• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Rupert Murdoch Controls The World

A

Anonymous

Guest
Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the 5,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.

Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.
Click to expand...
 
Rupert Murdoch, What A Shit

Nice to know that the usual high standards of Fox News have been put on a sound legal footing.
 
Rupert Murdoch: Virgin on the ridiculous

I'm on Telewest and in serie of takeovers it was merge with NTL and then bought by beardy Branson's Virgin.

For a month or so they have been running ads about changes in services with relation to Sky but I hadn't paid it muh intention. Then they stopped running them and it was announced the other night that they were trying to reach a compromise which was up at midnight tonight.

On the stroke of midnight the channels went blank and a bit later were replaced by a great message about Murdoch being childish and taking his ball home with him.

BSkyB's basic channels withdrawn from Virgin Media

Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:56pm ET162

LONDON, March 1 (Reuters) - BSkyB said on Thursday its basic channels, which offer shows such as "Lost" and "24," have been withdrawn from the newly-formed Virgin Media (VMED.O: Quote, Profile , Research) cable platform after the groups failed to agree a new carriage deal.

No Virgin Media officials were immediately available to confirm whether its customers had lost access to the channels.

A spokesman for James Murdoch-led BSkyB (BSY.L: Quote, Profile , Research) said they were withdrawn at around midnight (0000 GMT) following the expiry of an old agreement between the two companies.

"We're disappointed that we will now be denied access to cable TV homes," the spokesman said in a statement.

Speaking by telephone, he added: "We are ready to reopen negotiations with Virgin at any time."

The two sides, who are rivals in the highly competitive television, broadband and phone markets, had been locked in negotiations for several weeks but could not agree on terms.

The channel withdrawal comes less than a month after Virgin Media, the new name for cable group NTL, launched. It had promised to move on from its reputation of having poor customer service.

BSkyB had warned it would take a hit of up to 20 million pounds ($39.18 million) in operating profits for the remainder of the year to end June if it did not seal an agreement.

Analysts are mostly divided over who will come out worse from the dispute and over how many customers would leave Virgin Media in favour of Sky.

They have said BSkyB would have to attract around 150,000 new customers from Virgin Media to be better off. Sky's premium channels of sports and movies will not be affected. (Additional reporting by Deborah Haynes)

© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Click to expand...

Source

I thought I;d throw in Sky's report:

Cable Users Lose Channels


Updated: 02:39, Thursday March 01, 2007

Hundreds of thousands of cable television customers have lost some of their favourite channels after a row between Sky and Virgin Media.

Talks have broken down between the two sides in the dispute over how much Virgin Media - formerly known as NTL - pays Sky to screen its channels.

Virgin Media customers reported that Sky channels including Sky One and Sky News disappeared from their screens shortly after midnight this morning.

Both channels refused to make an official comment after the current contract between the two cable platforms expired at midnight.

Virgin Media viewers said former Sky channels had gone blank apart from a message reading "Old Sky".

It will come as a blow to fans of hit series such as 24 and Lost, who will now be unable to follow their favourite shows.

Sky One, Sky Travel, Sky News and Sky Sports News are the channels affected by the dispute.

Virgin's chief executive Steve Burch had previously said the impact of removing Sky's channels from its service would be "fairly minimal."

Talks between BSkyB chief James Murdoch and Virgin Media chief Steve Burch came to a standstill during a telephone conversation yesterday.

Sky has rejected Virgin Media's offer of arbitration and Virgin Media has rejected Sky's latest offer and confirmed it would not table a new offer of its own.

Sky has also proposed to retail its basic channels directly to Virgin Media customers if Virgin Media will provide access to its closed platform.
Click to expand...

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,, ... 15,00.html

Although Virign claim the impact will be "fairly minimal" it pisses on my chips as Sky One was one of the few cable channels to screen the kind of shows I want to watch. :(

It will see people changing over the Sky and given Murdoch's recentish buying of enough shares in ITV Digital to ruin a takeover (which is being refered to the Monopolies Commision) it does seem that he is slowly crushing the competition.

Will Blair do anything or does he need Murdoch's support for the next election?
 
Re: Rupert Murdoch: Virgin on the ridiculous

A spokesman for James Murdoch-led BSkyB (BSY.L: Quote, Profile , Research) said they were withdrawn at around midnight (0000 GMT) following the expiry of an old agreement between the two companies.

"We're disappointed that we will now be denied access to cable TV homes," the spokesman said in a statement.
Click to expand...

Read "We're disappointed that we will now be denied access to cable TV money..."

Mighty_Emperor said:
It will see people changing over the Sky and given Murdoch's recentish buying of enough shares in ITV Digital to ruin a takeover (which is being refered to the Monopolies Commision) it does seem that he is slowly crushing the competition.
Click to expand...

