Rupert Murdoch

[worm]

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

[worm]

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?

[eFestivals]

The fact that when one person or entity is removed from power due to corruption another person or entity takes charge. Ergo, the power remains. You'll see that pattern throughout history.

And they always have identical motivations and consequences, do they, to make any change in a power structure meaningless?

I suggest you get yourself out to Libya, and tell the people there that they wasted their time getting rid of Gadaffi, because it's meaningless, something else filled the power vacuum but nothing has changed.

[worm]

And they always have identical motivations and consequences

[worm]

so, some people desire power... is that it?

[worm]

the main difference is that politicians (and others) are no longer scared to stand up to Murdoch for fear of his press bad mouthing them

[jakkijaxp]

No. People want to be controlled.

[eFestivals]

I see no change whatsoever. So enlighten us.

Then open your eyes.

Murdoch has less power. That means that others have power in his place.

Politicians are no longer running scared of him. They feel more able to do and act on their own beliefs than they did.

Even the muppets who buy and read the Sun on a daily basis are no longer sucking it up as they once were. The worst of them now understand what many have known for years, that what you read within it is not all true. That means it has less power to influence people in its direction, and they are instead using their own brains to better effect.

These things are an increase in democracy, of elected officials being more able to act on their conscience, and of ordinary people having more control over their own lives and so more able to get the outcomes they (rather than Rupert) want.

You keep banging on about power. Power is not fixed forever in one place; where the power lies effects what is done and able to be done with that power, and brings different consequences as a result.

For your simple mind, here's a simple realism: the BBC - a more democratic institution than Sky - is less under attack, and so more able to carry out its democratic mandate.

If you're blinded by your own stupidity, oh well.

[eFestivals]

No. People want to be controlled.

The very fact that some here do not want and will not be controlled by the idiotic bollocks you're spouting proves you wrong.

Meanwhile it passes you by that what comes from your own 'mind' as your own version of the world is the one that is under most control. You have sucked up a fixed dogma which tells you that everything is in a certain way when it is not.

You are speaking for only yourself.

[eFestivals]

I guess that worm subscribes to the idea that there's no point in voting because the govt always gets in. There's no other sensible take that can be taken from what he's saying.

And that just gets to show that there's no sense in what he's saying.

Edited May 4, 2012 by eFestivals

[worm]

it gives politicians freedom to stand up for what they believe in

[worm]

some probably do...

[worm]

Murdoch has less power. That means that others have power in his place.

[eFestivals]

Bingo.

He never had power though and neither do the others. He was charged with power, much like others will be. My point is that the power he was charged with (expanding westernisation via global media apparatus) has not changed. The machination is still embedded in our culture and in our foreign policies and in our ineffective ideologies.

As I said, I'm looking at the bigger picture.

Bingo bango bongo drongo.

The position of a 'media baron' comes with an amount of power by default. Murdoch engineered himself far more power than came by default.

He has now lost that extra power.

What is too difficult for you to understand?

The power he stole was the power of people. That power has been returned.

If you're looking at the bigger picture you need to see an optician.

[worm]

The power he stole was the power of people.

Edited May 4, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

What a load of socialist twaddle.

The BBC and internet and independent outlets are just as responsible for perpetuating, solidifying and exporting westernisation. There's no stopping it. That is the source of power because people want it.

not one jot of anything about this is to do with "perpetuating, solidifying and exporting westernisation".

It's about corruption and lies. The use of power by Murdoch and some individuals in public positions for their personal benefit.

There is nothing western about corruption and lies and abuse of power, they are as old as the hills (while also able to be moderated).

Ultimately, the powers that were taken and abused were powers that were taken from the public as a whole. With this scandal being exposed those powers are returning to the public as a whole - whether they want it or not.

[worm]

not one jot of anything about this is to do with "perpetuating, solidifying and exporting westernisation".

It's about corruption and lies.

Edited May 4, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

That's how you've framed it, but as I've said a number of times, I'm looking at the bigger picture.

It won't change anything. It won't prevent corruption and lies, as history will tell you. It won't seize the platform of power and give people the power back, mainly because they never had it to start with.

the only picture you're looking at is one that is free of content. If the angle you take here is true then there is similarly no point to any revolution.

It has already changed things, even if, when the power that was concentrated within Murdoch/News Corp is redistributed to each person in this country the amount of power each receives back is very small.

For some Sun readers, they've been re-empowered to differentiate truth from lies; for some Sky viewers too. Others have received power back with their vote, where their representative is now more likely to reflect their wishes than was the cazse before. Others still by their being fewer corrupt officials within the arms of govt such as the police.

So it's changed things, and seized back some powers to the people, powers that existed before but were lost - and history can give you absolute proof of that.

And it's already stopping corruption and lies. Those who have been abusing their positions are now looking over their shoulders waiting for the police raid. Those who might have become corrupted in the future are seeing this and their opinions on what is worth doing are being changed.

And things are far from done just yet. The govt - which means Dave Moron - have suddenly lost their bottle today and realised they need to be running a PR campaign from within the Leveson Inquiry. It might not be perfect and it might not lead anywhere significant but it's still shining lights into dark corners and making people aware there's fewer places to hide than they thought.

It's not a revolution, and I never said it was. But it is undoubtedly A Good Thing while this improved position lasts, even tho at some point in the future there's likely to be something along the similar lines - but it'll be "similar" lines and not "the same" lines because the game has been changed by all of this.

[eFestivals]

You're just scapegoating a villian, pitching a small victory as a monumental change.

Bollocks am I. It's your small biased mind that is telling you that, the same small biased mind that is unable to see any significance to this.

I am not celebrating Murdoch's demise, I am celebrating the consequences of Murdoch's demise - a return of power to 'the people', and a better (in it's widest sense) democracy.

[worm]

you're looking at your bigger picture, which imagines that we all want to be controlled

[worm]

People are people and cover a squillion different bases.. we are all the same, but we're also unique in an infinite number of ways.

[Ed209]

We do want to be controlled. I explained this to you. You've ignored it rather conveniently. I repeat: 'We don't want anarchy do we. So we embed power in a social system and some seek to be charged with that power'. Do you disagree with that?

[worm]

Its really not as black and white as that though. As Tony pointed out, you can't just take the spectrum of humanity and apply this rule to it. Its bonkers

Some extent of social control is a necessary for society to function coherently. But its a recognised necessity, its not necessarily some deep seeded desire of the human condition to be controlled

[worm]

On many levels, we're all the same...we have similar desires and wishes, but on just as many levels we're as different as we possibly could be. Some like to be controlled, some like to be in control, some are quite happy without either.

Edited May 4, 2012 by worm

[worm]

I don't believe you need to have people who are in control or have power to have a social system that 'works'.