backtop


Print 104 comment(s) - last by hanmen.. on Jul 10 at 9:14 AM


News Corp. subsidiary "News of the World" is accused of hacking the voicemail of British murder victim Milly Dowler, a 13-year-old UK schoolgirl.  (Source: PA/The Independent)

British PM David Cameron, who was endorsed by News of the World and who hired a former News of the World staffer to a key position, has been slow to act. He says that inaction was due to caution and that full government inquiries will be coming.  (Source: Matt Dunham/AP)

News of the World (News International) chief executive Rebekah Brooks has refused to resign.  (Source: Getty Images)
British hacking scheme yielded scoops, big profits for Murdoch's tabloids at the price of privacy, integrity

A massive scandal is brewing around News of the World, a series of British tabloid newspapers owned by News Corp. (NWS), much to the dismay of the company's divisive majority owner and chief executive, Rupert Murdoch.  

It has been alleged that Mr. Murdoch's news organization, which also owns Fox News in the United States, may have hired hackers to steal voicemails and text messages from victims of murders and terrorist plots.  

I. Investigators in Murder of Schoolgirl Thrown by News Corp.'s Actions

The scandal has been growing since a few months back when News of the World was accused of hacking into celebrities and politicians' voice mailboxes to try to grab juicy scoops.  But over the last month things took a more serious turn as it was revealed that terrorist victims were also targeted.

Hacking into the voicemail accounts of relatives of victims of the bombings on three London subway trains and a double-decker bus on July 7, 2005 is currently the subject of an ongoing police inquiry.

But the most scandalous intrusion may have been the group's use of a cell phone belonging to Milly Dowler, a missing Surrey schoolgirl.  Led by News of the World employee Glenn Mulcaire, the organization hacked into her phone.  They then intercepted messages from distraught family members and deleted them, to make room for new messages, hoping the new messages would reveal details indicating that the girl was alive.  The activity confused investigators and gave family members false hope.

Mr. Mulcaire, who previously served prison time for hacking the phones of members of England's Royal Family said "relentless pressure" from News of the World's supervisors was responsibility for the acts, commenting "there was a constant demand for results."

He offered an apology to family members of the girl and "to anybody who was hurt or upset", but accused the media of "vilification" that has led to harassment of his wife and children.

II. News Corp. Stands Behind Embattled Branch and Its Chief

Rupert Murdoch has stood behind News of the World chief Rebekah Brooks, commenting, "Recent allegations of phone hacking and making payments to police with respect to the News of the World are deplorable and unacceptable."

"I have made clear that our company must fully and proactively cooperate with the police in all investigations and that is exactly what News International has been doing and will continue to do under Rebekah Brooks’ leadership. We are committed to addressing these issues fully and have taken a number of important steps to prevent them from happening again."

Ms. Brooks denies having knowledge that the hacking was occurring.  She writes in a staff memo, "[We will] pursue the facts with vigor and integrity. I am aware of the speculation about my position. Therefore it is important you all know that as chief executive, I am determined to lead the company to ensure we do the right thing and resolve these serious issues."

Tim Luckhurst, a journalism professor at the University of Kent, told The New York Times that News Corp. is unlikely to be able to sweep this one under the rug. He states, "The Milly Dowler story has taken this from an issue for people who are concerned about media ethics to one that is of broader concern to the general public. News Corporation thought they could put a lid on this, and this has blown the lid right off."

III. Britain's PM Attacked for Ties to News Corp.

Britain's Prime Minister and conservative party leader David Cameron has been attacked for his support of News Corp. and News of the World.

Mr. Cameron enjoys close ties to both organizations.  He was a guest at Ms. Brooks’ marriage to her second husband, Charlie Brooks, in 2009.  And he's frequently attended social functions with Mr. Murdoch.

Andy Coulson, a former News International (News of the World) editor, was appointed by Mr. Cameron as director of communications.  He was forced to resign in January after the phone scandal broke, despite denying having any knowledge of it during his time with News of the World.

BBC News, however, reports that documents obtained indicate that Mr. Coulson authorized payments to the police in exchange for information.  The news network adds that News Corp.'s British properties -- the Sun, The Times of London, and the News of the World -- all threw their weight behind Mr. Cameron and the conservative party, helping push for his election.

Coincidentally, Mr. Cameron initially resisted a British federal probe into News Corp., even as the police investigation struggled.  Mr. Cameron tried to defend himself, stating, "We do need to have an inquiry, possibly inquiries, into what has happened. We are no longer talking here about politicians and celebrities, we are talking about murder victims, potentially terrorist victims, having their phones hacked into. It is absolutely disgusting, what has taken place, and I think everyone in this House and indeed this country will be revolted by what they have heard and what they have seen on their television screens."

He says that the delay in calling for an inquiry was precautionary.  He claims, "It seems to me there are two vital issues we need to look into. The first is the original police inquiry and why that didn’t get to the bottom of what has happened. "

"The second is about the behavior of individual people and individual media organizations and a wider look into media practices and ethics in this country. Clearly, we cannot start all that sort of inquiry immediately because you must not jeopardize the police investigation. But it may be possible to start some of that work earlier."

Mr. Cameron's newfound desire to investigate News Corp. was not enough to placate his political rivals, though.  Labour Party parliamentarian David Milibrand comments that it was "catastrophic error of judgment by [Mr. Cameron] bringing Andy Coulson into the heart of his Downing Street machine."  

