Alan Austin,

Who is News Corporation but an army of vagabond pen-pushers feasting on the mass of people they of subdue with a daily diet of misinformation and silence?

It is easy to say “Time to go”.

But is there a place for them go?

No Mr. Austin.

Your diagnosis is OK but you have no medicine.

Let’s hope they won’t finish crowding Online Opinion. It has already too many of them as it is now

In 2002, "Rebekah Brooks was present at a meeting with Scotland Yard when police officers pursing a murder investigation provided her with evidence that her newspaper was interfering with the pursuit of justice. They gave her the name of another executive at News International, Alex Marunchak. The meeting, which included Dick Fedorcio of the Metropolitan police, told her that News of the World staff were guilty of interference and party to using unlawful means to attempt to discredit a police officer and his wife. She was told of actions by people she paid to expose and discredit David Cook and his wife Jackie Haines so that Mr Cook would be prevented from completing an investigation into a murder. News International were paying people to interfer with police officers and were doing so on behalf of known criminals.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2011/jul/06/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-live#block-57

More here -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/06/news-of-the-world-rebekah-brooks

If this has gone on for 9-10 years, what else has gone on? Who else has Brooks "worked" for?
.

So you've worked for the ABC and World Vision? Let me guess - that probably makes you a bleeding heart leftie and therefore you don't like opinions that contradict your comfortable assumptions. And have you been knocked back for a job by News by any chance?

If you stick to watching the ABC and reading Fairfax publications, your assumptions won't be questioned. There is a bit of a problem though - a lot more people are giving up on Fairfax than on News. And I am certain many would stop paying for the ABC if they had a choice too.

It would be good to see the Murdoch rags go.Just don't buy any of his papers.

Yes David L bet you would be pleased if your daughter was murdered and NEWS LTD hacked her phone and then deleted messages so you kept hope she was still alive,or a relative of the 7/7 bombing and NEWS LTD was listening in on your calls.
I bet you were first in line when The Australian was saying the head of the NBN because he was CEO during a corruption scandal he should be sacked,but bet you don't think the same rules apply to Murdoch.
As this scandal rises up the Food chain at Murdoch I wonder who will go down first on the Australians thinking and the Liberal party it should be James as he was CEO,but as Dad tends to micro manage maybe he should follow.

Sadly these scandals will not make a scrap of difference to what Australians think of the disgraceful Murdoch publications as the readers of his offerings are well represented here in these columns as you will have noted and who probably enjoy reading the Australian articles written by tame hacks like Greg Sheridan and Janet Albrechsen.

His whole operation is geared around fitting in to the expectation of the viewers in the US of the Fox fictions, now a part of everyday life and the major contributor for the low levels of awareness in the great majority of Americans who voted in Bush, TWICE, accepted Cheney, Rumsfelt and any number of misfits that have seriously contributed to the erosion of respect for the US and anything American in 2011.

The world's #1 criminals.

Murdoch is old and can’t last much longer and any change then will have to be for the better. They just cannot be two likeminded Murdoch’s in this world. This one sold his soul to international moneylenders for profits and an ongoing obligation to his financiers to support their claims for middle-eastern ownership as he expanded into a world conglomerate, years ago. He hasn’t failed them and uses the likes of Sheridan to keep punching out that line of Israeli pap, ad nauseum.

What these scandals might do is to show him he is morally bankrupt by stopping him from owning all the shares in yet another network in the UK. Let’s see if they have the courage of their convictions. However, from what we have seen of Cameron to date, such a stance is unlikely as Murdoch gave him support during his election and as we all know, the game is called 'quid pro quo' and it’s as old as the hills.

Gillard is not the favourite lady with Murdoch. But then she is not the favourite lady with anybody except the tame hairdresser and if it wasn’t for the grand lifestyle, even he may have had enough.

Not supporting Gillard is about the only time I have agreed with Murdoch.

DavidL, did you actually read this piece? The writer said "Newspapers are free to say what they will in editorials and opinion pieces, of course. But news data must be untainted."
It appears you cannot disagree with what the writer has said, so you distort and denigrate.
Who do you work for? No, let me guess ...

Alan, you have successfully identified a problem with the MSM, congratulations!

Perhaps you would now like to consider such less obvious transgressions with the ABC, SBS, BBC and other “progressive” MSM?

No, I thought not.

Get a “reality” based life for goodness sake.

Unlike the ABC, News Corporation’s media outlets need to attract eyeballs. On the day when their websites, newspapers and radio and TV stations cease attracting a large audience News Corporation will cease to attract revenue. On that day it will either change its “product” or go out of business.

But until that day News Corporation will continue in business and will continue to pay salaries to its staff and dividends to its shareholders regardless of what Alan Austin or, for that matter, Steven Meyer, thinks.

So getting rid of News Corporation is simple Mr. Austin. Persuade the great Australian public to turn elsewhere for its news and entertainment like…, well like…, uhhm like,….

Oh well.

C’est la vie

Alan, Steven has a point. And so does Spindoc.
Do you think the other media are as bad?
Where can we get untainted news?

Thanks, Sunflower. Yes, all news outlets have faults and foibles. I find ABC Radio News appallingly lazy and shallow these days. Whether there is another analysis piece here, we shall see.
But no other organisation approaches anywhere near News Corp for entrenched malevolence in the form of deliberate distortion and misrepresentation - even in court under oath.
Yes, certainly all news outlets have a bias in their opinion pages. There is no problem with that. Perfectly fair and reasonable. Fortunately we can find a wide range of different biases on line. Even here just on this site.
News outlets that seem report news without deliberate distortion include Alternet, Huffington Post, The Guardian and Christian Science Monitor. There are others.
And for investigative reporting, there is Wikileaks, of course. Which now does what newspapers used to do before they stopped employing investigative reporters.

Alan Austin

I am not a fan of the Murdoch media.

But, you see, one of the things that irritates me most about, say, the Herald Sun, is the way their columnist, Andrew Bolt, consistently misrepresents the science behind climate change.

Now as soon as I put it that way many people here will praise him for being one of the few journalists who, in their opinion, talks sense about climate.

You recommend the Guardian. I consider them to be, in their own way, an especially slimy and malevolent rag.

BTW unlike the Murdoch media outlets, the Guardian does not pay its way. It depends for its existence on cross-subsidisation from Auto Trader and other profit making media outlets within GMG (Guardian Media Group)

And don’t get me started on the ABC.

You criticise the Murdoch media for their attacks on the Gillard government. These are a pale shadow of the HOWARD HATRED that emanated from lefties in bygone years.

Perhaps lefties who attack the Murdoch media for their anti-Gillard stance need to complete the following aphorism.

People in glass houses shouldn’t……?

The reason the Murdoch media exercise so much power is simply because the competition is so awful.

Now is that really Rupert Murdoch’s fault?

Did he tell the ABC to employ only self-righteous lefties whose contempt for working Australians is so palpable?

Did he instruct Fairfax to employ only “journalists” lacking any vestige of communication skills? Journalists whose default style is a sneer?

So there you have it Alan Austin. Isn’t it a good thing that we have free speech in Australia so that neither you nor I can control what people read or hear?

Get real Alan Austin.

Alan Austin makes a valid point about Journalist Code of Ethics and the failure of news outlets to stick with 'untainted facts' in reporting with room for opinion in editorials. The Journalist Code of Ethics has about as much teeth as the APS Codes of Conduct.

This is not only applicable to the Murdoch press but other media as well.

The media is big business and income is derived not only from subscriptions but advertising. Increasing market share of advertising is about circulation figures.

My question is why do so many people still buy these papers. If we all refused to purchase trash media, the market would respond.

Have consumers driven the push to sensationalistic journalism or has the consumer appetite been fed by the celebrity-isation of the media? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Either way it does not excuse media outlets from undertaking in illegal and immoral behaviours.

One can only imagine that the people defending News corp work for them. I couldn;t for the life of me think of any other reason for defending criminal acts.

Steven, have you read the article or not? The writer specifically said anyone can express any view in the opinion columns. This certainly permits "attacks on the Gillard government" and "HOWARD HATRED that emanated from lefties in bygone years". These are both perfectly okay - in editorials and op eds.
But what we are seeing now throughout the Murdoch network is newsrooms - like in Brisbane at the moment - being used in political campaigns. News reports routinely falsified - not just people expressing opinions.
Can you think of any news story that was falsified or distorted during the Howard years by Howard haters in newsrooms?
And as for those who talk about 'real world' or shout 'get real', what sort of real world do you want? Are you satisfied with the one we have now, or do you want to strive for a better one?

