If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Do newspapers owners run Britain?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
It hardly comes as a surprise, but Rupert Murdoch has announced he will use his newspapers to stop Britain adopting the Euro.
From BBC News Online
"Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch has said he will use his best-selling UK newspapers to campaign against British euro membership if the government calls a referendum on the single currency.
Mr Murdoch told the Financial Times that he would like his UK newspapers to spread the message "vote no" in the run-up to a referendum.
"Europe is made up of so many diverse cultures and histories that to slam it altogether with a government of French bureaucrats answerable to nobody... I cannot see anything but benefit by waiting," he said.
Mr Murdoch's decision to use his media empire to oppose British euro entry comes as a blow to Tony Blair's government, which hopes to sign up to the single currency.
Vote winner
Mr Murdoch's mass-market titles, which include The Sun, The News of the World, the Times and the Sunday Times, could sway public opinion ahead of a referendum, affecting the outcome of the ballot.
With opinion polls consistently showing a majority against adopting the single currency, the government was already facing an uphill battle in its bid to persuade British voters of the benefits of euro membership.
The UK government is due next year to assess whether the British economy meets five self-imposed tests for euro membership.
It is expected to set a date for a referendum if it determines that these criteria have been met.
The UK, Sweden and Denmark are the only three European Union members not to have adopted the single currency.
Mr Murdoch also hinted that his sons Lachlan and James could end up sharing the leadership of News Corporation, the company that controls his press interests.
News Corporation is one of the world's largest media companies, with television, newspaper, film and internet operations spread across five continents.
It owns the Fox television and film businesses in the US, a stable of Australian and British newspapers, as well as the Harper Collins publishing group."
Aside from the fact that it is utterly repugnant that an Australian-born, tax-dodging American citizen thinks he has the right to run Britain, do newspapers in this country have too much power? Are newspaper readers in Britain intelligent enough to form their own opinions? Newspapers everywhere have some sort of agenda, but in few countries the political bias is as obvious as in here. It seems that whenever a newspaper picks up a fight about something, they will campaign until they are successful.
To name just an example, the company that owns The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday tabloids is a rabid homophobic, anti-drugs, ultra right-wing organisation. They didn't like to see a homosexual Police commissioner adopting a soft approach to cannabis consumption in Brixton. Solution? Run a smear campaign, pay an ex-lover £100,000 to throw dirt on the man, a few editorials and presto! The commissioner is suspended from his post. Regardless of the fact that the soft approach to cannabis has been hailed a complete success by independent observers and the police, who can now concentrate on tackling serious crime.
The government is effectively scared of newspaper owners and will do to incredible lengths to please them. This is a very serious flaw in the democratic process, and I wish someone in power had the balls to tell this people to stick their publications where the sun doesn't shine.
From BBC News Online
"Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch has said he will use his best-selling UK newspapers to campaign against British euro membership if the government calls a referendum on the single currency.
Mr Murdoch told the Financial Times that he would like his UK newspapers to spread the message "vote no" in the run-up to a referendum.
"Europe is made up of so many diverse cultures and histories that to slam it altogether with a government of French bureaucrats answerable to nobody... I cannot see anything but benefit by waiting," he said.
Mr Murdoch's decision to use his media empire to oppose British euro entry comes as a blow to Tony Blair's government, which hopes to sign up to the single currency.
Vote winner
Mr Murdoch's mass-market titles, which include The Sun, The News of the World, the Times and the Sunday Times, could sway public opinion ahead of a referendum, affecting the outcome of the ballot.
With opinion polls consistently showing a majority against adopting the single currency, the government was already facing an uphill battle in its bid to persuade British voters of the benefits of euro membership.
The UK government is due next year to assess whether the British economy meets five self-imposed tests for euro membership.
It is expected to set a date for a referendum if it determines that these criteria have been met.
The UK, Sweden and Denmark are the only three European Union members not to have adopted the single currency.
Mr Murdoch also hinted that his sons Lachlan and James could end up sharing the leadership of News Corporation, the company that controls his press interests.
News Corporation is one of the world's largest media companies, with television, newspaper, film and internet operations spread across five continents.
It owns the Fox television and film businesses in the US, a stable of Australian and British newspapers, as well as the Harper Collins publishing group."
Aside from the fact that it is utterly repugnant that an Australian-born, tax-dodging American citizen thinks he has the right to run Britain, do newspapers in this country have too much power? Are newspaper readers in Britain intelligent enough to form their own opinions? Newspapers everywhere have some sort of agenda, but in few countries the political bias is as obvious as in here. It seems that whenever a newspaper picks up a fight about something, they will campaign until they are successful.
To name just an example, the company that owns The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday tabloids is a rabid homophobic, anti-drugs, ultra right-wing organisation. They didn't like to see a homosexual Police commissioner adopting a soft approach to cannabis consumption in Brixton. Solution? Run a smear campaign, pay an ex-lover £100,000 to throw dirt on the man, a few editorials and presto! The commissioner is suspended from his post. Regardless of the fact that the soft approach to cannabis has been hailed a complete success by independent observers and the police, who can now concentrate on tackling serious crime.
The government is effectively scared of newspaper owners and will do to incredible lengths to please them. This is a very serious flaw in the democratic process, and I wish someone in power had the balls to tell this people to stick their publications where the sun doesn't shine.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
The Media in a democracy is always going to be more powerful than the government.
It's upto the readers to make the decisions and their judgements, that's the beauty of the media, it's up to the reader.
I'm not suggesting for one second that media isn't a powerful propaganda tool, but there are many newspapers with alternate viewpoints. You've also got to remember that the people with intelligence don't read The Sun or News of The World.
You've also got to think to yourself, at least this isn't the USA. The quality of news broadcasting over there is, minimal to say the least. And at least we have variety, and not an endless stream of shows like Fox News.
Surely to pro-Euro people would argue that he will be better off...so why is he anti?
and the problem with that is....?
The Govt will use any means it can - adverts in papers, TV etc - to put it's position across. Why shouldn't the anti-EU lobby use what they can?
Or aren't people allowed to dissent?
The problem with that is that whereas Europe is the most socially advanced, progressive, civilised and agreeable place on earth to live, work and have relations with, the US is a reactionary, bordering-on-fundamentalism religious, right wing society whose only goals are to make money by any means necessary and control its population by restricting their civil rights. Which one would you rather have?
As for Murdoch, one thing is holding an anti-euro view (which everyone of course is entitled to) and another is to consistently brain-wash the masses by reporting half-truths and heavily-span stories in order to mould their opinions. Regardless of who own them, newspapers have a public duty of reporting news in an objective way and in perspective. The Times and Sunday Times are very old and important institutions and the dirty digger has no right to influence their editorial line to such extent. As for the Sun and NoW, they should just abstain from printing an opinion and stick to tits on page 3 and sport.
I'm sorry but that just sounds like Soviet style propaganda to me. One thing you can never say about Europe is that we are agreeable. How many wars have Europeans nations fought with each other, for a start?
In what way is Europe more progressive, socially advanced and civilisaed than the US?
Geez, dude, methinks you are a little irrational there
You started with "As for Murdoch" but then proceded to talk about the Govt....why?
Name ONE news source which only includes FACT.
Newspapers (and TV) have no such responsibility. The responsibility is one the readers to garner as much information from as many sources as possible and then make up their own minds.
What about witness reports. Talk to the police and they will tell you that they would rather have two witnesses than ten. Why? Becuase you will get a different version of events from each one. Point is that you cannot be sure what the "truth" really is, you can only make judgment based on probability.
He has every right, he OWNS them. He could print nothing but "blah" on everypage if he wants.
If you don't like it, either start your own paper or buy one (or more) like he did.
Talk about arrogant. Why shouldn't either of these papers print opinions?
RE Europe: Healthcare, welfare, no death penalty, no laws against sexual acts including (but not exclusive to) oral sex, anal sex or gay sex, much lower influence of right-wing religious groups in government, more positive approach to crime and rehabilitation, acknowledgment of an outside world & different cultures... etc etc.
RE Newspapers: Well that's where you and I obviously disagree. The media has an extremely important role in informing the public on current affairs in an impartial way. Terrestrial TV channels are subject to strict controls on the quality of their output, and for a very good reason. This sadly does not extend to newspapers. Rags like the Sun, Mirror, Mail etc should at least carry a disclaimer informing their readers that the stories carried have little resemblance of the truth, and that they should check another source of information for a balanced view. Many tabloid readers don't buy any other papers. If they did they would find out that, for instance, that asylum seekers aren't all bogus claimants who are milking the taxpayer, or that news of hundreds of people dying in a train crash in Asia is actually more important than David Beckham wearing a skirt on a night out.
Murdoch wants to prevent UK entrance into the Euro principally because at the moment he pays very little tax but in a european single currency, for some reason which I don't know he'd be paying much more. It's certainly not out of a love for this country, even if you agree with him on this issue: he's a businessman, pure and simple, and I've read many people saying that he has rather a vendetta against the UK despite the amount of money he makes here.
Do the media run the country? ultimately, no. They have a great deal of influence, of course, but only really around election time: ultimately, however tactfully they put it, politicians will ignore them on the really big issue. Witness labour behaviour on the euro so far: they haven't bowed to the murdoch press and i very much hope they won't in the future.
(PS: the impression that broadsheets are any more neutral than the tabloids is mistaken. they may be a little subtler in tone, but that's just because of what the readership expect. If anything, The Mirror is less partisan than the Telegraph or The Guardian.
Murdoch is a power hungry tycoon who wants to sink his claws into everything to expand his reign. I don't think (well I hope he won't) be able to influence the general public in this situation, and if he does then I feel sorry for our country and how its occupants are sheep. At the end of the day, there's nothing we can do about it. We've allowed him to sink his roots too deep and now there's no stopping him.
When the going gets tough, Murdoch changes alliances. He's already switched from the conservative party to the labour party. Is his different view of the Euro to Labour a sign that another change is on its way?
I swear him and Bill Gates get together to play poker now and again
Ah, so anything attacking the US is soviet propaganda? and you are calling HIM irrational?
To put it simply, the ECHR. There is NO comparable legislation in the US - been tried, but it would require amending the constitution and not enough states went for it. And it won't ever happen while Bush is in power, it would take away his rights to hold people without charge indefinately....
In fact, Florida is being lobbied to remove clauses relating to sexual orientation from its hate crime bills, much like in the 70s...the people doing it? the fundamentalist, religious, right.
I would HATE to live in a country like the US
1. The US provides a very high standard in healthcare and is a world leader. Many of the improvements in health result from US innovation.
2. Welfare. If anything we are too generous. This is part of our problem, we will give almost anything to almost anyone. Ever thought that perhaps it would be better to encourage people to make something of themselves rather than a life provided by the State?
3. Sex laws. We are soooo tolderant aren’t we? A society where homosexuals are still discriminated against in far too many aspects of our laws.
4. Culture. Okay I don’t disagree with that.
Indeed they do, which is why the Govt use them. Why shouldn’t someone opposed to the Govt have the same access?
Which is why we end up with programmes with “…from Hell” in the title is it? Or Big Brother, Blind Date, Noels House Party, anything with Jeremy Beadle or Lisa Riley…
Need I go on?
The only real restriction on TV is that terrestrial station have to give equal coverage at the time of an election. The rest of the time they can be as politically biased as they like.
Daily Mail, the only news source with the courage to name the Lawrence “murderers”. Are you suggesting that other newspapers (broadsheets mainly) are unbiased and only print the “truth”?
And you blame the papers for this?
Purports to be, but isn’t. It has a left wing bias.
Okay, firstly I don’t like Murdoch. I just don’t think that he should be censored just because his views don’t match the Govts and he has the power to make his views well known.
Secondly, should the “sheep” follow the Govt automatically then, or should they be allowed to hear more than one side of the Euro debate?
No, even under the Tories he was anti-Euro.
Ah, another person who cannot read.
I said “soviet style”. I meant that he only emphasised the good aspects which he could think of, rather than back them up with any robust facts. The Soviets could make anything sound positive, its now called “spin”.
Except the constitution itself, of course. The US constitution has been in place for over 200 years rather than just the last five.
The basic right to free speech is something that even the ECHR doesn't protect completely.
Which is also something the UK did – ever heard of internment? And which is something we are doing now under the “emergency laws” passed following the WTC attack.
Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.
it's too big an organisation to have institutional bias without direct instruction from the top, which I hardly think is likely given the previous chairman was a tory and the present one is labour. They do an excellent job of keeping in the middle, even if individual correspondents may once in a blue moon reveal their true colours. (and I don't think even that happens very often.)
Standards in US healthcare are going DOWN because of greedy HMOs, and "innovations" would be another name from research, and huge breakthroughs are made in Europe as well. The number of people who recive NO HEALTHCARE at all is also unacceptably high.
Welfare is perhaps too generous, nad there should be tighter controls on housing etc, so have to agree their. however, just dumping them out in the cold with no support is also not the answer, which is TBs latest plan if you don't get a job within X months, where X will be a continually decreasing variable!
Yes, I am discriminated against in theory however IN PRACTICE the laws have not been acted upon for years, and in fact the last time any part of the sexual offences act 18xx was enacted, in order to imprison 3 gay men for having consensual group sex, due to the ECHR they were released and given ~£250,000 in compensation, and the law has been ruled illegial [although not stricken, as yet]. YEs Section 28 exists, however NOONE has been prosecuted, ever, and section 102 all but nullifes section 28. There are sections I would like removed which the 2001 amendment didn't cover, such as it is still Gross Indecency to hold hands with my boyfriend in public, however given time, and a removal of baroness young, it will be accomplished.
The only worrying aspect is in the workplace discrimination, where it looks like a CofE school could sack a gay janitor as it goes against their beliefs, which to me is a load of bollocks as an argument, but still, rationality be buggered, they're a religion, right?
As a society we are FAR more tolerant than the US. A place which condones the murder of young gay men isn't exactly enlightened either.
Except perhaps the right to self determination, and the pursuit of happiness...
I never said the Europe didn't innovate at all, just that the US still leads the way.
As for a lack of healthcare, just as in the UK everyone gets immediate care and just like the UK the rich get the best care. Like you though, I would still take our NHS over their service (but I'm biased), but only because it is free to all, not because our standards are as high.
I don't think that "just dumping them" is anyone's agenda. I think you'll find that our welfare systems makes it too easy to life a "decent" standard of living without expecting much in return.
I didn't say that. But unless you live in a ideal world you will find that not everyone wants to work. I said that some people need motivating, funnily enough there are some who find that a few quid for sitting on their arse all day actually appeals (okay that includes Politicians but you know what I mean).