Skip to comments.Rupert Murdoch 'not fit' to lead major international company, MPs conclude
Posted on 05/01/2012 6:25:06 AM PDT by Lazamataz
Rupert Murdoch is "not a fit person" to exercise stewardship of a major international company, a committee of MPs has concluded, in a report highly critical of the mogul and his son James's role in the News of the World phone-hacking affair.
The Commons culture, media and sport select committee also concluded that James Murdoch showed "wilful ignorance" of the extent of phone hacking during 2009 and 2010 in a highly charged document that saw MPs split on party lines as regards the two Murdochs.
Labour MPs and the sole Liberal Democrat on the committee, Adrian Sanders, voted together in a bloc of six against the five Conservatives to insert the criticisms of Rupert Murdoch and toughen up the remarks about his son James. But the MPs were united in their criticism of other former News International employees.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Eff all socialists. Stick it to 'em, Murdoch.
I’d like to see his wife pull some kung-fu on them.
Uhhhh...not to be insolent or anything, Commodore, but who decides whether or not MPs are fit to exercise stewardship of their subjects' lives?
You answered your question in the question itself.
The Commons culture, media and sport select committee also concludedWell excuuuuse me, 'select committee'. And conclude 'this' too, ya asshats.
If this wasn't so fricken bizzare it would be funny. They come down on Murdoch like a ton of bricks but this same Culture committee hasn't said diddle about all the Muslim Enclaves that exist in London and are DESTROYING all things 'British' about the "culture" of the UK.
Like where was this so-called 'Culture Committee' when all those 'muslim yutes' were rioting and burning buildings a couple years ago?? And since Sports is part of their purview, where are they when all the Soccer Thugs -- or whatever they're called -- go bonkers and start brawls and riots??
This nonsense is example #654,329 why the American Revolution was necessary mandatory. And why 'I ain't' exactly a fan of all things British like fawning over 'The Royals'. That is, except for Nigel Farage, the last sane politician in Europe. (I have him on my Google News Alerts)
Nigel Farage: Euro Break-Up Just a Question of How, European Parliament, Strasbourg, April 18, 2012.
We're probably all insolent worms to him.
First, this happened because of a British tradition of government regulation not only of the broadcast spectrum (which is probably unavoidable) but also of the press. As others have pointed out, we declared independence from Britain for a reason. If government has the right to control media to make sure only "fit persons" are in charge, it can do abusive things like this.
Second, I don't know anyone who disputes that Murdoch's employees committed crimes, least of all Murdoch, who fired some of his closest senior associates and shut down the entire newspaper. Hacking into people's emails and cell phones is illegal — and should be. However, once we grant the principle that government has the right to regulate media, do we want to let the head of a company which has a history of serious criminal activity being allowed to participate in a regulated media business? I do not see a way to avoid the logical conclusion unless Murdoch can prove that he really did have no idea what was going on in his own company and wasn't being willfully and deliberately ignorant.
The solution to illegal hacking and wiretapping is to prosecute the criminals. The solution to irresponsible media is to stop buying the newspaper or turn the channel on the TV. Those are two very different solutions for two very different problems, and applying the wrong solution leads to cures that are much worse than the disease.
As conservatives, we're used to complaining about media, often with good reason. But let's not forget that once government gets its camel-head in the tent, all sorts of bad things happen as a result.
This has direct relevance to Free Republic and other internet media sites like this. Give the government the ability to regulate things that should be left to the free market, and we give government the right to abuse.
Where is the regulation of the press? There's actually very little - only the Press Complaints Commission, which is pretty toothless, and is in any case an industry self-regulating body. A Parliamentary Committee can take the view it has expressed here, but has absolutely no power to enforce that view.
MPs have no subjects. They are answerable to their constituents, who alone can decide, through the ballot box, whether they're fit to be MPs.
But it’s been a year since all the foo-for-rah about Prince Willy and Duchess Kate. All of England is baby-bump crazy! Is she or isn’t she?
I think the government has its nose under the tent already! What gets me is not that the media are allowed to SAY the irresponsible, indefensible things that they say, but that they get special protections for doing so, being as they are the press. I think if we are to defeat them, and defeat them we must, then the government has to get out of the business of regulating free speech.
Well, at least, we’ll get fair coverage and analysis from the “Guardian”!!
I don't dispute that the actual practice is not as bad as what is possible in theory and in “extreme situations.”
The problem is that without the protections of the First Amendment, self-censorship becomes a problem. I've posted at the end of this note just two examples of problems in Britain that would not be possible in the United States. Free Republic people would be screaming bloody murder if President Obama tried to do what was being discussed by the British government in these articles — and not just Free Republic and other American conservatives but also the ACLU, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and much of the political activist culture on both sides of the aisle.
The fact that most of these plans were abandoned in Britain is not the point. The point is that some things are possible in Britain which are not possible (at least so far) in the United States.
I mean no disrespect to British conservatives. There's a different constitutional tradition on the two sides of the Atlantic on such things as press freedom, gun rights, establishment of religion, etc., and those differences stem from different views about the proper limits on government power. While British and American conservatives may agree on many things, the differences are important and cut to the root of why 1776 happened.
Certainly British conservatives are great allies to have, but that doesn't mean we agree on everything.
MPs seek to censor the media
By KIM SENGUPTA
MONDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2008
“Britain's security agencies and police would be given unprecedented and legally binding powers to ban the media from reporting matters of national security, under proposals being discussed in Whitehall. The Intelligence and Security Committee, the parliamentary watchdog of the intelligence and security agencies which has a cross-party membership from both Houses, wants to press ministers to introduce legislation that would prevent news outlets from reporting stories deemed by the Government to be against the interests of national security. The committee also wants to censor reporting of police operations that are deemed to have implications for national security...”
Britain Blames Social Media For Class Riots, Looks to Censorship
Facebook, Twitter, and BlackBerries are likely the first to be censored
By Jason Mick
August 12, 2011 9:25 AM
“Last week the fatal shooting of a 29-year-old man by members of the Metropolitan Police Service in Tottenham, North London, enraged the nation's working class. People in several British cities took to the streets engaging in looting, arson, burglary, robbery and ‘general disorder.’ Five civilians were killed, 186 police officers were injured, and over 1,200 people have been imprisoned for their role in the riots. Property damages are estimated at £100M ($161M USD) ... To try to cut that off, the nation's political elite are considering a sweeping campaign of censorship of social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. In a Thursday speech to Parliament, embattled British Prime Minister David Cameron remarked, ‘Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. And when people are using social media for violence, we need to stop them.’ He said that the government and police are going ‘to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.’”
Can I point out that of the two stories you quote, only one refers to the printed press. And neither story reports an actual government power - only various people wishing the government had such power, not the same thing at all.
It’s the comparative lack of regulation of the British press which makes it, on the whole, such a lively read - which is in turn why the online editions are so widely read in the U.S., and indeed so often quoted on this forum!
Well, one step towards a better press is still one step towards a better press. 99 more steps to go. But one better than the rest.
Missed this: I’m not aware of Murdoch promoting gay kid sex.....