He says that the British PM "has not shown the leadership necessary" to handle the affair.  He urges Ms. Brooks to "consider her position" (resign).

IV. Financial Fallout for News Corp.

Even as the legal, political, and journalistic fallout of the scandal continues to be weighed, it appears that the scandal will also have a major impact on News Corp.'s bottom line.

Ford Motor Company (F) and other prominent advertisers have pulled the plug on print and video spots with News Corp.'s British properties.  That backlash could hurt the bottom line of a traditionally lucrative News Corp. property.

Further, the scandal has led Parliament to question the authorization of a News Corp. takeover of British Sky Broadcasting, a pay TV company in which it is already the largest shareholder.  Mr. Cameron continues to support the deal and insists that News Corp. has done nothing wrong there.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Really?
By Motoman on 7/6/2011 5:02:46 PM , Rating: 3
"...at the price of privacy and integrity..."

Integrity? This is Murdock. And/or sleezy UK "news" organizations. At what point did anyone get the impression that "integrity" was involved?




RE: Really?
By icanhascpu on 7/6/2011 5:08:41 PM , Rating: 5
I rather get my news from The Onion.


RE: Really?
By Motoman on 7/6/2011 5:12:15 PM , Rating: 5
And then we can lol at China when they think it's real.


RE: Really?
By Samus on 7/7/2011 2:47:58 AM , Rating: 2
Indecision 2000 anybody?


RE: Really?
By tng on 7/6/2011 5:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
Integrity in the media is nonexistent nowadays. Murdock is just the favorite whipping boy.

The UK always seemed to me (outside the UK) somewhat bipolar. Some outlets seemed to be super sensationalized and others ultra respectable, and all were deemed well and good by the British people who could somehow decipher it all.


RE: Really?
By BZDTemp on 7/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By BugblatterIII on 7/6/2011 6:33:04 PM , Rating: 1
Oh we have something for everyone here. There's a paper for idiots, one for idiot racists, one for idiot fascists...oh wait; they're all the same one.

Then of course we have the quality newspapers.

Guess which sell better...

Unfortunately Murdoch has chosen our PMs for as long as I can remember. He's like our king, back when kings actually had power.


RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/6/2011 7:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then of course we have the quality newspapers.
Guess which sell better...

Well that is a global problem.

quote:
Unfortunately Murdoch has chosen our PMs for as long as I can remember. He's like our king, back when kings actually had power.

But why?


RE: Really?
By BugblatterIII on 7/6/2011 7:50:00 PM , Rating: 3
Because millions of people rely on Murdoch's papers to tell them what to think, and those people have votes.


RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 12:50:31 AM , Rating: 2
And they probably have a driver's license as well.

Sigh.


RE: Really?
By sedoo on 7/7/2011 9:40:49 AM , Rating: 1
On no YASHY upset, que some Obama videos to make him feel better!


RE: Really?
By sedoo on 7/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 12:37:04 PM , Rating: 1
Where were you when I've criticized many of Obama's policies, like the ethanol debate? Many of them were recent, but based on your responses I would have to guess you were what? Breast feeding?

You had your chance to invoke the 5th Amendment, even though immaturity is not a crime, but you blew it.


RE: Really?
By PrinceGaz on 7/7/2011 9:52:02 AM , Rating: 2
Are you suggesting that some stories printed in newspapers such as the Sun are not 100% unbiased truth?


RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/6/2011 6:56:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Integrity in the media is nonexistent nowadays. Murdock is just the favorite whipping boy.

That's a feeble attempt at rationalizing his behavior. Outside of MSNBC or CNN nobody stoops as low as his propaganda machine does. And Murdoch's juggernaut is vastly larger.

quote:
Some outlets seemed to be super sensationalized

Mostly by the same types of idiots that managed to keep "Three's Company" on the air for seven years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaIh0GzMawE
Here we see Faux smearing Ron Paul. Well, what can you expect from an omnivore? But yeah, the gross lie was indeed entertaining to that crowd.


RE: Really?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/6/2011 7:05:37 PM , Rating: 2
As if you've never used the same link twice? Man the double standard never ends, does it? The point to that particular story is they don't care who they screw if it interferes with their agenda, and what they did could only be done with intent, not the mistake they were claiming it was.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/86212...

Apparently tng's viewpoint "they are all the same" is not shared by "all."


RE: Really?
By Iaiken on 7/6/2011 9:20:49 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were a deliberate strategic move by fox after the last few segments of Fox & Foes and the Big-O ripping into Congressman Paul.


RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/6/2011 11:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
There's no way to "accidentally" pull archive footage, splice it into current footage, and have the commentator remark on it as if it were all current. Helen Keller could have seen this sham coming a mile away.

It should take all of 5 minutes of viewing anything on the "Hardy F" about Paul to realize they'll do anything and everything to prevent him from gaining anything higher up in any public office.

You really have to laugh at the sheer magnitude of their attitude changes, from SHUT UP!, to constant interruptions, to addressing Palin as "Govenor", not "Former Governor", and certainly not "Quitter", her current title.

Frankly I do enjoy having Paul grill Bernanke and his fellow carpet baggers every chance he gets. No better person to oversee the Fed. His book is never in stock at B&N.


RE: Really?
By Spuke on 7/6/2011 11:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Frankly I do enjoy having Paul grill Bernanke and his fellow carpet baggers every chance he gets.
Looks like I need to pay more attention to this guy. Thanks for that Youtube link.


RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 1:30:25 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-KzzDZo6GY&playnex...

Here's some politically biased out of context editing of Obama Judicial Nominee Goodwin Liu.

And God forbid you should look at the sheer number of Faux News clips that have been edited out of context.

Feel free to post to any other networks news stories that have been handled in the same manner.


RE: Really?
By gamerk2 on 7/7/2011 2:33:40 AM , Rating: 2
Jetpacks much?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/fox-news-...

Fox falls for this all the time; they run stories without checking facts, play only selected audio pieces to get the most "bang" loosing all context as a result, etc.

See their bashing of NPR as an example. Twice now, they've gone all gung-ho, using post-edited audio tapes specifically made to put things out of context. But they don't care, they get a story, and help put their rival out of business bit by bit.

Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are all embarassments, but Fox is by far the worst of the bunch.


RE: Really?
By sedoo on 7/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By Iaiken on 7/7/2011 10:02:11 AM , Rating: 2
I love how you don't have anything redeeming to say, just incredibly lame and ineffectual attempts at character assassination.

Are you Reclaimers little bro?

U mad bro?

It's OK if u mad.


RE: Really?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2011 10:44:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
U mad bro?


Again I have to ask, are you 12? Who seriously uses "u mad" in a debate? Grow up.


RE: Really?
By Iaiken on 7/7/2011 11:21:17 AM , Rating: 2
What debate?

I was just pointing out in a patronizing way (mostly for my own enjoyment) that sedoo had literally said nothing of any weight or consequence as of yet.

Get over yourself.


RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 6:51:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Again I have to ask, are you 12? Who seriously uses "u mad" in a debate? Grow up.

Now here you are 100% correct. To attempt to communicate with Seedo at his level is not "grown up."


RE: Really?
By sedoo on 7/7/2011 9:47:27 AM , Rating: 2
Yashy posted another youtube video, you know it's fact now, lol.


RE: Really?
By sedoo on 7/7/2011 9:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
Please yashy keep worrying about Palin, she probably loves it when losers focus their entire existence on her. Keep making her more money. ;)


RE: Really?
By Spuke on 7/6/2011 11:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here we see Faux smearing Ron Paul.
Wow! Ok, I really thought all the news media outlets were equally horrible but I am officially putting Fox in the most horrible of all camp. Do they really not like Ron Paul? Or am I missing something?


RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 12:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do they really not like Ron Paul? Or am I missing something?


Ron Paul will not stand still for corruption by either side. That's what makes him a real republican and patriot. The rest live crucifying their opponents, and then performing the same crimes against their own constituents, and that's OK, because it's them. (The old "do as I say not as I do" philosophy.)

Look at Pauls voting record (What's to look at? He's pretty much vetoed everything all the time.) If you want to see a huge reduction in pork projects (which come from both sides) there's no other game in town. And that's why Faux doesn't want him, and neither do any pubs, for he'll stop their pork project as well, and then hand them their heads verbally in the process.

If he were to win and to take on both the Federal Reserve and the Military Industrial Complex I would fear for his very survival. But the odds are greater if he appears to be getting the nomination they will try do to him what they did to Ross Perot; character assassination.


RE: Really?
By Spuke on 7/7/2011 1:40:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ron Paul will not stand still for corruption by either side.
I like him already. But if he were in office, he would have to compromise else nothing he wanted would get done. There would be a side benefit of exposing the corruption to the general public though. If the President points it out, the general public would believe it.


RE: Really?
By gamerk2 on 7/7/2011 2:21:15 AM , Rating: 1
Please. Paul is a hypocrite, first and formost.

For example: He's all for ending farming subsidies, but subsidies for Doctors? Nope. PS: He's a doctor.

Second example: His famous comments about the Americans for Disabilities Act. Why should business be bothered to place those handicapped parking zones?

Hence the reason he never addresses the media outside any tightly controlled environment: His own words cause him to self-destruct. His brother Rand nearly did the same exact thing during his election during an NPR interview, and he didn't go near the media the remaining three months.

So please, stop it.


RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By Iaiken on 7/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 1:10:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's a totally bogus comparison and you know it.

Typical desperation technique, throw it against a wall, see what sticks.


RE: Really?
By Dr of crap on 7/7/2011 8:56:15 AM , Rating: 3
Man have you swalowed the kool-aid.
Politicians are ALL alike. The bad stuff may be hidden real well on some, but they ALL have something to hide.
And they are only out for themselves. And that means to get elected and then keep their office - at ANY cost! And the fact that you are waving the flag around for your guy makes you just as bad.

Repeat after me - NO politician is worth any amount of effort. I will not follow nor vote for any, be it Republican or Demacrat!


RE: Really?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2011 10:40:36 AM , Rating: 2
Ah so now I see. You liked Ron Paul, so you're trying to blame Fox News for his utterly failed campaign.

Time to get over it and 'move on'. Ron Paul is either a complete troll, or a loon. He's most certainly a hypocrite and he's probably racist as well.


RE: Really?
By Iaiken on 7/7/2011 11:23:20 AM , Rating: 2
And yet he is 100% right on the need to kill Federal Reserve Bank... again... for the third time and hopefully forever.


RE: Really?
By ClownPuncher on 7/7/2011 12:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
He is definitely less of a Progressive than you. He was also never a Conservative, he has always been a Libertarian, just most of the time with an R by his name. Porbably the most "constitutionally correct" candidate out there.

Is he a good choice for President, though? Probably not. He doesn't like compromise.


RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 12:46:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ah so now I see. You liked Ron Paul, so you're trying to blame Fox News for his utterly failed campaign.

Oh he's cleary nuts and I already have explained to you that I don't vote for either side of the entrenched 2 party system.

But you're too busy being the typical extremist, desperately trying to latch onto something, anything, that you can attack, as if you are screaming out loud, "My own position fails to stand on its own merits." That's the statement you make, all by yourself. The fact that others can easily put it on a silver platter? Doesn't really matter.


RE: Really?
By sedoo on 7/7/2011 9:39:44 AM , Rating: 1
LOL, I love when left wing extremists bring out the played out monikers like Faux news.

Here some for you I don't like PMSNBC, or the Communist news Network, lol.

Watch out Yashy Fox news is COMING FOR YOU!!! lol.


RE: Really?
By Lord 666 on 7/6/2011 10:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, thats why the page 3 girl is topless. Classy gents those Brits


RE: Really?
By Motoman on 7/6/2011 11:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
That part I'd argue is nothing more than evidence of a more progressive society, at least in terms of sexuality, in the UK vs. the US.

Topless "birds" are utterly normal in the UK. It's no big deal...because it's no big deal.

Note that it's also perfectly legal to be a woman and be topless in, say, NYC.


RE: Really?
By gamerk2 on 7/7/2011 2:27:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the top three Media outlets right now:

1a: NPR
1b: BBC
3: Al Jazeera

Its worth noting, early last year, most all the remaining news outlets in England, Conservative and Liberal leaning, made a huge push to prevent News Corp from aquiring any more news entities, because they damn well know that they were being pushed out.

Meanwhile, in the US, laws keep getting re-written so one entity can control more and more of the mass media.


RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 3:54:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the FCC has been nothing but Murdoch's personal tool for quite a few years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

If there's anuything he doesn't own please keep it to yourself.

And this tidbit from the above link:
quote:
In 1999, The Economist[A conservative magazine] reported that Newscorp Investments had made £11.4 billion ($20.1 billion) in profits over the previous 11 years but had not paid net corporation tax. It also reported that after an examination of the available accounts, Newscorp could normally have been expected to pay corporate tax of approximately $350 million. The article explained that in practice the corporation's complex structure, international scope and use of offshore tax havens allowed News Corporation to pay minimal taxes


RE: Really?
By sedoo on 7/7/2011 9:49:44 AM , Rating: 1
Only you two fools would think NPR, BBC (government controlled media) and Al Jazeera were unbiased sources.

gamerk2 and yashy are battling for biggest libtard on DT.


RE: Really?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2011 10:35:09 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Only you two fools would think NPR, BBC (government controlled media) and Al Jazeera were unbiased sources.


LOL yeah. I think my mind exploded a bit when I read that list. Is he being serious?

quote:
gamerk2 and yashy are battling for biggest libtard on DT.


Well first they have to get past Iiaken...


RE: Really?
By Iaiken on 7/7/2011 11:19:44 AM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer,

I am perfectly OK with your increasingly myopic view of me as well as your love of Faux and Fiends.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/M...

It's an interesting study by scholars at the University of Maryland that found viewers of Fox News were more likely to be misinformed on a number of topics that the subjects had indicated were important to them. What's more, the more often they watched Fox, the more likely they were to be wrong when evaluating truth statements pertaining to those topics.

Meanwhile, consumers of NPR/PBS news programs were the most likely to be correct on those same topics.

MSNBC viewers likewise displayed a high degree of accuracy in most areas, but faltered (as expected) in being highly accurate on democratic items, but less accurate on republic an items (though usually still more accurate than Fox). The one item where MSNBC really f***ed the dog was on the matter of DOC spending being spent on republican campaigns.

Meanwhile CNN fell somewhere between MSNBC and the public broadcasters.

It's also interesting to see how these outlets influenced voters of both sides. With the exception of only 3 topics republican voters were misinformed to a greater degree than those who had voted for democrats.

What you don't seem to understand Reclaimer is that I am perfectly fine with biased news, as long as there are a lot of diverse sources and viewpoints. My biggest problem is that the US has gone from over 150 news outlets all digging in different directions, to only six. This has effectively crushed plurality in the media because these big six create practically all of the content, decide what will show on practically all of the channels and own practically all of the delivery infrastructure. What's more, this consolidation is still ongoing and their sphere and degree of influence both continue to grow.

Rage on Reclaimer, rage on.


RE: Really?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2011 12:54:27 PM , Rating: 1
lol That "study" has been exposed more times than a stripper. And, big surprise, you link it. The study didn't even have data to support it's conclusion. In fact, the study may simply demonstrate that Fox News viewers are more informed than the researchers. It was clear that the researchers were unaware of most of the data provided to the public.

quote:
Meanwhile, consumers of NPR/PBS news programs were the most likely to be correct on those same topics.