If rumours about the cracking of ITV Digital's encryption are true, they've been indulging in this sort of behaviour for years.

Mighty_Emperor said:
Will Blair do anything or does he need Murdoch's support for the next election?
Click to expand...

No and yes.
 
This is what you'll get if you mess with us...

Branson condemns 'cynical' BSkyB

Sir Richard Branson lashed out at Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB yesterday, accusing the satellite TV group of a cynical attempt to control the British media by buying nearly a fifth of ITV.

The Virgin tycoon's attack sets the stage for a bitter struggle between the two businessmen over the fate of ITV, Britain's leading commercial broadcaster, which has been hit by dwindling advertising revenues and declining audiences.

continues

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1952327,00.html
 
James Murdoch is so right wing that he, I'm sure, would think that free health care was bad because it skews evolution, I heard him giving a radio interview once and he was frothing at the mouth about the iniquitous nature of the market wobbling affront to god that is the BBC licence fee. I fear the time when he gets full control of the Murdoch empire.
 
Grr, no more Lost for me at the moment...

Virgin customers wake up to no Sky channels

The week-long war of words between Virgin Media and bitter rival BSkyB last night culminated in the satellite broadcaster's channels, including Sky One, being pulled from 3.35 million households.

The failure of the two sides to reach a deal meant fans of shows such as Lost, 24 and Battlestar Galactica were cut off halfway through the current season.

Sky's contract to provide its basic channels - Sky One, Sky Two, Sky Sports News and Sky News - ran out at midnight without a deal in place after a dispute over price. Virgin Media plans to reshuffle its service so its new video-on-demand channel, Virgin Central, will appear on channel 120 where Sky One used to be. Cable customers will still be able to watch Sky's premium channels such as Sky Sports.

The dispute went public last week when the Virgin chief executive, Steve Burch, attacked Sky for its negotiating stance over how much Virgin pays Sky for its content. Yesterday the two companies even argued over who had orchestrated a last-minute lunchtime phone call between Sky's James Murdoch and Virgin executives Mr Burch and Jim Mooney aimed at resuscitating talks.

On the call Virgin suggested appointing an independent arbitrator to help thrash out a new deal, but demanded this process include a recent contract to supply Sky's satellite customers with channels from Virgin's content arm, Flextech.

Last month Sky secured a dramatic cut in what it pays for the channels - including Living TV - slicing Virgin's take from 40p a month per subscriber per channel to less than 10p. Sky says it is asking for just over 90p per month per subscriber for its channels. Virgin Media's chairman Mr Mooney said the company, which is £5.7bn in debt, had been "coerced" into signing the Flextech deal.

"The facts are their channels have declined in popularity, ours have increased in popularity. The facts are they are trying to double their charge to us and cut our fee," he said. "That's why they don't want to go to arbitration because the facts are so lopsided against them an arbitrator would see through that."

Sky hit back, saying: "Virgin Media has declined to re-enter talks and is now seeking to reopen existing agreements." The satellite broadcaster added that it wants to be able to sell its channels directly to cable households. Mr Burch, said that idea was "ludicrous".

Virgin Media, announcing results showing it lost 37,000 customers in the last three months of 2006, admitted the Sky switch-off could cost it more viewers.

Away from the fight over the Sky channels, Virgin yesterday announced slightly higher than expected fourth quarter revenue of £1.08bn, up from £916m in the previous year, and pledged to increase its £200m of free cashflow by at least 50% this year and again in 2008.

Virgin Mobile added a mere 11,100 customers in the last three months of 2006, traditionally one of the most buoyant periods in the industry, compared with 122,700 in the third quarter. While it gained 70,000 subscribers willing to pay monthly - up from 30,000 in the previous three months - it lost ground in the pre-pay market. Virgin used to dominate the pre-pay sector but is now concentrating on higher value contract customers.
Click to expand...

SOURCE
 
I never noticed only using the TV to play on my Ps2 and watch the Cartoon channels.
 
What's the betting illegal downloads of futurama and Simpson's increase massively I'll prob do it myself, like any addict deprived of my fix.
 
It's probably cheaper to wait and buy the DVDs of the shows you miss when they're released.
 
I cuaght myself checking the TV schedules and thinking "Ah Rescue Me is on tonight I'll catch that" before realising the

Sk One has now een replaced by the Hallmark Channel which doesn't appear in my TV guide!! There is a funny message in big letters scrolling across the screen about foul play by Murdoch and them taking their bal home, That and the one on Sky News direct people here:

www.virginmedia.com/fairplay

Interesting news from that page:

Freeview customers set to lose channels too

Virgin Media customers are not the only people to feel the brunt of Sky's bullying tactics. Freeview customers are affected, too. Sky announced that it will be removing its channels from the Freeview service before the summer.
Click to expand...