Last edition of News of the World this Sunday.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/08/3264142.htm

Ave atque vale, News of the Screws.

We shall mourn your demise in the same way that we mourn roadkill that we pass on the Nullarbor.

We shall miss you in the same way that we'd miss the National Enquirer, should the same fate ever befall it.

The transvestite vicars of England may now indulge in their salacious romps with B Grade actresses and canine friends undisturbed, and their abandoned bi-sexual love-children remain forever hidden from public scrutiny.

Has anyone here actually read the rag, by the way...?

So New of the World is being shut down, no problem to me but some will miss it in the UK obviously.

I wonder at some of the posters who want all of Murdoch's news outlets shut down, so what would we be left with in Australia if that happened. Fairfax who deliberately turn a blind eye to things they do not like, and make grand decisions to join activist causes, like green earth day, where we all have to turn on every light and appliance, I hate being told what to do by activists.

I used to read the Age and SMH, but they just are so biased and petty, the "journalism" is so biased, I gave up. The Australian is a better read, pure and simple. It is written by people who can distance themselves from injecting personal opinion and bitter hatreds.

Fairfax press is pretty well dead, no surprise!

The ABC has drifted into leftist opinion, has daily "hate the climate denier" articles, has morphed into Fairfax groupthink.

Yes they allow comments now from conservatives, which I see the rank and file detest and complain about, but differing oipinions actually make life interesting.

What is it with the left and censorship?

You can call John Howard "an unflushable t*rd" and it's a giggle and acceptable, typical leftist titillation, but are shocked if anyone calls Juliar a "b*tch". One cannot meow at the ALP (outrage!), but the ALP can meow at the coalition (it was just in fun)

It's a constant in the media debates, the left is constantly hypercritical and breathlessly so, they insult and pour scorn, but then react with outrage if any turns their way.

However there are not enough lefties in Australia, regardless of how loud the minority is, to save Fairfax, and the conservatives clearly have the numbers as The Australian thrives.

The ABC remains under pressure as it realizes the conservatives are growing in Australia, possibly in response to the left's stupid and reasonable behavior?

Pericles wrote:

>>The transvestite vicars of England may now indulge in their salacious romps with B Grade actresses and canine friends undisturbed, and their abandoned bi-sexual love-children remain forever hidden from public scrutiny.>>

LOL

Don't forget Murdoch still owns the Sun. My guess is that a Sunday edition of the Sun will morph into a News of the World clone. So I'm afraid the transvestite vicars of England will still have to face the, errhhh, "music."

You ask whether anyone here has ever read "the rag"

I have a confession to make.

Until the news about phone tapping broke a few years ago I had never even heard of the "the rag."

And, no, I'm not a fan of the Murdoch media; but neither do I have any desire to censor them or to licence journalists.

There are two ways media outlets lie. By commission and omission. The Murdoch media lie by commission. They just tell porkies on occasion.

The ABC / BBC / Guardian / Fairfax as well as the Murdoch media lie by omission. They simply leave out news or context that runs contrary to their ideology.

In the words of Dr. House, everybody lies.

And as that marvellous TV show, Hustle, demonstrates, most people collude in their own deception. The people who trust the Murdoch media or the ABC are getting the lies they want.

Significant update here:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/08/simons-murdoch-hangs-on-to-lieutenant-brooks-give-me-a-break/
If you cannot read it all, here is an extract:

Let’s get this straight. Rebekah Brooks admitted, in March 2003, that the News of the World paid police for information.
Now, paying police for information is called corruption. It is a serious criminal offence. And there are a fairly well-defined set of consequences that we would normally expect to apply, including jail.
Imagine if any other senior executive had admitted such a thing to a parliamentary committee - a head of a retail chain or a mining company or a telco, for example. It would have been a race to see if they could resign before being sacked.
Yet eight years after she made the admission, Brooks not only holds her post, has not only been promoted during that time, but still has the support of the boss, Rupert Murdoch, who has now killed a title, yet hangs on to his lieutenant.
This gives the lie to all the pious statements from James Murdoch and others about determination to root out the problems at News of the World and co-operate with inquiries.
Give me a break. She admitted paying police.
And the very fact that Brooks made the admission so casually tells us that News International is used to getting away with things - that the normal rules do not apply.

Alan Austin wrote:

>>...News International is used to getting away with things>>

In other words News International is like any big corporation today. At least it does not have to be bailed out like the big American and European banks.

You then wrote:

>>... - that the normal rules do not apply.>>

This is the "new normal." The new normal is that large corporations get away with things the rest of us couldn't.

What News Corporation gets away with is trivial compared to the big pharmaceutical companies.

But the advantage of News Corporation is that they do not pretend to be an unbiased source of objective news. In that respect they are actually MORE HONEST than the ABC / BBC / Guardian etc.

News Corporation is an honest purveyor of lies. What you see is what you get.

The media you recommend are dishonest purveyors of different lies.

Thanks, Steven. Partly agree. Certainly re The Sunday Sun. Not sure, however, about your statement: “But the advantage of News Corporation is that they do not pretend to be an unbiased source of objective news. In that respect they are actually MORE HONEST than the ABC / BBC / Guardian etc.”
CEO of News Corp John Hartigan has just issued this:
http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/110708-John-Hartigan-Announcement.pdf
I suppose we should remember Hartigan lies shamelessly even in court under oath, so is almost certainly lying here also. But this would still seem to suggest they still do pretend to have “integrity and credibility”.
So I’m wondering if you can help with some data, Steven (and anyone else). You suggest:
“The ABC / BBC / Guardian / Fairfax as well as the Murdoch media lie by omission. They simply leave out news or context that runs contrary to their ideology.”
I have been on the lookout for some years now for examples of this in news reports – blatant manipulation of the truth by omission and falsification. I have plenty of examples of both. Like the hot water units in the original article, above.
But they are all by Murdoch employees targeting the Greens or the ALP or reformist causes. I am yet to find one by another news outlet targeting the Conservatives. So would be very happy to be directed to any. Thanks.

It is not that all newspapers of this ilk be shut down but that the law ensures that criminal behaviour does not go unpunished and the paper fined a significant amount to discourage repeat offences.

Amicus
You are being one-eyed yourself - the meow incident was unnecessary on both sides and both offenders apologised and women on both sides of parliament admonished the actions.

There is as much anti-Gillard bias as pro-Gillard. In fact not much pro-Gillard to be seen in the media of late. My feeling is depending on which 'side' one barracks for bias is only recognised when it hits the home team and ignored or diminished when it is the opposing side.

Such is the game of political sport in Australia.

Alan wrote:

>>I am yet to find one by another news outlet targeting the Conservatives. So would be very happy to be directed to any. >>

A trivial answer to your request is to look at the way the Murdoch press goes after the ALP, a party as capital “c” conservative as they come.

But, on a more serious note, look at how you have FRAMED the issue. Is good journalism about “targeting” one or other side of politics?

All journalism today seems to amount to the following formula:

--Keep your audience in a state of high indignation about, well, something.

--Target emotions – if it bleeds it leads.

--Sympathetic victims – women and children in third world countries are best but in a pinch cattle will do

--Designated villains –Americans or Jews make the best villains but occasionally cattle farmers can fill the role.

--Some good guys preferably drawn from among the victims.

NB: Unless the suffering can be blamed on APPROPRIATE villains noboy is interested. The Sharpville massacre of 1960 in which approximately 70 people died, rightly gets coverage across the world. The Tutsi massacre of 100,000 Hutu in the early 1970s doesn’t. (You can figure out the why for yourself)

Now that we understand the formula let’s see how adherence to the formula means that the really important issues are largely ignored. I’ll take one issue. It’s not merely the elephant in the room. It’s a whole heard of elephants defecating on the carpet and trampling children underfoot.

Three words: Global financial crisis (GFC)

The GFC was decades in the making. The warning signs were there for years. And, no, you cannot blame it all on Thatcher and Reagan. They were both long gone when the crisis finally struck. There was ample time to take corrective action. It was obvious to any economist not in the employ of a major bank or dependent on a major financial institution for research grants that SYSTEMIC RISK was rising.

(Continued below)

Where did you see the in depth coverage of these issues? Where did you see pieces in the BBC or Guardian questioning the wisdom of buying a house with a “low start” mortgage?

Much easier to do yet another article on suffering cattle / Palestinians / whales.

And what of the aftermath of the GFC? When the Guardian bothers to report at all it’s in terms of wicked bankers enjoying obscene bonuses with the occasional piece pinning the blame on Thatcher. (Get the formula? INDIGNATION!)

I have news for Guardian readers. Bankers’ bonuses, distasteful as you may find them, are NOT the cause of the GFC. They are a symptom. Trying to prevent future crises by curtailing bankers’ bonuses is like trying to cure diarrhoea by shoving a cork up your rectum.

Healthcare is another issue in which the media have failed dismally. Who wants to tell the public that your nice doctor has gotten most of his post-graduate education at seminars sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers of medical appliances?

If you want an example of what healthcare reporting should be like read this piece.

The Cost Conundrum by Atul Gawande June 1, 2009

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

Ever see anything of remotely comparable quality on the BBC?

I could go on. What’s missing in reporting on the Middle-East is that Jew hatred has become part of the warp and weft of contemporary Muslim culture.

We get our knickers in a knot about Indonesian abattoirs but nothing about the treatment of the indigenous population of West Papua.

The media are silent about the consequences of growing income inequality in most Western countries. The folk demonstrating in Tahrir Square and the Tea Party activists in the US have more in common than either would wish to admit.

So there you have it Alan.

It’s NOT about “targeting” this or that side of politics.

It’s about QUALITY JOURNALISM. The Murdoch media, WSJ excepted, do not claim to be quality journalists.

The Guardian / BBC / ABC etc do make that claim but they’re LYING.

Source: AFP March 5 2011
JULIA Gillard will sit down to lunch with Rupert Murdoch in New York on Thursday.
The Prime Minister will dine with the News Corp chairman during a week-long US visit.
She will visit News Corp for the lunch that will also be attended by the Australian-born Managing Editor of the Wall Street Journal, Robert Thomson, and a senior executive, Joel Klein.
...........
I wonder if Rupert Murdoch will now be on the visting list of every
senior Australian politician who visits New York in the future.

Thanks, Steven,
Again I agree with much of your analysis. But haven't found any evidence that The Guardian is as deficient as you seem to be suggesting.
You ask: "Where did you see the in depth coverage of these issues? Where did you see pieces in the BBC or Guardian questioning the wisdom of buying a house with a “low start” mortgage?"
Not sure about the BBC, but certainly George Monbiot at The Guardian has offered analyses of economics which were poopoohed at the time but have been vindicated since. On other matters too. The other journalist who is strikingly lucid and incisive is Simon Jenkins. There are others.
But my main concern is not accurate predictive analysis or credible opinion, but blatant lying in news reports. This, until specific examples are offered, does appear to be the exclusive province of Murdoch publications. Which is why those of us who value integrity and decency must withdraw our patronage.

Alan wrote:

>>...those of us who value integrity and decency must withdraw our patronage [from Murdoch publications]...

I'm guessing that you, like me, are not a patron. I'm also guessing that people who enjoy reading Murdoch publications are not going to take any notice of your exhortations.

Murdoch will carry on so long as his formula garners eyeballs and eardrums because, in the media business, that's the bottom line. It's the bottom line as much for the Guardian and ABC and, for that matter, Online Opinion as it is for Murdoch.

One thing I learned many years ago is that people don't mind being lied to as long as it:

--Doesn't affect them personally

--Reinforces their pre-existing beliefs

--Makes them feel good about themselves

--is not too obvious

Agree entirely, Steven.
Very well observed.

If you're in this forum defending the 'integrity' of the Murdoch Press, it's clear to me Rupert and his prostitute Bolt have you by the short and curlies.

It's not hard to pick the deliberate distortion of facts and misinformation spewed out by these newspapers.

However, I still find many of you coming on this forum regurgitating the blatant false claims made by the Murdoch Press, against anything marginally left of your far right position on the bench.

What you don't realise is that the majority of intelligent people who sit in the centre of the spectrum just see you as right-wing morons, easily duped by the misinformation in the media because it suits your backward perspective on things.

What's unfortunate is that there are enough people in society too easily duped alongside you because they don't have the inclination to be critical of what they are reading. This is what Rupert and his cohorts rely on to control the opinions of as much of the ignorant masses as they possibly can.

I guess those who dislike Murdoch can follow the model deployed by “Get-Up”, in their reaction to those who dare not follow Getups views on Carbon tax…

They can refuse to support or buy the product

That is the democratic way

However they do not get to say who is allowed or not allowed to participate in commerce, be that commerce the production of anything from foods to newspapers.

And if you think a leftard belief in the skewed view of the Gruaniad or BBC is justification to demand repression of the business who runs the London Times, Wall Street Journal and the Fox TV network, then I guess leftard hypocrisy has just eaten too deep into the basic reasoning skills.

Democracy is happy to let the market and all the individuals who purchase newspapers and subscribe to Pay TV, to decide for themselves (observing, subscriptions to BBC were and I assume still are a licenced tax imposed without reference to the BBC’s political impartiality)

Alan Austin is “free” not to buy News Corp publications but not authorized to demand anything else

Footnote… I exercise my democratic right and ignore the spam emails I get regularly from Get-Up… I think they are idiots but under the political values I support they are they are free to be idiots

Thanks for the observations, Col Rouge.
Since this piece was written, even more instances of criminal activity by senior employees of News International have been admitted. And we know that those who committed these crimes were not dismissed or demoted by Rupert Murdoch but given pay rises and promotions.
We are also seeing in Australia this week a continuation of the blatant use of news pages to denigrate the governing parties and independents, notably in The Australian.
So I'm not sure why you claim is it leftard hypocrisy to want to distance ourselves from this organisation or to see it closed. Wouldn't any reasonable person committed to integrity, decency and free information want to see this company wound up?

Hi Alan,

You are welcome to my observations, they are shared by many others.

I suggest, if you dislike the way Murdoch runs his newspapers, why not set up to ruin them with fair competition, obviously if you view is so honourable it will instantly gain public following and everyone will boycott News Ltd media offerings.

I find that a far more democratic process than simply expecting a busniess to be closed because you disagree with its editorial and some of its practices.

To the illegal activities... we have laws to deal with those offences and -

"any reasonable person committed to integrity, decency" -

would support the notion that innocent office and printing personnel do not have to be disrupted and dismissed because of the criminal acts of others.

My "Libertarian" values are so much more tolerant than the values espoused by the people, because they disagree with a view and demand that view should be denied expression... it flies in the face of what you referred to as "free information"

Col, why are you so defensive of Rupert Murdoch? Do these offences not bother you at all?
Do you work for News Corporation?
Can't you see how much healthier our community would be without this insidious criminal influence?

Thanks, Col. Thanks, Sunflower.
Just to clarify the application of the world 'free'.
As the original piece emphasised, every media organisation is absolutely free to express whatever opinion they choose, however offensive this may be to others. No question about this.
But news organisations in a free enterprise, open democracy have a sacred duty to ensure facts and figures in news reports are free of deliberate distortion or fabrication.
So, in the instance of the hot water units reported by the Herald Sun, that newspaper is perfectly free to say in its editorials or opinion pieces that it believes the government is incompetent, disgraceful and whatever else.
But the Herald Sun is not free to report in a front page news story that the government provided "almost one [hot water unit] for every player in the team" when it actually provided 17 units for several hundred players and umpires.
Hence boycotting the Herald Sun and other abusers of the privilege of news reporting is appropriate for all people who value freedom of access to information, especially Libertarians.

Alan Austin “But the Herald Sun is not free to report in a front page news story that the government provided "almost one [hot water unit] for every player in the team" when it actually provided 17 units for several hundred players and umpires.
Hence boycotting the Herald Sun and other abusers of the privilege of news reporting is appropriate for all people who value freedom of access to information, especially Libertarians.”

I do not make the decisions what the herald sun write

One thing I am sure of, government should not decide either (that is the top of the slippery slope)

Indeed I agree with you whole heartedly that freedom to information should be valued –
But not “especially libertarians”
but by everyone, regardless of their politics –
unless you feel enlightened by the puerile pap of Pravda and how non-existent factories produced non-existent tractors for the non-existent farmers who did not produce sufficient food, so that USSR had to rely on imports from Western Europe .

Like I said before, boycott all you want but no one has the right to decide that someone else should engage in a legal pursuit,

It is what I like about market economies… they function efficiently without the spastic hand of government wrenching them from side to side

Sunflower
I do not work for News Corp… I don’t even buy their newspapers, although I do prefer the Sun-Herald to the Age (which I find a pretentious rag full of winery visits and news of the newest barista moments in Melbourne)

My preferred newspaper is UK Daily Telegraph

“insidious criminal influence”…. Because you don’t like something does not mean it is wholly criminal

And the last person I want deciding what is “news” and what is not is government

“Healthy communities” are where people are free to pursue their own choices and responsible for their own actions.

That is why I am a “libertarian” in the first place.

And the difference between libertarianism and anarchy is accepting responsibility

Like Alan Austin said, Let a free market for news decide

Sunflower, Alan Austin

As I think I’ve made abundantly clear, I am not a Murdoch media fan.

But what point are you guys are trying to make?

Do Murdoch media outlets sometimes tell porkies?

Absolutely.

Should you be free to point this out?

Yep. And you do. So does the Guardian.

Do people nevertheless choose to lend their eyeballs and eardrums to Rupert Murdoch?

Nobody holds a gun to the heads of Herald Sun readers. No one threatens to kill your loved ones unless you click on Andrew Bolt’s blog. You may eschew Fox news and suffer no harm.

Guess what? Some people like being lied to.

If people choose OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL to let Murdoch and his minions fill their heads with what you or I may regard as garbage what do you propose to do about it?

Censorship?

That’s a cure an order of magnitude worse than the disease.

Licensing journalists?

That’s censorship by another name.

Penalties for printing porkies?

That opens the way to a privatised for of censorship called lawfare.

I cannot improve on wikipedia’s definition of lawfare so I’ll just quote it:

>>Lawfare is a form of asymmetric warfare. Lawfare is waged via the use of domestic or international law with the intention of damaging an opponent. Examples include winning a public relations victory, financially crippling an opponent, or tying up the opponent's time so that they cannot pursue other ventures such as run for public office.

Lawfare can also denote the use of the law as a weapon of war, or more specifically, the abuse of the law and legal systems for strategic political or military ends.

Lawfare is one of several alternative war-making concepts outlined in the 1999 Chinese book Unrestricted Warfare, which is principally concerned with the new variety of offensive actions available to an international actor that cannot or is not willing to confront another power militarily.>>

I don’t have Col’s exaggerated faith in the power of the market to sort out all our problems but I have to side with him on this issue.

Col, you seem to be misreading what I am saying and what the writer is saying. Is this deliberate?
"Because you don't like something does not mean it is wholly criminal."
Well, der. The Murdoch organisation is criminal because they tap phones illegally, bribe police, interfere with police investigations, commit perjury and destroy evidence required for criminal investigations. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I or anyone else may "like".
"And the last person I want deciding what is 'news' and what is not is government."
Der again. Who ever said they wanted this?! Pretty sure no-one.

Sunflower wrote:

>>the Murdoch organisation is criminal because they tap phones illegally, bribe police, interfere with police investigations, commit perjury and destroy evidence required for criminal investigations.>>

If these charge are true - and I think there's a good chance they are - then there's an argument for bringing charges under RICO (racketeer infiltrated corrupt organisation) act against News Corporation.

However if the US Government hasn't brought RICO charges against certain large financial institutions I see scant chance of RICO charges against News Corporation.

If you are correct, Steven, and I think you are, then all the more reason for citizens to take the courses of action available to us to boycott the organisation out of existence.
Not just for its criminal actions, but also for the unethical distortion and misrepresentation in news reports.
It will be intriguing to see whether Great Britain has more success prosecuting corrupt corporations than the United States.
On consumer boycotts, here is an intriguing development:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/st​op_rupert_murdoch_donate/99.ph​p?cl_tta_sign=13f263d32002583d​5105bf7fddae718c

correct Alan, the GAYBC must be closed down immediately