Be Excellent To Each Other

Wait, why sacked? Why not locked up? If she's sacked, some other piece of shit will hire her. Let's have her actually account for her bullshit, thanks.

Sorry if already posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtk3yLVUOKg

probably nsfw.

Suit yourself I admire her greatly.

This could get interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/ju ... dy-ashdown

Cameron has explicitly said he wasn't warned about Coulson, if some concrete proof gets out that he was (and Ashdown's statement is pretty close to that), it could bring down the government, or at least cause the Lib Dems to withdraw their support, which would amount to the same thing.

In other news, it appears the art editors at the NOTW had been bugging the phones at Amiga Format:





NB the print version I just saw looks closer to the AF cover.

Nobody came here today for a lecture on communism.

Good grief. That's the memorial cover they chose?

Says a lot that the best of 168 years could be summed up with ROYAL EVIL SHAME SHOCK SCUM.

Agreed.

If what Coogan and Harmen were saying is true, then it goes beyond anything I'd considered as being the case, and I'm pretty fucking cynical when it comes to this stuff.

Coogan was so quietly resigned to the endemic corruption it was genuinely sad, Harmen was borderline terrifying when she matter-of-fact explained how the fucking UK government was scared of the Murdoch empire.

The cunt needs to be taken apart piece by piece, and no trace of his shitty little kingdom should ever blight these shores again.

It needs shouting long and loud, The Guardian, its editor, and Nick Davies, are fucking modern day heroes.

I'm really sorry to keep labouring this point, chap, but I repeat:



This surely shows hypocrisy at its most abject, cynical level on the part of The Guardian; you're saying it's OK, nay even "commendable" for their having apparently blatantly and deliberately failed to tell a fucking Commons Committee specifically set up to look into the very thing they are now crusading against, NOTW phone tapping, that a senior public figure and two others were apparently paid vast sums by NI, which had to be signed off by directors of that company? To "avoid all out war" with the NOTW, i.e. save their collective arses?

Personally, I think this amply demonstrates that the likes of The Guardian have feet of fucking clay in this specific matter, just as the rest of their lousy, stinking, disreputable 'profession' in my view, and I don't really see how anyone can argue otherwise. Under the circumstances, I really don't see how they can have the brass neck to say anything in this matter, let alone claim the fucking moral high ground, but that's journalists for you - Doublethink is their stock in trade.

You doff your cap to them despite the above. Me? I give 'em the finger.

However, it appears that the pressure the Guardian had caused the NoTW to tell the Committee themselves:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/ju ... don-taylor

2 years ago:

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/notw/news/402737/The-News-of-the-World-was-the-subject-of-some-ferocious-attacks.html

Scum the lot of them.

Which paper, being so stalwart with its eye on the media, didn't bother to report that last year it lost £33million, and is going to have to make drastic cuts for its Monday to Friday print edition. Which paper praised Mumsnet for being against the selling of sexy clothes for kids. Mumsnet's founder is the wife of the deputy editor. Which paper condemed the PE firm over the Southern Cross issues. The banks that arranged the float in 2006 escaped criticism, probably nothing to do with Dame Amelia, after working for one of them for 20 years, changed jobs in 2007 to become chairwoman of the publishing group? Which paper that has the editor that has been trying to shut the observer down, but keeps being stopped one way or another. So they've cut the money for it. oh, and wouldn't let staff had a goody bag after an award show, as they were for the Editor and his executives. Which paper wants to 'throw a spotlight on the world of private equity" and expose loading of companies with debt. Such as the firm that refiananced Trader Media Group so they could make a dividend payment of £280million, saddling it with debt. Which publishing group? Which paper has close partnerships with Investec, Cafe Direct and Grey Goose Vodka?

Maybe they were playing a genius long game?

After all, the way they've done it, there's a fighting possibility they might not only bring down Murdoch in the UK, but also this abomination of a Tory government.

That'll make them fucking messiahs.

I don't know, maybe you just made it all up.

At least when I suggest that banks rule the world I make some effort to cite sources and evidence.

Private Eye #1290, 1291, 1292

I read interesting pieces on Murdoch's influence in Australia and America recently. It turns out in Australia he has an actual print monopoly in major cities like Brisbane) -- his power to sway governments is even stronger than it is here. In the US, however, he is far more marginalised; his properties like Fox News and Glenn Beck appeal only to the extremely right-wing Tea Party types. No US presidential campaign courts Murdoch like UK politicians do.

