Rupert Murdoch

[worm]

That gets achieved by ensuring that Murdoch is hugely damaged by what he's done

Edited May 2, 2012 by worm

[worm]

so exposing where it has an almost unbreakable hold would be a good thing...no?

[worm]

I disagree.. he DID have the power.. he got Thatcher in, then got Blair in when it suited him. He might have got Cameron in too... and that'll be the last time he flexes his muscles

[worm]

the same with Berlusconi... these power mad psychos have had their day. I'm not saying we'll wake up to a multi-coloured rainbow-sky tomorrow, but these are good things that are actually happening

Edited May 2, 2012 by worm

[lost]

I disagree.. he DID have the power.. he got Thatcher in, then got Blair in when it suited him. He might have got Cameron in too... and that'll be the last time he flexes his muscles

probably

[eFestivals]

Well, this is where you and I differ my friend. I think vilifying him will be like what villifying Hitler did to Nazism - fuck all. However, realising that Nazism was wrong and making a stand against it proved somewhat effective. As I said, scapegoating one man does very little.

Don't confuse what I've said here with the idea that he shouldn't be brought to justice etc. I'm just saying that the impact will be minimal in relation to the bigger picture as others will repeat the very same machinations, which I think you'll find is a rather concrete fact. I have zero faith in your somewhat naive and patronising belief that punishing one man of such great power will set an example. It's never worked before, primarily because power remains while the expendable person in power is replaced.

Men of power are intelligent risk takers, not little children that fear being scolded.

OK, so you believe that there's no such thing as deterrence.

You stick to your stupid view, and I'll stick to my proven one.

[eFestivals]

Under every single constraint of human history 'power mad psychos' have weilded power

Very true.

But under every single constraint of human history the power that any person - mad or just even a psychopathic poor student of philosophy - has been able to wield has been limited by the controls set by the environment they operate within.

As you seem to be so wedded to using Nasism as an example, just consider this. Killing Hitler did not end Nazism, yet Nazism has far less power with which to damage people's lives today than it had when Hitler was alive. Fancy that, eh?

[eFestivals]

There is a group in this country known as the aspirational working class. Each election has been won by targeting these people. Firstly Thatcher, then Major who knew he was going to win (the opinion polls got it so wrong as this group didn't admit to voting tory due to their background) and finally Blair who redesigned the Labour party to appeal to this group on the back of Bill Clinton's election campaign in the states. Very little to do with Murdoch who is good at backing who he thinks will win.

Last week when Murdoch appeared before Leveson he stated that his papers had never once succeeded in influencing govt policy. He said it wasn't possible.

The very next morning the headline on the front page of The Sun claimed that The Sun had influenced govt policy.

Only one of those Murdoch-controlled statements can be true. I'll leave you to work out which it is.

[eFestivals]

I don't share your optimism. Under every single constraint of human history 'power mad psychos' have weilded power, while subordinates have reciprocated it. In a democracy, we just do it with a less obvious barbarism under the illusion of having the same unity of displaced power. We have an equal opinion that counts for nothing, but an unequal distribution of materials and resources that make things happen and that, ironically, shape our opinions.

Murdoch was/is a puppet to this machination.

Fuck me, that's a different take on things. Murdoch as the puppet and not the puppet master.

Can I ask when your next appointment is? I suggest you get it brought forwards, for the safety of society from your insanity.

Yes, we have an environment where those in positions of power are able to abuse that power. But we also have an environment where corruption and abuse is not the unalterable default for all people, and where individual free-will, individual moral choices, and the deterrences set by society all have their part to play in determining whether the outcome is one of corruption and abuse - or not.

The only barbarism on display around here is the barbarism in your head that is empty of the moral choices that others are able to make and are able to recognise in others.

[zahidf]

I know Murdoch has a twitter account, does he have an efestival user name as well? Is he 'Worm'?

[lost]

police are investigating tweets aimed at Mensch

[eFestivals]

police are investigating tweets aimed at Mensch

were they thank yous from Rupert?

[worm]

the machination being capitalism?

Edited May 3, 2012 by worm

[worm]

Fuck me, that's a different take on things. Murdoch as the puppet and not the puppet master.

[worm]

But under every single constraint of human history the power that any person - mad or just even a psychopathic poor student of philosophy - has been able to wield has been limited by the controls set by the environment they operate within.

[eFestivals]

That's a tad general. But it's certainly part of it. Before that power existed through other social systems. And even over the period of capitalism there's been a vast number of paradigm shifts. Power would just be transferred to a bureaucratic system if it were socialist.

What an awful thing to happen, eh? Power in the hands of democratically controlled institutions, instead of self-serving individuals.

Yes. Western propoganda is essential for keeping cultural Imperialism or westernisation rife in far away lands. He and his media Empire is an essential part of that mechanism. It's really not that hard to understand. Bigger forces are at work.

PMSL.

Nothing of Murdoch having the UK's govt by the short and curlies is essential for anything.

Bigger fools are at work than you. But not many.

Which is a very different thing to telling people off at the grand old age of 80 for getting caught.

And which is a very different thing to anything I'm pleased about.

You've not grasped a single thing about any of this.

[worm]

so what is it that pulls the strings of people like Murdoch?

or is it just the way it is and we're supposed to 'accept' it?

[worm]

You've not grasped a single thing about any of this.

[eFestivals]

About the fact that publically vilifying Murdoch won't change a thing? It's a fact Chief.

It depends how smart a person is as to whether they're able to recognise the significance and meaning of what's happened with "publically vilifying Murdoch", and what will change because of it.

Never mind, eh Chief.

[worm]

so people like Murdoch and Berlusconi, who have had a ridiculous amount of 'control' over what we see on tele or read in the press are exactly the ones who will make a difference

Edited May 3, 2012 by worm

[worm]

It depends how smart a person is as to whether they're able to recognise the significance and meaning of what's happened with "publically vilifying Murdoch", and what will change because of it.

[eFestivals]

Well, according to history, nothing significant will happen as it never has. I'm sure it'll make a few people feel better about the world, but that's not significant.

A crap student of history as well as politics I see.

Very significant things have already happened, and things are a long way from done yet.

The fact that you're not aware that very significant things have already happened is your own failing.

[worm]

Very significant things have already happened

Edited May 3, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

Had you put these things forward in the first place then we could have actually got somewhere.

or alternatively, if you knew a little of what you were talking about then we wouldn't be going nowhere.

And for the semantic record, you can't quantify significance. It's an is or isn't kinda deal. I think you're maybe confusing it with importance, but it isn't very important.

It is significant because the game has already changed. The spell has been broken and the power of Murdoch has been lessened forever.

His operations are under investigation, and the more that is investigated and exposed, more is found to be in need of investigation. Each part chips away at the power he is able to influence over both politicians and the public at large (tho the impact is more profound on politicians).

It would be good if the investigations were to start going in the direction of politicians too, tho as things stand that's not going to happen. But all the while that people are still digging there's hope of getting there.

The condemnation of Murdoch in this report is a part of the process. Without this report saying what it does it would be exceedingly unlikely that News Corp will be forced to give up Sky ... which might not happen anyway, but this increases the chances.

The more consequences that come back onto Murdoch the better, as these act as deterence against the next media baron that was to try similar in the future.

This report is a significant part along the path of dismantling Murdoch's power. It means that things don't stop here.

[eFestivals]

All you've offered so far is that it'll act as a deterrant, which is a speculation that history seems to null.

Care to tell me how you're able to measure as zero the crime that didn't happen as a result of whatever previous deterrence you're basing this on, to support your conclusion?