Skip to main content

What Rupert really thinks and feels - without the spin doctors

The Indpendent, rightly, puts into context what Rupert really thinks and feels about the enveloping scandal surrounding his newspaper world. Forget about the more recent alleged hand-wringing, full page apologies in newspapers, etc. etc. That's the spin doctors at work.

"It was the oddest of comments. In his first significant remarks since the News of the World scandal broke, Rupert Murdoch had this to say: "The damage to the company is nothing that will not be recovered. We have a reputation of great good works in this country. I think he [James] acted as fast as he could, the moment he could. When I hear something going wrong, I insist on it being put right." He added that News Corporation, the giant US media group which owns News International in the UK, had handled the crisis "extremely well in every possible way", making only "minor mistakes".

Then, when asked by the interviewer on his own newspaper The Wall Street Journal, whether he had been upset by all the negative publicity, Murdoch replied: "Just getting annoyed. I'll get over it. I'm tired."

Tired? How could the greatest media tycoon of all time, the Australian newspaper man who came to Britain in the 1960s to buy the News of the World, going on to snap up some of the country's most treasured newspapers, and build a $40bn (£25bn) TV and cable network in the United States, give in to such a prosaic condition at such a crucial time? Or is it true, as the Telegraph's former owner Lord Black said last week, that while Murdoch is quite an agreeable chap, he has no loyalty to anyone, has betrayed all his friends and political leaders and cares only about his company? It certainly seemed so as the 80-year-old then made no attempt to apologise for hacking the phones of vulnerable families, making payments to police officers or closing the UK's biggest selling newspaper. If it was an attempt to fight back, it was pathetic. One thing is sure – he didn't have any spin-doctors telling him what to say then."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...