Laura Corin Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 [bolding mine] Not just in America. Murdoch was just about to receive permission (Parliamentary? Competition Commission? I can't remember who gives permission in UK) to buy the rest of Sky TV which would have given him enormous control over Britain's media -- much more than he currently has. Laura Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzybluecheese Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 NPR wrestled with an ethical issue. News Corp has allegedly performed illegal activities as well as a variety of unethical acts on what strikes me as a much grander scale. Police commissioners did not resign in the NPR as they are in the News Corp case. I'd say that there is quite a difference. :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TXMary2 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Your watching movies put out by Move on.org at church? :001_unsure: That seems a bit odd to me. (I have never heard of or seen it I just Googled it.) Wow. Moveon.org is so reputable too. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastian (a lady) Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Murdoch is American. You think he only operates with phne hacking and bribery on British soil? I do think people are going to get unduly gleeful at the possibility that there are problems with Fox but shucks, that doesn't mean there aren't problems. Nor does it mean that the only press organizations engaging in chicanery are owned by Murdoch. I think that more than a little of the furor is being stirred up by competitors who are eager to take down a big chunk of their competition and by various factors in the Powers That Be who are eager to remove a source of scrutiny. I don't think that employees of Murdoch's corporation are the only journalists clever enough to hack phones and emails or the only people unethical enough to be willing to act on that ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSNative Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 NPR wrestled with an ethical issue. News Corp has allegedly performed illegal activities as well as a variety of unethical acts on what strikes me as a much grander scale. Police commissioners did not resign in the NPR as they are in the News Corp case. I'd say that there is quite a difference. I believe NPR's actions were illegal, too. And they were pretty unsavory as are the actions in the current scandal. However, that wasn't what I was trying to ask. Do you believe that all of the higher ups at NPR knew what those individuals were doing? Do you think they should all be fired? I don't believe that NPR has a policy of breaking the law. Nor do I think that Murdoch owned outlets do. I do believe that the people responsible should be fired and the companies had better do some serious investigating. I assume NPR is doing the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy in NH Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I have one question about your statement about the press needs limits on its powers. I thought they did have limits in operating inside the law and the things they did were illegal and outside of those limits. How would you propose furthering their limits? Would limiting their power further keep them from breaking those new laws? The FCC used to regulate the media. If they didn't follow regulations, they wouldn't be re-licensed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzybluecheese Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I believe NPR's actions were illegal, too. And they were pretty unsavory as are the actions in the current scandal. I can only think of 2 recent scandals at NPR. Which one are you referring to? cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mama Geek Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Do any of you guys realize that Murdock is a Liberal? Take a look on Wikipedia. He wants nationalization of healthcare as well as other things. He has held fundraisers for the Clintons and is an Obama fan. I read that stuff about him over a year ago. I still watch Fox and prefer it over other news stations, but I watch with this in mind. My guess is that Fox and the Wall Street Journal have a conservative bend because it will make him money, not because he agrees with them. He is responsible for what goes on in his companies even if he isn't aware of it. Will that make me any less of a conservative? Absolutely not. Will I quit watching Fox News only if their format significantly changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Will I quit watching Fox News only if their format significantly changes. That's when I'll start watching Fox News ! :D (gentle joshing with you, Mama Geek!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 In that BBC World News is the only television channel that I watch at all -- (have it on in bursts several times a day) -- I definitely have kept somewhat up on this. The man displayed astonishing gall yesterday to allege that he, himself, has absolutely zero personal responsibility for anything. I know! I was gobsmacked. Really. You're the captain of the ship, you sink with it if you have to. But to be a toddler and say, "Nope, not me! I didn't do it!". Pffft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I believe NPR's actions were illegal, too. And they were pretty unsavory as are the actions in the current scandal. However, that wasn't what I was trying to ask. Do you believe that all of the higher ups at NPR knew what those individuals were doing? Do you think they should all be fired? I don't believe that NPR has a policy of breaking the law. Do you even know what happened with NPR? Because it doesn't sound like you do. A right-winged