Rupert Murdog Blair 'attacked BBC over Katrina'
Gutter Press | 18.09.2005 09:20 | Indymedia | London
Media mafia boss Rupert Murdog claimed, in a speech made in New York,
that the BBC's coverage of Hurricane Katrina was full of hate for America.
Evidently Americans consider his SKY NEWS channel, sister of FOX News to be a far more serious prosepct. It seems that the broad sheet daliy's style of reporting doesn't go down well with the Tabloid Tossers.
that the BBC's coverage of Hurricane Katrina was full of hate for America.
Evidently Americans consider his SKY NEWS channel, sister of FOX News to be a far more serious prosepct. It seems that the broad sheet daliy's style of reporting doesn't go down well with the Tabloid Tossers.
There seems to be a bit of a war brewing between the Murdog and his News Corporation which includes the Times Group and the BBC and perhaps the Gaurdian.
So Hurricane Katrina caught Bush and co with their pants down and the BBC and others have shown the truth which make them anti American.
Citizens of the worlds most powerfull and richest country starving to death on the streets of one of there most famous cities.
They didn't like the way certain media companies covered it.
Bill Clinton(oral sex specialist) seems to be jostling with Bliar to suck
Bush's dick !! or perhaps to join the skull an bones.
IMC should be looking to make the most of the divisions in the corporate media, if we can drive a wedge into the gap how about a stake in the heart for Murdog.
Interesting article By Danny Schechter further down the page .
Blair 'attacked BBC over Katrina'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4257190.stm
Mr Murdoch, who owns the Sun, the Times and News of the World newspapers and Sky Television, labelled the BBC a "government-owned thing".
'Straightforward reportage'
He said people around the world were jealous of the US, and anti-Americanism was common throughout Europe.
Blair ‘shocked’ over BBC Katrina coverage
By Joshua Chaffin and Aline van Duyn in New York
Published: September 17 2005 00:38 | Last updated: September 17 2005 00:38
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/933f0642-270a-11da-b6fe-00000e2511c8.html
Tony Blair was shocked by the BBC's coverage of Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans, describing it as “full of hatred of America”, Rupert Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, revealed on Friday night.
Mr Murdoch, a long-time critic of the BBC who controls rival Sky News, said the prime minister had recounted his feelings in a private conversation earlier this week in New York.
The Brits question their news, why don't we?
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/1639/When_the_News_About_the_News_is_the_News
By Danny Schechter
The Brits question their news, why don't we?
A trip to London can be a tonic to media critics like myself who at times despair that the last thing the media in this country discusses is itself. In contrast, the media in London sometimes treats media issues as a font page story even when there isn’t a scandal involving a prominent journalist.
Last weekend, for example, the Guardian led with a report on a speech by a former BBC executive denouncing the “easy cruelty of tabloid Britain.”
No doubt the story was played large because the speech was given at a Guardian sponsored conference on Television even though the speaker, former BBC director John Birt, was disliked by progressives and is an advisor to Tony Blair. In fact, the late British screen writer Dennis Potter—who just before he died said that he named his cancer “Rupert” after Rupert Murdoch—called Birt at the same conference years back a “croak-voiced dalek” who was killing the soul of the BBC.
As the BBC itself became more market driven, he seems to have become more critical.
“Lets not tabloidize our intellectual life,” he said. “Public service journalism would serve the nation better if it shifted the balance of its political journalism towards depth of analysis; towards insight and substance; towards honest, patient inquiry.”
Hear, Hear!
The British media is hardly a paragon of righteousness when it comes to journalism. Many of its print journalists put style over substance and the BBC can be every bit as trivial and jingoistic as the worst of our TV news. After all, Murdoch still has a substantial presence and it is the country which along with its former colony Australia gave birth to the tabloid press. Many media outlets may have moved off of Fleet Street but its spirit remains.
In June when I was in Britain just before the G-8 meetings, I was impressed with all the news coverage of world poverty and Africa. But, on this trip, in the post-tube bombing period, I noticed more attention paid to government measures to harass foreigners and stories about growing threats from “yobs” (rude working class delinquents) and “Yardys,” Jamaican immigrants accused of importing gun violence.
As we in America discovered, terror attacks are used to stoke fear of enemies and repression.
At the same time, these issues are at least being discussed widely in the widely as is the war in Iraq in ways that our media still avoids.
Example, while I saw President Bush’s latest pro-war speech covered, it was only the Fox News Channel’s sister station SKY News which took it the most seriously. Some in the media noted that as public opinion turns against the President his speeches are increasingly on military bases and remote locations like Nampa, Idaho.
Other newspapers like the Independent have been on the warpath against Bush’s new UN ambassador John Bolton’s plan to gut the UN millennium goals to reduce poverty.
There’s been so much anger in the press over this that the British government may be forced finally to stand up the Busheviks who want to roll back initiatives that the while world has endorsed,
On Saturday, a columnist for the pro-war Telegraph, Vicki Woods, was openly calling for British troops to leave Iraq, “pretty damn quick.”
“I think America will stay in Iraq, no matter how much Vietnamlike peaceniking goes on because they have poured too much concrete over there to leave behind. Well, let them.
“When Bush’s Iraq adventure blows up in his face, I don’t want British troops under the fallout….There’s nothing in it for UK plc. Troops out.”
And that’s in a conservative newspaper.
The Financial Times magazine carried a page long attack this weekend on the relentless and cynical hunt for negative news stories.
John Lloyd calls for more positive news. Not soft features that whitewash important news or sanitize wars or other serious stuff but news that promote solutions and involve readers as citizens.
He reports on an organization in France called Reporters of Hope that is advocating more ‘good news.” Louis Beriot, a former head of the TV station Atennne 2, is quoted as saying “journalists have gone beyond their first duty that is to present facts in an attempt to cover the truth. Now they judge more than they narrate. And that attitude leads them to see evil everywhere…”
Perhaps that’s true in parts of Europe. American journalists are criticized more for being deferential to power, for not speaking truth to deceptive politicians but rather carrying their water and treating them respectfully. Collusion with evil is also evil-at least the last time I looked.
Unfortunately, mainstream news outlets don’t debate these media issues and many are not doing all they can to be more innovative and get beyond the extreme partisanship that reduces light to heat in so much of the media discourse.
How about some more debate in our media about the media?
If the Brits are not afraid to do it, why not us? And speaking of Brits, how is that the usually apolitical Mick Jagger is singing out against Condi and the Neo-cons on his current concert tour while most of our musicians avoid speaking out.
Just look at his concert grosses, mate.
“News Dissector” Danny Schechter is blogger-in-chief of Mediachannel.org. His film WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception) on the media coverage of Iraq will have its US TV debut on the Independent Film Channel on September ll. (see wmdthefilm.com) Comments to
Dissector@mediachannel.org
So Hurricane Katrina caught Bush and co with their pants down and the BBC and others have shown the truth which make them anti American.
Citizens of the worlds most powerfull and richest country starving to death on the streets of one of there most famous cities.
They didn't like the way certain media companies covered it.
Bill Clinton(oral sex specialist) seems to be jostling with Bliar to suck
Bush's dick !! or perhaps to join the skull an bones.
IMC should be looking to make the most of the divisions in the corporate media, if we can drive a wedge into the gap how about a stake in the heart for Murdog.
Interesting article By Danny Schechter further down the page .
Blair 'attacked BBC over Katrina'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4257190.stm Mr Murdoch, who owns the Sun, the Times and News of the World newspapers and Sky Television, labelled the BBC a "government-owned thing".
'Straightforward reportage'
He said people around the world were jealous of the US, and anti-Americanism was common throughout Europe.
Blair ‘shocked’ over BBC Katrina coverage
By Joshua Chaffin and Aline van Duyn in New York
Published: September 17 2005 00:38 | Last updated: September 17 2005 00:38
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/933f0642-270a-11da-b6fe-00000e2511c8.html Tony Blair was shocked by the BBC's coverage of Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans, describing it as “full of hatred of America”, Rupert Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corporation, revealed on Friday night.
Mr Murdoch, a long-time critic of the BBC who controls rival Sky News, said the prime minister had recounted his feelings in a private conversation earlier this week in New York.
The Brits question their news, why don't we?
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/1639/When_the_News_About_the_News_is_the_News By Danny Schechter
The Brits question their news, why don't we?
A trip to London can be a tonic to media critics like myself who at times despair that the last thing the media in this country discusses is itself. In contrast, the media in London sometimes treats media issues as a font page story even when there isn’t a scandal involving a prominent journalist.
Last weekend, for example, the Guardian led with a report on a speech by a former BBC executive denouncing the “easy cruelty of tabloid Britain.”
No doubt the story was played large because the speech was given at a Guardian sponsored conference on Television even though the speaker, former BBC director John Birt, was disliked by progressives and is an advisor to Tony Blair. In fact, the late British screen writer Dennis Potter—who just before he died said that he named his cancer “Rupert” after Rupert Murdoch—called Birt at the same conference years back a “croak-voiced dalek” who was killing the soul of the BBC.
As the BBC itself became more market driven, he seems to have become more critical.
“Lets not tabloidize our intellectual life,” he said. “Public service journalism would serve the nation better if it shifted the balance of its political journalism towards depth of analysis; towards insight and substance; towards honest, patient inquiry.”
Hear, Hear!
The British media is hardly a paragon of righteousness when it comes to journalism. Many of its print journalists put style over substance and the BBC can be every bit as trivial and jingoistic as the worst of our TV news. After all, Murdoch still has a substantial presence and it is the country which along with its former colony Australia gave birth to the tabloid press. Many media outlets may have moved off of Fleet Street but its spirit remains.
In June when I was in Britain just before the G-8 meetings, I was impressed with all the news coverage of world poverty and Africa. But, on this trip, in the post-tube bombing period, I noticed more attention paid to government measures to harass foreigners and stories about growing threats from “yobs” (rude working class delinquents) and “Yardys,” Jamaican immigrants accused of importing gun violence.
As we in America discovered, terror attacks are used to stoke fear of enemies and repression.
At the same time, these issues are at least being discussed widely in the widely as is the war in Iraq in ways that our media still avoids.
Example, while I saw President Bush’s latest pro-war speech covered, it was only the Fox News Channel’s sister station SKY News which took it the most seriously. Some in the media noted that as public opinion turns against the President his speeches are increasingly on military bases and remote locations like Nampa, Idaho.
Other newspapers like the Independent have been on the warpath against Bush’s new UN ambassador John Bolton’s plan to gut the UN millennium goals to reduce poverty.
There’s been so much anger in the press over this that the British government may be forced finally to stand up the Busheviks who want to roll back initiatives that the while world has endorsed,
On Saturday, a columnist for the pro-war Telegraph, Vicki Woods, was openly calling for British troops to leave Iraq, “pretty damn quick.”
“I think America will stay in Iraq, no matter how much Vietnamlike peaceniking goes on because they have poured too much concrete over there to leave behind. Well, let them.
“When Bush’s Iraq adventure blows up in his face, I don’t want British troops under the fallout….There’s nothing in it for UK plc. Troops out.”
And that’s in a conservative newspaper.
The Financial Times magazine carried a page long attack this weekend on the relentless and cynical hunt for negative news stories.
John Lloyd calls for more positive news. Not soft features that whitewash important news or sanitize wars or other serious stuff but news that promote solutions and involve readers as citizens.
He reports on an organization in France called Reporters of Hope that is advocating more ‘good news.” Louis Beriot, a former head of the TV station Atennne 2, is quoted as saying “journalists have gone beyond their first duty that is to present facts in an attempt to cover the truth. Now they judge more than they narrate. And that attitude leads them to see evil everywhere…”
Perhaps that’s true in parts of Europe. American journalists are criticized more for being deferential to power, for not speaking truth to deceptive politicians but rather carrying their water and treating them respectfully. Collusion with evil is also evil-at least the last time I looked.
Unfortunately, mainstream news outlets don’t debate these media issues and many are not doing all they can to be more innovative and get beyond the extreme partisanship that reduces light to heat in so much of the media discourse.
How about some more debate in our media about the media?
If the Brits are not afraid to do it, why not us? And speaking of Brits, how is that the usually apolitical Mick Jagger is singing out against Condi and the Neo-cons on his current concert tour while most of our musicians avoid speaking out.
Just look at his concert grosses, mate.
“News Dissector” Danny Schechter is blogger-in-chief of Mediachannel.org. His film WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception) on the media coverage of Iraq will have its US TV debut on the Independent Film Channel on September ll. (see wmdthefilm.com) Comments to
Dissector@mediachannel.org
Gutter Press
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
Who is Michael Delaney?
18.09.2005 11:01
A coroner’s inquest was held at Snaresbrook court in Essex. The coroner instructed the jury to find accidental death, the jury unanimously voted for unlawful killing suggesting either a charge of manslaughter or murder should be brought against an employee of News International. Then a funny thing happened. The police decided along with the court service that there had been a procedural error as the driver reported the "accident" in Birmingham a new inquest was conducted in Birmingham where the jury were prepared to go along with the coroners request that Michael Delaney was killed by accident and the whole case was closed. The trauma, injustice and sense of shame killed Mr Delaney's dad shortly after the event. Understandably the family wanted nothing to do with courts and wanted to grieve for their two lost love ones so no campaign like Stephen Lawrence's was ever launched.
At the time of the Wapping dispute a fresh faced Labour backbench MP called Tony Blair was sponsored by SOGAT 82 the old print union involved in the strike. It is impossible that as a lawyer, union funded MP and labour backbencher Tony was not aware of the story of Michael Delaney as it was all over the Guardian at the time. It was then curious then that the first thing T Blair did after getting elected was to fly to the other side of the globe to court an Australian Media baron Rupert Murdoch whose greed caused Michael’s death. I wonder how Mrs Lawrence would have felt if the first person Tony Blair had visited after being elected were the white trash responsible for her sons death?
Thus both Tony and Rupert have the same dead body in the same closet. Having covered up one death why wouldn't Murdoch and Blair cover up the farce that was New Orleans?
Now if some old fart of a printer like me can remember this story why cannot the BBC stop snivelling, show some spine and investigate the links between Tony and Rupert.
Flying Picket
THERE ARE NO *REAL* DIVISIONS IN THE MASS MEDIA
18.09.2005 12:41
When I was I kid, I learnt about this psy-op on ALL the best TV shows. When Captain Scarlet, with stubble and beer breath stumbles out of the casino at the beginning of the episode, we all think "oh n0es!!!, what has happened to our hero?" And when Colonel Mustard (or whoever) gives him one last warning, which is promptly ignored, we all go "is this the end for Scarlet". And when one of the bad guys, about to recruit Scarlet, listens in to the conversation between two of his ex-colleagues bemoaning Scarlet's fall from grace, we know all is doomed!
EXCEPT WE WERE ***NEVER*** THAT STUPID. Even a 3-year old knows the name of that game, and that ONLY the bad guys can be stupid enough to think that a man who has beats up on them over and over and over, will NOW be on THEIR side.
So, sorry, what was it that was being dribbled about Blair's mouthpiece, and 'divisions' in the media. THEIR ARE NO DIVISIONS IN THE MASS MEDIA, NOR WILL THERE BE.
The propaganda machine called the mass media works thusly. A voice for EVER type of ear. And, because the Mass Media functions within a capitalistic system, the natural business rivalries that exist between the various media companies can EASILY BE SOLD to the stupid as proof that one is getting a multiplicity of opinions.
The BBC is going into overdrive on Blair's Muslim bashing program. While the newspapers will be used to seed wild racist crap about 'devil' Muslims on campus etc., the BBC, quiet and proper, will reinforce this message with its dramas and documentaries. The BBC is to explain to the British public why the concentration camps, first used to house all the people sucked up under the next set of Terrorism Laws that allow for detention without charge, are so important. The BBC is to be trusted, because while it feeds the most murderous propaganda messages seen, since the calls by the radio stations in Rwanda telling the Hutus to murder the Tutsis, it will be in VISIBLE dispute with Blair.