A consumer advocate on the enws suggested the reason that Virgin are describing it as a only a minor issue is so people with under 12 months of contarct with them can't get out of it easily and it may need to go to the small claims court to get out of it. Those who have been with Telewest/NTL/Virgin for over a year can get out fairly easily although it may be that you still lose some cash.

Given home effectively Murdoch has bought up TV shows (Lost from Channel 4 being the most recent) there will be quite afew people switching over to keep up with thir favourite shows. Theya re probably going to be no worse off with Sky. I'll be damned before I give Murdoch any of my money!!
 
Then Emps, you'll have to go without your fix! Murdoch ain't no fool!

What you need is someone* who can get you your missed episodes of "Buffy, The Hollyoaks Tedium, Er Medium, On Space Station 9" via the web. That's the future! So I've been told. By a friend. Not my friend.

If you look hard enough you'll find what your looking for.



*NOT ME!
 
gncxx said:
It's probably cheaper to wait and buy the DVDs of the shows you miss when they're released.
Click to expand...
I bought the complete Buffy, on DVD, last week, €129.95. Much cheaper than satellite. :)
 
Mighty_Emperor said:
I'll be damned before I give Murdoch any of my money!!
Click to expand...
That's the spirit. Be strong, Emps. Don't give in to the dark side.

Now, picture Murdoch gloating over brand new shows and being asked which to buy, and in his best Palpatine voice croaking "all of them".
 
ghostdog19 said:
Mighty_Emperor said:
I'll be damned before I give Murdoch any of my money!!
Click to expand...
That's the spirit. Be strong, Emps. Don't give in to the dark side.

Now, picture Murdoch gloating over brand new shows and being asked which to buy, and in his best Palpatine voice croaking "all of them".
Click to expand...

Noooooooooooooooooooooo

:cry:
 
Given that any old shite is released on DVD nowadays, I'm sure you'll eventually get to watch what you desire without giving Murdoch any of your money, Emps - besides, what quality original programming has $ky ever given the world anyway? Myself, I'm not particularly upset at not getting to see the likes of Baddiel's Syndrome... :shock:
 
So you lost Sky Channel (One) now? Here in Norway we lost Sky Channel on cable already in 1988. ;)
 
SameOldVardoger said:
So you lost Sky Channel (One) now? Here in Norway we lost Sky Channel on cable already in 1988. ;)
Click to expand...

:shock:

How could they let an Aussie(Murdoch) become so powerful? :evil:

I want my Simpsons episodes dammit.
 
$ky and Virgin Fail Over TV Deal

Sky and Virgin fail over TV deal

Television providers BSkyB and Virgin Media have continued to accuse each other of intransigence in a row that has led to customers losing channels.

Sky has pulled its main channels from Virgin's cable TV service in a row over payment, leaving viewers unable to watch programmes such as Lost and 24.

On Friday, Sky said that Virgin had rejected its latest attempt to find a solution to the long-running spat.

Virgin said that it was open to realistic offers, but none were made.

Last month, Virgin launched a High Court legal action against Sky, claiming that Sky was abusing its dominant market position and wanted to double its prices.

Sky denied the claims, adding that the higher prices would have cost Virgin just three pence per customer per day.

On Friday, Sky said that it wrote to Virgin on 10 May offering to compromise and reach an agreement.

Sky said that £10m separated the two sides and their view of the correct level of pricing, and that they should agree to meet in the middle.

Virgin said that offer did not go far enough and any deal would need to "reflect the fair value of the Sky Basic channels and the damage inflicted on Virgin".

Sky concluded that there was "now little prospect of Virgin Media agreeing to restore Sky basic channels to its network, at least for the foreseeable future".

Both sides accused the other of conducting their negotiations through the media.

Virgin Media was formed earlier this year by the merger of NTL, Telewest and Virgin's mobile phone operations.

Last month, the company said that the lose of Sky's channels would increasingly impact its earnings in coming months.

Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2007/05/18 20:46:40 GMT

© BBC MMVII
Click to expand...
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8141300.stm

Murdoch group in 'hacking probe'

Rupert Murdoch's News Group paid £1m in court costs after its journalists were accused of involvement in phone tapping to get stories, it has been claimed.

The Guardian says three cases were settled out of court after journalists allegedly hired private investigators who obtained the information illegally.

The paper claims the News Group paid £700,000 in damages and costs to Gordon Taylor, Professional Footballers chief.

News International told the paper the case "means nothing to anyone here".

