Jump to content

Opinion piece in today's 'Independent'

jinnantonnixx

By jinnantonnixx
in General Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

jinnantonnixx

jinnantonnixx

Posted
Posted (edited)

This doesn't pull any punches!

 

Matthew Norman: Now is the moment to stop Murdoch - Matthew Norman, Commentators - The Independent

 

 

When Margaret Thatcher made her Faustian pact with Mr Murdoch in the 1980s, granting him his every heart's desire in return for his unwavering slavish support, she hastened the creation of the monster we see revealed in all its gruesome hideosity today.

 

In general terms, she gifted him the preposterous media market share he expertly parlayed into a stranglehold over the political elite. In a country without a written constitution, bereft of checks and balances and devoid of oversight, the levers of power are there to be seized by the most ruthless buccaneer in town. This he did with wonted dark genius, coaxing and cajoling, bullying and bribing, to inculcate the near universally received wisdom that without his approval, no party can be elected or prosper in power for long. Once Thatcher had established the precedent of obeisance, it was rigidly and cringingly adhered to thereafter by Mr Tony Blair, the successor but one she begat, and now by his self-styled heir David Cameron.

 

Specifically, meanwhile, she politicised the police by using them as a political truncheon at Wapping as with the simultaneous miners' strike. In so doing, she placed them in Mr Murdoch's pocket, where they have snugly remained ever since.

Edited by jinnantonnixx
Flatpackhamster

Flatpackhamster

Posted
Posted

You see, this is the problem that I have with much of the commentary on the News of the World stuff. It isn't that it was wrong which has got so many people agitated, it's that it was a Murdoch newspaper doing it. Guardian, BBC, Independent - their knives are out not because of what's happened but because Murdoch is unashamedly right-wing and they see it as a chance to settle scores. They hate him in the same way that they hate the above-mentioned Margaret Thatcher. It's visceral, it's incoherent, and it drives them to apoplexy.

 

Look at the last paragraph:

 

"Doing so would not mean that Milly Dowler did not die in vain. It would be insufferably glib to suggest that. But it would honour the memory of her name if something wonderful could be salvaged from an unspeakable tragedy that meant no more to Murdoch's minions, as ever working to the Fuhrer in whose image they are cast, than another opportunity to cash in. "

 

It would 'honour the memory of [Milly Dowler's] name' if News Corp couldn't take over BSkyB? Did you ever read such a sanctimonious, rancid, mawkish piece of doggerel outside a tabloid paper?

witch

witch

Posted
Posted

Take your point but I personally don't care who did it, I am just disgusted that it was done at all.

The article is very good though, and does show how much power has been conceded to people like Murdoch

Flatpackhamster

Flatpackhamster

Posted
Posted
Take your point but I personally don't care who did it, I am just disgusted that it was done at all.

The article is very good though, and does show how much power has been conceded to people like Murdoch

 

It shouldn't have been done but let's not pretend for a minute that journalists are angels. They're not paid to be. They're muckrakers. They all are, that's what they love doing and what draws them to the job. Often they're vile.

Without them, though, we'd be in a hell of a bind. Look at William Cobbett. A journalist and muckraker in every way, but he revealed the corruption at the heart of Parliament. Few other people at the time could have done it. He broke the law to do it and was imprisoned for it.

 

There's no comparison between the NOTW and Cobbett, but to draw another analogy - look at the expose of politicians' expenses in the Telegraph, or the Guardian's Wikileaks features. Both were passing out illicitly gained material. The NOTW is the other side of the coin.

 

That's why I loathe the sanctimonious hypocrisy that's flying around at the moment. All journos know in their hearts that, if they really wanted that scoop badly enough they'd have done the same things as the NOTW did.

  • Thanks 1
SteveBentley

SteveBentley

Posted
Posted

As much as I dislike what has allegedly happened, and am not exactly a Murdoch fan, I have to say that the timing of this news breaking is clearly a very unsubtle stitich-up job with the BSkyB takeover decision imminent.

 

I think I'm right in saying that at the moment most of the recent revalations are still allegations and claims that may or may not prove to be correct?

somabc

somabc

Posted
Posted
The telecom companies have to share the blame in all this. I know they call it phone hacking but it's not really hacking. This would be the equivalent of Google setting everyones GMail password as password then being upset when someone reads your email.
pcstru

pcstru

Posted
Posted

There's no comparison between the NOTW and Cobbett, but to draw another analogy - look at the expose of politicians' expenses in the Telegraph, or the Guardian's Wikileaks features. Both were passing out illicitly gained material. The NOTW is the other side of the coin.

As far as I know, in those cases the papers were passed information, they did not commission someone to go and get it. There is also a public interest defence that newspapers can plead; in the case of the Telegraph - even if they had commissioned a crime to come by the information, they would still have a very strong case. The Guardian and Wikileaks - possibly, but NOTW and Milly Dowler or deceased members of the armed forces - not so much.

 

That's why I loathe the sanctimonious hypocrisy that's flying around at the moment. All journos know in their hearts that, if they really wanted that scoop badly enough they'd have done the same things as the NOTW did.

 

Then they didn't want it badly enough. Anyway, what does it matter what other people might have done. Surely NOTW and the Murdoch empire should be responsible for THEIR own actions and should face the consequences.

Flatpackhamster

Flatpackhamster

Posted
Posted
As far as I know, in those cases the papers were passed information, they did not commission someone to go and get it. There is also a public interest defence that newspapers can plead; in the case of the Telegraph - even if they had commissioned a crime to come by the information, they would still have a very strong case. The Guardian and Wikileaks - possibly, but NOTW and Milly Dowler or deceased members of the armed forces - not so much.

 

But where you have the freedom of the press, you will get both sides of the coin. You either have an unfree press and no expenses revelations and no Wikileaks revelations, or you have a free press and, frankly, have to suck it up. If you think the stuff that's printed in the tabloids nowadays is bad take a look at the 19th century pamphleteers. I agree that there's no 'public interest defence' in the NOTW. Let me reiterate that I don't defend what they did.

 

The problem arises with the definition of 'public interest'. If politicians are allowed to tighten that definition then there is a risk that their corruption and hypocrisy go unpunished.

 

Then they didn't want it badly enough. Anyway, what does it matter what other people might have done. Surely NOTW and the Murdoch empire should be responsible for THEIR own actions and should face the consequences.

 

Yes, the NOTW should be responsible for their actions, as everyone should be. What I'm objecting to is the way some papers and broadcasters have made this political. This, for them, isn't about a newspaper, it's about a man and what he stands for.

Theblacksheep

Theblacksheep

Posted
Posted (edited)
As much as I dislike what has allegedly happened, and am not exactly a Murdoch fan, I have to say that the timing of this news breaking is clearly a very unsubtle stitich-up job with the BSkyB takeover decision imminent.

 

Like the stitch up job Murdoch done to Vince Cable over the BSB takeover?

 

Its going to be interesting how much Wade will take considering it was Camerons communication officer (now gone because of the oncoming shit storm) that was in control though much of it.

Edited by Theblacksheep
aerospacemango

aerospacemango

Posted
Posted
Like the stitch up job Murdoch done to Vince Cable over the BSB takeover?

 

Or, you could argue, the stitch up job that BSkyB did on Brown at the last election?

 

It was a Sky mic that caught him out in the car, despite the fact that it SHOULD have been switched off. I'm not saying that what Gordon Brown said was right, but that it's another invasion of privacy.

 

I think the next few days will be very interesting, to see what comes out next. With the amount of ad-space being given back by companies, NotW will have to find even more news to fill their pages.

 

By the way, I'm not able to get to my phone at the moment, but if you DO ring, leave a message and a NotW hack will email it to me later....

aerospacemango

aerospacemango

Posted
Posted

And thus it ends....

 

New of the World to have final print on Sunday.....

 

But what about the Sun, The Times and The Sunday Times? Allpart of the same stable, and if you think they have not used phone hacking, then you would be sadly mistaken.

DrCheese

DrCheese

Posted
Posted
It was a Sky mic that caught him out in the car, despite the fact that it SHOULD have been switched off. I'm not saying that what Gordon Brown said was right, but that it's another invasion of privacy.

Yeah. I think one of the BBC editors said that if they had caught it they wouldn't have put it on the Air as they would count it as a private moment. Once it was out in the open tho, the BBC reported it like everyone else.

 

The problem with the BSKYB purchase is that no matter the restraints put on Murdocs editorial ability for sky news, he/they always find ways around them. You only have to look at him buying up papers in the past and bypassing all the checks placed on his power with them.

 

You only have to look at the news corp papers now (i.e the sun) to see how sad it will be if they are allowed to dominate another media organisation. Dispite it being pretty much the biggest story, the sun is putting anything but the story on their front page.

GrumbleDook

GrumbleDook

Posted
Posted
Ah ... The Sun. As any red-wearing scouser will tell you (and a number of Toffees too) that rag isn't fit to wipe the backside of a Man Utd fan ... and that is saying something!
  • Thanks 3
martyarf

martyarf

Posted
Posted
Unfortunately, a society gets the Press it deserves.

 

I think rather the opposite; a society gets the press that the political and economic elite decide it should have.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...