Boycott the Wall Street Journal

[ConspiRaider]

The megalomaniac has succeeded:
http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=media&storyID=nWEN9896

Put this guy on the street. Drop all purchasing of the WSJ.

Are you on Myspace? Get off of there. He owns that too.

Or you can continue to funnel money to this out-of-control megalomaniac.

Folks - You just know that things are terribly wrong on this planet when this much power is handed over to one disgustingly putrid megalomaniac. That is undeniable.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Now you are starting to sound like Bill-o!!!

[hgc]

I hear he's in negotiations to buy JREF.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Man, this would be a great thread for my proposed business section I hope JREF adds... Wink Wink

[Beerina]

From TFA:

> Prestbo

Sounds vaguely sexual.

In any case, I didn't know "Dow Jones" owned "Wall Street Journal". Learn something new every day.

[Katana]

I'm kicking myself for the silly, fleeting moment during which I thought that this wouldn't happen.

:mgduh

[Miss Anthrope]

I'm kicking myself for the silly, fleeting moment during which I thought that this wouldn't happen.

:mgduh

Katana, now that you're a mod kicking yourself is prohibited. May I direct you to another thread?

[Katana]

Katana, now that you're a mod kicking yourself is prohibited. May I direct you to another thread?


:notm

[Rob Lister]

The megalomaniac has succeeded:
http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=media&storyID=nWEN9896

Put this guy on the street. Drop all purchasing of the WSJ.



Why should I boycott a not-insignificant portion of of my portfolio?

I suspect rubert will sell off the piece parts and just keep the paper. A great paper it shall stay.

[volatile]

Why should I boycott a not-insignificant portion of of my portfolio?

I suspect rubert will sell off the piece parts and just keep the paper. A great paper it shall stay.

Have you read any of his other papers? The Sun, perchance? Their headlines often use the words "Cor!". Or the News of the World, whose former Royal editor is currently in gaol for illegal phone taps, taps he was allegedly ordered to carry out by the paper's editor? Great papers they are not, I resolutely assure you.

'News' International has no truck for quality journalism, as far as I can tell.

[Oliver]

The megalomaniac has succeeded:
http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=media&storyID=nWEN9896

Put this guy on the street. Drop all purchasing of the WSJ.

Are you on Myspace? Get off of there. He owns that too.

Or you can continue to funnel money to this out-of-control megalomaniac.

Folks - You just know that things are terribly wrong on this planet when this much power is handed over to one disgustingly putrid megalomaniac. That is undeniable.


You should listen to some nut-jobs in here - according to their view there are no problems with the Media Democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_democracy) in the US... :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_democracy#Media_ownership_concentration

[Rob Lister]

Have you read any of his other papers? The Sun, perchance? Their headlines often use the words "Cor!". Or the News of the World, whose former Royal editor is currently in gaol for illegal phone taps, taps he was allegedly ordered to carry out by the paper's editor? Great papers they are not, I resolutely assure you.

'News' International has no truck for quality journalism, as far as I can tell.

What does quality journalism have to do with profit?

[Oliver]

What does quality journalism have to do with profit?


Quality Journalism = Expensive
Expensive = No [smaller] Profit
Smaller Profit = Less quality Journalism
Less quality Journalism = Higher Profits

...and so on...

[Tony]

What does quality journalism have to do with profit?

Quality journalism = respect = high readership = profit. I'm not surprised you don't understand this.

[volatile]

Quality journalism = respect = high readership = profit. I'm not surprised you don't understand this.

Well I know you definitely haven't read the Sun then! ;)

When thinking of the Sun, the words 'denominator', 'common' and 'lowest' spring to mind. And not necessarily in that order.

[Tony]

Well I know you definitely haven't read the Sun then! ;)

No, I haven't. :)

When thinking of the Sun, the words 'denominator', 'common' and 'lowest' spring to mind. And not necessarily in that order.

Really? Not surprised really, Murdoch's media tends to appeal to the idiots of the world.

[firecoins]

The megalomaniac has succeeded:
http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=media&storyID=nWEN9896

Put this guy on the street. Drop all purchasing of the WSJ.

Are you on Myspace? Get off of there. He owns that too.

Or you can continue to funnel money to this out-of-control megalomaniac.

Folks - You just know that things are terribly wrong on this planet when this much power is handed over to one disgustingly putrid megalomaniac. That is undeniable.
please! Just stop the BS. No one reads newspapers anymore.

[Oliver]

please! Just stop the BS.