Are people on this site, and in other places, really so stupid??? The BBC in particular was created (clearly to all) to be the most important arm of the government propaganda machine, with DIRECT links to MI5 and MI6. For the longest time, MI5 had an OFFICE within the BBC used to VET all the people working in ANY important capacity for the BBC. All the foreign news staff, and most of the other senior workers with foreign contact, report to MI6, and MANY of the journalists there ACTUALLY work for MI6. For those of you retarded enough to cry "conspiracy", what EXACTLY do you think MI5 and MI6 are about???
Want to KNOW just how bad the BBC is? It was the BBC that gave the all clear to cruise missile strike the TV station in Serbia (killing a building full of support people, like make-up girls). Blair did NOT want to kill the foreign journalists that were taking interviews in that facility continuously, so the BBC arranged the 'strike now' signal when they had all left. This is the job of the BBC, and it could be no other way with a state-broadcaster here, or anywhere else on this Earth!
So yes, the BBC will say trust us, you Blair haters, and by the way, Muslims really are evil. And The Guardian will say trust us, you Blair haters, and by the way, Muslims really are evil. But they will, as always, tailor the message to the ear. The BBC will give you the thick-headed anti-muslim dramas and documentaries. The Guardian will give you the INSIDE skinny on us those wicked sneaky muslim radical groups that want your mother in a Burqa, your daughter in a girl's only school that ends education at 12, and a suicide bomber on every British bus.
Like I said... WAKEY, WAKEY!!!
twilight
Yes Sir Mr Twlight
18.09.2005 13:22
you must be right, you probably are anyway. But I don't like yer tone and the style of your banter.
Your very typical of commenters on IMC, quite a few of whom seem to be more interested in blowing their own bugle and coming across like the big I am.
I am definitely a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe that the corporate media is controlled by different factions who from time to time go to war with each other.
Rather like the different personalities who pop up on IMC UK I would have thought that as we are undoubtedly
a very small minority it would be in our interest to try to find common ground where we agree with one another rather than trying to find a slightly bigger soap box than the next guy so that you can talk down to the him or her or who ever.
It's quite likely that if we sat down over a pint we'd agree on most of current shit, so don't jump out of yer pram.
(never sign the same anyway )
gutter press
twilight
19.09.2005 01:33
P
Murdoch has no morality - but the BBC needs to be freed from Murdoch-apers
09.10.2005 01:03
He never had any.
As far as his acquisition and control of the sleazy racist corrupting anti -democratic SUN has shown.
He took off whatever moral clothes there might have been in the ‘newspaper-buying ’ part of the British population long before he got anywhere near being able to afford to expand his evil clutches on to the USA media and ‘entertainment’ market.
The initial puzzle is how have the so-called morally motivated smaller groups like the Guardian group allowed the immoral and the amoral Murdoch to prevail for as long as they have done?
And how do people like 'media professor’ Roy Greenslade get to be treated as some sort of Murdoch-free even ethical media-trade commentators on the BBC? Didn't Greenslade work for the Murdoch immorality?
In fact there is no puzzle.
There never has been.
Look at the Daily Mail, which has made morality-conning the public into an art form so solid that the Guardian daily follows it as does the BBC.
The BBC is not a single individual. The core of the illness of the BBC is that it is staffed by employees, agents and contractors who in the main as prepared to drop any morality as would be any Roy Greenslade-like future commentators still doing the dirty work within the Murdoch groups in the UK.
The BBC is far from hostile to Murdoch. So avid is the following of Murdoch within the BBC news ands current affairs units that they regularly give vast chunks of time and space to such unethical, immoral agents of repression and tyranny, occupation, imperialism and war as the SUN by-liner Trevor Kavanagh to opine on the state of morality and the state of ethnic s in the context of the constitution of Britain.
Nor are the BBC news and current affairs operations run ethically when it comes to giving back door benefits to such ‘former’ BBC staffers as the ‘legal’ commentator
Joshua Rozenburg who has been given more mainstream BBC platforms on all aspects of the law since he on paper left the BBC and joined the Telegraph group than any of the other commentators on the state of the law in Britain.
What does that say about BBC ethics and about BBC propriety?
downandout