Discuss...(i might get more involved in this one than the carbon tax thread...) Could not believe the hide of Ray Martin to preach on 60 minutes about ethics in journalism
Can not see how they could go under - might have to shed some assets but can not see them folding Raises the question of ethics of the news corp
go under? No chance. TBH this kind of stuff is more common place than you would believe It really isn't that difficult to get into the voicemails of people. I hope they hacked mine, would have been real interesting "Hey Dan it's luke, want to go fishing tomorrow night?" "Dan, Rob, Footy this weekend" "Daniel it's mum, can you call me back later" Thrilling stuff, and I am sure there would be a massive amount of people with the same things, no matter their fame. It is about time that the media had an ethics shake up though, because they have been starting to ride high on freedom in journalism and pretending they stick to ethics and standards. At least this means they will be looked at more closely, though it will just make them more covert
Also is an interesting case in PR management in the modern day It is increasingly difficult to cover up / spin a situation (due to the increased channels / information flow) I think you will start to see more disclosure when a scandal hits rather than cover up
IMO the problem for a long time is the direct commentary or opinions on the news rather than reporting it. That is a News Ltd specialty. Direct editorial influence in the coverage. Unfortunately for these fossils the world is moving on. Print media will be probably be extinct in 10 years and those that develop cache with their audience will survive. It doesn't alter that NOTW was the top selling publication - a sad reflection on the info sought these days, but I can see that changing.
Does anyone believe that Rupert knew or should have known what was going on? When the company undertaking the questionable practices accounts for about 1% or 2% of the overall group I really believe he might not have had any idea. It is not possible to be across all aspects of the operations of a company of that size.
Why would they go under? News of the World is around 1% of the Murdoch empire. They employ over 53,000 people, of which maybe 20 have found to be corrupt I'd say this a pain in the Murdochs butt, nothing more or nothing less.[hr] I doubt Rupert would know because apparently there is an unwritten company policy to hide anything from him that may tick him off. As they said at the enquiry, even James did not need to authorise any of the payments as other senior management could pay the amounts involved without going to the executive. I think this problem just escalated out of control for them. I bet Rupert hit the roof when he found the Murdoch name was being involved.
Totally agree, where I work is only about 90 people and my CEO knows me and roughly what my role is, but he wouldn't (and doesn't need to) have a clue about how I actually go about doing my job.
He's a newspaper man from way back and would have known that the scoops they had uncovered didn't come out of the sky. He would not have ever been officially told anything though.
Interesting to hear rumours that some voice-mail hacking happened here. Probably nothing to it and if there was evidence it would be shouted from the rooftops. The SuperLeague debacle showed the true colours of News Limited and the reporting then was basically all the party line. MB is right now that they are basically editorial opinions rather than general news. I know some people hate Fairfax or call it leftist but at least opinion is opinion and it is fairly divided amongst people of different persuasions and viewpoints. This setback couldn't happen to a worthier group.
I watched about an hour of it the other night it was at 1 in the morning. I actually believe his son James knows more about whats happend than his old man,everytime they asked Rupert a question his son would interject & try and answer on his old mans behalf, after about the 10th time he did it they told him to sit & wait they will get to him.. P.s how cute is ruperts asian gal..
Converted to tabloid speak: Federal & Qld Police investigate tip off of massive drug deal off the waters of Hervey Bay. NSW Police fear brazen gang is to target cash proceeds of major sporting venues. Psychology expert reveals male auzzie sports followers really just mummies boys.
The culture of organisations is set from the top. People know what is expected without even having to be told the details. Mafia leaders only need to tell someone in the family to take care of a problem, and it is done. Media barons are influence and spin kings. Freedom of the press offers virtually no protection from abuse of the press. When Murdoch owns 70% of the press in Australia, what reporter would risk their career options by not spinning commentary and public opinion in favour of Murdoch? When Murdoch decides who is going to be next Prime Minister, consider it virtually done and dusted. The other party will get the Brett Stewart treatment. Political parties bend over backwards to give Murdoch what he wants. Protection rackets take many different forms.
The solution to this problem is to diversify the media, none of this forcing the media to break up their monopoly's rubbish, that just punishes the companies for acting within what were the rules. Instead the government should use the advent on digital radio and digital TV to allow new media interests to start stations. Yes it would dilute the market share of the big players, but frankly we could do with more diverse voices then we have now, and I think that is worth the cost. I am not saying go all out, but perhaps 2 new TV stations nation wide is not a bad idea.
No problem at all with the idea of a Government changing rules on media ownership to force media conglomerates to break up. Not a punishment, just a changed environment. That is the role of governments, to change the environment. But it simply won't happen. The media moguls would kick them out of government pronto if they tried that one. Spread of digital media would benefit the community but disadvantage the moguls, so in isolation that would be blocked too. But the internet is a force the media moguls haven't yet found a way to control. Not even by pressuring governments to make the rules suit them. The internet is still largely a wild animal, uncontrollable even by governments. People like Dan can start up blogs which present independent thought, rather than thought controlled by the Murdochs of the world. And people can choose those blogs rather than those controlled by monopolies and oligopolies. And do!