Yep, I agree. Stop the BS-Media in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism).
By the Way: What is your opinion about Murdoch's Monopoly:
Is it good for the media democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_democracy) in the US? :confused:

[firecoins]

Yep, I agree. Stop the BS-Media in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism).
By the Way: What is your opinion about Murdoch's Monopoly:
Is it good for the media democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_democracy) in the US? :confused:
I didn't know there was media democracy. I don't even know what that is.

[volatile]

No, I haven't. :)

Keep it that way if you can.

Really? Not surprised really, Murdoch's media tends to appeal to the idiots of the world.

True enough, for the most part. Though the Sun sells 3 million copies a day... and whilst there might well be 3 million idiots in my country, I'd rather act the ostrich here and pretend that that's not the case.

I can see the WSJ going very, very rapidly (but probably quite subtly) downhill as soon as Murdoch can parachute his own NI editorial team in.

[gtc]

'News' International has no truck for quality journalism, as far as I can tell.

He owns The Times, The Sunday Times and The Australian among other papers.

Does Conspiraider actually read the Wall Street Journal?

[gtc]

Oliver,

Define Monopoly.

[Oliver]

I didn't know there was media democracy. I don't even know what that is.


That's why I linked to the article. I KNOW that Americans DON'T KNOW the concept.

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

[Oliver]

Oliver,

Define Monopoly.

Monopoly created by the Government:

This concentration has been encouraged by government deregulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation) and neo-liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-liberal) trade policies. For example, the U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996) discarded most media ownership rules that were previously in place, leading to massive consolidation in the telecommunications industry. Over 4,000 radio stations were bought out, and minority ownership of TV stations dropped to its lowest point since the federal government began tracking such data in 1990. [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_democracy#_note-1) In its review of the Telecommunication Act in 2003, the Federal Communications Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission) (FCC) further reduced restrictions and allowed media corporations to grow and expand into other areas of media.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_democracy#Media_ownership_concentration

Monopoly in the Media-System:

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

Monopoly in general:

A monopoly (from the Greek language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market) situation where there is only one provider of a product or service, in other words a firm that has no competitors in its industry. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition) for the good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_%28economics%29) or service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service) that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitute_good). [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#_note-0)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

[gtc]

Is Rupert Murdoch the only media owner in the US?

[Dark Jaguar]

Am I missing something here? I didn't recognize anyone in that article up there. Why is it that one guy buying some other group is important to me?

I tend to get all my news from the internet anyway.

[Oliver]

Is Rupert Murdoch the only media owner in the US?

Not yet:


Newspapers

News International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International) · News Limited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Limited) · News of the World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World) · New York Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post) · The Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_%28newspaper%29) · The Sunday Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Times_%28UK%29) · thelondonpaper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelondonpaper) · The Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times)

Filmed Entertainment

20th Century Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Century_Fox) · 20th Century Fox Animation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Century_Fox_Animation) · 20th Century Fox Television (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Century_Fox_Television) · 20th Television (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Television) · Blue Sky Studios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Sky_Studios) · Fox Atomic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Atomic) · Fox Faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Faith) · Fox Searchlight Pictures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Searchlight_Pictures) · Fox Studios Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Studios_Australia) · Fox Television Studios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Television_Studios)

US broadcast TV

Fox Broadcasting Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Company) · Fox Television Stations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Television_Stations) · MyNetworkTV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyNetworkTV)

US cable TV

Fox Business Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Business_Network) · Fox College Sports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_College_Sports) · Fox Movie Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Movie_Channel) · Fox News Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel) · Fox Reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Reality) · Fox Soccer Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Soccer_Channel) · Fox Sports en Español (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Sports_en_Espa%C3%B1ol) · FSN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Sports_Net) · FUEL TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUEL_TV) · FX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FX_%28TV_network%29) · National Geographic Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic_Channel) (50%) · SPEED Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEED_Channel) · SportSouth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SportSouth) · TV Guide Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Guide_Network) Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Company) owned-and-operated stations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owned-and-operated_station) KDFW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDFW) · KDVR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDVR)1 · KMSP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMSP-TV) · KRIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KRIV_%28TV%29) · KSAZ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSAZ-TV) · KSTU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSTU)1 · KTBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTBC) · KTTV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTTV) · KTVI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTVI)1 · WAGA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WAGA) · WBRC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WBRC)1 · WDAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WDAF-TV)1 · WFLD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WFLD) · WFXT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WFXT) · WGHP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WGHP)1 · WHBQ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHBQ-TV)1 · WITI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WITI)1 · WJBK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WJBK) · WJW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WJW)1 · WNYW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNYW) · WOFL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOFL) · WOGX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOGX)2 · WTTG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTTG) · WTVT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTVT) · WTXF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTXF-TV) MyNetworkTV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyNetworkTV)

owned and operated stations

KCOP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCOP-TV) · KDFI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDFI) · KTXH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KTXH) · KUTP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KUTP) · WDCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WDCA) · WFTC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WFTC) · WPWR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPWR) · WRBW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRBW) · WUTB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WUTB) · WWOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWOR-TV)