A spokesman said: "This particular case means nothing to anyone here, and I've talked to all the people who would be involved." The BBC has yet to receive a response from News International.

Mobile phone messages

Other high-profile figures allegedly targeted include model Elle McPherson, politician John Prescott and the publicist Max Clifford.

The News of the World editor at the time, Andy Coulson, said: "I have made it clear to the Guardian that I knew nothing about the Taylor settlement."

Mr Coulson, now the Conservative Party communications director, declined to comment further.

The Guardian says evidence alleging journalists used investigators to hack into the mobile phone messages of numerous public figures was presented in High Court proceedings.

It claims the investigators went in search of information such as bank statements and tax records.

Two years ago, the News of the World's royal reporter Clive Goodman was jailed after pleading guilty to hacking into the phone messages of royal staff. A private investigator was also jailed and Mr Coulson resigned.

The Guardian now says it has evidence of repeated involvement by the group's journalists in illegal activity, which could open the way for police inquiries and legal action by the victims.
Click to expand...

I doubt this is News International getting its comeuppance, they're too powerful, but are they powerful enough to blithely break laws and get away with it? I'd imagine a million quid is small change for them.
 
It's worrying that this dodgy Coulson chap was snapped up by the Tory high command to fight for their media interests, isn't it? Fuel to the paranoia over the surveillance society if the Conservatives win the next election.

Now there will be no new investigation. Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8143120.stm

New phone hack inquiry ruled out

Police say there will be no further investigation of claims that a huge mobile phone-hacking operation was launched by the News of the World.

The Guardian alleged the tabloid's reporters paid private investigators to hack into thousands of phones, many owned by politicians and celebrities.

But the Metropolitan Police said no new evidence had emerged since an original inquiry saw two men jailed in 2007.

The CPS said it would carry out a review of the evidence presented to it.

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer QC said: "I have no reason to consider that there was anything inappropriate in the prosecutions that were undertaken in this case.

"In the light of the fresh allegations that have been made, some preliminary enquiries have been undertaken and I have now ordered an urgent examination of the material that was supplied to the CPS by the police three years ago.

"I am taking this action to satisfy myself and assure the public that the appropriate actions were taken in relation to that material.

The original phone hacking investigation resulted in News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman and private investigator Glen Mulcaire being jailed for four and six months respectively in January 2007...
Click to expand...

On Charlie Brooker's Newswipe a couple of months ago, they highlighted the use of certain segments of the media's illegal activity to secure news stories.
 
Thing is, "sub-contracting" investigators who do such terribly naughty stuff like phone tapping has been going on ever since the last prosecution of that bloke listening in to the Royals. The Editors "sub-contract" so to distance themselves and can deny they knew what methods are being used to gather information. Even if thousands of pounds have been spen out-of-court (to prevent the use of phone tapping made public) as well as fees to some individuals, the paper Heads will always say "I didn't know anything about such terrible and dishonest methods of giving us the story!"

What bothers me is the fuzz being reluctant to look into the allegations. They say such methods were investigated during the 2007 inquiry and nothing further has come to light. Phone tapping is a criminal case and not a civil case, although some celebs might like to take Inspector Knacker up on this 'un!
I don't say there's a big conspiracy - I just think the fuzz are worried about the "influential people" who run newspapers and might get a tad irritated if they're called to account.
 
an investigation into mg, an investigation into phone taps god knows when they will get to investigate mps expenses

as for colson the paper was caught out and he resigned can't ask for much more than that and you are allowwed to work after leaving a job

however anyone resigning over military deaths due to poor equipment or doing the honourble thing over expenses and prescott worrying about morals what about the santicty of marrige you fat trough loving pig
 
Stormkhan said:
What bothers me is the fuzz being reluctant to look into the allegations. They say such methods were investigated during the 2007 inquiry and nothing further has come to light. Phone tapping is a criminal case and not a civil case, although some celebs might like to take Inspector Knacker up on this 'un!
I don't say there's a big conspiracy - I just think the fuzz are worried about the "influential people" who run newspapers and might get a tad irritated if they're called to account.
Click to expand...

I heard on the radio today some celebs are planning to sue. We'll see where that goes, if anywhere.
 
diomedes said:
as for colson the paper was caught out and he resigned can't ask for much more than that and you are allowwed to work after leaving a job
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that, it's the fact that the political party likely to be the next government were so keen to hire him that bothers me.
 
gncxx said:
diomedes said:
as for colson the paper was caught out and he resigned can't ask for much more than that and you are allowwed to work after leaving a job
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that, it's the fact that the political party likely to be the next government were so keen to hire him that bothers me.
Click to expand...
As David Cameron's, 'Communications Chief', no less. :rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top