Good afternoon Martin and welcome to FDL this afternoon.

Hey there spocko, welcome back and thanks for hosting this afternoon’s Book Salon!

A quick reminder for our new readers/commenters:

To follow along, you will have to refresh your browser:
 PC = F5 key, MAC = Command+R keys

If you want to ask a question – just type it in the Leave Your Response box & Submit Comment.


If you are responding to a comment – use the Reply button under the number, then type your response in the box, Submit Comment.

Martin, Welcome to the Lake.

Spocko, thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.

Thank you, Martin and Spocko, for joining us this early evening (right coast time, here).

DW

Hi world. Martin here. Looking forward to some engaging chat.

Martin, I have not had an opportunity to read your book so forgive me if you address this in there but how was Murdoch and Co able to embed themselves so deeply into the news fabric in the fashion described? I know the perception I’ve had is that the UK news business has always been a bit free flowing but obviously they went beyond the pale by hacking into private individuals phones.

Did they do these things for blackmail or just because they could?

One of the things that I’d like people to know is the extent to which Murdoch’s people threaten and reward politicians. Could you talk bit specifically about how it’s done? How are politicians paid by the papers, who whispers to whom to get things to change and how are they attacked both privately and publicly?

Aye, a central question, Spocko, and important in the USA, possibly, as well. Although I doubt that the political class, which includes the media, here, are much given to infighting, when domination and control are the “collective” aim.

DW

Well, Rupert Murdoch has been operating for a long time in the UK. He bought his first newspaper here, the News of the World, in 1969 and has been building his power ever since.

British newspapers – especially the popular, or ‘redtop’, ones have been fairly wild for a while, but Murdoch’s papers were the most extreme by far. They certainly used what they called ‘leverage’; getting dirt on powerful people that could be held over them.

Murdoch exerted power over politicians in, probably, three ways. Firstly, they wanted the support of his newspapers, which have 40 per cent of the readership. Secondly, they sometimes dug dirt about private lives, or had the ability to dig dirt on private lives – which scared some politicians. And, thirdly and lastly, his newspapers often recruited politicians to write columns, at a rate many times their lawmaker’s salary.

But what leverage would they think they could hold over someone like that one young girl who went missing (and her family)

Martin is being kind when he said ‘fairly wild’. I think that the blatant lawbreaking and invasion of the privacy on “and industrial scale” is something that I didn’t totally expect.

And it wasn’t just phone hacking. Computer hacking, Blagging (lying to the phone company or DMV to get home numbers and addresses), blackmail and breaking into houses.

What is interesting to me is that when it was movie stars, TV presenters or footballers (we would call them soccer players here) the public wasn’t really that concerned about the invasion of privacy.
It was finally when they went after the parents of missing and dead children that got people upset.

Leverage was only used sometimes, usually with powerful people, such as ‘we will not publish this damaging story, if you will co-operate with us’ – which happened with the most successful footballer manager here, Manchester United’s Sir Alex Ferguson.
Other times Murdoch’s newspapers were using electronic spying – hacking voicemails etc – to land stories straight off, as they were doing with Milly Dowler, the 13-year-old girl who went missing.
There’s no doubt that the behaviour of some of Murdoch’s journalists was despicable.

For example, Foreign Secretary, William Hague, who, while in opposition, received 195,000 pounds a year for a column in the News of the Wolrd and aound 300,000 pounds from Harper collines for his biographies of William Pitt the Younger and William Wilberforce (bestsellers I’m sure!)

That’s a very good point, Spocko. I personally feel that using illegal methods such as hacking to land stories about celebrity tittle-tattle is unacceptable. But it was only after the Milly Dowler story happened last year that the public mood in Britain really swung against the Murdochs.
One of the problems, of course, was that the scale and importance of the hacking scandal was being suppressed by Murdoch’s own newspapers, and many others, before the Dowler story broke.

Martin could you talk a bit about how the police limited the first investigations? How were the royals involved and why weren’t the hacking of others followed up on?

Basically, Rupert Murdoch and his leading executives have a coterie of powerful political supporters, in both the Labour and Conservatives parties. It’s very strange for me (and I’m sure many others here in the UK) to hear some of these people – including, most notoriously, our Education minister Michael Gove – say Murdoch is a brilliant and admirable man.

thank you, mr hickman, for being here today and writing this book with mr watson. spocko, thank you for hosting.

this book was an unexpected page turner and by the time i finished it, i was so ticked off — i want every one of those forkers in jail. i don’t think this was limited to just the uk either — do you think the same type of offenses are going on here?