Non-US and satellite TV

BSkyB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Sky_Broadcasting) (39.1%) · bTV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTV_%28Bulgaria%29) · DirecTV Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV_Group) (39%) · Fox Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Life) · Fox Sports en Latinoamérica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Sports_en_Latinoam%C3%A9rica) · Fox Televizija (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Televizija) · Foxtel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxtel) (25%) · FX (UK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FX_%28UK%29) · Imedi Media Holding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imedi_Media_Holding) · National Geographic Channel (UK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic_Channel_%28UK%29) (50%) · Sky Italia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_Italia) · SKY Network Television (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKY_Network_Television) (44%) · STAR TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STAR_TV_%28Asia%29) · TV Puls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Puls) (35%) · XYZnetworks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYZnetworks) (50%)

Misc. assets

20th Century Fox Home Entertainment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_Century_Fox_Home_Entertainment) · Fox News Talk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Talk) · HarperCollins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarperCollins) · National Rugby League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rugby_League) (50%) · NDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDS_Group) · News America Marketing (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=News_America_Marketing&action=edit) · News Outdoor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Outdoor_Group) · TV Guide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Guide) · The Weekly Standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard) · Fox Interactive Media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Interactive_Media) · MySpace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySpace) · The Times Higher Education Supplement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times_Higher_Education_Supplement)

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

[Oliver]

I tend to get all my news from the internet anyway.


...which might be regulated [censored] in the future:

http://savetheinternet.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_the_United_States

[gtc]

I am fully aware of Rupert Murdoch's assets.

Why ask a question about Rupert Murdoch's monopoly if you know that there is no such thing.

[Oliver]

I am fully aware of Rupert Murdoch's assets.

Why ask a question about Rupert Murdoch's monopoly if you know that there is no such thing.


Are you kidding me??? :confused:

You know that Microsoft Operating Systems have a monopoly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft) concerning OP-Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems), don't you???

Of course there is MacOS, Linux, AmigaOS, BeOS etc, too....

[gtc]

Many of those assets you list are actually British, Australian or not even media assets.

[Oliver]

Many of those assets you list are actually British, Australian or not even media assets.


According to this Time-Article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979252,00.html?iid=chix-sphere), Murdoch's Media reaches 3 Billion TV-Viewers.
Well, some might say this isn't a monopoly at all. :D

[Dark Jaguar]

I don't think there's too much of a threat of internet censorship. It's just not in any company's best interests. I mean for example if a local provider here started cutting off access or redirecting people from sites they actually wanted to visit, it wouldn't take long for that provider to find itself with a lot less customers.

[Oliver]

I don't think there's too much of a threat of internet censorship. It's just not in any company's best interests. I mean for example if a local provider here started cutting off access or redirecting people from sites they actually wanted to visit, it wouldn't take long for that provider to find itself with a lot less customers.


Then you might miss the difference between a federal regulation and a private regulation by a Provider. The federal regulation would affect all internet users. There is no way to circumvent the problem unless you say: "You know what, let's move to another country". :p

[bigred]

The megalomaniac has succeeded:
http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=media&storyID=nWEN9896

Put this guy on the street. Drop all purchasing of the WSJ.

Are you on Myspace? Get off of there. He owns that too.

Or you can continue to funnel money to this out-of-control megalomaniac.

Folks - You just know that things are terribly wrong on this planet when this much power is handed over to one disgustingly putrid megalomaniac. That is undeniable.
I didn't know Dow Jones was a guy. Huh, go figure.

Well give him a break. How'd you like to go through life with the first name "Dow" - hell I bet he's not even Orien.....OOPSOHMYGODSORRY....."Asian American"

[Darth Rotor]

Conspi:

I stopped reading the We Steal Journal three years ago.

What took you so long? Smedley Butler was a good Marine. ;)

DR

[a_unique_person]

The megalomaniac has succeeded:
http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=media&storyID=nWEN9896

Put this guy on the street. Drop all purchasing of the WSJ.

Are you on Myspace? Get off of there. He owns that too.

Or you can continue to funnel money to this out-of-control megalomaniac.

Folks - You just know that things are terribly wrong on this planet when this much power is handed over to one disgustingly putrid megalomaniac. That is undeniable.


