So how much are you enjoying watching the Murdoch empire being rocked by the phone hacking scandal? If his employees did try to hack 9/11 victims’ phones will that be enough for conservatives to finally realize what a piece of crap this man is?
I thought Schadenfrude was a guilty pleasure. I feel no guilt, nor see any reason to. But I’m getting plenty of enjoyment. Conservatives don’t care what a piece of crap anybody on there side is.
As long as he keeps signing the paychecks, nobody in his employ will care what a shitbag he is.
I’m really hoping this keeps unraveling to the point that the whole family ends up doing serious jail time, any number of politicians and police are canned and the media empire is dismantled.
I have to admit that any police who helped the journalists are even worse. This does show the danger of media consolidation.
Yes, no generalizations here :rolleyes: for a “liberal” you’re awfully intolerant.
Will be interesting to see how far this goes. I don’t see it taken down bis empire but it’ll knock him and his family back. As a long time reader of the WSJ I haven’t noticed any real change to the editorial content of the paper once he took over (he did change the lay out of the paper and added a lot more human interest stories).
I’m not a liberal. I hope it does take down his empire.
Why would Murdoch taking over the WSJ change its editorial content?
Whether or not you want his empire to fall is not my issue, your generalization is ignorant and we’re usually against that sort of thing here.
And there was a concern that he would influence the WSJ editorial board (mostly a fear of dumbing it down) but that hasn’t happened.
Oh no, he’s intolerant of someone whose ‘news’ empire deliberately and constantly fabricates lies for propaganda purposes on one hand, and hires criminals to prey on the vulnerable on the other! The scandal!
Well aside from changing Managing Editors at the paper and reporters resigning after learning that Murdoch did not keep his promise of editorial independence.
Not what I was referring to.
And how many journalist resigned from the WSJ?
Then what else are you referring to? Because your lack of a point to back up your generalization sounds very ignorant to me.
That’s just a version of “tolerance” that exists to be used to beat liberals and moderates over the head with. It’s an attempt to browbeat them into not fighting back against or or criticizing their enemies. There’s no obligation to bend over backwards to act “tolerant” to outright enemies, to people who are trying to hurt or oppress or deceive you.
Moved to the BBQ Pit from Great Debates.
Well that makes sense given than you’ve said that conservatives don’t care where their news comes from. Nice generalization.
They don’t seem to, as long as it agrees with them.
Well, ok, if Barack Obama agrees with them, then they have a problem and must do everything possible to stop him.
What on earth is the term ‘conservative’ but a generalization?
And I didn’t say conservatives don’t care where their news comes from. I said “Conservatives don’t care what a piece of crap anybody on there side is.” They do care if somebody is on their side, and they don’t care if he’a a piece of crap like Murdoch.
I’m an ultra-liberal and make no pretense to tolerating bigotry, for example.
But Der, you gotta realize that modern conservatives have extremely sensitive dispositions: their media choices habitually get their facts wrong but they whisper sweet lies in conservatives’ ears which makes them ok.
Businessmen know differently, which is why the WSJ’s news pages were generally a lot less nutty than the editorial section, pre-Murdoch.
In other news, Joe Nocera apologizes for supporting Murdoch’s takeover of the Wall Street Journal. Kudos to him for manning up to the situation. NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/opinion/16nocera.html
Lochdale’s perceptions have clearly been warped by his modern conservative disposition. To quote Nocera, the WSJ under Murdoch has, “shorter articles, less depth, an increased emphasis on politics and, weirdly, sometimes surprisingly unsophisticated coverage of business.” Hell, anybody with a working brainstem can just look at the front page and see the increased coverage of shlock.
Those who sold the WSJ to Murdoch are moaning the loss of a great American institution. Cite: Bancroft family members regret WSJ sale - UPI.com
The Bancrofts were conservatives, traditional conservatives. That means they had a healthy respect for facts and empirical assessment of reality, something which liberals share and separates both groups from the modern Teaster variety.
Before takeover did the WSJ make up stories for a political point of view?
McDonald’s will drop healthcare for
McDonald’s says it is not true.
Very inaccurate reporting. Was that something the WSJ did before RM bought it out?
Yes, schadenfreude it is for me. I am enjoying every second of the scandal.
Invest in Popcorn!
This started in Great Debates***!?***