group (led by James O'Keefe who was arrested for attempting to tamper with a Senator's office phones) set up a "sting" in which they sent in bogus potential donors and the chief fundraiser at NPR made disparaging remarks about certain political groups in a private meeting. He resigned, so did the chief executive. The video in question? Even GLENN BECK'S website (the Blaze) found that everything in the video sting was taken out of context to the point of downright lying about what happened. So, on the one hand we have video of inappropriate comments (which even other right-wingers say were taken out of context) based on a set-up sting perpetrated by a "citizen reporter" who is a known right-wing, law-breaking extremist. On the other hand we have bribing of police, bribing of government officials, interfering with police investigations, hacking into the information of private citizens and on and on. You are comparing these? You think they are the same? Honestly? Is there something else that has happened with NPR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jane in NC Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Do you even know what happened with NPR? Because it doesn't sound like you do. A right-winged group (led by James O'Keefe who was arrested for attempting to tamper with a Senator's office phones) set up a "sting" in which they sent in bogus potential donors and the chief fundraiser at NPR made disparaging remarks about certain political groups in a private meeting. He resigned, so did the chief executive. The video in question? Even GLENN BECK'S website (the Blaze) found that everything in the video sting was taken out of context to the point of downright lying about what happened. So, on the one hand we have video of inappropriate comments (which even other right-wingers say were taken out of context) based on a set-up sting perpetrated by a "citizen reporter" who is a known right-wing, law-breaking extremist. On the other hand we have bribing of police, bribing of government officials, interfering with police investigations, hacking into the information of private citizens and on and on. You are comparing these? You think they are the same? Honestly? Is there something else that has happened with NPR? Thank you for writing this up, Mrs. Mungo, and saving me the trouble. ;) Perhaps the second controversy to which MSNative refers is the Juan Williams fiasco? I fail to see the moral equivalence between these issues and the alleged illegal doings of News Corp. But then I do not want anyone listening to my phone messages. Not that my phone messages are all that exciting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Do you even know what happened with NPR? Because it doesn't sound like you do. A right-winged group (led by James O'Keefe who was arrested for attempting to tamper with a Senator's office phones) set up a "sting" in which they sent in bogus potential donors and the chief fundraiser at NPR made disparaging remarks about certain political groups in a private meeting. He resigned, so did the chief executive. The video in question? Even GLENN BECK'S website (the Blaze) found that everything in the video sting was taken out of context to the point of downright lying about what happened. So, on the one hand we have video of inappropriate comments (which even other right-wingers say were taken out of context) based on a set-up sting perpetrated by a "citizen reporter" who is a known right-wing, law-breaking extremist. On the other hand we have bribing of police, bribing of government officials, interfering with police investigations, hacking into the information of private citizens and on and on. You are comparing these? You think they are the same? Honestly? Is there something else that has happened with NPR? :iagree: Here we have the perfect example of a "Red Herring Fallacy." Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzybluecheese Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Perhaps the second controversy to which MSNative refers is the Juan Williams fiasco? I was wondering this myself. I wasn't thinking of it as illegal or really even a scandal. "Fiasco" seems to fit it best. cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) Thank you for writing this up, Mrs. Mungo, and saving me the trouble. ;) Perhaps the second controversy to which MSNative refers is the Juan Williams fiasco? But, how is any of that illegal? He said something on tv that his bosses didn't like and he got fired. He now works for Fox News, making more money than NPR ever paid. Edited July 20, 2011 by Mrs Mungo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcyB Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Do any of you guys realize that Murdock is a Liberal? Take a look on Wikipedia. He wants nationalization of healthcare as well as other things. And not all conservatives disagree with this particular issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 In addition to the other huge differences between the NPR issue and this one, there wasn't dead witnesses. This is like a John Grissom novel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 :iagree: Here we have the perfect example of a "Red Herring Fallacy." Bill Ya think? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Ya think? ;) I do :D Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSNative Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 There are a couple of NPR scandals and yes, I do know what happened at least as far as diff. news outlets reported. For the record, I don't watch Fox news or listen to NPR. I don't have a dog in that fight. I really wasn't trying to get into the scandals. I was trying to focus on the result. Bad decisions, guilty people punished, not blaming an entire organization or conglomeration for the bad acts of a group of people. That was really all I was trying to say. I just wonder why one gets a pass and the other is considered rotten to the core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 There are a couple of NPR scandals and yes, I do know what happened at least as far as diff. news outlets reported. For the record, I don't watch Fox news or listen to NPR. I don't have a dog in that fight. I really wasn't trying to get into the scandals. I was trying to focus on the result. Bad decisions, guilty people punished, not blaming an entire organization or conglomeration for the bad acts of a group of people. That was really all I was trying to say. I just wonder why one gets a pass and the other is considered rotten to the core. No one got a free pass at NPR. The fundraiser responsible for making statements that were "impolitic" for a person in his position to be making resigned. So did his supervisor (who was also an involved decision maker in the Juan Williams firing controversy). Those people lost their jobs. They will not go to prison because they did not commit criminal acts. In stark contrast the actions at News Corp were criminal acts. It is a red herring to conflate the two situations. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSNative Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 No one got a free pass at NPR. The fundraiser responsible for making statements that were "impolitic" for a person in his position to be making resigned. So did his supervisor (who was also an involved decision maker in the Juan Williams firing controversy). Those people lost their jobs. They will not go to prison because they did not commit criminal acts. In stark contrast the actions at News Corp were criminal acts. It is a red herring to conflate the two situations. Bill I am not trying to compare the two acts - as I've said in many posts. I also never said that NPR got a pass - I mentioned that in pp. I'm clearly not getting my point across. I'm wondering why one entire organization is considered rotten, while in the other organization, it was seen as the bad actions of a few people. However, I will leave this discussion 'cause clearly my coffee didn't take this morning and I'm not getting my meaning across well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) I am not trying to compare the two acts - as I've said in many posts. I also never said that NPR got a pass - I mentioned that in pp. I'm clearly not getting my point across. I'm wondering why one entire organization is considered rotten, while in the other organization, it was seen as the bad actions of a few people. However, I will leave this discussion 'cause clearly my coffee didn't take this morning and I'm not getting my meaning across well. I don't actually like NewsCorps, I do have bias. I don't consider the entire organization rotten, but I do think that it requires examination. I also stated earlier in the thread that I would not be surprised if other news organizations also took part in similar actions. We have no idea if it occurred elsewhere. However when the initial discussions of hacking were taking place nothing was done. This is not a new story, this story started in 2002. If nothing was examined closely by the organization for over NINE YEARS then that does place blame on the organization as a whole for a lack of oversight. Sure, if it was just all recent and all came to light at once I would likely be less likely to place blame on Murdoch, but this is not new. It is an old story. He should have known. The actions of News of the World were not only impolitic, they were illegal. They were unethical and a whistleblower is DEAD. There is a DEAD PERSON. Edited July 20, 2011 by Sis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 It is a red herring to conflate the two situations. Bill Men need to understand that for many women, such a statement would be an excellent pick-up line. I know I would be a goner. Conflate and Red Herring! In the same sentence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Men need to understand that for many women, such a statement would be an excellent pick-up line. I know I would be a goner. Conflate and Red Herring! In the same sentence! I did initially hit on my now dh because when we were acquaintences/friends I never had to define a word for him :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 There are a couple of NPR scandals and yes, I do know what happened at least as far as diff. news outlets reported. For the record, I don't watch Fox news or listen to NPR. I don't have a dog in that fight. I really wasn't trying to get into the scandals. I was trying to focus on the result. Bad decisions, guilty people punished, not blaming an entire organization or conglomeration for the bad acts of a group of people. That was really all I was trying to say. I just wonder why one gets a pass and the other is considered rotten to the core. I am not trying to compare the two acts - as I've said in many posts. I also never said that NPR got a pass - I mentioned that in pp. I'm clearly not getting my point across. I'm wondering why one entire organization is considered rotten, while in the other organization, it was seen as the bad actions of a few people. However, I will leave this discussion 'cause clearly my coffee didn't take this morning and I'm not getting my meaning across well. :confused: However when the initial discussions of hacking were taking place nothing was done. This is not a new story, this story started in 2002. If nothing was examined closely by the organization for over NINE YEARS then that does place blame on the organization as a whole for a lack of oversight. Sure, if it was just all recent and all came to light at once I would likely be less likely to place blame on Murdoch, but this is not new. It is an old story. He should have known. The actions of News of the World were not only impolitic, they were illegal. They were unethical and a whistleblower is DEAD. There is a DEAD PERSON. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravinlunachick Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 So, do you trust NPR? It was caught in a huge ethical scandal, too. The individuals responsible were forced out. Isn't that similar to what happened in the Murdoch case? I guess I don't understand the difference. I suppose I trust NPR more than any other American news outlet. I get my news from a variety of sources, including the BBC and Al-Jazeera. It's interesting to see how things are reported from less corporate media. I wouldn't say there was a "huge ethical scandal" at NPR; a few individuals screwed up royally and found themselves on the wrong side of the door. That's the key to me; their actions were rejected by the leadership and not rampant throughout NPR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 He has held fundraisers for the Clintons and is an Obama fan. He gives money to whoever is in power. He's been heavy supporter of both parties. I think is only real affiliation is "Murdoch". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravinlunachick Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 I really should have read the last page before posting. So many said it much better than I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 And not all conservatives disagree with this particular issue. Indeed. It's my understanding that there is in fact a significant group of Republicans who would be very happy to see some kind of nationalized health system but Republican leadership is pandering hard to the extreme right/Tea Party vote right now. I was a conservative once. Then my party as co-opted by a more extreme conservative party from Western Canada. I'm sort of without a political home right now and I think it's a shame to see the same thing happen to the Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 I am not trying to compare the two acts - as I've said in many posts. I also never said that NPR got a pass - I mentioned that in pp. I'm clearly not getting my point across. I'm wondering why one entire organization is considered rotten, while in the other organization, it was seen as the bad actions of a few people. However, I will leave this discussion 'cause clearly my coffee didn't take this morning and I'm not getting my meaning across well. It's probably case of the NPR's structure compared to that of News Corp. NPR is a many headed hydra. Murdoch is clearly the head of the News Corp beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcyB Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Sorry - but most fiscal conservatives have been against nationalized healthcare long before the Tea Party made any motion to become what it has become. Don't blame that on the Tea Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 Sorry - but most fiscal conservatives have been against nationalized healthcare long before the Tea Party made any motion to become what it has become. Don't blame that on the Tea Party. I'm not sure how "significant group" and "most" clash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) Do any of you guys realize that Murdock is a Liberal? Take a look on Wikipedia. He wants nationalization of healthcare as well as other things. He has held fundraisers for the Clintons and is an Obama fan. I read that stuff about him over a year ago. I still watch Fox and prefer it over other news stations, but I watch with this in mind. My guess is that Fox and the Wall Street Journal have a conservative bend because it will make him money, not because he agrees with them. You must remember the old chap was Australian. His political baggage isn't the same as yours. Over here, even the conservatives support nationalised health care; so to someone with an Australian political mindset, both of your parties are conservative. There's just Conservative and Even-More-Conservative, so I think your guess would be incorrect. He gives money to whoever is in power. He's been heavy supporter of both parties. I think is only real affiliation is "Murdoch". That too, of course. :) Rosie Edited July 20, 2011 by Rosie_0801 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxMom Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 You must remember the old chap was Australian. His political baggage isn't the same as yours. Over here, even the conservatives support nationalised health care. To someone with an Australian political mindset, both of your parties are conservative. There's just Conservative and Even-More-Conservative. I think your guess would be incorrect. Rosie You mean, it's NOT all in my head? :001_huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 (edited) Indeed. It's my understanding that there is in fact a significant group of Republicans who would be very happy to see some kind of nationalized health system but Republican leadership is pandering hard to the extreme right/Tea Party vote right now. I was a conservative once. Then my party as co-opted by a more extreme conservative party from Western Canada. I'm sort of without a political home right now and I think it's a shame to see the same thing happen to the Republicans. I had been here a few years when that happened. I thought the former Conservative party was extremely liberal (small 'l') compared to the conservatives in the States. I still think the current PC are much more liberal than their Yankee counterparts, but definitely much more conservative than they'd ever