Aren't you always preaching to me how I'm too "black and white"? I would be very concerned about a study that tries to establish a baseline for "correct" viewpoints on political or business topics. Why aren't you?

By the way, you're a joke. PBS and NPR are publicly funded garbage that claims to be objective and is plainly not.

quote:
My biggest problem is that the US has gone from over 150 news outlets all digging in different directions, to only six.


And out of six, five are highly to moderately liberal. Yet you and others always seem to take issue with the one that's "biased" to the Right. Why is that? Is it just a coincidence that the people on Daily Tech who constantly take issue with Fox happen to be our more Liberal posters? Nah.


RE: Really?
By Spuke on 7/7/2011 1:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
Then how do you explain me? You know I'm not a liberal but hold most of the same views of Fox "News" as the liberals here. Although I view them ALL as piles of sh!t, at least the others will mix the crap with some truth. Fox straight up misleads and outright lies and makes no apologies for it.

That all said, they're all sh!t. I think our duty as citizens is to put these people back to the task of looking out for us. That's the point of the media, isn't it?


RE: Really?
By Iaiken on 7/7/2011 1:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And out of six, five are highly to moderately liberal.


Love it, if they don't demonstrate that they are firmly in the republican camp, they are automatically against the republicans. Classic. This whole, if you're not with us, you're against us bent you are championing for Fox is pathetic.


RE: Really?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2011 5:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Love it, if they don't demonstrate that they are firmly in the republican camp, they are automatically against the republicans.


Are you dense? They aren't "against" the Republicans, which I never said, they are simply FOR their own bias and agendas. If you are trying to argue that most of our media isn't slanted to the left, then you would only be demonstrating your own stubbornness or ignorance.

I'm not championing for Fox, I don't watch Fox. I'm just tired of copy-cat card carrying Liberal morons such as yourself who simply regurgitate the same leftist talking points. If you are going to slam Fox, fine, but have the backbone to call MSNBC and ABC etc etc out for doing the same damn thing.

Liberal media bias in America isn't even debatable, it's an axiom Iaiken. I don't know why I'm trying to explain this to your looney Canadian ass, or why you're so involved, but get a clue.


RE: Really?
By Iaiken on 7/7/2011 1:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
lol That "study" has been exposed more times than a stripper.


I'm glad you brought that up since the only serious critic has been PolitiFact, and they were not only unable to debunk the study, but made a glaring mistake in the process by attempting to use two other studies that drew the same conclusion to do so. If that doesn't damage PolitiFact's own credibility by drawing the conclusion they liked, then I don't know what does.


RE: Really?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2011 6:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm glad you brought that up since the only serious critic has been PolitiFact,


Really? Well this guy sounds pretty serious to me, and if you have the guts to watch it, I'm curious what your next angle of attack will be. Because he utterly blows apart your cited study.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8KHOgyYyHQ&feature...

But the most damning fact about the study is that they didn't actually survey "most economists" as to what they thought about an issue, yet constantly cited "most economists" in their questions to those participating in the study. And then determined that people were "less informed" when they didn't even bother to do the background work on what real economists actually thought about an issue. Hello?

Also you have to question the legitimacy of a study of this nature when they pretty much based the "correct" answer on numbers provided by Obama's CBO (Congressional Budget Office). Not only did the Maryland researchers not do enough homework to make the study valid, but this methodology is damning.


RE: Really?
By Iaiken on 7/7/2011 7:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'd already seen the video and his own methodology for nitpicking is also flawed so I am not actually sure where to start on your stupidity here.

I'll guess I will begin with the nitpicking over the semantic meaning of "most economists" as a reason to throw out the entire study. A sample of 54 economists of merit would qualify regardless of the author of the videos personal disdain of them.

As for the CBO, it is a nonpartisan organization staffed by both republicans and democrats who must agree upon all of the figures that they publish.

In conclusion, you're an idiot and you'll believe what you like.


RE: Really?
By Iaiken on 7/7/2011 7:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
Also, the author of the video stuck to the topics where most of the news agencies were in a veritable tie, the report also acknowledges these items as not being statistically of a statistically notable difference in a previous section.

Yet the author of the video harps on them as reasons to discard the evaluation of all of the statements rather than individual statements based on their individual veracity being suspect.


RE: Really?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2011 7:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
It goes to methodology, which is flawed. He proved their methodology to be flawed. Also he acknowledged what you are saying, but stated he didn't want the video to be an hour long.

Either way you slice it, The U of Maryland study is, predictably, biased.

The absurdity of your argument makes me laugh. Even if the study was 100% accurate, it cannot honestly make the conclusion that all Fox News viewers are "less informed". It can only state the ones they surveyed are.

Here's an idea, why don't you stick to things that concern you and leave American politics and cultural debates to those who actually have a frame of reference?


RE: Really?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2011 7:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A sample of 54 economists of merit would qualify regardless of the author of the videos personal disdain of them.


That's myopic. Something a serious study would not make the mistake of doing. 54 economists are not "most" economists, not even close. It's called "cherry picking".

quote:
I'd already seen the video and his own methodology for nitpicking is also flawed so I am not actually sure where to start on your stupidity here.


Ah the "lalalala I can't hear you" technique. Just because it worked when you were 12 doesn't mean it will work here.

Nitpicking? Studies SHOULD be nitpicked moron, and they should stand up to that nitpicking. The University of Maryland's study does not. And if you still believe they utterly proved Fox users are "less informed", then maybe you should watch the video again with the SOUND ON.


RE: Really?
By Iaiken on 7/7/2011 7:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's myopic. Something a serious study would not make the mistake of doing. 54 economists are not "most" economists, not even close. It's called "cherry picking".


Actually, it's a pretty good sample size and all of the members on the list were economists in positions to actually have an opinion of merit at major financial institutions.

Again, we're not going to agree on this as you've already made up your mind as to which semantic meaning you personally prefer because it props up your belief system.


RE: Really?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2011 7:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
Then why didn't the questions say "out of 54 surveyed Economists"? I love how you're supporting such blatant dishonesty and poor methodology!

quote:
Again, we're not going to agree on this as you've already made up your mind as to which semantic meaning you personally prefer because it props up your belief system.


Right, and you don't do the same thing...


RE: Really?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2011 7:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for the CBO, it is a nonpartisan organization staffed by both republicans and democrats who must agree upon all of the figures that they publish.


So what? I guess you missed the part where the CBO Director himself admitted the numbers weren't accurate. Hello? So how can you base a survey on a presumption that isn't even correct, and then claim people are "less informed" when they don't go along with a preconception!?

Are you too stupid to even comprehend the video? I'm starting to wonder how you can possibly arrive at any other conclusion.


RE: Really?
By Iaiken on 7/7/2011 7:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess you missed the part where the CBO Director himself admitted the numbers weren't accurate.


Let's see, because he said that in March 2011. The statement of truth was based on the prevailing economic views of economists in 2010. And you are now trying to attack the credibility of the creators of the study based on information that was not available to them at the time by implying that they acted in a sinister fashion and that the entire report should be thrown out because of one question. Even if what the economists believed was wrong, the question is about what they believed at the time.

But don't let context get in the way of you being a moron.


RE: Really?
By Iaiken on 7/7/2011 7:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess you missed the part where the CBO Director himself admitted the numbers weren't accurate.


Let's see, because he said that in March 2011. The statement of truth was based on the prevailing economic views of economists in 2010. And you are now trying to attack the credibility of the creators of the study based on information that was not available to them at the time by implying that they acted in a sinister fashion and that the entire report should be thrown out because of one question. Even if what the economists believed was wrong, the question is about what they believed at the time.

But don't let context get in the way of you being a moron.


RE: Really?
By liem107 on 7/7/2011 2:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
reading this study, it seems quite clear in its methodology and data.
Of course statistical bias can be present in any study but this one seems correct on its basis.
Could you point out the flaws of this study?


RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 2:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Could you point out the flaws of this study?

These are not required, once the witty reply is made and made first no additional response is warranted or tolerated.

IE He made the big L symbol on his forehead as he read your response. May have even used his left hand for all we know.


RE: Really?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2011 6:25:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
reading this study, it seems quite clear in its methodology and data.


Are you kidding!?

quote:
Could you point out the flaws of this study?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8KHOgyYyHQ&feature...

A bit long, but this isn't an quick issue. This utterly exposes the study as being the, obvious, crock that it is.

Most "studies" and surveys are BS, as we all should know. Just because Iaiken found one that agreed with his misconceptions doesn't mean it's accurate and correct.


RE: Really?
By Iaiken on 7/7/2011 7:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This utterly exposes the study as being the, obvious, crock that it is.


Actually, it proves that individual items that the study said were too close to make any real determination were too close to make any determination.

Beyond the 4 items that he chooses to harp on for reasons of semantics or statistical significance, the other items are pretty much irrefutable statements where fox viewers lag behind, and badly at that.

But since you love to throw babies out with the bathwater, don't let me stop you from believing what you like.


RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 6:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yet you and others always seem to take issue with the one that's "biased" to the Right.

That's an oversimplification to avoid saying that your favorite is extremist. I told you about The Economist, but you showed no interest. Why? Because they don't practice the highly desireable political scorched earth tactics?

quote:
And out of six, five are highly to moderately liberal.

How about you list the names of all six, so we can see just how many are political jihadists.

quote:
Is it just a coincidence that the people on Daily Tech who constantly take issue with Fox happen to be our more Liberal posters? Nah.

I can now see why this article would bother you. Here the British political right is about to pummel your precious billionaire, you know, the stark naked king you see fully clothed?

And as many have pointed out, there are no moderate right TV channels, so yeah, all the lefties are going to target the same source. Should that really be surprising? It would be more surprising if they didn't.

You also conveniently neglect that when you scream about CNN or MSNBC not one person bothers to defend them. It's a great technique I learned from a boss years ago. Somebody is screaming at you, and basically you just sit there, and if you have to you say, "You're right. Now what?" No faster method exists for deflating a person.


RE: Really?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2011 6:20:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's an oversimplification to avoid saying that your favorite is extremist.


That doesn't work with me, because I know the proper viewpoint on most, if not all, issues is the Conservative one. Therefore Fox being "biased" to the Right is a silly argument.

quote:
I told you about The Economist, but you showed no interest. Why?