Yes, it is the media collusion which keeps people in the dark, Martin. Here, in the US, that practice, in service to the corporate class, is ubiquitous.

DW

Something very strange happened with the police. They were called in to investigate the hacking of the phones of the Royal Family: Prince William’s secrets were appearing in the News of the World. Detectives raided the home and offices of a private investigator and a Murdoch journalist. They found 11,000 pages of notes containing names of famous people, phone numbers and PINs. But they did almost nothing.

Just to follow up on the Education theme. In the US Murdoch hired Joel Klein, former New York Chancellor of schools to head his education division. They are paying him 4.3 million dollars a year. Once he got in he was put in charge of the internal review of the hacking scandal. Murdoch believes that there is money to be made in education (i.e. sucking up public tax dollars for corporate entities and for-profit education software and schools.

I’m curious, did Klein actually declare any “results” to the public or was he just put in charge because he was new on the team and supposedly “independent?”

Suzanne,
So pleased you found the book hard to put down.
I think the extremely competitive nature of the UK newspaper market – 9 national papers all competing with each other was a factor in phone hacking – and it’s fair to say it was probably going on, albeit at a lesser scale on other tabloid newspapers here. But it flourished under the warped ‘do whatever it takes’ culture fostered by Murdoch. I don’t know of it happening elsewhere, but I wouldn’t be surprised: Murdoch’s US and Australian papers, not to mention Fox, have been accused of highly unethical practices.

I hear you Suzanne. I too found this to be a page turner. I would also like to know if it is happening here and specifically what is the status of the FBI investigation into the alleged hacking into 9/11 victims phones.

Klein was in charge of News Corp’s ‘independent’ committee tasked with cleaning up the mess.

It’s handed the police some material about bribery at Murdoch’s daily UK newspaper The Sun, but it doesn’t report to the public.

The truth is we don’t know exactly what Klein and his colleagues found in the ethical swamp of Murdoch’s UK newspaper HQ, Wapping.

There have been accusations and I know that Elliot Spritzer mentioned it once and we all know what happened to him when he took on Wall Street.
I know you don’t know the US political scene as well, but if you were to give advice to people who wanted to find out about what is happening in the US re; News Corp, Fox, what would it be?

Two areas that we might find helpful 1) What did Tom Watson learn as a politician going after them. 2) From a journalist point of view what did you learn, or mistakes to avoid 3)From a legal point of view, what Lewis learned

DW,
US newspapers have a good reputation. Are they in hock to corporate interests

I’m going to let DW run with that one. :-)

Martin – welcome to the Lake and thank you for this great book!

And Spocko – thank you for the perfect intro essay!

I too thought I knew the story until I started reading and then … oh my! there’s so much to uncover and this book sure does that.

1. Tom learned early you have to co-operate with like-minded individuals. Build a team.

2. Keep digging. If the Guardian’s Nick Davies had given up when he was faced with a wall of lies – from News Corp and the police – all this would have stayed secret.

3. Civil court cases were key, because of disclosure. The police didn’t want to disclose documents but their lawyers didn’t/couldn’t hide them. They had to start handing over pieces of evidence which they’d ignored.

The “mainstream media”, as it is known here, is/are entirely corporate creatures.

The “news” is filtered through corporate AND political interests.

We do NOT have a functioning news media, simply a propaganda machine.

Most critically important news, beyond superficial “coverage, is ONLY to be found at sites such as FDL, where we have several stellar reporters, David Dayen and Kevin Gosztola, among them.

It is a very depressing situation which “the people” in this nation face.

Almost as depressing as the current “choices” of the traditional political parties for the Presidency …

DW

Hello Martin, if you’re in England, you’re up late. Apologies for not having read the book yet. But, I’ve followed at least the bare bones of the story- lived in the UK for 10 years long ago- back in “Barge the Argies” days. (Tabloid headline.)

I don’t know if you address this in your book, but I’m sure you will have an informed answer: Was/is the driving force for Murdoch and Co. egregious behavior fundamentally money? Or power? Or pushing an ideological agenda?

For the money part, that would include direct monetary gain for the Murdoch empire (e.g. sell more papers), political influence to further even greater control of the media (for further monetary gain, political influence to help friends and family become richer.

Power: just because I can.

Ideological agenda: I can see this being of lesser importance re: Murdoch in the UK vs. in the US. But that’s just a guess.

Apologies for the long question.

Hey Siun,

Thanks very much. What did you like about it?

Great to “see” you here, Siun.

A great Book Salon, already.

;~DW

Valley Girl,
That’s a great question: what motivates Murdoch? He certainly likes the power, which comes partly from adding up his bank balance, but I don’t think money is the most important thing to him.

He is very political. He has an agenda – right wing, free market, anti-trade union etc – which he wants to foist on politicians and the public.

I can’t control myself…
One of the things that happened in the UK over and over again is that Murdoch made promises about how he would keep companies “independent” but as Tom Watson pointed out Murdoch had breached his assurances on The Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and the News of the World. While he was trying to control BSkyB his company was subject to three police inquiries.

Now what do you know about his involvement with the Wall Street Journal? Didn’t he make some kind of assurances about independence? Yet this is what he said during his hearing when questioned about his role with News of the World.
“I’m not really in touch, ” I have got to tell you that, if their is an editor that I spend most time with it is the editor of the Wall Street Journal, because I am in the same building.” I’m sure they just talk about sausage rolls.

DW,
One of the problems we have here is a dumbing down of the media. News bulletins get shorter and shorter, and ever more glib.
What about US channels? No good?

In the US, Martin, Murdoch’s agenda, as you describe it, IS, precisely, the agenda of the media, in general. In some instances, more blatantly so than others, however, it is the prevailing meme.

DW

Same thing, here, in spades, Martin.

And, for the most part, the public … is “amused” and bemused.

DW

IIRC, Murdoch’s “promise” about the Wall Street Journal was that it would maintain its then “editorial” standards – since the WSJ editorially was about as hard right as it could be, it was an easy promise. Unfortunately, it was the reporting side of things that has gone downhill at the WSJ

Boy, and foist he does. Just like Roger Ailes does via Fox. Murdoch meets with the PM, the former News of the World editor was the spokesperson for PM Cameron.

Can you imagine our President Dick Cheney meeting regularly with Murdoch and letting his media empire support this goals…. oops, no need to imagine.

Murdoch has a miserable record of breaking his promises on editorial independence. Time and again he says he won’t interfere and then does. Just ask Harry Evans!

He swore blind to the Bancroft family that he was ethical; I wonder if they regret selling him such a great paper now? Still, they sold at the top of the market so probably not…

Martin- wow! thanks for your response. Most illuminating.

For whatever reason, my assumptions were in the wrong order.

Spot on, dakine.

DW

The problem, in a way, is that Murdoch doesn’t need to interfere directly in his newspapers. He appoints editors who know his interests (political and commercial) and don’t go against them.

It’s a weird game. Rupert can say he doesn’t interfere and his editors can say he doesn’t try to influence them.

But what appears is just what he wants.

In a session in front of parliament, Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch were questioned. I know that Tom Watson carefully rehearsed his questions, but the Murdochs were also carefully rehearsed by lawyers and PR people.

If you were to assist in that questioning session what would you have asked?

(FYI, I’m always interested in both to ask great questions and how to ask follow ups that can’t be dismissed. I also like to figure out what dismissal and denial strategies they use so they can be busted.)

Hi Martin,

What I enjoyed – and respected – was being able to see the whole situation laid out, with details and names and timelines. I listen to the BBC every night so I’ve followed their coverage but that just gives you the bullet points, you fill in the real story and especially the people.

I think the funniest thing in recent US political history is when Murdoch didn’t back Obama. He’s usually careful to back winners. Murdoch did some crawling to catch up afterwards, but I imagine the President hasn’t forgotten.

Yeah, I liked that too. I also appreciated the stress that it put on Watson and others who went after Murdoch. One of the things that the big corporations do is buy silence. You do you take almost one million pounds or do you spill your story?

The buying of silence is one of the main ways that they kept this story, “in a box” for years. And by keeping it in a box they almost got to be the buyers of the BSkyB network which is huge. The papers have a lot of power but the tv networks is what throws off the cash.

Fancy that. We have a phrase in this nation, “Who could have known/imagined?”

But the term “sexed-up”, which might seem familiar to you is applicable to the “translation” of “editorial comment” as it reflects the wishes of the corporate and political classes. What they want … they get … almost as if by “magic”.

;~DW

So, is Murdoch backing Romney? Do you know?

The lawmakers have been accused of not asking every good questions, my co-author aside, but I think they did pretty well (well, the ones) working for the public.

The problem is that the Murdochs stalled, blustered, dissembled and misinformed.

Their grilling by the Leveson Inquiry was better because there was only one questioner, a lawyer – and he had seen the secret documents.

US news media is very dumbed down but I’d probably say even more so that it’s been eviscerated. No foreign desks, no investigative work, etc – what used to be a very vibrant press is not more rewrites of AP than actual journalism even when it’s not driven by ideology such as Fox/Murdoch. At times, some do a very good job – for example, I find Anderson Cooper often quite good when there’s a big story (Katrina, Egypt, etc) since he seems to see his role as representing the human scale in the big story and that tends to get at good info but overall, no much good out there. I do listen to BBC World Service so I can at least get a taste of news outside the celebrity stuff here or the DC drama. And I read FT, some of the Independent & Guardian and follow Al Jazeera as well. All needed to try to replicate what journalism was at one time – thinking of the old Herald Tribune or such. (ah, nostalgia for real newspapers worth reading!)

This is what I wanted to know. And also something that I will recommend to my friends at Free Press and Media Matters. The key here is to get them in a position where they need to comment UNDER OATH. So then they can be busted for perjury if they lie or obstruction of justice when you find out that they are deleting emails.

As may be, Martin, but “things” are such that Obama has serious “need” of Murdoch and his ilk.

Both Presidential candidates are beholding to big banking “interests”, to BIG money, so have a great concern with having a happy relationship with the opinion “shapers”, who, naturally “work” for Murdock and those like him, in print as well as on the airwaves.

Speaking of banks, what is the public “mood”, in the UK, regarding the banks and their upper management, these days?

DW

One of the most illuminating things is the way different people responded to this scandal. There were some victims who took the cash and stayed quiet, and others who demanded to know the truth, and for others to know that truth too.

A few politicians were great, but most were indifferent or venal.

It’s fascinating to see people’s character being tested – and they responded tells us, I think, a lot about them.

Could a phone hacking scandal – the grave abuse of the law – have happened at a US newspaper?

Martin; I was unfamiliar with a few institutions that you have in the UK that we don’t have here in the US. Could you please explain what the Press Complains Commission is and how it failed?

What the Commons culture Committee is and why it was questioning Murdoch?

Finally could you explain what groups were supposed to be responsible for blocking deals that would make less competition and how their mission was subverted?

You’re right. Giving evidence under OATH raises the stakes. Murdoch’s executives lied for year while giving evidence to Parliamentary committees. Yet nothing has happened to them under the law because of that. It’s one of the loopholes in our system that this scandal has highlighted.

The Press Complaints Commission is the press regulator. Funded by the main newspaper groups, it failed to find evidence of what had been happening under its nose – rampant phone hacking. And even accused journalists investigating the scandal of exaggerating their stories.

The Commons Culture Committee, an independent committee of the House of Commons, can investigate anything of interest in the media, arts or sport. The Murdochs were required to appear before it because the committee had been misled (ie, lied to) by their executives during two previous inquiries into phone hacking.

We have no effective Rule of Law, any longer, Martin.

It appears that those like Murdock “lead” in the UK, here, anything “goes”, and it is primarily the government which does the spying … civil rights are under unrelenting assault. And our President claims the power to kill anyone, anytime, and any where, that it pleases him to do so, including American citizens, all without due process of law.

Politicians say things, here, which I should like to imagine would not be tolerated in the UK … although I admit to not being entirely sanguine in that faint “hope”.

DW

There is, essentially, no regulation here, of the press, of the banks, of corporations, generally.

DW

People hate the banks now. There’s a feeling that lots of bad things were happening – phone hacking, fixing bank interest rates etc – that we only know about now, years later.

The phone hacking scandal really has shocked people here. Many members of the public thought it was all about listening in to the messages of a few celebrities. But it involves computer hacking and bribery and blagging (conning data out of people), and powerful people looking after their own rather than the public’s interest.

Meaningful regulation, I should say.

DW

I’m amazed at some of the stunts that Fox News pulls. How do they get away with it? Don’t people realise what’s going on?
We actually have impartial TV news shows here; though Rupert Murdoch once said he would like Sky News to be more like Fox.

Hmm your last line applies to the unfolding scandal around one of our well-known universities.

Google the Freeh report on Penn State, when you’ve a moment … I think you will find it “interesting” … it is also applicable at the national level.

DW

The one thing people need to bear in mind is that Murdoch does not want anyone in his employ who he cannot trust to do things exactly as he wants them done. Mavericks don’t last long with him. If people make it into his top echelon, it’s because he knows that they will do exactly what he wants them to do — no more, no less.

Good question. I’m going to say yes, but, just like the UK there will be a “cut out” between the paper and the actual illegal act. But I also think that these actions are most likely to happen in this fashion.

1) Low level blogger (James O’Keefe) will do some “investigation reporting that will involved edited footage. This will make a person (shirley sherrod) or group (ACORN, Planned Parenthood, NPR) look bad.
2) Our “tabloid” press – Drudge, Brietbart’s Big sites will run the story (They are like your redtops.)
3) The mainstream press will pick up this story (with out checking the facts) because it is “out there”
4) Institutions will get demands to act. “Fire someone! Cut funding”
5) An institution will be pressured to act. They will fire someone, they will shut down funding BASED ON FALSE INFO but also on a bad “public perception”
6) Eventually it will be revealed that the video was edited or the comments were deliberately taken out of context.
7) The damage has been done. The spreader of lies has accomplished their goal (ACORN is destroyed)
8) The spreader of lies is funded by secret elements to do more of this work.
9) The people who are attempting to block this are told that there is no money for this kind of work.
–or they are told the press will do it’s job and not be suckered next time.
10) The Mainstream Press forgets until next time that the spreaders of this misinformation strike; since they use a new name but the same techniques. So, for example, James O’Keefe is training people around the country to do the same thing he did.

No, many people, here, even “well-educated” people, are little interested in the world beyond their own immediate concerns.

The Libor scandal is little-covered by the media, here, and many, even university professors, for example, know nothing about it.

The people of this nation are, at the moment, quite “sheepish”, shall we say?

DW

Interesting that there are still impartial TV news shows. BBC, or independents? Although to an American ear “impartial” sounds like “fair and balanced” meaning no attempt at analysis as to the merits of differing views. Maybe you could explain the UK version of “impartial”.

One of the most revealing resignations was of Les Hinton. Hinton had been with Murdoch for almost 50 years and ran the British newspapers when they were hacking, bribing, blagging and blackmailing.

Before he took charge of Dow Jones.

He had to go, something which Murdoch has been unwilling to do.

Great comment, Valley Girl.

;~DW

Broadcasting laws require TV news to be fair and balanced. TV news does do analysis, but we don’t have shock-jocks spouting rubbish.
On the other hand, the press is feral and we have newspaper columnists who are stupid, bigoted, myopic ignoramuses. Professionally. Because it engages/enrages the expected and often real prejudices of readers.

Dow Jones, of course being owned by Murdoch, Martin.

A fact some might not be aware of.

DW

Spocko is very knowledgeable on this and provides a great answer.

As I was reading your book, I suddenly paused and thought, wonder if it’s done here too … and why haven’t we asked about that?

That’s very interesting. What happens here is that newspapers – often parroting the ideological view of their proprietor – have a big role in setting the TV news agenda. What you’re saying is that in the US twisted news on websites infects the print and TV news?

I want to make sure that you answer another other questions first, but
I’d like to know what the current status is of some of the main players
kind of a a “Where are they now?” Did they serve time, what did they have to resign and did they pay any fines?

So for example
Rupert Murdoch
James Murdoch
Rebekah Brooks, editor
Andy Coulson, editor, spokesperson for PM
colin Myler, editor
Tom Crone, Legal director
Neville Thurlbeck, chief reporter
Clive Goodman, Royal editor

MET Police
Sir Paul Stephenson, Commissioner
John Yates, Assistan Commissioner

Private Detectives
Steve Whittamore
Glenn Mulcaire
Jonathan Rees (accused of Murder)

Tommy Sheridan

Good point DW in addition to Martin’s about people’s reaction.

I know that there have been suspicions that 9/11 victims had their voicemails hacked by the Murdoch press. So far, no one has been able to prove that so we must assume it didn’t happen. If it was ever proved, the shock would shake Murdoch’s News Corp to its foundations.

We used to have what was known as the “Fairness Doctrine”, which enforced a more balanced “playing field” … it was rescinded by President Ronald Reagan, who is Barack Obama’s hero, as he is willing to consistently, if not constantly, remind the American public.

Which reminds me, do you consider that any “shift” occurred during the Thatcher years which may, or might, have led, in some wee fashion, to what your society has been experiencing “of late”?

DW

Ah, the big question.

A treasure, you are, spocko.

DW

Ding, ding! We have a winner! Give the man cigar!
Or what would they say in the UK, ‘Brilliant. Bob’s your uncle. Spot on.”

The role of Matt Drudge, our right wing radio hosts and to a lesser extent the Breitbart sites drive a lot of the same kind of stories in the political world that your ‘redtops’ do. (By the way I didn’t know what ‘redtops’ meant until I looked at a photo of one. They have actual “Redtop” on the front page. Duh!)

Rupert Murdoch – lost his reputation, but still a free, wealthy and powerful man
James Murdoch – lost his reputation and key jobs
Rebekah Brooks, editor – lost job and charged with conspiracy to pervert course of justice
Andy Coulson, editor, spokesperson for PM – lost job and charged conspiracy to pervert course of justice
colin Myler, editor – lost job, now editing New York Daily News
Tom Crone, Legal director – lost job
Neville Thurlbeck, chief reporter – lost job, may face phone hacking charge
Clive Goodman, Royal editor – lost job and jailed in 2007. Now freelance journalists

MET Police
Sir Paul Stephenson, Commissioner – resigned and retired
John Yates, Assistan Commissioner – resigned, now police chief in repressive Bahrain (where there are pro-democracy protests)

Private Detectives
Steve Whittamore – Convicted of data protection breaches, but not jailed
Glenn Mulcaire – Jailed in 2007 and may face new charges
Jonathan Rees (accused of Murder) – Acquitted of that murder. Not sure where he is.

Tommy Sheridan – Jailed for lying on oath during court case against Murdoch’s News of the World. Now released and trying to quash his conviction (Coulson is charged with lying during the trial which put Sheridan behind bars)

Without taking this too far afield, I think that “fair and balanced” has a different meaning or at least connotation here than in the UK. The phrase “fair and balanced” used here, at least by citizen critics of the media, is a bit tongue in cheek ? meaning loss of real journalism.

I don’t know about TV in the UK now, so I can only go from long ago experience. But, back in my day (cough) the TV news shows (BBC) had “news readers”. They were not celebrities. They indeed “read” the news. I don’t know who wrote what they “read”, but there was not the obvious cult of personality that prevailed and prevails in US TV news. And, I guess it depends how you define news shows. The BBC “news” was separate from the BBC shows that had investigative reporting- I’m struggling to come up with names. But BBC “news” and BBC “news analysis” were different programmes.

I don’t think that US TV has ever had this distinction- the news reporting has always been personality driven (uh, now corporate driven).

AH ha! We share the same thoughts!

One of the things that I’ve learned is that the media doesn’t like to look into the media.
The Government doesn’t want to look into the media because anything that they do will be met with screams of “We have a 1st Amendment and a free press!” so even if there is criminal behavior other NON-criminal entities in the media will not push the government to look into it because of fear of press censorship. Right wing “media” use this to hide illegal actions.

So for example James O’Keefe is a “citizen journalist” whose ‘investigative reporting” needs to be protected.

You will also find liberals who will support RW media that might be breaking the law on “an industrial” scale, just because they are afraid that the government will overreach. And, given the Bush admin (and frankly the Obama admin too) they are right not to be trusted.

What I wish is that there could be independent groups that could help expose actual lawbreaking on the part of RW media. Media Matters looks into conservative lies, but they aren’t looking for illegal activities. Things that could get the people at Fox News UNDER OATH. And provide discovery.

I’ve suggested that someone hire me for something like that but of course there is no money for that kind of work.

The “tabloids” have, egad! … “red tops” … the “gutter press” … the “rags”.

Naturally we’ve nothing like that …

Hah!

Here, they hang out at the supermarket.

Sometimes found, used, in shopping carts … er, trollies.

;~DW

Absolutely. Margaret Thatcher, whom Murdoch supported in 1979, allowed him to get a stranglehold of the UK newspaper market. She agreed his takeover of The Times and Sunday Times.