been before. As Rosie stated in regard to the Aussie pov, it is similar here. Down south they basically have conservative and even-more-conservative, in comparison to up here. And, they are limited to the 2 parties. There are, technically, other parties down there, but the current structure eliminates any chance of representation, and effectively shuts down any other voices no matter where they are on the spectrum of opinion. If that could ever change, the extreme divisiveness might wane. Edited July 20, 2011 by Audrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swellmomma Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 You Canucks are trouble-makers. Everyone knows that!:laugh: At least we are polite about it ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I am not trying to compare the two acts - as I've said in many posts. I also never said that NPR got a pass - I mentioned that in pp. I'm clearly not getting my point across. I'm wondering why one entire organization is considered rotten, while in the other organization, it was seen as the bad actions of a few people. However, I will leave this discussion 'cause clearly my coffee didn't take this morning and I'm not getting my meaning across well. The reason is because, in the case of News Corp a large number of top company officials appear to be guilt of serious crimes. One newspaper has already been forced to fold. People will very likely go to jail. Government officials have been implicated. It is very serious matter. At NPR there was a personal decision that may have been poorly handled and a fundraiser that made impolitic statements about members of the Tea Party. At the same time the fundraiser was clear that financial contribution to NPR would not (could not) affect the news coverage. There is not a remote similarity in the circumstances. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 I had been here a few years when that happened. I thought the former Conservative party was extremely liberal (small 'l') compared to the conservatives in the States. I still think the current PC are much more liberal than their Yankee counterparts, but definitely much more conservative than they'd ever been before. As Rosie stated in regard to the Aussie pov, it is similar here. Down south they basically have conservative and even-more-conservative, in comparison to up here. And, they are limited to the 2 parties. There are, technically, other parties down there, but the current structure eliminates any chance of representation, and effectively shuts down any other voices no matter where they are on the spectrum of opinion. If that could ever change, the extreme divisiveness might wane. Yup. I honestly think many Americans don't know what liberal really means sometimes. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatCyndiGirl Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Yup. I honestly think many Americans don't know what liberal really means sometimes. :) Perhaps a spin-off, but I would love to hear more about this. :bigear: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 Perhaps a spin-off, but I would love to hear more about this. :bigear: That was sort of a condescending way for me to phrase it but the political spectrum seems VERY narrow to many of us outside the US. As others have said there seems to be conservative (Democrats), very conservative (Republicans) and extremely conservative (Tea Party). There's no left on the spectrum at all that most of us outside the US would recognize. Socialist parties are the left outside the US. You guys don't seem to have any party in that space at all. The political discussion in the US seems very restricted because of that lack. So when you guys toss around the term liberal you use it in a way that just doens't seem to reflect what the rest of the Western democracies think it means. I know some in the US would claim the rest of us are on the extreme left but when you're the only kid in the block claiming "right" means "in the middle" it might be time to take a good look at how you define your terms. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatCyndiGirl Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 That was sort of a condescending way for me to phrase it but the political spectrum seems VERY narrow to many of us outside the US. As others have said there seems to be conservative (Democrats), very conservative (Republicans) and extremely conservative (Tea Party). There's no left on the spectrum at all that most of us outside the US would recognize. Socialist parties are the left outside the US. You guys don't seem to have any party in that space at all. The political discussion in the US seems very restricted because of that lack. So when you guys toss around the term liberal you use it in a way that just doens't seem to reflect what the rest of the Western democracies think it means. I know some in the US would claim the rest of us are on the extreme left but when you're the only kid in the block claiming "right" means "in the middle" it might be time to take a good look at how you define your terms. :D Ah, thank you for explaining that. I agree with you, fwiw. I was in another country during the Clinton Administration and the difference in how Central Americans handled the news of his activities was shocking when compared to US Citizens. :lol: And, I'm sure you know that in the US it is akin to cursing to call someone a Socialist. Indeed, when the ultra-right (wrong) really wanna stick it to our sitting President......they call him one. :001_huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Ah, thank you for explaining that. I agree with you, fwiw. I was in another country during the Clinton Administration and the difference in how Central