Rupert Murdoch
The man is a lizard. Not in the David Icke sense, but in the morally reprehensible, looks-a-bit-like-one sense.

That he could sit in front of an inquiry and claim to have no knowledge of the phone hacking going on at HIS newspaper, when he is renowned in the media world for being utterly underhanded at every turn and get away with it makes my fucking blood boil. He represents a kind of social cancer of ignorance, which I feel is genuinely holding the progress of civilisation back. He has almost single-handedly created an atmosphere where more emphasis is placed on so-called "celebrities" and their private lives than on the things that make you a fundamentally decent human being. Like looking up to doctors, soldiers, scholars and scientists, rather than winners of reality TV shows, and fake, plastic Hollywood stars.

It's left us with a country full of idiots who genuinely feel that in order to be a success in life, you only have to apply to go on some shitty talent show. I was on a train a few days ago, and overheard a conversation where one guy was actually talking about going on Dragon's Den as though it was a legitimate way to start a business, and not just some shitty television show where 90% of people who apply are exploited for entertainment value, and nothing else.

People don't feel that they have to EARN anything any more, and so we're left with this undeserved sense of entitlement.

And it's Rupert Murdochs fault.

Him and that ugly Ginger bitch he called his chief editor too.
( PMGT -Bacon., Mon 2 Jan 2012, 16:02, 19 replies)

How dare you speak out against the Holy Leader like that.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Mon 2 Jan 2012, 16:35, closed)

Agreed
The man's an arse!
( Turquoise Hexagon Sun has just dropped acid on, Mon 2 Jan 2012, 16:54, closed)

Ooh I like this

( Major Turd for tonight only, Mon 2 Jan 2012, 17:33, closed)

I'm still sticking with Wendy as the hero.

(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Mon 2 Jan 2012, 17:54, closed)

I agree that Murdoch
is an absolute (insert swearword here) BUT ultimately no-one is forced to buy his publications. With Sky admittedly it's the main way to access most live sporting events, but again that's down to the greed of the sports governing bodies, and apathy on behalf of the public. Sport survived for years without the influx of TV money, and it could again.

However, no-one is forced to buy his papers (just like no-one is forced to listen to {insert name of shite musician(s) here} or watch {insert name of shite TV programme(s) here}). There are plenty of alternatives out there.

I remember once speaking to someone who sold "Socialist Worker". I told him that if there was sufficient demand, it would be sold in WH Smiths - the fact that it was not was not down to The Man, but down to the fact that 99.9% of the population would rather read something else.

Same concept applies. There are alternatives out there in the media which don't involve / aren't controlled by Murdoch. If people are stupid enough to want to read the Sun, or to pay £80 / month for a Sky TV package, that's up to them. Whilst people prefer the lowest common denominator, someone will always supply it to them; but it's easier to blame "the Meedja, innit" than to blame those who fund it.
(TheImmortalJenkins, Mon 2 Jan 2012, 18:17, closed)

A couple of points.
I don't think the issue here is alternatives. In many places (including here in Oz), the Murdochs/Packers etc. do actually have what boils down to a media monopoly. I know it's different in the UK. Damn Australia's loose media ownership laws!
& when they (the owners) dictate editorial policy in that situation - then there arises many problems. You make that point about Sky and sports broadcasting. Considering how much sport relies on sponsorship revenue, I don't think any amount of in-stadium income would even touch the sides compared to product placements & tv ads. Hence the huge fucking bunfight every year over here as to who gets to show the footy on free-to-air.
The problem with LCD sheeple is that they'll eat shit if it's spoon fed to them. & when muntungular frattocks like the Murdochs etc. decide what flavour of shit it is - there-in lies the problem.
EDIT: To put it in perspective - the police/secret service (whoever you might think of while burning your toenail clippings) have had the ability to tap our mobiles for years and apart from a few bleats from some civil liberties groups no-one has batted and eyelid. Cause we're fighting a war against the horrible terrorists. Right?
(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Mon 2 Jan 2012, 19:05, closed)

Yes, but...
...the point I made about sports surviving before TV money came along is a valid one. In the UK we now have the situation that there are a handful of clubs who have money whereas most are in horrendous debt. If the Russians / Arabs decided they wanted to pull out of football, many major clubs would go to the wall. Football's been played for years without the amounts of money floating around that ensure that organisations like FIFA are massively corrupt. So it doesn't have to be this way.
However the more general point is that either the "sheeple" are allowed to make their own decisions - which we can regard as ill-informed - or they can be dictated to. And there is no such thing as a benign dictator. Power corrupts.
Finally, yes, lots of powers have been granted to world governments since 2001 as part of the "War on Terror" but again, there have been elections since then in the US, the UK and Australia, and obviously those powers are not an issue to the electorate.
EVERYTHING - the media, the politics - is a result of surveys and focus groups. If people cared enough about issues like privacy then these would be brought up at election time. They don't, so they aren't - it's a case of bread and circuses to keep the proles happy. Be interesting to see what happens now the financial situation means we're running low on both.
(TheImmortalJenkins, Mon 2 Jan 2012, 20:47, closed)

Sorry to go OT but...
The money for footy is probably fairly similar & we've had our share of clubs with financial probs. But it's got to come from somewhere. No amount of rich, multi-billionaire Russian playboy-gangsters is going to be able to afford next seasons salary caps or the season after that & so on & so on...
So the steady income you'll need to give the top players their lovely handouts (on top of their own personal sponsorship!) will come from advertising sponsorship. The the quickest & easiest way to snag advertisers is make sure their name/logo is on the back of your star player as he kicks that perfect goal at your homeground festooned with ad banners and flyers.... on television. Think about the advertising moneypit that is the Superbowl.
I don't agree with it, but it is the reality of todays major sports income model.
EDIT: I don't disagree that soccer's has been played for years without the money being an issue, but like I said - in this day and age for a club to be financially viable tv sponsorship is a must.

I wasn't so much talking about eroding freedom with my point on phone taps. More that some celebs get their smoochy convos recorded & it's a big thing but *places tinfoil firmly on head* the cops probably started monitoring this thread when you mentioned the "Socialist Worker".
(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Mon 2 Jan 2012, 22:09, closed)

I doubt deluded students and other upper-middle class moochers represent that much of a threat to state security.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Mon 2 Jan 2012, 22:46, closed)

See, I knew you were going to say that.
Cause I can read your thoughts. Tinfoil is your friend dude.
(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Mon 2 Jan 2012, 22:49, closed)

Tell you what, when I lived in Normanton I had terrible trouble getting a mobile phone signal or radio reception anywhere indoors.
Maybe I should make a protective helmet out of Normanton bricks and rent it out to conspiracy theorists for £20/day.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Mon 2 Jan 2012, 22:52, closed)

Nope. That was the jammers at work.

(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Mon 2 Jan 2012, 23:05, closed)

I hate to agree,
but it is true that, in the UK at least, Murdoch's corporations are giving the proles what they want (quite why anyone wants to read The Sun, or pay Sky to beam adverts into their homes, is beyond me).

Bit of a viscious circle, I suppose (discounting any conspiracy theories about our glourious leaders wanting us to remain ill educated and easily manipulated - though there's propbably some truth to that, too) - we want it, even though we'd be better of without it.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 2 Jan 2012, 20:12, closed)

And, y'know, they're the Party's most influential sponsor, so they're very much here to stay.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Mon 2 Jan 2012, 20:21, closed)

I don't think of it as a conspiracy theory,
more an endlessly self-fulfilling circle of shit. Murdoch has crafted an environment in which people want to buy his shit papers, because they're all thick as fuck. The thicker they are, the more they buy his papers. The more they buy his papers, the thicker they are. He's a genius really.
( PMGT -Bacon., Tue 3 Jan 2012, 1:38, closed)

Agreed.
Most people who make such criticisms often fail to respect that it is the nature of market capitalism to give people what they want, and also require that consumers are more active in their decisions, or their apathy will be taken advantage of.
Using the state to control peoples economic behavior and choice almost always fails, makes things worse or leads to corruption and a perversion of democracy. It is also an insult to the freedom and intelligence of the great majority of the population.
That's why a press regulator is either going to be unworkable or authoritarian. You just watch if it goes ahead, the next minister to put their hand in the till or shag their secretary will use the state control of the media to suppress freedom of expression.
And anyway, when are the Parties going to realize that Murdoch's papers
support the people who are going to win anyway, and not that their support swings people. I believe firmly that the Labour would have still lost in 1992 and 2010 even if the Sun had supported Labour. It isn't the "Sun What Wins It", and Blair still would have won in 1997 without the Sun.
(Glucose-Maximus All over the world., Mon 2 Jan 2012, 22:13, closed)

I agree largely,
But I would argue that market capitalism has long since evolved past that point. It used to be "give the people what they want", but I would argue these days it's "tell the people what they want, and then give it to them".

Read up on "the torches of freedom" for a pretty good example of that. Edward Bernays, the father of modern advertising, basically created a social movement from scratch in order to sell more cigarettes. And it worked, of course.
( PMGT -Bacon., Tue 3 Jan 2012, 1:43, closed)

I can hand on heart say I have never once bought any of his papers.
And as for alternatives, I don't watch the X Factor, I'm A Celebrity, Dragon's Den, or any of those types of shows, yet I still end up hearing about them. My big problem with it is that it is fucking inescapable. I actively avoid these things when I can, and even I end up knowing what who is in the finals of these shithouse shows.

Yes, the people who buy the papers are to blame, but when those people are born and raised in an environment he helped shape and create, is it any wonder people go out and buy those papers? You're making the mistake of thinking that people start out by making a completely unbiased choice of what they're going to read.

in much the same way that you grow up knowing that you're not meant to walk down the road naked, people are now growing up thinking that fame is something to aspire to, and it's rapidly becoming the case that people are also growing up thinking that fame is easy to achieve by going on some shitty gameshow, and that that is somehow a viable career choice.

Go watch the second episode of "Black Mirror". I think that is a startlingly horrific and feasible vision of the future that Murdoch has had a big hand in trying to create...
( PMGT -Bacon., Tue 3 Jan 2012, 1:34, closed)

Exactly right.
Notions of supply and demand aren't as clear cut when Murdoch and his kind are the ones creating said demand. They're like drug dealers giving free samples to children to get them hooked early on. Except even drug dealers wouldn't have the audacity to claim that they were only dealing smack because so many people want it.

That Black Mirror was depressingly feasible. The worst part was the way that they were living in this nightmarish dystopia, and nobody really noticed or cared.
(Spectacular Biscuits, Tue 3 Jan 2012, 10:56, closed)