Santa Claus, I guess you are a liar too. You post that you mute me and you don't. You lie, you don't know history, but at least you found a source of information fitting your intellect,
Youtube.

Tettleton, you are an idiot. As a libertarian, I thought you would love boycotts, but there we go, double standards. Next I'm, sure he will say that collusion is normal business practice and shouldn't be frowned upon.

To orathaic and Draugnar, I know muting Mr Tettleton would be beneficial and save me a lot of pain, however I will keep being obtuse and refuse to mute him. Unfortunately, ignoring a problem never forced it to go away.

I still don't understand why this is bigger than the one scumbag paper. Nothing I've read makes it look like Rupert Murdoch was actually involved in the disgusting decision to bug these phones. Perhaps you could expand it to show some incompetence on David Cameron's part since he hired a former editor and is friends with some lady at the paper (or something like that), but how does this affect News Corp as as whole really?

I really don't understand why the outrage here extends to the other media outlets owned by News Corp. Some clarification would be great. I really don't get it.

@Invictus - many people in the UK have disliked the Murdoch press for years. It stems from the fact that they are seen to have an undue influenece on democracy. They have massive readership and openly back one or the other main political parties which means those parties curry favour and by their own admission won't bring in proper regulatory systems on the press for fear of a backlash against their party. People therefore feel that their votes and opinions count for little when comapred with Murdochs. Labour and The Tories have been just as guilty of courting Murdoch so this isn't party political. Apparently people who have tried to make a stand have then had to endure a press vendetta exposing their private lives etc.

Their is also some anti-printed press feeling in the UK generally, some people haven't brought newspapers since Diana died and blame the press for her death. Others particularly in Liverpool will never buy the NotW sister paper The Sun because of their coverage about two football disasters, Hillsborough and Hyssel; where the sun told lies and dishonoured a city (in their eyes).

Largeham, to see an idiot look at your high school picture you have to keep on your mother's mantle so she will recognize you.
As far as your labels you must need them to get through a day.
If you read my statements in this thread, which you obviously didn't, I fully support the individuals right to boycott or take any other action they desire.
I fully reject the manipulation of a "boycott" that is in reality an attack on an organ of the press.
I guess you have a problem separating the individual from the herd.

@largeham - Ignoring trolls *does* make them go away, or at least they stop being a problem once everyone has them ignored. So, ignoring a problem as opposed to actively agitating it, is a solution to some problems.

The roof is really caving in on all these corrupt newspapers and 'hacker journalism'. Now it's known that the Sun hacked into Brown's disabled child's medical records.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/11/gordon-brown-sun-destroy

Now I appreciate what a big deal this is. I still don't quite see why Murdoch is getting personal blame for this, but this vile journalism seems to be more widespread than just the News of the World.

Because he owns the multiple (three last I counted) newspapers now involved with this scandal. And he's very close to Rebecca Brooks who is head of News International who edited both the Sun and News of the world, and his own son was involved in a pay-off of another incident of hacking (which he could be prosecuted for, reports now claim). He doesn't even have the decency to apologize to the family of Milly Dowler, and is pressing ahead trying to save his BSkyB deal.

Well, if a group of papers owned by Disney had done these terrible things would the Disney CEO be held personally responsible? Not just responsible because it happened under his watch, but with implications that he was somehow involved in the actual act? I haven't seen any evidence at all that Murdoch was cackling with glee as he ordered the reporters to bug the various people's phones. If it turns out that was the case then to the flames with him and anyone else involved, but right now I think a lot of people are just using this scandal as an opportunity to strike at Murdoch for personal and political reasons. If proof does come out, of course, that changes everything.

And why shouldn't he try to save the BSkyB deal if he can?

"pressing ahead trying to save his BSkyB deal."

that whole angle of the news sounded like murdoch making this his story. The point being, "if you don't like what they are saying about you, give them something else to talk about..." - when it comes to BSkyB and winding up the NotW, he's trying to change what people are talking about... if you start asking 'why not allow th BskyB deal' then you're suddenly having a very different conversation (one which Murdoch can win... or at least not outright lose)

and yes, Invictus, if a group does something and it has a figure-head for people to rally around then blame or celebration will fall on that person's head.

it's not about rationality, it's about emotion. People feel like Rupert Murdoch is a bad guy who should be hung out to dry on this one.

"Well, if a group of papers owned by Disney had done these terrible things would the Disney CEO be held personally responsible?"

Uh yes. How come personal responsibility suddenly goes out the window when it's a company that's involved? What does being an owner of a company mean if the owner doesn't have any control over his own company? According to the law directors are held responsible for snooping that takes place under their watch, which is why James is likely to be charged. This idea that Rupert Murdoch didn't know what was going on or what his own son and his top henchwoman was doing is incredible.

And why shouldn't he save it? Because his company is obviously horribly corrupt, and the takeover of Sky would mean Murdoch's immoral company would have Berlusconi like control of the British media.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2010/dec/30/murdoch-to-control-22percent

"Not just responsible because it happened under his watch, but with implications that he was somehow involved in the actual act?"