Because you're a troll and most of the time I don't even read your posts? Yash, let's get real here, it's a courtesy that I even respond to you as much as I do.

quote:
I can now see why this article would bother you. Here the British political right is about to pummel your precious billionaire, you know, the stark naked king you see fully clothed?


My precious billionaire? He's never given me any money, why is he precious to me? Why would I be a fan, as you claim? Another ad-homenum attack by Yash.

I could care less what happens with some London tabloid. Last I checked, tabloids in London weren't Fox news in America. The fact that Fox even got dragged into this, as usual, is what I take issue with. Also the fact that these are ACCUSATIONS, and there has been no proof of legal judgment against them, might bear some remembering. But don't let a little thing like that break up your witch hunt here.

Let's cut through the bullshit here. Murdoch is a lightning rod for Liberals because he's rich, the worst sin someone can be in their minds, and he runs a "right wing" company.


RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 7:01:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Another ad-homenum attack by Yash.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/feeble

quote:
Therefore Fox being "biased" to the Right is a silly argument.

Nobody said that.

quote:
Therefore Fox being "biased" to the extreme Right is a silly argument.

Fixed it for you.


RE: Really?
By Iaiken on 7/7/2011 7:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That doesn't work with me, because I know the proper viewpoint on most, if not all, issues is the Conservative one.


Actually, that's a statement of faith... see the definition of religion. I hope the church of later day neocons treats you right. :P


RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/8/2011 1:03:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That doesn't work with me,

Never found any fact you hate that did.

quote:
because I know the proper viewpoint on most, if not all, issues is the Conservative one.

Few individuals like yourself openly admit their logical limitations. Quite refreshing to see you openly say you couldn't admit to being wrong under any conditions.

quote:
Because you're a troll

Ah the old standard extremist "ace-in-the hole." Translation: I am at a loss for any meaningful or significant input at the moment. O'Reilly version: SHUT UP!

quote:
and most of the time I don't even read your posts?

Which of course is why we're having this pleasant little chat.

quote:
Yash, let's get real here, it's a courtesy that I even respond to you as much as I do.


I've seen Muslims terrorists that have the same sense of superiority, I see them on TV with their horseblinds on, seems like the same make & model you use. But don't do me any more perceived favors, it might mess up that elitist attitude you keep displaying.

quote:
Another ad-homenum attack by Yash

OH you're going to love my next post as I go back through your recent posting history and remind everyone what a blatant hypocrite you are with your own words. Do you have any idea how many times you've called people here idiots in the last month alone? I may set a record for the longest DT post ever.

quote:
Murdoch is a lightning rod for Liberals because he's rich, the worst sin someone can be in their minds, and he runs a "right wing" company.

Once again you've conveniently ignored that the english conservatives are all pissed at him as well. Must be that fair & balanced stuff again and your total lack of ethics, which can be recognized by everybody.


RE: Really?
By frobizzle on 7/7/2011 8:05:11 AM , Rating: 2
Why would News Corp. need to hack into anything for their so-called news?

They should just fabricate their stories, you know, the way they always do!


RE: Really?
By Motoman on 7/7/2011 12:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
Update: Murdoch is shuttering that newspaper.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/07/news-of-the-w...


RE: Really?
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 1:28:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ah yes, the rich person's solution. He's going to Chappaquiddick the whole thing.


RE: Really?
By hanmen on 7/10/2011 9:14:02 AM , Rating: 2
welcome to our online store site: http://www.buy3buy.com
looking forward to your visiting,hope to meet your need all cheap but good quality,best sevice ,free shipping.
http://www.buy3buy.com


So....
By FITCamaro on 7/6/2011 6:55:51 PM , Rating: 1
While I think if they're found guilty they should be punished, what is the basis for the accusations? I didn't see it in the entire article.




RE: So....
By YashBudini on 7/6/2011 6:59:39 PM , Rating: 2
RE: So....
By sedoo on 7/7/2011 9:53:14 AM , Rating: 2
All i see is same tired story rehashed, kinda like your posts.


RE: So....
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 12:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well like R77 he can block out whatever link doesn't suit his own personal agenda, so I gave him a list to choose from.

This is a news story search, there's one major story at this time, so yes, logic dictates all the links are about the same story. Logic does that, stays on track. New concept for you.

Surprised the cast here hasn't gone all jihad on Jason for pointing out the obvious. Oh that's right, he's already been thoroughly branded as a communist sympathizer, hell if for no other reason that he dares to question anybody who wraps himself in the flag.


RE: So....
By Iaiken on 7/7/2011 10:09:48 AM , Rating: 2
The basis of the allegations are that they interfered with an active police investigation by destroying evidence and bribed police (also a crime in itself) to keep hush about it.

This makes the question of punishment very interesting because you can't exactly send a news agency or it's parent corporation to jail. If you fine them, that opens the door for the premise of the rich being able to simply pay a fine to get off the hook for similar crimes.

This will be interesting to watch it play out.


RE: So....
By Reclaimer77 on 7/7/2011 10:42:58 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The basis of the allegations


Key word, allegations.

quote:
This will be interesting to watch it play out.


Hey, why wait? Just be like yash and gamer and declare guilt without any evidence because it's "Faux".


RE: So....
By Iaiken on 7/7/2011 11:28:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hey, why wait? Just be like yash and gamer and declare guilt without any evidence because it's "Faux".


I would... but the fact that I don't like Murdoch or News Corp or most of it's properties doesn't make them guilty. I've the patience to wait for a verdict to come back on the matter.

I find it more interesting that it took the damage that these allegations has done to their credibility in the UK to get the British politicians to crawl out from under their rocks and speak their minds.


RE: So....
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 1:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I find it more interesting that it took the damage that these allegations has done to their credibility in the UK to get the British politicians to crawl out from under their rocks and speak their minds.

Well he probably believed, like most power freaks, that fear and respect are one and the same. But they aren't and this is what happens when people fear somebody. And it worked for quite some time, until it didn't.

Too bad Brits didn't have balls sooner than this.


RE: So....
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 12:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
That's rather ironic isn't it? Faux's own news snips are not evidence or truth, until they report what you want them to report?

Ah, the power of selectable acceptance, no greater gift to the extremist can be made.

Of course there's no mention of the quote from "The Economist", a clearly conservative publication. Why did you dismiss them as well? Like I said, because they didn't say what you wanted to hear.


RE: So....
By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 1:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Key word, allegations.


Quotes from James Murdoch:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43671429/ns/business-u...

quote:
"failed to get to the bottom of repeated wrongdoing that occurred without conscience or legitimate purpose,"

“Wrongdoers turned a good newsroom bad and this was not fully understood or adequately pursued.”


Note how no Murdoch takes responsibility, must have been a "rogue" paper. Yeah that's the most obvious answer.


Funny where is the headline on Fox news?
By semiconshawn on 7/6/2011 9:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
What is and maybe the only funny thing about this story is that it is all over CNN's web site even has the top headline and is no where on fox news front page. Fair and balanced my ass. The media ALL media is now such a corporate sham. Slogan should read "The news we think you need to know". Anyone who takes any "news" at face value is crazy.




RE: Funny where is the headline on Fox news?
By gamerk2 on 7/7/2011 2:23:04 AM , Rating: 2
Its Fox, remember? Remember the time they fell for the $10,000 Jetpack story, that was made up SPECIFICALLY to see if they would run it? No one, outside their viewers, takes them seriously.


RE: Funny where is the headline on Fox news?
By sedoo on 7/7/2011 9:51:22 AM , Rating: 1
They have some many, they don't care what losers like you think, go watch msnbc, their not biased, lol.


By YashBudini on 7/7/2011 1:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
Unlike your 1 sided campaign many lefties here freely admit MSNBC is biased, as are many others. There's only 1 among all the news outlets claiming to be fair and balanced. People have the right to question that claim, unless you're into repressing people.


Perhaps
By YashBudini on 7/6/2011 8:06:54 PM , Rating: 2
Something good may come out of all this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cam...




RE: Perhaps
By YashBudini on 7/6/2011 8:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Perhaps
By sedoo on 7/7/2011 9:54:40 AM , Rating: 2
lol, thinkbig.com is one of your sources, LMFAO.


Corrupt police
By Tony Swash on 7/6/2011 7:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
What's really disgusting about this sorry saga is the behaviour of the police. Everybody knows that the cops in the uk in general, and the London cops in particular, have always taken corrupt payments from journalists for confidential information. This practice began to grow in scale and extent over the last two decades. The cops have had literally suitcases full of evidence about the extent of the phone intercepts in their possession for several years but tried to bury the investigation to protect their own. This scandal is huge and is as much about the cops as it is about te shitty Murdoch newspapers.




RE: Corrupt police
By Dribble on 7/7/2011 4:40:04 AM , Rating: 2
That I agree is the really big thing. The Cops took bribes to pass on info to journalists, and almost certainly took bribes to not investigate mountain of evidence when they got it 5 or 6 years ago.
I have very low expectations of news of the world, I have much higher expectations for the uk police force.


By Belard on 7/6/2011 6:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
That would be important to know.

Since its coming out that Newcorp is hacking phones and whatever in the UK... and that Murdoch KNOWS about it, what is the likely hood that his company is doing the same to actual US Citizens?




Geez....hire an editor!
By C'DaleRider on 7/6/2011 7:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The news network adds that News Corp.'s British properties -- the Sun, The Times of London, and the News of the World -- all through their weight behind Mr. Cameron and the conservative party, helping push for his election.


The word you wanted to use is THREW , not through.




at least he wasn't making it up
By RamarC on 7/6/2011 9:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
like his outlets across the pond...




Don't fall for the scheme
By MartyLK on 7/6/2011 10:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
I just hope the authorities won't respond the way that fascist is scheming for them to. I hope the authorities won't fall for it and do what logically should be done. It will be better to respond in a totally unorthodox-ed way that Murdick isn't expecting.




fdsafas
By fdsafsda on 7/7/2011 8:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.benzlogo.com/

I tide fashion Good-looking, not expensive Free transport




fdghfdg
By nvnvlai3535 on 7/9/2011 8:38:02 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.ifancyshop.com

I tide fashion Good-looking, not expensive Free transport




dsa
By rangtangnan on 7/6/2011 11:27:48 PM , Rating: 1
http://www.benzlogo.com/

I tide fashion Good-looking, not expensive Free transport




fdsafs
By fdsafsda on 7/7/2011 8:14:43 PM , Rating: 1
http://www.benzlogo.com/

I tide fashion Good-looking, not expensive Free transport




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki