Ann Coulter on Rupert Murdoch

[Tez3]

According to news releases today, the whistleblower who helped the Brits with thier inviestigation said that Mr murdoch's son knew about and approved of the tactices being used. Supposedly, this is backed up by emails. If this is true, then at least one member of high management should be prosecuted.

If a political commentator goes on a national show and states that we bombed Egypt, then back tracks to say we threatened to bomb Egypt and that is why there was regime change there, they lose tons of credability with me. It doesn't matter who's side they represent. Falshoods are falshoods, no matter how deprately you want to make your point. Coulter did this on Bill Mahr's show.

It's actually one of Murdoch's lawyers and one of his editors who are saying he knew, the whistleblower died this week under unknown circumstances.

 

[Twin Fist]

IF he knew, then he should be prosecuted

if there is no proof he knew, it should be dropped

very simple

 

[RandomPhantom700]

IF he knew, then he should be prosecuted

if there is no proof he knew, it should be dropped

very simple

Agreed, but that's kind of what the investigations and Parliamentary hearings are for.

 

[Sukerkin]

IF he knew, then he should be prosecuted

if there is no proof he knew, it should be dropped

very simple

It isn't quite that simple when it comes to heads of companies. Even if they don't know about something that has been done by their subordinates the chain of responsibility and authority says that they should know. Part of why they take home the big salaries (and tend to get even huger golden handshakes when they leave) is that they are supposed to accept responsibility when things go wrong, just as they bask in glory when things go right.

 

[Twin Fist]

then why wasnt les moonves investigated when dan rather tried to interfere with an election?

 

[Sukerkin]

I don't know. A question you should perhaps put to the legislators and politicians in charge at the time?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

then why wasnt les moonves investigated when dan rather tried to interfere with an election?

Those are two entirely separate situations, and getting bogged down in arguing over a red herring isn't worth it. Murdoch owns the company, his employees committed widespread malfeasance, and there is question as to whether Murdoch approved, knew, or should have known about it. An investigation into such a widespread scandal is only natural.

You said earlier that his owning Fox news is the only reason he's being persecuted. Personally, I think that's the only real reason you're defending him.

 

[Sukerkin]

You said earlier that his owning Fox news is the only reason he's being persecuted.

Did John really say that in this thread? I missed that if he did. I can assure him that over here whether he owns Fox News is not why he (or his son at least) is going to be before a Parliamentary committee.

 

[Tez3]

Murdoch has owned media outlets here long before he bought any in America, it's his actions or lack of them and his knowledge of what went on he is being questioned about. The fact that he owns Fox is of no interest to the British as it has no bearing on the proceedings here.

 

[Twin Fist]

i hope that is true.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Did John really say that in this thread? I missed that if he did. I can assure him that over here whether he owns Fox News is not why he (or his son at least) is going to be before a Parliamentary committee.

See post #28:

it is a given fact that if Murdoch didnt also happen to own Fox News, that this wanton and flagrant persecution wouldnt be happening.

 

[Tez3]

'Fox' has only come up when Murdoch's companies are noted, most Brits don't actually know what Fox is other than a 'television company', we have a Conservative government and it's hardly likely to pick on rich Conservative supporter Murdoch just for the fun of it. We don't have despite what some might to think, politically angled news stations or TV companies here.

 

[granfire]

'Fox' has only come up when Murdoch's companies are noted, most Brits don't actually know what Fox is other than a 'television company', we have a Conservative government and it's hardly likely to pick on rich Conservative supporter Murdoch just for the fun of it. We don't have despite what some might to think, politically angled news stations or TV companies here.

Shucks, actually reporting news what a novel concept!

 

[SensibleManiac]

Oh, I actually thought this was a post with a picture of Ann Coulter on Rupert Murdoch. Literally.

My bad.

 

[Sukerkin]

:chuckles: Have you seen his wife? Amazing what a huge bank balance can buy you.

 

[granfire]

:chuckles: Have you seen his wife? Amazing what a huge bank balance can buy you.

LOL, yeah, like 'The Donald' arm candy....

(though, I am sure she was protecting her meal ticket)

 

[RandomPhantom700]

:chuckles: Have you seen his wife? Amazing what a huge bank balance can buy you.

Package deal, trophy wife and bodyguard.

 

[Big Don]

Oh, I actually thought this was a post with a picture of Ann Coulter on Rupert Murdoch. Literally.

My bad.

That is so friggin wrong eww eww eww
that stick figure and that OLD man eww

 

[billc]

No one here believes in true love? Love at first sight?

 

[Twin Fist]

I believe lots of women see a millionaire and it is love at first sight, yes