And who's responsible for this? A lot of the blame has to fall on the Tories for allowing the rot to set in on their watch. Thatcher clearly made deals with Murdoch going back to '81, when his purchase of the Times was allowed to go ahead without the supposed-to-be-required referral to the Monopolies commission. Where was the quid pro quo? Ceaseless, endless pro-Tory campaigning from the Sun and the Times until New Labour arrived in 1997. It's the Sun wot won it, as the famous headline ran. I think we can safely assume that Blair did nothing to reverse this trend, based on the glowing near-decade of coverage he wrangled.

If there's one thing we can all hope for from this, it's that Murdoch's implicit seat the top table of UK politics will come to an end.

Also,maybe Private Eye was talking about the print edition, but:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/ju ... t-strategy

(sure, it puts a positive spin on it, but it's right there in the subheading)

I think you're underselling Fox News considerably there - although it doesn't have massive audience figures, it has huge influence on the DC scene, and has been used by the Republican party as a mouthpiece for years. Plus, you can get away with a lot more if the country doesn't have strict libel laws

Heh. Good work mate.

The NotW, July 2009:


Oops. Hindsight, eh?

It's no secret that The Guardian hasn't been profitable for a while, and is basically subsidised by the rest of the group (think it owns Auto Trader which makes the money?).

That's the sad thing, a decent upstanding newspaper can't make money in a country largely populated by ignorant fucking imbeciles who will voluntarily watch The X Factor.

You're reduced to being plain silly now, so I think I'll place this one in the 'successfully dealt with OUT box", at this point.

As for 'this abomination of a Tory government', it's actually a Tory-Liberal coalition, and they've a very, very long way to go indeed before they even approach the 'abomination levels' of the outgoing Labour administration that you appear to love so much, by ANY sane, non-partisan measure you care to name. Be it the economy, falling standards of education as independently measured by non-partisan international bodies (don't make me drag up the links), civil liberties, failure to regulate the banks successfully (or indeed pretty much anything else), presiding over the parliamentary expenses/sleaze scandal having done nothing about it for 13 years, the integrity of government (e.g. basis and justification of the Iraq War), the conduct of No.10 Downing Street/bypass of Parliament and indeed even the Cabinet that we've been discussing or indeed the small matter of foreign policy in general, some 600,000+ innocent civilians dead, in our name.

You are, I suspect, totally blinded by irrational dogma and sheer political prejudice, man, and one cannot conduct a serious conversation on that basis. Sorry.

Surprising that The Guardian, essentially the heroes of the piece, are coming in for such criticism.
On fairly petty grounds too - lack of profitability? Well, perhaps it's because they try to stuck to dry, serious journalism and not pedal lies and illegally gathered information on celebrities.
Goody bag allocation? Come on, ffs.

No company is perfect, and nobody has claimed they are.

They *warned* the current Prime Minister, ahead of time, that he was getting into bed with crooks. As a matter of principle and concern for our democracy, as far as I can see. How on *earth* can you paint them as bad guys in this.

Hmm, bit pompous, perhaps I got out of the wrong side of bed this morning.

Interesting Chinny, and from that piece 2 years ago:-



The gauntlet thrown down, then (see emphasised text above). Yet what did The Guardian do...? Oh that's right, fuck all, apart from to apparently mislead a Parliamentary Committee sitting to address this very issue, in order to avoid 'all out war with the NOTW'. A very creditable performance!

Needless to say I agree with you Chinny, 'scum the lot of them' pretty well sums things up nicely.

---

Kalmar,

Even I buy the Grauniad on occasion. I did so yesterday.

The point I want to make is that it is dangerous to hold a newspaper up to such high estimation, and declare it to be such a hive of integrity, work ethics and so on. Something that the paper itself makes it out to be.

Quite so, and it is clearly, demonstrably not.

Bottom line - I don't like being 'played'/manipulated by newspapers and journalists, the end.

But as I pointed out earlier - the NOTW themselves admitted to the Committee that they'd paid the money - so where was the misleading?

"modern day heroes" seriously? Taking down competitor with at the time unproven accusations and heresay is hardly a position from which to claim the moral high ground.

From Wiki:

I've ripped into 'New Labour' and particularly both Blair and Brown time and time again on these very forums dude.

An old acquaintance of mine once had a job interview at NotW. She'd previously been the Grauniad's student journalist of the year for a couple of years running.

Dammed if they do, dammed if they don't.
That they *didn't* "take down" NOTW with the unproven evidence and suspicions at the time is exactly what Cavey is complaining about!
They didn't, and how could they, if the police wouldn't touch it, nor the PCC, nor that committee?

Now the evidence has come to light, and the facts they reported and warnings they gave have been shown to be right. So what's the problem?

Also, from that piece:



1. This, I assume refers to the Aitken trial, where he was suing the Guardian for libel, and yes, it is a bit murky. See here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... _n8801101/ However, it's clear that the forging was actually a way of Fayed keeping his reputation - there was no deceit involved, as both parties knew what was happening.

2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/se ... ndthemedia - Rather than 'cynically abandoning' her, the Guardian fought to protect her, but gave up in the face of massive crippling fines that risked the paper's existence. Not exactly wonderful, but somewhat more than throwing her to the wolves straightaway.

#1 - Cavey - doesn't that wiki quote say that they found they had NOT been materially misled?

#2 - That happened 2 years ago. Since then the Guardian has consistently brought up the phone hacking accusations over a long period of time when pretty much everyone else was sweeping them under the carpet. Even you have to admit that they have clearly, evidently, been the main cause of this even being news of any sort, and are the primary cause of the trouble Murdoch is now in. So, whether or not they made a faux pas two years ago, since then they have completely redeemed themselves in that very same sphere, and yet you give them not one shred of credit? That seems absolutely ridiculous, and based on an utterly entrenched idea that you will refuse to give one jot of praise to any journalist; a sweeping generalisation that ignores all actual evidence.

#3 - I think the choice of headlines for the 'Goodbye' page of the NotW shows how little they will be missed by anyone who is sane.

@ Curio - not materially misled - whatever the legal definition of that is, yes. Personally however, if Wiki is to be believed at all, I thought the apparent facts of the situation (and subsequent resignations) rather spoke for themselves?

Look, I don't want *anyone* to be of the impression here that even so much as one atom in my body laments for the loss of the NOTW or has any sympathy whatsoever for NI. I hate them and the 'profession' to which they belong with every fibre of my being, as I thought I'd made pretty clear earlier (and much to the consternation of certain people?) To me, when sewer rats behave like sewer rats, no-one should really be surprised - as I said originally.

However, if I cannot stand the antics of these scum, upon which we can surely all agree, I equally can't stand crass, self-serving hypocrisy and cynical, exploitative, manipulative opportunism either. In fact in some ways, this is even worse, at least to me.

Glass houses etc.

Sorry Cavey you're the one blinded by dogma here.

The Guardian has investigated and exposed a 'respected' international organisation as a corrupt, criminal, corrosive, destructive monster that has infiltrated the political and legal processes of this country at the very highest levels. If they've been a touch murky around the edges on how they've gone about it, then fair enough, when you're dealing with an evil cunt like Murdoch, you're going to get a bit shitty in the process.

That you can 'hate' the people responsible for this work is an irrational and emotional response, as it's clearly not connected in any way to the facts of the case.

Fascinating reading there Peter.
From the first piece you linked:



That'll be that bastion of moral standards, The Guardian, among others of the so called quality press, apparently draping itself in glory in 1998.



Oh, I'm sure she appreciated that 'protection' from The Guardian - from the bars of her prison cell. Marvellous stuff.

Dude, I love you like a brother, but the way that you come out with stuff like this as if it's a fact and then declare the argument won is a large part of the reason people don't bother arguing with you about anything.


However, in your defence you always add a big pole of ironing, so it's always amusing

Meh.

Come off it though bud. I *know* I am a ridiculous person and about as good a debater as my dog, not to be taken remotely seriously (and I'm sure I'm not either, heaven forbid). I've said many times that I am the village idiot and am tolerated on that basis. Above all, if it all gets a laugh, that's good enough for me. I've nothing to prove here, far from it; this is a pleasant and enjoyable distraction for me, with fun people that I like to hang out with.

There again though, let's be fair here. Quite a few people have engaged in this discussion, yourself included, and in all honesty and without trying to remotely delude myself (see immediate above), I haven't as yet heard a decent, and certainly not decisive counter-argument?

If nothing else, I must be doing something worthwhile; there have been quite a few pages of what I'd characterise as pretty decent forum knockabout discussion - with the added bonus that no-one's been called a cunt yet too!



I am dogmatic, of course. I hate New Labour and the Press; I could hardly deny it and indeed I never have denied it. However, I do at least *try* to explain my reasons and, as much as I really like AE - he's been a good friend of mine for 10 years or so and knows me well enough ( ), I did honestly think he was being daft in that post you quoted. (I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a hoot, btw. He and I have had ding-dongs 10,000% worse than this little spat, yet still laughed about it afterwards over a virtual brandy. There's not one whit of malice on either party, much as you and I have had some classics over the years ).

Anyway, time for work

I forgot to mention that you needed to correct for biases (that's from The Spectator). The point is though, Aitken launched a libel action against The Guardian despite knowing they were telling the truth. The forged letter was known to be forged on both sides - it just made al Fayed happy to give out the information that way (it's not exactly angelic behaviour, though).



Whether or not The Guardian succeeded in protecting her is besides the point - the NOTW editorial said she was 'cynically abandoned'. By taking the Government of the day to court, it's clear that they didn't just roll over and give her up. All I'm saying is don't believe what you read in an NI paper . I've also pointed out a few times that the Commons Select Committee knew about the £700,000 payment, so the wiki/Private Eye charges do ring a little hollow.

It should be fairly clear by now that there is little danger of that, unless of course it supports what Cavey has already decided he believes.

I think Cavey's position is that all journalists are scum and their writing cannot be trusted, except when they are writing things that back up his position under which circumstances he's happy to cite them as sources.

Edit -- lulz @ Alberto

Edit edit -- you might also add "getting the Tories elected" to the "good actions by newspapers" exception list, unless Thatcher's cosy relationship with Murdoch is the one thing she did that Cavey doesn't approve of.

@ Doc:

I thought I'd made my position reasonably clear? Apparently not. Still, no sense in going through it all again; my posts are there for anyone who's genuinely interested.

In a nutshell, my contention is that many journalists, specifically those working for newspapers (of whatever supposed political stripe), are mercenary people intent on self advancement and selling newspapers, cynically manipulative of people's often basest emotions to achieve such ends and selling their grannies for the next 'big scoop'. The 'journalistic methods' they routinely use - even legal ones - are based upon subterfuge, lies, misrepresentation and deceit, so when something that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck - or let's say 'an amoral, despicable scumbag' for arguments' sake [delete as appropriate], we can hardly be surprised. I've seen very little indeed in either the pages following my stating this viewpoint, in this thread, and most certainly from information emerging from the national media at large, to dispel that fundamental belief - far from it.

No idea why you think I approve of Thatcher's close ties to NI, and since you insist on politicising this argument - I most certainly don't. Still, any reasonably intelligent, impartial observer would concede that at least the Thatcher govt. and NI were natural bedfellows, politically speaking at least, whereas the nauseous, subsequent New Labour - NI tie-in from c.'95 onwards (precisely at Blair's installation as Labour Leader), was far worse - in terms of its absolute closeness (Blair seemingly dictating absolute policy at the behest of newspaper headlines, whereas Thatcher at least famously had her own mind, even to the President of the US, let alone the purveyors and masters of the UK gutter press) and obvious absolute, fundamental incompatibility between Labour and anything even resembling NI's oft-stated political values/stance. A deeply cynical Faustian pact of mutual convenience if ever there was; it speaks volumes about the integrity of the 'soul' of both NI and indeed the Labour Party, come to that. Principles? Scruples? Power? Meh.

This example hardly strengthens your argument about the integrity and value of the press, in fact it very much weakens it yet further.

Even if it were true that Thatcher's obsession and subservience to NI was greater than Labour's (which it most certainly wasn't), how does this support anything you've been saying about the press being angels providing an 'invaluable' service that we should all be eminently grateful for, as opposed to, let's say, being 'cynical, manipulative, mercenary scumbags'? (Clue: It doesn't, and yet again, your banging on about 'But what about Thatcher(tm)??11!?1?!' etc. is nothing more than your usual pointless, totally irrelevant and ultimately diversionary spoiler tactic, given that you've ignored all the stuff that I and others have been talking about your precious Guardian these last few pages. You're nothing if not predictable, Dr Glyndwr! 'lulz' indeed...).

@ Alberto_Balsam_Kid45452532532532532532532532532532:

Whatever, dick.

Here's a depressing thought – New Labour might not have come into existence without the Murdoch effect. No doubt a reformed Labour party would have happened at some point (due to the SDP split and so forth), but possibly not as extreme a path that Blair took Labour.

That's certainly true.

I've said this before somewhere else, the death of John Smith was a disaster for Labour.

The Tories were fucked and Labour were a shoe-in for the 97 election, under John Smith's far more 'traditional' Labour command.

Unfortunately he snuffed it and fucking Blair and Brown, along with that poisonous snake Mandelson, got to the head of the Labour party.

My dog could have won the 97 election for Labour.

Also, isn't it interesting, psychologically speaking, that a discussion about NI evils has turned into an argument about The Guardian?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9c-QVw-FWs

Fry & Laurie on Murdoch's media empire, from 1995.

Monopoly fruit machine at 3m25s. I'm so