kallend 2,027 #76 July 20, 2011 QuoteLooks like nobody's buying Murdoch's ever-changing story: I bet a certain DZ.COM apologist for every right wing scumbag will buy it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #77 July 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteLooks like nobody's buying Murdoch's ever-changing story: I bet a certain DZ.COM apologist for every right wing scumbag will buy it. Well he does have that FAUX News and WSJ stamped hook and sinker dragging around behind him with the line still hangin from the side of his mouth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #78 July 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteLooks like nobody's buying Murdoch's ever-changing story: I bet a certain DZ.COM apologist for every right wing scumbag will buy it. Well he does have that FAUX News and WSJ stamped hook and sinker dragging around behind him with the line still hangin from the side of his mouth Since you've posted several times the number of Fox links that I have, you must be dragging around an anchor. You and John find that email from ole Rupert yet?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #79 July 20, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Looks like nobody's buying Murdoch's ever-changing story: I bet a certain DZ.COM apologist for every right wing scumbag will buy it. Well he does have that FAUX News and WSJ stamped hook and sinker dragging around behind him with the line still hangin from the side of his mouth Since you've posted several times the number of Fox links that I have, you must be dragging around an anchor. You and John find that email from ole Rupert yet? The difference Mikkeee is I do not buy their bullshit and SWALLOW it hook line and monogramed sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frankyspanky 0 #80 July 21, 2011 QuoteYou and John find that email from ole Rupert yet? Have you been watching the news lately? I can't see how anyone can not see that he clearly is responsible as the head of the company, however the extent of what he was aware of may be. I particularly enjoyed listening to that woman questioning him on his leadership, he was lost for words and his cue cards could not drag him out of his shame. I think it is safe to say we all can conclude (whether we are willing to admit it or not) that this is only a scratch on the surface of the type of corruption that has found a slot in the status quo... It will be interesting to see what unfolds from all of this. More apathetic individuals will be discovering the extents of the influence people like Murdoch have and that can only be a good thing in the long run. Anyone remember the PNAC? How good is that plan sounding to you now, fiscally speaking that is?Back a hundred years ago, especially around Woodrow Wilson, what happened in this country is we took freedom and we chopped it into pieces. Ron Paul Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #81 July 21, 2011 QuoteI think it is safe to say we all can conclude (whether we are willing to admit it or not) that this is only a scratch on the surface of the type of corruption that has found a slot in the status quo... It will be interesting to see what unfolds from all of this. They'll ignore the fact that it happens throughout Fleet street (there's a discussion site with retired British journalists that discuss exactly that, I'll try to find it again) and continue with concentrating on ONE person. QuoteMore apathetic individuals will be discovering the extents of the influence people like Murdoch have and that can only be a good thing in the long run. Great - when do they discover the extent of the influence people like Soros have? QuoteAnyone remember the PNAC? Boogeyman of the Libs for the last 10 years and more, yes. QuoteHow good is that plan sounding to you now, fiscally speaking that is? Haven't read it, but it probably beats running up a trillion dollars in deficit spending.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #82 July 21, 2011 Oh how very amusing. Mike a week ago "it seemed to be one or two individuals and not the entire paper/corporation, as SOME keep trying to infer." Mike today "They'll ignore the fact that it happens throughout Fleet street (there's a discussion site with retired British journalists that discuss exactly that, I'll try to find it again) and continue with concentrating on ONE person." So what exactly is your line of defence here - that it was one or two renegade individuals that Murdoch and the NewsCorp higher ups couldn't have been aware of taking part in an industry wide standard practice that everyone's aware of? Do you not see the problem there? And when you say "They'll ignore..." who are "they"? The Metropolitan Police force?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #83 July 21, 2011 QuoteOh how very amusing. Mike a week ago "it seemed to be one or two individuals and not the entire paper/corporation, as SOME keep trying to infer." Mike today "They'll ignore the fact that it happens throughout Fleet street (there's a discussion site with retired British journalists that discuss exactly that, I'll try to find it again) and continue with concentrating on ONE person." One or two people at NoW, which is what the original article I read spoke of. *DO* try to keep up, old bean. QuoteSo what exactly is your line of defence here - that it was one or two renegade individuals that Murdoch and the NewsCorp higher ups couldn't have been aware of taking part in an industry wide standard practice that everyone's aware of? Do you not see the problem there? I'm not defending anything, Jake - just asking that the "proof" that Murdoch is/was involved in the tapping be proven. If that concept is still beyond your ability to comprehend, I invite you to re-read post 7 where I say that if he's proven to be involved that he should face the consequences. Of course, the commenting on the reporter's chat site shows that it's NOT just Rupert's newspaper that has done that sort of thing...not that you see any mention of it in the reporting, of course.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #84 July 21, 2011 QuoteOne or two people at NoW, which is what the original article I read spoke of. *DO* try to keep up, old bean. I've been ten steps ahead of you the whole time. That's what comes of reading more than one article before saddling up and charging in. QuoteOf course, the commenting on the reporter's chat site shows that it's NOT just Rupert's newspaper that has done that sort of thing Oh really? So now your saying that not only was Murdoch unaware of any illicit activities at one of his own papers, he's actually so incompetent that he has no idea how the entire industry works? Quotenot that you see any mention of it in the reporting, of course. How would you know?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #85 July 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteOne or two people at NoW, which is what the original article I read spoke of. *DO* try to keep up, old bean. I've been ten steps ahead of you the whole time. That's what comes of reading more than one article before saddling up and charging in. Ah, so we're back to the 'how dare you not have read as many articles about this as I have' for the basis of your responses. QuoteQuoteOf course, the commenting on the reporter's chat site shows that it's NOT just Rupert's newspaper that has done that sort of thing Oh really? So now your saying that not only was Murdoch unaware of any illicit activities at one of his own papers, he's actually so incompetent that he has no idea how the entire industry works? No, those are your red herrings.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #86 July 21, 2011 QuoteAh, so we're back to the 'how dare you not have read as many articles about this as I have' for the basis of your responses. No, it's the 'you've made multiple factual errors throughout this thread as a result of being too lazy to do even the briefest amount of research, even when the relevant information is given to you, leading me to believe you don't have the slightest clue what's going on' basis. QuoteNo, those are your red herrings. OK, so you think that Murdoch was aware that his paper would be using illegal newsgathering tactics.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #87 July 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteAh, so we're back to the 'how dare you not have read as many articles about this as I have' for the basis of your responses. No, it's the 'you've made multiple factual errors throughout this thread as a result of being too lazy to do even the briefest amount of research, even when the relevant information is given to you, leading me to believe you don't have the slightest clue what's going on' basis. No, I've stated what the articles and websites that I've read said. Thanks for illustrating my point again - you're arguing based on what info you THINK I should have, rather than the info I've *said* I have. So, since you're the info man... where's those emails from Rupert? QuoteQuoteNo, those are your red herrings. OK, so you think that Murdoch was aware that his paper would be using illegal newsgathering tactics. Nope - that's another of your red herrings. I *don't* think Murdoch personally hires every reporter. I *don't* think Murdoch personally assigns/approves every story reported in every paper he owns. I *don't* think Murdoch emails each of the 51 thousand NewsCorp employees each morning to give them their marching orders. Evidently you and several others *do*, in fact, believe exactly those things.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #88 July 21, 2011 Quote No, I've stated what the articles and websites that I've read said. Thanks for illustrating my point again - you're arguing based on what info you THINK I should have, rather than the info I've *said* I have. Hah I refer you to post 7: "Of course, the usual suspects also fail to mention that it was investigators that did the tapping and not reporters". A factual error, plain and simple. If you had done enough research to be aware of the barest facts of the case you wouldn't be making those mistakes. Quote Thanks for illustrating my point again - you're arguing based on what info you THINK I should have, rather than the info I've *said* I have. The information is out there, it's readily available if you look for it. I found it, and it was not difficult. Thanks for illustrating my point again that you're either too lazy or incompetent to find out what you're talking about before you shoot your mouth off. Quote I *don't* think Murdoch personally hires every reporter. I *don't* think Murdoch personally assigns/approves every story reported in every paper he owns. I *don't* think Murdoch emails each of the 51 thousand NewsCorp employees each morning to give them their marching orders. Non-sequitur much? How does that have anything to do with the question I asked? But since you went in that direction, do you think Murdoch was personally involved in making Rebekah Brooks the head of News International? Quote Evidently you and several others *do*, in fact, believe exactly those things. Cite. (I told you already to drop the psychic act, it makes you look desperate.)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #89 July 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteEvidently you and several others *do*, in fact, believe exactly those things. Cite. Re read the thread title, for one. Then you can continue on to every post that references Murdoch directly by you, kallend or Amazon. Planning on coming up with any proof of that any time soon? Quote(I told you already to drop the psychic act, it makes you look desperate.) You should certainly know, as much as you do it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #90 July 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteEvidently you and several others *do*, in fact, believe exactly those things. Cite. Re read the thread title, for one. Then you can continue on to every post that references Murdoch directly by you, kallend or Amazon. No. I've provided link after link to educate your clueless arse in this thread, now it's your turn. Specifically cite a post in this thread which shows that I or anyone else believes any of the three points you made. Put up or shut the fuck up Mr Mindreader.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #91 July 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteEvidently you and several others *do*, in fact, believe exactly those things. Cite. Re read the thread title, for one. Then you can continue on to every post that references Murdoch directly by you, kallend or Amazon. No. I've provided link after link to educate your clueless arse in this thread, now it's your turn. Specifically cite a post in this thread which shows that I or anyone else believes any of the three points you made. Post #1 - directly accuses Rupert of the phone tapping. Finding the others is left as an exercise for the student. QuotePut up or shut the fuck up Mr Mindreader. Indeed...maybe you should get started on that.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #92 July 21, 2011 QuotePost #1 - directly accuses Rupert of the phone tapping. Really? Which part of the post says that Murdoch personally hired the reporter who tapped a dead serviceman's phone? Which part of the post says he personally approved any resulting story? Which part of the post said he personally emailed the reporter to tell him to do it? Now once you've done that, cite a post that shows that I think any of those things. Hop to it, Copperfield. QuoteFinding the others is left as an exercise for the student. Who exactly do you think is going to take you seriously when it can be plainly seen how many times I've had to correct you in this thread? Save the condescension for a subject where you've got a leg to stand on. Right now it just makes you appear deluded.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #93 July 21, 2011 Got that proof of Rupert's complicity yet?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #94 July 21, 2011 So you can't actually cite anything and you're going to drop your psychic bullshit? Good. OTOH, you've caused enough distraction that you don't have to explain how this sort of hacking could be industry standard practice but the biggest newsman of our time is completely unaware of it, so you've got that going for you.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #95 July 21, 2011 QuoteSo you can't actually cite anything QuoteWhich part of the post says that Murdoch personally hired the reporter who tapped a dead serviceman's phone? You said "any of the three", not "all of the three". QuoteWhich part of the post says he personally approved any resulting story? My Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy glasses must have made the post read "Rupert" instead of the "editor/reporter" that you evidently read - can you screencap it for me? QuoteWhich part of the post said he personally emailed the reporter to tell him to do it? You said "any of the three", not "all of the three". QuoteNow once you've done that, cite a post that shows that I think any of those things. Hop to it, Copperfield. Proven below, where you think that Rupert knew of the story and/or how the info was obtained. QuoteOTOH, you've caused enough distraction that you don't have to explain how this sort of hacking could be industry standard practice but the biggest newsman of our time is completely unaware of it, so you've got that going for you. And that shows that you believe that Rupert personally vets the stories and directs how the information is obtained, or how else could he know about it? Found the Op-ed....link "Many veteran Fleet Street reporters cannot see what the phone-hacking fuss is all about. I've had several emails from former colleagues telling me that I've lost the plot (nothing new there!) because intercepting voicemail messages is no different from the things they, or their staffs, got up to back in the day. "The only difference is the technology," wrote one. "I'm damn sure if we'd had mobiles when I was on the road we'd have been listening in. "After all, we got up to every other trick in the book. And don't go on about that public interest nonsense. We did what we did because the desk were always on our backs to get the story." Another emailer, who has written several times on the same subject, also pointed out that throughout the chain of command on pop papers, staff only told their bosses what they needed to know. Therefore the reporter didn't explain to the news editor how he/she obtained information unless specifically ordered to do so. Similarly, the news editor didn't tell the assistant editor and the assistant editor didn't tell the editor." And the link to the newsman site, with this nice bit on it: "Looking back, as one sometimes does, it might – obliquely – have been the Daily Mirror that started it. Remember the ‘Camilla Tape’ – the telephone conversation in which the heir to the throne mused that he might like to be reincarnated as a pair of his mistress’s knickers, ‘Or, God forbid, a Tampax… just my luck’?"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #96 July 21, 2011 And a bit from Google: QuoteHacking probe extends beyond Murdoch papers By Sam Reeves (AFP) – 6 hours ago LONDON — More newspapers became embroiled in the phone-hacking scandal on Thursday as the deputy prime minister said the crisis was a chance to clean up "murky" ties between politicians, police and the media. After hacking allegations at Rupert Murdoch's News of the World closed the Sunday tabloid, it emerged that police have asked for files from a regulator which exposed the use of private investigators by other rival papers. QuoteBut other media groups are now under the spotlight after Britain's Information Commissioner's Office said police had requested files from a 2006 inquiry into the use of private investigators by newspapers. That inquiry found that the Daily Mail had made 952 requests to private detectives for confidential details; The People made 802 requests, the Daily Mirror 681 and The Mail on Sunday 228. The News of the World was in fifth place with 228.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #97 July 21, 2011 QuoteYou said "any of the three", not "all of the three". So at least you admit plucking two out of three allegations out of thin-air. It's a start. QuoteMy Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy glasses must have made the post read "Rupert" instead of the "editor/reporter" that you evidently read - can you screencap it for me? Congratulations. You've demonstrated that the post mentions Rupert Murdoch. Now which part says he personally approved any resulting story? QuoteProven below, where you think that Rupert knew of the story and/or how the info was obtained. That doesn't reference any specific instance of hacking or any specific story. You are inventing meaning that simply isn't there. Again, please, please remember that you're not psychic, so please go by what I've written, not what you think I might have meant, mm'kay? QuoteAnd that shows that you believe that Rupert personally vets the stories and directs how the information is obtained, or how else could he know about it? Wow. That's more than a leap, that's being fired out of a cannon. I'll just remind you that it was 4 years ago that NI carried out an internal inquiry after Goodman's conviction that showed he wasn't the only member of staff involved in hacking. Who became aware of that? What action was taken? Apart from allowing the NOTW to lie about it, obviously. QuoteAnother emailer, who has written several times on the same subject, also pointed out that throughout the chain of command on pop papers, staff only told their bosses what they needed to know. Therefore the reporter didn't explain to the news editor how he/she obtained information unless specifically ordered to do so. Similarly, the news editor didn't tell the assistant editor and the assistant editor didn't tell the editor." Right. And all these editors were obviously parachuted into the industry from above, with no industry background and no knowledge of how journalism works. But I guess that view does tie in with the current investigation, because only ground level journalists have been arrested with no suggestion that their superiors knew anything about... Oh no, I'm sorry, that's total bullshit. It's actually mostly editorial staff that have so far been arrested, including two successive editors in chief, one of whom (until very recently) was described as the closest person to Rupert who wasn't also called Murdoch. No, the suggestion that this was A) industry wide standard practice and B) Murdoch couldn't possibly have known anything at all about it unless he was actually sitting in the newsroom with the headphones on is rather weak. (In fact, did you not think I'd read the link you provided? Very strange how you could post an article condemning the practice of I don't care how you get it just don't tell me how you get it and management intentionally looking the other way while still maintaining that without an explicit email from the boss this can't reflect badly on him at all.)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frankyspanky 0 #98 July 21, 2011 QuoteI *don't* think Murdoch personally hires every reporter. I *don't* think Murdoch personally assigns/approves every story reported in every paper he owns. I *don't* think Murdoch emails each of the 51 thousand NewsCorp employees each morning to give them their marching orders. Evidently you and several others *do*, in fact, believe exactly those things. ** Do you think he is ultimately responsible as the CEO of the company regardless of what he knows?? **Considering that particular company is only 1% of his media empire, can you not see that the repercussions of this debacle 'might' shine some light on similar wrongdoings in the other 99%. It seems to me you are just stubborn, why would you even bother defending such a despicable person?Back a hundred years ago, especially around Woodrow Wilson, what happened in this country is we took freedom and we chopped it into pieces. Ron Paul Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frankyspanky 0 #99 July 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteI *don't* think Murdoch personally hires every reporter. I *don't* think Murdoch personally assigns/approves every story reported in every paper he owns. I *don't* think Murdoch emails each of the 51 thousand NewsCorp employees each morning to give them their marching orders. Evidently you and several others *do*, in fact, believe exactly those things. ** Do you think he is ultimately responsible as the CEO of the company regardless of what he knows?? **Considering that particular company is only 1% of his media empire, can you not see that the repercussions of this debacle 'might' shine some light on similar wrongdoings in the other 99%. It seems to me you are just stubborn, why would you even bother defending such a person? When Soros slips up... He is in the business of developing stuff, and selling those products, Rupert is in the business of gaining information off people and it turns out he is breaking the rules, left right and center... Subtle difference, but I will have to agree that Soros is up there when we are on the subject of influence, but that is not what this thread is about, is it. QuoteQuoteAnyone remember the PNAC? Boogeyman of the Libs for the last 10 years and more, yes. What are they to you, don’t pass the buck here. QuoteQuoteHow good is that plan sounding to you now, fiscally speaking that is? Haven't read it, but it probably beats running up a trillion dollars in deficit spending. I suggest you do, their plan makes a trillion dollar deficit look like chump change... Guess who profits? clue: not the American peopleBack a hundred years ago, especially around Woodrow Wilson, what happened in this country is we took freedom and we chopped it into pieces. Ron Paul Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #100 July 22, 2011 QuoteQuoteYou said "any of the three", not "all of the three". So at least you admit plucking two out of three allegations out of thin-air. It's a start. No, I admit nothing of the kind. I provided sufficient proof to satisfy YOUR claim, don't try to weasel out of it now, Jake. QuoteMy Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy glasses must have made the post read "Rupert" instead of the "editor/reporter" that you evidently read - can you screencap it for me? Congratulations. You've demonstrated that the post mentions Rupert Murdoch. Now which part says he personally approved any resulting story? The thread title demonstrates number 1. The original post text (and several other posts), she also thinks that he was directly involved in the tapping, which covers numbers 2 and 3. Kallends postings also support 2 and 3. QuoteProven below, where you think that Rupert knew of the story and/or how the info was obtained. Quote Again, please, please remember that you're not psychic, so please go by what I've written, not what you think I might have meant, mm'kay? You first. Quote Right. And all these editors were obviously parachuted into the industry from above, with no industry background and no knowledge of how journalism works. Yup, just like Piers Morgan - you know, the guy that's now on CNN? Let's see what he had to say about it: "I spoke to the editor of the News of the World maybe once a week, maybe once every two weeks. He never asked me about methodology of stories, he didn't have time. He would just say what's going on, and you would tell him what stories you had and he would be, I'm sure, in a position where he thought, I have editors, I have managers, I have lawyers, I have accountants, they do all the box ticking here. My job is just to get an overview of what's going on. And I think when you run a company of 50,000 people, it is a bit ridiculous to expect Rupert Murdoch to be all over the micro-detail of how each individual part of his company gets run." QuoteBut I guess that view does tie in with the current investigation, because only ground level journalists have been arrested with no suggestion that their superiors knew anything about... Oh no, I'm sorry, that's total bullshit. It's actually mostly editorial staff that have so far been arrested, including two successive editors in chief, one of whom (until very recently) was described as the closest person to Rupert who wasn't also called Murdoch. Speaking of arrests.... from the Google news story in separate post, above: "Police have since arrested, questioned and then released 10 people over the affair." Thank goodness for that... they won't have to do that emergency expansion to the Yard after all. QuoteNo, the suggestion that this was A) industry wide standard practice and B) Murdoch couldn't possibly have known anything at all about it unless he was actually sitting in the newsroom with the headphones on is rather weak. See quote from Piers Morgan, above. You get your own opinion, Jake, but that doesn't make it fact.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