Why do you hate ex-Australians?

Australia has media control laws, that are continually watered down, to that are supposed to ensure that no one business can effectively control the media outlets. To date, they have been reasonably effective, which is why they are weakened every so often, since the natural trend of big capital is towards mergers and concentration of power, and the laws get in the way.

[ConspiRaider]

He owns The Times, The Sunday Times and The Australian among other papers.

Does Conspiraider actually read the Wall Street Journal?
ConspiRaider does not.

ConspiRaider doesn't do a lot of things. Like support the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

But your buddy Rupie not only shaped his media empire to promote the Iraq War - because it's what HE wanted - he even had the arrogance to admit it, publicly.

3,651 killed Americans in Iraq.
26,953 wounded Americans in Iraq.

Much greater death and maiming of Iraqis.

And THAT, my friend, is why you don't ever want - NOT EVER - to allow a megalomaniac that much influence and power. You know what I want Rupie to do? I want him to spend ONE HOUR with each of those 3,651 American families and explain to them why he promoted the Iraq War.

And he can start with the Pat Tillman family.

And number 2 is Cindy Sheehan.

And on down the line.

[Pardalis]

What makes you say he's a megalomaniac, btw?

[ConspiRaider]

What makes you say he's a megalomaniac, btw?
What makes you imply he isn't?

[Pardalis]

What makes you imply he isn't?

Conspi, I know you know better than this. You know how it works: you made the claim he's a megalomaniac.

Now I don't know much about the guy, but he seems no different than any other business tycoon out there. What makes you say he's a megalomaniac, besides the fact that you don't agree with his political views?

[gtc]

And THAT, my friend, is why you don't ever want - NOT EVER - to allow a megalomaniac that much influence and power. You know what I want Rupie to do? I want him to spend ONE HOUR with each of those 3,651 American families and explain to them why he promoted the Iraq War.

Well you actually have to show that his support for the Iraq war was instrumental in achieving anything.

And number 2 is Cindy Sheehan.

What about the parents of dead soldiers who did and still do support the war? Will he be allowed to visit them too?

[ConspiRaider]

Conspi, I know you know better than this. You know how it works: you made the claim he's a megalomaniac.

Now I don't know much about the guy, but he seems no different than any other business tycoon out there. What makes you say he's a megalomaniac, besides the fact that you don't agree with his political views?
No.

Take a look at Oliver's post, listing all of this megalomaniac's holdings. Then you explain to me why you believe what he is doing is perfectly normal and acceptable and no cause for concern. The onus is on you - not me.

"Business tycoon"? You know what the root of "tycoon" is? Feudal lord. Oh you just gots to know that Rupie would love to be addressed as "lord".

[Pardalis]

No.

Take a look at Oliver's post, listing all of this megalomaniac's holdings. Then you explain to me why you believe what he is doing is perfectly normal and acceptable and no cause for concern. The onus is on you - not me.

"Business tycoon"? You know what the root of "tycoon" is? Feudal lord. Oh you just gots to know that Rupie would love to be addressed as "lord".

I guess I'll come back when you're less upset. :(

[firecoins]

if your on the internet and you have to be reading this, than you have no reason to complain about media conglomerates or Rupert Murdoch. Anyone has the power to publish anything they want in spite of government censorship. Of course most people just use the internet to bash anyone and anything they don't like. What a waste.

[gtc]

your buddy Rupie

How do you know he is my buddy?

Take a look at Oliver's post, listing all of this megalomaniac's holdings. Then you explain to me why you believe what he is doing is perfectly normal and acceptable and no cause for concern. The onus is on you - not me.

Nope. You made the claim that his assets are unacceptable and a cause for concern. You show why.

"Business tycoon"? You know what the root of "tycoon" is? Feudal lord. Oh you just gots to know that Rupie would love to be addressed as "lord".

Actually I disagree.

Peerages are not that hard to come by for business people in the UK. Had he wanted to, I am sure he could have arranged his affairs so that he was eligible for a peerage.

[ConspiRaider]

Nope. You made the claim that his assets are unacceptable and a cause for concern. You show why.

Selective reading. That's what you're doing.

I already gave a very clear, extremly lucid example of the effect Murdoch's media empire has had on loss of American life and limb in Iraq.

Are you British? That would explain it. Brit losses are far, far less than what we Yanks have had to pay. So either you are ignorant of the human cost of that war - or you really don't care.

I don't care who it is: Mother Teresa. The Dad Of The Year. The Mom Of The Year. You. Me. James Randi. When one person is in control of that much influence and power - everyone loses. There are no exceptions. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You know that.

[gtc]

Selective reading. That's what you're doing.

Sorry, my mistake. I read your post again and what you said was 'what he is doing' is unacceptable.

I already gave a very clear, extremly lucid example of the effect Murdoch's media empire has had on loss of American life and limb in Iraq.

You actually haven't shown that it had any effect whatsoever. What you have shown is that he supported the war and that he owns media assets. You have to show that without his support the war would not have occurred.

Are you British?

No, Australian.

That would explain it.

No it wouldn't.

Brit losses are far, far less than what we Yanks have had to pay.

So either you are ignorant of the human cost of that war - or you really don't care.

Are they the only two possibilities?

I don't care who it is: Mother Teresa. The Dad Of The Year. The Mom Of The Year. You. Me. James Randi. When one person is in control of that much influence and power - everyone loses. There are no exceptions. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Prove it.

[a_unique_person]

No.

Take a look at Oliver's post, listing all of this megalomaniac's holdings. Then you explain to me why you believe what he is doing is perfectly normal and acceptable and no cause for concern. The onus is on you - not me.

"Business tycoon"? You know what the root of "tycoon" is? Feudal lord. Oh you just gots to know that Rupie would love to be addressed as "lord".

He would own a much greater concentration of media in Australia if the laws didn't stop him from doing so.

[Rob Lister]

What makes you imply he isn't?

Probably because you did not present any evidence that he was.

Megalomania is a psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence - often generally termed as delusions of grandeur.

Emphasis mine. I'd suggest that in Rupert's case, that is certainly not the case. No delusions there.

[MaGZ]

The megalomaniac has succeeded:
http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=media&storyID=nWEN9896

Put this guy on the street. Drop all purchasing of the WSJ.

Are you on Myspace? Get off of there. He owns that too.

Or you can continue to funnel money to this out-of-control megalomaniac.

Folks - You just know that things are terribly wrong on this planet when this much power is handed over to one disgustingly putrid megalomaniac. That is undeniable.

What is you problem with Rupert Murdoch?
Is it because he owns FOX News?
Is it because he is a powerful media mogle?
Is it because he has sold-out to the Jews?

[MaGZ]

Is Rupert Murdoch the only media owner in the US?

The information below is outdated but relevant.
http://www.natall.com/who-rules-america/

[BPSCG]

From today's Wall Street Journal editorial page:


Business success is vital to editorial independence, precisely because it provides the resources to report and comment in ways that might offend advertisers or governments.

We also believe the reverse is true: Editorial independence enhances the prospects for business success. The more credible a publication is, especially one that specializes in financial and economic reporting, the more readers and advertisers it is likely to have. We like to think our readers buy the Journal because of the credibility built over a century, and we believe this is the heart of the "value proposition" that Mr. Murdoch is willing to pay $5 billion to purchase. No sane businessman pays a premium of 67% over the market price for an asset he intends to ruin.

There are nonetheless critics, especially in the journalism world, who claim this is precisely what Mr. Murdoch will proceed to do. And they have certainly had a merry time bashing him and the Journal these past few months. Some of these voices, however, are commercial or ideological competitors who have their own interest in undermining the Journal's credibility.

Both the New York Times and the Financial Times have been especially aggressive in assailing the potential News Corp. purchase of the Journal. These also happen to be the two publications that Mr. Murdoch has explicitly said he might invest more to compete against. Readers can judge if the tears these papers and their writers claim to shed for the Journal's future are real, or of the crocodile variety.

The nastiest attacks have come from our friends on the political left. They can't decide whose views they hate most -- ours, or Mr. Murdoch's. We're especially amused by those who say Mr. Murdoch might tug us to the political left. Don't count on it. More than one liberal commentator has actually rejoiced at the takeover bid, on the perverse grounds that this will ruin the Journal's news coverage, which in turn will reduce the audience for the editorial page. Don't count on that either.

Such an expectation overlooks that the principle of "free people and free markets" promoted in these columns has an appeal far beyond this newspaper. We fill a market niche for such commentary that is too little met by other newspapers and media outlets. But we have every confidence that if we vanished, or let our standards fall, the marketplace would find an alternative. What ultimately matters are the ideas, and their basic truth.

[Rob Lister]

The information below is outdated but relevant.
http://www.natall.com/who-rules-america/

oh yea, I forgot, the jews are at fault.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I have subscribed to the WSJ for approx 10 years. Unless the quality suffers as a result of Murdoch's purchase, I will continue to do so.

[gtc]

Now I am just confused.

Should I hate Murdoch because he wants to be a feudal lord or should I hate him because he is soft on the Jews?