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)