Americans handled the news of his activities was shocking when compared to US Citizens. :lol: And, I'm sure you know that in the US it is akin to cursing to call someone a Socialist. Indeed, when the ultra-right (wrong) really wanna stick it to our sitting President......they call him one. :001_huh: They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffeefreak Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 At least we are polite about it ;) ;) Yup. I honestly think many Americans don't know what liberal really means sometimes. :) :svengo: OMG! NO! My Left-Wing Democrat ears did not hear that! I typed out this big long response, and then realized it would be BANNED! So, I better not reply. However, :iagree:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means. ;) :lol::lol::lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Murdoch is a liberal? Can we help him with a coming out party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mama Geek Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I realize that Socialism and Communism are about as far left as you can get. There are some socialist that have been elected to public office in this country. They just can't call themselves that because as said in a previous post socialism is a bad word. What worries me and others that are on the far right is watching our country quickly moving towards that. And yes many of the Republicans have pushed us in that direction as well. Historically the US was founded on principles of limited government and individual liberty. Some of us hate to see it move away from that and it has been happening for decades. I really think we might as well kiss the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence goodbye because they are no longer part of our government. I have talked to people who have left oppressive communist or socialist countries, they are the people that really appreciate the freedoms we are supposed to have. I am not trying to get into a major debate here, I am answering in response to the claims that the US doesn't know what liberal is. The only thing that I didn't realize is that apparently Canada and Australia are far more left that the left in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keptwoman Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 You must remember the old chap was Australian. His political baggage isn't the same as yours. Over here, even the conservatives support nationalised health care; so to someone with an Australian political mindset, both of your parties are conservative. There's just Conservative and Even-More-Conservative, so I think your guess would be incorrect.Rosie I was thinking the exact same thing. That was sort of a condescending way for me to phrase it but the political spectrum seems VERY narrow to many of us outside the US. As others have said there seems to be conservative (Democrats), very conservative (Republicans) and extremely conservative (Tea Party). There's no left on the spectrum at all that most of us outside the US would recognize. Socialist parties are the left outside the US. You guys don't seem to have any party in that space at all. The political discussion in the US seems very restricted because of that lack. So when you guys toss around the term liberal you use it in a way that just doens't seem to reflect what the rest of the Western democracies think it means. I know some in the US would claim the rest of us are on the extreme left but when you're the only kid in the block claiming "right" means "in the middle" it might be time to take a good look at how you define your terms. :D Ayup. Except that I'm not sure that even most of our (Au/NZ) leftie parties are what I would consider hugely socialist. Socialist leanings maybe, but not pure socialist. I haven't seen anything on the US political landscape that comes even marginally close to Socialist, much as they may like to throw that word about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuntieM Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 So as I'm scanning the Fox News web site today, there's a glaring omission. This Rupert Murdoch story is COMPLETELY ABSENT from the site. At least, not where I could find it. Not on the home page. Not on the world news page. Now I am a conservative and I appreciate conservative news sources (among the several that I read). But the absence of any reporting on this story - big, big international news! - just reinforces the idea that Murdoch is a control freak dictating the flow of news to the masses. No person (and no single corporation, government, or other entity) should have that kind of power. Maybe we - the majority of pleasure-pursuing Americans - really do have our heads in the sand. I know there's an informed fraction, but the majority seems listless and impotent to act. I imagine our Founding Fathers would be frustrated beyond belief. I do have a question. When did Murdoch acquire Fox? Seems like I remember a few years back when the website went from news based to entertainment/sensation based. I recall thinking the change was very, very obvious. Anyone else remember that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I do have a question. When did Murdoch acquire Fox? Seems like I remember a few years back when the website went from news based to entertainment/sensation based. I recall thinking the change was very, very obvious. Anyone else remember that? Well, it was never credible. I stopped paying attention to it pretty early, and so I didn't notice the transition. No even remote pretense of impartial reporting. I thought that it was disgusting to call it a 'news' outlet. No responsibility to the fourth estate--way too biased for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts