The plot thickens...will Faux News be next?

Superfreak said:
Yes, it actually IS a stretch. It is one of hundreds of companies Murdoch owns. He sees in 2007 a private investigator and the 'royal' editor get tossed in jail for what they had done. The police investigated and did not not charge anyone else. If I were Murdoch, I would have thought 'well, isolated incident, they were charged and convicted.... done deal'. We now see that it went deeper than that. While I agree the senior management of THAT paper should have known, it is a complete stretch to suggest that Murdoch should have known it was widespread etc....
Click to expand...

Bullshit. You mean to tell me it is a stretch for an executive of a corporation to know less about the operations of his company than a competing company even after the company conducts an internal investigation regarding specific alleged illegal conduct? The Guardian figured out what NOTW was up to. If Murdoch didn't know, it's because he didn't want to know.
 
Damocles said:
Proving a negative? There is zero evidence suggesting that Murdoch was complicit in this. According to this criteria we should put you to death because you can't prove you didn't know about all the murders in your city. I mean you live there and stuff, we should just assume you know something and therefore are complicit.

Innuendo is enough, suggestions and assumptions, that should be enough to convict anybody that can't prove that they didn't know. Or we should put the convenience store manager in jail because one of his employees was caught stealing. He should have known... and can't prove that he didn't.
Click to expand...

Proving a negative, no.

I want to see RM's words on the record that he had no knowledge hacking had ever occurred in his organization.

Murdoch said [the organization] is "committed to addressing these issues fully and have taken a number of important steps to prevent them from happening again."

Why weren't those steps taken in 2007?
 
christiefan915 said:
Do I think he knows the quantity of newsprint ordered or the vacation schedule of the accounting department? No.

Do I think he knows that there's been a pervasive pattern of hacking, especially after one of his editors was jailed? Yes.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Again, as I stated, you are giving your OPINION.

I think it is an opinion based on pure partisan hatred of a man that doesn't share your views.

Again, I ask you.... do you think Obama should be responsible for knowing all the errors that go on at the IRS office in Austin? Because that is the same thing as pretending that Murdoch should have known that this was widespread. If it was such common knowledge at the time, then WHY did police not arrest more people and charge them at the time? As far as Murdoch is concerned, I think (my opinion) that is is far more likely that he saw what happened in 2007, saw the police arrest and the courts convict the two employees and then saw nothing further in terms of arrests/charges/allegations until recently. That said, even your links show that the paper has been working WITH police in their investigation.

So tell us Christie.... IF Murdoch did ask the head of that ONE paper what was going on and the head of the paper showed that he was working with Police... do you really think Murdoch should have been paying attention to that ONE paper? Or is it as I stated, that you simply want to bash Murdoch for partisan reasons?
 
Superfreak said:
Thanks. Again, as I stated, you are giving your OPINION.

I think it is an opinion based on pure partisan hatred of a man that doesn't share your views.

Again, I ask you.... do you think Obama should be responsible for knowing all the errors that go on at the IRS office in Austin? Because that is the same thing as pretending that Murdoch should have known that this was widespread. If it was such common knowledge at the time, then WHY did police not arrest more people and charge them at the time? As far as Murdoch is concerned, I think (my opinion) that is is far more likely that he saw what happened in 2007, saw the police arrest and the courts convict the two employees and then saw nothing further in terms of arrests/charges/allegations until recently. That said, even your links show that the paper has been working WITH police in their investigation.

So tell us Christie.... IF Murdoch did ask the head of that ONE paper what was going on and the head of the paper showed that he was working with Police... do you really think Murdoch should have been paying attention to that ONE paper? Or is it as I stated, that you simply want to bash Murdoch for partisan reasons?
Click to expand...

beautiful
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Bullshit. You mean to tell me it is a stretch for an executive of a corporation to know less about the operations of his company than a competing company even after the company conducts an internal investigation regarding specific alleged illegal conduct? The Guardian figured out what NOTW was up to. If Murdoch didn't know, it's because he didn't want to know.
Click to expand...

did obama know his appointees violated tax laws when he appointed them?

yes or no
 
The U.K. government said it will back the opposition Labour party’s motion to urge Rupert Murdoch to withdraw his bid to gain full control of the company.







A final decision on Rupert Murdoch's biggest takeover battle was delayed for several months Monday after the British government referred the bid to competition authorities, as a phone hacking scandal showed no sign of abating.




The announcement Monday from Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt followed News Corp.'s withdrawal of a promise to spin off Sky News, which had been a condition for buying the 61 percent of the satellite broadcaster that it doesn't already own.










http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43726660/ns/business-us_business/
 
Yurt said:
:lolup:

right, because it only matters when the person leans right :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


No, it's just a fucking stupid question. First, I have no idea what Obama knew about the tax compliance of his nominees. Of course, Obama should have known whether the people he nominated complied with tax laws. Second, the nominees with tax compliance problems were not employees of Obama at the time of their tax avoidance so it is entirely irrelevant to the present discussion of employees and senior management at NOTW engaging in illegal activity while under the active employ of NOTW. Third, whether a nominee was compliant with tax laws is not related to the work that the nominee performs for the government. It is a personal matter, not something done in furtherance of their official duties. Conversely, the employees of NOTW were acting as agents of NOTW and in the performance of their employment obligations when they engaged in the criminal conduct.

Jackass.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Don't see any facts here, just accusations and what-ifs.
Click to expand...

Then you must be blind. Let me repeat the facts for you. NEWS MEDIA OUTLETS OWNED BY RUPERT MURDOCH COMMITTED CRIMES. These are not accusations. People have been arrested for hacking private information and bribing police officers. These are serious crimes that have been committed. While you continue to put your head in the sand (or other places we won't mention) News Corp's value has taken a nearly 10% drop on Wall Street. That's $3 billion dollars GONE...Hows that for facts? $3 billion of them!
 
Superfreak said:
Thanks. Again, as I stated, you are giving your OPINION.
Click to expand...

As are you.

I think it is an opinion based on pure partisan hatred of a man that doesn't share your views.
Click to expand...

No, it's disgust based on the fact that this organization stooped so low to bring down people whose views they disagree with. Not to mention the shameless and despicable hacking into the murdered girl's phone. This wasn't even under the guise of politics, it was pure shameless use of a tragedy to sell papers.

Again, I ask you.... do you think Obama should be responsible for knowing all the errors that go on at the IRS office in Austin?
Click to expand...

No, I don't hold him to that standard but you can't pretend conservatives don't. And those examples aren't even on the same level.

Because that is the same thing as pretending that Murdoch should have known that this was widespread.
Click to expand...

Murdoch said they're going to take steps to "address[ing] these issues fully and have taken a number of important steps to prevent them from happening again." Why wasn't this done in 2007? Why are they only taking the steps now?

If it was such common knowledge at the time, then WHY did police not arrest more people and charge them at the time? As far as Murdoch is concerned, I think (my opinion) that is is far more likely that he saw what happened in 2007, saw the police arrest and the courts convict the two employees and then saw nothing further in terms of arrests/charges/allegations until recently. That said, even your links show that the paper has been working WITH police in their investigation.
Click to expand...

That the organization said it's working with the cops isn't in dispute. Yet in 2007, the cops were being paid for their silence so why should I give their statement of cooperation any credibility now? I'd rather wait until the full investigation is completed. Read this link about missing emails.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...hacking-the-smoking-gun-emails-from-2007.html

So tell us Christie.... IF Murdoch did ask the head of that ONE paper what was going on and the head of the paper showed that he was working with Police... do you really think Murdoch should have been paying attention to that ONE paper? Or is it as I stated, that you simply want to bash Murdoch for partisan reasons?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that every day more news is coming out about all the cover-ups and complicity; that it wasn't limited to two employees in 2007; that police were bribed for their assistance and/or silence; and that the whole thing is a much bigger deal than you're trying to paint as a random issue at one paper.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
No, it's just a fucking stupid question. First, I have no idea what Obama knew about the tax compliance of his nominees. Of course, Obama should have known whether the people he nominated complied with tax laws. Second, the nominees with tax compliance problems were not employees of Obama at the time of their tax avoidance so it is entirely irrelevant to the present discussion of employees and senior management at NOTW engaging in illegal activity while under the active employ of NOTW. Third, whether a nominee was compliant with tax laws is not related to the work that the nominee performs for the government. It is a personal matter, not something done in furtherance of their official duties. Conversely, the employees of NOTW were acting as agents of NOTW and in the performance of their employment obligations when they engaged in the criminal conduct.

Jackass.
Click to expand...

what a pathetic and desperate spin of the issues. it doesn't matter because they were not employees....YET...each one (except the one that mattered most, geitner) withdrew or resigned....but no, it doesn't matter that the president didn't know, it only matters that murdoch "must know" because they are current employees, but the president gets a pass on an indepth background check because they weren't currently employees...

i would tell you to be ashamed, but you have no shame when it comes to your partisan bullshit
 
Yurt said:
what a pathetic and desperate spin of the issues. it doesn't matter because they were not employees....YET...each one (except the one that mattered most, geitner) withdrew or resigned....but no, it doesn't matter that the president didn't know, it only matters that murdoch "must know" because they are current employees, but the president gets a pass on an indepth background check because they weren't currently employees...

i would tell you to be ashamed, but you have no shame when it comes to your partisan bullshit
Click to expand...

I didn't say that Murdoch "must know." Just like Obama, I have no idea what Murdoch knew or didn't know. I said that Murdoch should have known. Just like I said that Obama should have known. It's pretty hilarious that you call me a partisan hack for applying the same standard to both of them.

Tool.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Then you must be blind. Let me repeat the facts for you. NEWS MEDIA OUTLETS OWNED BY RUPERT MURDOCH COMMITTED CRIMES. These are not accusations. People have been arrested for hacking private information and bribing police officers. These are serious crimes that have been committed. While you continue to put your head in the sand (or other places we won't mention) News Corp's value has taken a nearly 10% drop on Wall Street. That's $3 billion dollars GONE...Hows that for facts? $3 billion of them!
Click to expand...
No one's disputing that. What is being claimed is that Murdoch himself is guilty.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Bullshit. You mean to tell me it is a stretch for an executive of a corporation to know less about the operations of his company than a competing company even after the company conducts an internal investigation regarding specific alleged illegal conduct? The Guardian figured out what NOTW was up to. If Murdoch didn't know, it's because he didn't want to know.
Click to expand...

that says it all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top