Zingari Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 I did notice that after writing it haha. Some of it does sound far fetched but I don't think its worth the risk to end up with the kind of stranglehold he has on the U.S. media. Fox News!!! it doesn't sound far fetched to me , i'm a conspiracy nut who believes 911 was an inside job, and JFK was murdered to get USA into the Vietnam war , and that the media have been part of those conspiracies , and fed us bullshit ever since
Mack Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 If you've got Sky watch Fox News for half an hour and you'll soon see why he must be stopped.
davieG Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 it doesn't sound far fetched to me , i'm a conspiracy nut who believes 911 was an inside job, and JFK was murdered to get USA into the Vietnam war , and that the media have been part of those conspiracies , and fed us bullshit ever since The USA was already heavily involved in the Vietnam war, late 50s Kennedy didn't become President until 1961
Zingari Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 The USA was already heavily involved in the Vietnam war, late 50s Kennedy didn't become President until 1961 no they weren't, they didn't officially go into the war until the gulf of tonkin incident of 1965 ( another stage managed false flag incident that has since been proven ) Kennedy had declared that the us troops were to come back within the year , and that decision was reversed within days of his death
davieG Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 no they weren't, they didn't officially go into the war until the gulf of tonkin incident of 1965 ( another stage managed false flag incident that has since been proven ) Kennedy had declared that the us troops were to come back within the year , and that decision was reversed within days of his death On that basis you're probably right but unofficially they were massively involved during the 50s and troops were there fighting in the late 50s.
Zingari Posted 2 March 2011 Posted 2 March 2011 On that basis you're probably right but unofficially they were massively involved during the 50s and troops were there fighting in the late 50s. Yes i know they were there earlier , but the point is Kennedy wanted to withdraw all the troops within months ,and had declared that the U.S. was withdrawing within months and this upset a lot of people in high places ( the military industrial complex ) . All this changed immediately after his assassination ( with no consultation it seems ), and the USA became further entrenched in the hostilities until the official gulf of tonkin resolution made them officially combatants coicidence ? i think not
davieG Posted 3 March 2011 Posted 3 March 2011 Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation has been given government approval for its controversial takeover of BSkyB. The green light follows News Corp's offer to spin-off Sky News as an independent company. BBC Report - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12631875
breadandcheese Posted 3 March 2011 Posted 3 March 2011 I do like how this takeover is causing such an eruption of self-indulgent b*llocks. Murdoch already controls BSkyB, so this takeover makes very little difference in the running of it. That's why I'm so surprised at all the "outrage" over the takeover. All it does is make his control official. As we have the BBC, paid for by the licence fee, we have a good balance between Sky and BBC, so I think the "outrage" is all very overblown and making a mountain out of a molehill.
lcfc"weasel" Posted 3 March 2011 Posted 3 March 2011 I do like how this takeover is causing such an eruption of self-indulgent b*llocks. Murdoch already controls BSkyB, so this takeover makes very little difference in the running of it. That's why I'm so surprised at all the "outrage" over the takeover. All it does is make his control official. As we have the BBC, paid for by the licence fee, we have a good balance between Sky and BBC, so I think the "outrage" is all very overblown and making a mountain out of a molehill. How many football games are shown on Sky compared to the amount shown on BBC? The balance is everything but even in my opinion.
breadandcheese Posted 3 March 2011 Posted 3 March 2011 How many football games are shown on Sky compared to the amount shown on BBC? The balance is everything but even in my opinion. I think the main bugbear of Rupert Murdoch vs BBC is to do with politics rather than showing football matches.
lcfc"weasel" Posted 3 March 2011 Posted 3 March 2011 I think the main bugbear of Rupert Murdoch vs BBC is to do with politics rather than showing football matches. PRobably so, but it all accumulates to why the guy is a w4nker.
Itsthejoeker Posted 3 March 2011 Posted 3 March 2011 It may have been cricket, but that game between England and India a few days ago would have encouraged so many people to watch and even play cricket if it were on terrestrial tv
unreachable Posted 3 March 2011 Posted 3 March 2011 According to the House of Commons statement by the Culture Secretary the Government has not given approval to Murdoch. The matter is out for consultation. The politics of the Daily Mail are pernicious and by far a more dangerously biased source of news for many people than Murdoch could ever be.
Webbo Posted 3 March 2011 Posted 3 March 2011 According to the House of Commons statement by the Culture Secretary the Government has not given approval to Murdoch. The matter is out for consultation. The politics of the Daily Mail are pernicious and by far a more dangerously biased source of news for many people than Murdoch could ever be. All newspapers have their own bias, you're not forced to buy any of them.
21st Century Fox Posted 3 March 2011 Author Posted 3 March 2011 Totally agree with The Daily Mail argument, but I don't think the threat Murdoch poses can be underestimated. If you've ever watch TV in The States or even Australia, you'll see how impartial and bias it is. You only have to see his mouth pieces Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly to see the fear and hate mongering that the man spreads.
sdb Posted 3 March 2011 Posted 3 March 2011 The Mail might be more obviously offensive but The Sun, with a readership of 3million plus (excluding online) and headlines such as 'Back Blair' or 'Labour's lost it', i'd say it's pretty bias. It basically decides who runs this country. And for 2010 it chose the most spineless bunch of wet flannels you could ever imagine.
unreachable Posted 3 March 2011 Posted 3 March 2011 Totally agree with The Daily Mail argument, but I don't think the threat Murdoch poses can be underestimated. If you've ever watch TV in The States or even Australia, you'll see how impartial and bias it is. You only have to see his mouth pieces Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly to see the fear and hate mongering that the man spreads. I can't speak for USA or Australian news sources but I'm not sure why Sky TV News is regarded as a threat to the nation when it is a very small fish in the ocean of media sources which people absorb. You couldn't prove its influence in isolation anyway since we are bombarded by news from different sources. Perhaps we should bring back the Lord Chamberlain and full state censorship like China.
21st Century Fox Posted 3 March 2011 Author Posted 3 March 2011 That is until the new 'independent' Sky News, buys out ITN News and manages to narrow the choice of British news sources even further... watch this space!
Webbo Posted 3 March 2011 Posted 3 March 2011 Just expanding this a bit, why can't we in this multi channel age have a Daily Mail TV, Guardian TV or Daily Mirror TV. People can choose what paper to buy why can't they watch to news that they want?
21st Century Fox Posted 3 March 2011 Author Posted 3 March 2011 I doubt a substantial portion of the readerships of some newspapers are even aware of a bias but take it at face value (The Sun ) Granted every outlet has some kind of bias but when you take into consideration how Sky News is syndicated through out different radio stations, choice sometimes doesn't come into it.
Finnegan Posted 3 March 2011 Posted 3 March 2011 why can't we in this multi channel age have a Daily Mail TV It's called FOX.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.