With every successive Government, he became more powerful. There was a failure of political leadership.

BTW, My friend Sue Wilson who did a movie salon here a few weeks ago talked about the RW media and their lack of truth telling her movie Broadcast Blues.
She is looking at organizing people to help stop the re licensing of media companies that break the law.

Ah, I didn’t realise that ‘fair and balanced’ has a connotation in the US. I’ll stick by my original description: UK TV news is ‘impartial’. Problem is is feeds off the story selection of the newspapers, which are not representative of the spread of political opinion.

As we come to the end of this great Book Salon discussion,

Martin, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book and Rupert Murdoch’s press.

Spocko, Thank you very much for Hosting this great Book Salon.

Everyone, if you would like more information:

Martin’s website (The Independent) and book (Dial M For Murdoch)

Spocko’s website (Spocko’s Brain)

Thanks all, Have a great week.

If you would like to contact the FDL Book Salon: FiredoglakeBookSalon@gmail.com

Actually, we don’t have anything like the UK tabloids. Or any thing exactly like. There are similarities, but deeper differences.

Or, I might be wrong. Martin? You’ve seen tabloids in the US, I’d guess. Until corrected, I say they are different in the UK and the US.

FDL Movie Night: Broadcast Blues

Martin will you be in the States on a Book Tour?

I was in the supermarket today and I looked at the headlines. I wondered, did we learn this info because of hacked phones?
We know that celebrity nudes come from hacked phones. Why wouldn’t they also listen to conversations?

I think when they looked at on of the princes phones they found 9 different unknown people checking his messages.

The New York Post looks fairly racy to me, but I’ll be honest: I haven’t studied the differences in UK and US tabloids.

Hi Bev, I won’t be but my co-author Tom Watson will be. We’re fixing up the details now. He can’t wait to tell this story in person in the US.

Before Martin goes I want to thank you for this book. Also, the next time you talk to Tom Watson, Nick Davies, Mark Lewis, Charlotte Harris and Mark Thomson thank them from the me (or the United States, which ever sounds better) for the work that they did.

I know some of the stress that fighting big media have on people and I appreciate their bravery and tenacity.

I think that you are right, VG, our tabloids are movie-land gossip rags, for the most part … there might be a “paper in NYC of that “ilk” … if me old memory serves.

DW

Well if he comes to SF be sure to let me know. I’ll drive him around on the right side of the road here.

This was a stellar book salon. Thank you Spocko for being a great host. I can’t think of anyone more suited to this role than you. And, thank you Martin, for being a wonderful and knowledgeable guest.

Actually, now that I think of it, let me know about his schedule in DC and New York and I’ll make sure he meets some people who are fighting media consolidation. They could learn a lot from this fight.

Do you know why M. did not back Obama? Was he really a McC fan? Something else?

Bev/Spocko,

Thanks for hosting me. I hope as many Americans as possible buy Dial M for Murdoch, not just because it’s my book (though that counts), but because it’s a truly shocking story about an extraordinary abuse of power by one man – who happens to own the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, HarperCollins, 20th Century Fox, and, of course, Fox News.

Signing out from London, with warm wishes to all the contributors this afternoon,

Martin

Thank you, Martin, a pleasure meeting you, please return often, or even occassionally, if you’ve time.

Thank you spocko … always a pleasure.

Thank you Bev, as always.

Thank all you FireDogs!!!

A most fabulous … and educational Book Salon!!!

DW

Thanks Martin and Spocko! and always Bev for making these happen.

What a great book and great discussion!

“I read the news today … oh boy …”

“We”, our society, has Facebook and word is they are tracking “members” phones …

Ah, well …

Take care, spocko.

DW

I’ve looked in throughout the afternoon, thanks to everyone for this extremely fine Book Salon. The Salon pace was more toward that which I can easily follow. Appreciated, for sure. The library has the book for me coming in this week.

Exceptionally well done, spocko.

I just finished reading this Book Salon, and I promptly downloaded the book to my iPad (Kindle software). I’m reading Chris Hayes’s book but as soon as I’m finished, this one is queued up! Wonderful!!

Yippee! I sold a book! Thanks. It really is an interesting read. I really like to know how things REALLY happen as opposed how we wish they would happen or how they are portrayed on TV.

I also learned a lot, including what sells, what can be used against the powerful and at least two new words!