That was the sentence after the one you quoted. Way to misrepresent what I was asking. From the coverage I've been seeing you'd think Murdoch physically unscrewed the bottom of the phones' receivers and placed the bugs in. I don't dispute that he's responsible professionally for what goes on in his company, but as of right now I don't understand why he's being personally held responsible for the wicked decisions of a group of "journalists" in one of the many media outlets he owns.

"And why shouldn't he save it? Because his company is obviously horribly corrupt, and the takeover of Sky would mean Murdoch's immoral company would have Berlusconi like control of the British media."

Yeah, that's a reason that someone would oppose him owning the network. It's not a reason for him to keep from trying to. I asked why shouldn't he keep trying to buy BSkyB if he can. There's no reason for HIM to just throw in the towel, whatever meritorious arguments others may present.

" I don't dispute that he's responsible professionally for what goes on in his company, but as of right now I don't understand why he's being personally held responsible for the wicked decisions of a group of "journalists" in one of the many media outlets he owns."

Who says he personally hacked anyone? You're just making up an argument nobody actually made.

"There's no reason for HIM to just throw in the towel, whatever meritorious arguments others may present."

Because someone with morals might want to get at what the hell is going on in his company before attempting to become even bigger and more out of control.

If the question is why would he not want to monopolize the media, you're right. There's no reason for a monopolist to hold off on the bid. But my point was that other people shouldn't allow it. Which of course you know but you're fond of making up arguments for other people that aren't being made.

"someone with morals might want to get at what the hell is going on in his company before attempting to become even bigger and more out of control."

i think it is a given that he doesn't actually take any moral issue with the activities of his employees. Excepting the fact that they were caught.

Has he apologized? no, because that would be admitting he was responsible for something bad.

I've noticed implications that it was somehow directly his fault. He's still responsible since it's his company, but you're blind if you think this isn't presented as some Murdochian scheme for evil run from his own desk by many media outlets, at least online.

I stand by my statement that it makes perfect sense for him to keep up the effort for BSkyB. It's probably not a good idea for that much of the media to be controlled by one conglomerate, but from his (and the shareholder's) end it probably makes a lot of business sense. I really couldn't care less one way or the other since I don't live in the UK.

I just think it's strange how the story centers so much around Rupert Murdoch and not the actual scumbags who really tapped the phones. That's all.

Yes, poor misunderstood Murdoch, unfairly targeted by the increasingly smaller slice of the media he doesn't control.

If in two days time another one of his papers is being investigated for bribery or hacking then I'm sure you'll still insist that he's being unfairly criticized. After all initially you didn't even think hacking a family's phone records and deleting messages was a big deal.

Anything to defend Murdoch.

That's exactly it. Why is it back on him personally? Maybe it is fair and he was involved in the actual scandal, but I haven't seen anything to really suggest that. If it turns out he was then the hell with him.

I'm not defending him, per se. I just think it's strange this comes back to him personally and not just the people who were really hacking phones. Don't pigeonhole me.

Let the underlings take the fall.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/15/les-hinton-rupert-murdoch

Still think this doesn't go to the top?

Well, he does claim he was ignorant of what the reporters were doing. Still totally proper for him to resign, but also no proof of the highest executives plotting to bug phones.

I'm totally ready to believe that the higher ups including Murdoch were involved in awful dealings (like maybe bugging 9/11 families?!?!), but until there's real evidence of it I think it's silly to just assume that they're responsible BEYOND what every boss is for the actions of those under them. Isn't the scandal of the reporters enough? Do we have to have Murdoch plotting this himself as lightning flashes behind him?

It's totally valid to keep investigating, but it's ridiculous to assume Murdoch actually was behind the scandal at News of the World personally until evidence comes to light. He's still responsible as the owner regardless, but that's a far different thing from him being personally involved in the scumball actions alleged here.

@invictus - i think you are missing the point here. Every organisation has a culture which stems from the management. Some companies take risks with health and safety some take a positive stance on fair trade others like Murdoch's newspapers would stop at nothing to get the story. Each of these cultures can be defended, companies that take risks with health and saftety may consider H&S has gone too far and is all red tape; and Murdoch's culture may have believed that press freedom was good for society. But if as an organisation you condone going through people's dustbins, paying the police for information and turning a blind eye to how information is gathered then sooner or later one of your staff is going to push things too far. We have all known for yaers that celebrities phones were hacked and probably didn't care too much but when a missing teenager's phone is hacked there was uproar. Murdoch can not say he deplores that action when he has condoned and even encouraged these similar actions in the past.

He also shouldn't complain too loudly that he is the victim of half truths and exaggeration when again his papers has been responsble for those actions in the past and not given too much thought for who they hurt.

Typical.

you know it's a big story when pop songs are released
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1P6KUyOhBc

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/48192