Skip to content

Truth vs. “moral” idea regarding Michael Jackson

July 9, 2011

Paul McMullan [about a politician]: “He had to jump into bed with Murdoch as everyone had, starting with Thatcher in the Seventies . . Maggie openly courted Murdoch, saying, you know, “Please support me”.

Baroness Shirley Williams: “Telling the Minister that he won’t be elected again unless he manages to square himself with Murdoch – that’s a desperately dangerous situation…. And the Press Complains Commission is a joke”

Reader: “Thank you vindicatemj for all the info on the Murdoch Empire”

I am afraid I don’t know more than anyone else about it. Now I am following every bit of the scandal the way it is reported by the BBC to be able to understand what’s what and what the future of Rupert Murdoch’s empire may be. The coverage is not very big as journalists are clearly embarrassed by what was revealed about their oldest British paper and the tabloid press in general – hacking the phones of celebrities and ordinary people for possible sensations, journalists bribing police and politicians having to come to terms with Rupert Murdoch in order to get elected.

Let me say one thing first. I cannot express my attitude towards the above because this is something which should be sorted out by the British people themselves and they are perfectly capable to manage without my ideas. The situation with our press is much more dramatic and passing judgment by someone like me would be totally unethical.

However I still feel that I can make some conclusions without passing judgment on the above.

If even a fraction of what McMullan said is true and politicians do indeed have to be friends with Rupert Murdoch in order to get elected it is a flat admission of the fact that Murdoch is not just a distant and neutral owner of some of the British press but that all media which is in his ownership expresses his point of view and his voice has much power and influence over the British society.

In fact it corresponds with what Rupert Murdoch himself said about his company News International:

“For better or worse, my company is a reflection of my character, my thinking, my values” – Rupert Murdoch.

In application to Michael Jackson it means that if Rupert Murdoch doesn’t like him, the whole of his press automatically does not like him either. This does explain why lots of British newspapers came out with the same negative story about Michael Jackson whenever there was an opportunity to do so, doesn’t it?

The second conclusion I am making is the reason why Rupert Murdoch was (and probably is) so terribly against Michael Jackson.

It is his allegedly puritanical views.

This man decided for himself that Michael’s behavior was “off limits” and he gave his press certain guidelines which – at best – could sound like, for example, “whatever it is, it is unacceptable in principle”, “his views and way of life should be no example for others”, so “do whatever you like towards him, from making him look ridiculous to printing any innuendo against him you can only think of” – in short, compromise and vilify the man irrespective of the fact whether he is guilty or not.

It is quite probable that the editorial staff thought that they were doing good to the society this way and justified their dirty tricks against Michael by “moral” goals. And this means that this is a case of “the end justifying the means” – where the means are allowed to be dirty because the “good” goal will justify it all.

Under such a system the truth per se is not taken into account because it is only the idea which matters. If the truth runs counter to the idea, it is the idea which takes the upper hand while the truth is suppressed and replaced by rumors, opinion, speculation and even lies. Many will ask – and why not if the overall goal is only for the good of the society? Yes, might be – only it reminds me of the proverb “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”…

The "daily drugs cocktail"? In what state were the journalists of the Sun to write anything like that? None of it was found! Narcotic Demerol is not the same as anesthetic Diprivan, which is also known as Propofol and even that he did not take himself - it was given to him by a doctor....

The only difference in the behavior of the press under Rupert Murdoch’s ruling was their tone and way of expressing the same idea depending on the strata of society the newspaper was intended for – the “Sun” allowed itself to be downright nasty and use the dirtiest of their tricks, while the “Times” condescendingly repeated the same speculations in a much more reserved and respectable manner.

However since the general idea was the same, broad sections of the British society (and English-speaking people in general) kept getting Murdoch’s message on a day-by-day basis for years on end – the absence of facts about Michael “guilt” is not important, it is his way of life, love for children and views in general which should be condemned. Even if he is innocent.

And since the idea was much more important than real life nothing could be too bad for the man – whether it was just open mockery or tons of fabricated lies.

The moral principles of Rupert Murdoch projected on his press apparently made his own attitude to Michael Jackson a must for all those working for those newspapers – otherwise they wouldn’t be employed there at all – but I find it most likely that his views probably coincided with the moral principles and opinions of individual journalists too.

As a result no one really wanted to look into what was really happening in Michael’s life and make serious investigation into the allegations against him – why try to find the truth which might acquit the man who thinks that giving his bed to others is the warmest and most human gesture a person could make?

The same lie was reported by the Times. It sounds much more respectable but still remains what it is - a flat and unproven LIE. And please don't tell me that the Times fell a victim to misinformation from the Sun - it is impossible for the right hand not to know what the left hand is doing. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6582435.ece

Why need to print the truth about him if it goes counter to the ‘high moral idea’ that the above behavior can be accepted under no circumstances and no condition?

No one wanted to know the details – for example, the fact that Michael spent his young years in one packed room and one bed with his brothers and simply didn’t know any other way of life due to his forced separation from other people.

No one wanted to listen to his plea to look into his childhood and try to understand why he was the way he was. All of it was just sheepish nonsense for them and the only thing that mattered was that they didn’t like him (while many did) – therefore the other people’s love for him should stop.

In short it was the matter of choosing between the truth in all its uniqueness and the flat “moral” idea which someone decided should prevail over the truth no matter what.

Is it something novel in history? Absolutely not. Unwilling to speak about others I will cite an example from our own past. There was a time here when someone also decided that genetics was an “immoral” science (or rather no science at all) because it claimed that many features were hereditary and could not be erased by social environment. The idea behind it was rather moral because it said that all people despite their ancestry were equal and that people of humble origin were no worse that the offspring of (the slain) aristocracy. However one of the first victims of this moral idea was a remarkable scientist, a genius in genetics, Nikolay Vavilov. They first started with harassing him for his work but since he kept refusing to give up his “criminal” way of thinking he was put into jail in the 1940s and died there. Thus the “moral idea” prevailed over science – erasing genetics from the country’s horizon for several decades. The idea mattered much more than the truth and the actual life of a man, whose findings by the way, were so great that they could have saved the world from hunger.

Does this story sound very much different from what the highly “moral” media did to Michael Jackson?

To me it doesn’t.

* * * * *

How far did Rupert Murdoch’s press go to slander Michael Jackson? VERY FAR. The report the “Sun”  published on June 26, 2009 – about the alleged way Michael died – does not have a single grain of truth in it and is telling the story not the way it really was, but the way they wanted it to be.

And they wanted to see him as a drug-addict who was to have died of opioid Demerol and not anesthetic Diprivan (Propofol) as it actually happened. Here is a pack of lies told by the Sun and repeated by the Times the next day Michael died:

Jun 26, 2009 12:06 AM

 Sun Reports Michael Jackson Collapsed After a Demerol Injection

Rupert Murdoch’s Sun coaxed some paramedics and UCLA hospital employees into talking anonymously about Michael Jackson’s death today, and according to those sources, Jackson collapsed shortly after an injection of the painkiller Demerol.Reports the Sun:

A Jacko source said: “Shortly after taking the Demerol he started to experience slow shallow breathing.

“His breathing gradually got slower and slower until it stopped.

“His staff started mouth-to-mouth and an ambulance was called which got there in eight minutes “But found he was in full respiratory arrest, no breathing and no pulse. They started full CPR and rushed him to hospital.

“When he arrived they started resuscitation, giving him heart shocks and inserted a breathing tube and other supportive measures to try and save his life.

“He never regained consciousness. The family was told that he had passed.”

The Sun also has a photo of a paramedic’s computer screen displaying the information relayed by the dispatcher from the 911 call that came from Jackson’s home (“50 year old male Not breathing at all.”), along with all sorts of other “Do I really need to know this” information. So very morbid.

http://gawker.com/5302772/sun-reports-michael-jackson-collapsed-after-a-demerol-injection

Now that we know that there were absolutely no narcotic drugs in Michael Jackson’s system it is clear that the above story is a complete fabrication. The Sun just brought together what they knew of Michael from the year 1993 when he was forced into narcotic painkillers due to murderous allegations and their other incessant gossip about him and published a make-believe story about him dying of Demerol – complete with the details about “his staff witnessing the injection and his breathing getting slower and finally stopping”.

The respectable Times reported the same in a much more reserved manner – which was naturally more damaging as this way the lie looked much more credible  – but no matter how you tell a lie it nevertheless remains a lie, doesn’t it? Let us remember that newspapers are supposed to report facts and not fabrications, or otherwise they should be sold as fairy tales collections and not news.

And please don’t tell me the Times fell a victim to the Sun’s misinformation and that the right hand didn’t know what the left hand was doing. Both papers belong to one and the same publisher and even have a common chief editor [Rebekah Brooks] who oversees their policy and selects major stories to be published out of a million news on the line.

UPDATED July 11, 2011

The recent scandal with phone-hacking involving Rupert Murdoch’s media empire made me have a closer look at the man standing behind it. Here is some information for the uninitiated like me:

Who is Rupert Murdoch?

The more I read about Rupert Murdoch the more I grew to understand why a big part of the English-speaking media was in so much unison in their smear campaign against Michael Jackson. For the past two days since this post was started so much information has been accumulated that PLEASE don’t tell me now that this man was not powerful enough to shape public opinion about Michael by giving certain guidelines to the press and TV channels he owns.

Here is a picture of Rupert Murdoch from a party arranged by the Vanity Fair. With a backing like Murdoch’s all those Maureen Orths and Co. felt absolutely safe in telling their craziest lies about Michael – vodoo rituals, blood baths or whatever. They were sure that they could get away with anything, just anything said about Jackson if someone like Rupert Murdoch is by their side.

This was the reason why Michael refrained from suing all those newspapers. It was USELESS – he knew that when one head of the dragon was cut several new ones would grow in their place.

If people understand that the harassment campaign against Michael Jackson was a well-orchestrated effort by someone like Rupert Murdoch and his buddies, half the job of Michael’s vindication will already be done.

I am posting here full information about Rupert Murdoch from Wiki for you to decide yourselves whether this kind of a person was able (or unable) to arrange the world-wide hatred for Michael Jackson.

As to me I do not doubt it even for a moment.

Rupert Murdoch

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch:

Keith Rupert Murdoch Australian American media mogul and the Chairman and CEO of News Corporation.

Beginning with one newspaper in Adelaide, Murdoch acquired and started other publications in his native Australia before expanding News Corp into the United Kingdom, United States and Asian media markets. Although it was in Australia in the late 1950s that he first dabbled in television, he later sold these assets, and News Corp’s Australian current media interests (still mainly in print) are restricted by cross-media ownership rules. Murdoch’s first permanent foray into TV was in the USA, where he created Fox Broadcasting Company in 1986. In the 2000s, he became a leading investor in satellite television, the film industry and the Internet, and purchased a respected business newspaper, The Wall Street Journal.

Rupert Murdoch was listed three times in the Time 100 as among the most influential people in the world. He is ranked 13th most powerful person in the world in the 2010 Forbes The World’s Most Powerful People list.[4] With a net worth of US$6.3 billion, he is ranked 117th wealthiest person in the world.[5]

Early life

Keith Rupert Murdoch was born in Melbourne, the only son of Sir Keith Murdoch and Elisabeth Joy (née Greene). At the time, his father was a regional newspaper magnate based in Melbourne, and as a result, the family was wealthy. Murdoch was groomed by his father from an early age, and attended the elite Geelong Grammar School. He later read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Worcester College, Oxford University in the United Kingdom, where he supported the Labour Party.[6]

Start in business

When Murdoch was 22, his father died, prompting his return from Oxford to take charge of the family business; becoming managing director of News Limited in 1953.[6] He began to direct his attention to acquisition and expansion. He bought the Sunday Times in Perth, Western Australia.

Over the next few years, Murdoch established himself in Australia as a dynamic business operator, expanding his holdings by acquiring suburban and provincial newspapers in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and the Northern Territory, including the Sydney afternoon tabloid, The Daily Mirror, as well as a small Sydney-based recording company, Festival Records.

His first foray outside Australia involved the purchase of a controlling interest in the New Zealand daily The Dominion. In January 1964, while touring New Zealand with friends in a rented Morris Minor after sailing across the Tasman, Murdoch read of a takeover bid for the Wellington paper by the British-based Canadian newspaper magnate, Lord Thomson of Fleet. On the spur of the moment, he launched a counter-bid. A four-way battle for control ensued in which the 32-year-old Murdoch was ultimately successful.

Later in 1964, Murdoch launched The Australian, Australia’s first national daily newspaper, which was based first in Canberra and later in Sydney. The Australian, a broadsheet, was intended to give Murdoch new respectability as a ‘quality’ newspaper publisher, as well as greater political influence.

In 1972, Murdoch acquired the Sydney morning tabloid The Daily Telegraph from Australian media mogul Sir Frank Packer, who later admitted regretting selling it to him. In that year’s election, Murdoch threw his growing power behind the Australian Labor Party under the leadership of Gough Whitlam and duly saw it elected.

Building News Corporation

Acquisitions in Britain

When the Mirror group decided to get rid of its mid-marketbroadsheet daily newspaper The Sun in 1969, Murdoch acquired it and turned it into a tabloid format; by 2006 it was selling three million copies per day.[7]

In 1981, Murdoch acquired The Times and The Sunday Times, (the papers which Lord Northcliffe had once owned) from Canadian newspaper publisher Lord Thomson of Fleet. The distinction of owning The Times came to him through his careful cultivation of its owner, who had grown tired of losing money on it as a result of much industrial action and limited ability to publish for several months.[8]

During the 1980s and early 1990s, Murdoch’s publications were generally supportive of British’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.[9] At the end of the Thatcher/Major era, Murdoch switched his support to the Labour Party and its leader, Tony Blair. The closeness of his relationship with Blair and their secret meetings to discuss national policies was to become a political issue in Britain.[10] Though this later started to change, with The Sun publicly renouncing the ruling Labour government and lending its support to David Cameron‘s Conservative Party, which soon after came to form a coalition government. Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s official spokesman said in November 2009 that Brown and Murdoch “were in regular communication” and that “there is nothing unusual in the prime minister talking to Rupert Murdoch”.[11]

In 1986, Murdoch introduced electronic production processes to his newspapers in Australia, Britain and the United States. The greater degree of automation led to significant reductions in the number of employees involved in the printing process. In England, the move roused the anger of the print unions, resulting in a long and often violent dispute that played out in Wapping, one of London’s docklands areas, where Murdoch had installed the very latest electronic newspaper publishing facility in an old warehouse.[12] The bitter dispute at Fortress Wapping started with the dismissal of 6,000 employees who had gone on strike and resulted in street battles, demonstrations and a great deal of bad publicity for Murdoch. Many on the political left in Britain suspected Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government of collusion with Murdoch in the Wapping affair, as a way of damaging the British trade union movement, by providing large numbers of police to attack and arrest pickets using violence and provocation.[13]

Murdoch’s British-based satellite network, Sky Television, incurred massive losses in its early years of operation. As with many of his other business interests, Sky was heavily subsidised by the profits generated by his other holdings, but eventually he was able to convince rival satellite operator British Satellite Broadcasting to accept a merger on his terms in 1990. The merged company, BSkyB, has dominated the British pay-TV market ever since.[14]

In response to print media’s decline and the increasing influence of online journalism during the 2000s,[15] Murdoch proclaimed his support of the micropayments model for obtaining revenue from on-line news,[16] although this has been criticised by some.[17]

News Corporation has subsidiaries in the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands and the Virgin Islands. From 1986, News Corporation’s annual tax bill averaged around seven percent of its profits.[18]

United States

Murdoch made his first acquisition in the United States in 1973, when he purchased the San Antonio Express-News. Soon afterwards, he founded Star, a supermarket tabloid, and in 1976, he purchased the New York Post. On 4 September 1985, Murdoch became a naturalised citizen to satisfy the legal requirement that only US citizens were permitted to own American television stations. Also in 1985, Murdoch purchased the 20th Century Fox movie studio. In 1986, Murdoch purchased six television stations owned by Metromedia. These stations would form the nucleus of the Fox Broadcasting Company, which was founded on 9 October 1986. In 1987, in Australia he bought The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, the company that his father had once managed. By 1991, his Australian-based News Corp. had worked up huge debts (much from Sky TV in the UK), forcing Murdoch to sell many of the American magazine interests he had acquired in the mid-1980s.

In 1995, Murdoch’s Fox Network became the object of scrutiny from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), when it was alleged that News Ltd.’s Australian base made Murdoch’s ownership of Fox illegal. However, the FCC ruled in Murdoch’s favor, stating that his ownership of Fox was in the best interests of the public. That same year, Murdoch announced a deal with MCI Communications to develop a major news website and magazine, The Weekly Standard. Also that year, News Corp. launched the Foxtel pay television network in Australia in partnership with Telstra.

In 1996, Murdoch decided to enter the cable news market with the Fox News Channel, a 24-hour cable news television station. Following its launch, Fox News consistently eroded CNN‘s market share and eventually became the most-watched cable news channel[citation needed]. Ratings studies released in the fourth quarter of 2004 showed that the network was responsible for nine of the top ten programs in the “Cable News” category at that time[citation needed]. Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner (owner of CNN) are long-standing rivals.

In late 2003, Murdoch acquired a 34 percent stake in Hughes Electronics, the operator of the largest American satellite TV system, DirecTV, from General Motors for $6 billion (USD).

In 2004, Murdoch announced that he was moving News Corp.’s headquarters from Adelaide, Australia to the United States. Choosing a US domicile was designed to ensure that American fund managers could purchase shares in the company, since many were deciding not to buy shares in non-US companies. Some analysts believed that News Corp.’s Australian domicile was leading to the company being undervalued compared with its peers.

On 20 July 2005, News Corp. bought Intermix Media Inc., which held MySpace.com and other popular social networking-themed websites, for $580 million USD.[19] On 11 September 2005, News Corp. announced that it would buy IGN Entertainment for $650 million (USD).[20]

In May 2007, Murdoch made a $5 billion offer to purchase Dow Jones, owner of the Wall Street Journal. At the time, the Bancroft family, which controlled 64% of the shares, firmly declined the offer, opposing Murdoch’s much-used strategy of slashing employee numbers and “gutting” existing systems. Later, the Bancroft family confirmed a willingness to consider a sale – besides Murdoch, the Associated Press reported that supermarket magnate Ron Burkle and Internet entrepreneur Brad Greenspan were among the interested parties.[21] On 1 August 2007, the BBC’s “News and World Report”[22] and NPR’s Marketplace[23] radio programs reported that Murdoch had acquired Dow Jones; this news was received with mixed reactions.

Australia

In 1999, Murdoch significantly expanded his music holdings in Australia by acquiring the controlling share in a leading Australian independent label, Michael Gudinski‘s Mushroom Records; he merged that with Festival Records, and the result was Festival Mushroom Records (FMR). Both Festival and FMR were managed by Murdoch’s son James Murdoch for several years.

Expansion in Asia

In 1993, Murdoch acquired Star TV, a Hong Kong company founded by Richard Li for $1 billion (Souchou, 2000:28), and subsequently set up offices for it throughout Asia. It is one of the biggest satellite TV networks in Asia. However, the deal did not work out as Murdoch had planned, because the Chinese government placed restrictions on it that prevented it from reaching most of China. It was around this time that Murdoch met his third wife Wendi Deng.

Recent activities

C7 lawsuit

The subject of Murdoch’s alleged anti-competitive business practices surfaced in September 2005. Australian media proprietor Kerry Stokes, owner of the Seven Network, instituted legal action against News Corporation and the PBL organisation, headed by Kerry Packer. The suit stemmed from the 2002 collapse of Stokes’ planned cable television channel C7 Sport, which would have been a direct competitor to the other major Australian cable provider, Foxtel, in which News and PBL have major stakes.

Seven complained that News Corporation had abused its market power which derived from its half-ownership of the National Rugby League, half-ownership of C7’s direct competitor, Fox Sports, and 25 per cent ownership of the Foxtel pay TV service. Seven wanted Justice Ronald Sackville to order News and Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd to divest their combined 50% stake in Foxtel or to sell their wholly owned Fox Sports. They argued that this would be justified because of the way in which Foxtel gave preferential treatment to Fox Sports and declined to take any rival sports channel provider on “reasonable commercial terms”.

In evidence given to the court on 26 September 2005, Stokes alleged that PBL executive James Packer came to his home in December 2000 and warned him that PBL and News Limited were “getting together” to prevent the AFL rights being granted to C7.

However, Justice Sackville dismissed Seven’s case on all grounds, saying that there was “more than a hint of hypocrisy” in many of Seven’s claims.[24]

Recently, Murdoch has bought out the Turkish TV channel, TGRT, which had been previously confiscated by the Turkish Board of Banking Regulations, TMSF. Newspapers report that Murdoch has bought TGRT in a partnership with the Turkish recording mogul Ahmet Ertegün.

Murdoch has recently won a media dispute with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. A judge ruled the Italian Prime Minister’s media arm Mediaset had prevented News Corp.’s Italian unit, Sky Italia, from buying advertisements on its television networks.[25]

Political activities

Australia

Murdoch’s disconcerting experience[clarification needed What does this mean?] with Thomas Playford in South Australia[citation needed] and his early political activities in Australia set the pattern he would repeat around the world.[26]

Murdoch found a political ally in John McEwen, leader of the Australian Country Party (now known as the National Party of Australia), who was governing in coalition with the larger Menzies-Holt Liberal Party. From the very first issue of The Australian Murdoch began taking McEwen’s side in every issue that divided the long-serving coalition partners. (The Australian, 15 July 1964, first edition, front page: “Strain in Cabinet, Liberal-CP row flares.”) It was an issue that threatened to split the coalition government and open the way for the stronger Australian Labor Party to dominate Australian politics. It was the beginning of a long campaign that served McEwen well.[27]

After McEwen and Menzies retired, Murdoch transferred his support to the newly elected Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Gough Whitlam, who was elected in 1972 on a social platform that included universal free health care, free education for all Australians to tertiary level, recognition of the People’s Republic of China, and public ownership of Australia’s oil, gas and mineral resources.

Rupert Murdoch’s flirtation with Whitlam turned out to be brief. He had already started his short-lived National Star[27] newspaper in America, and was seeking to strengthen his political contacts there.[28]

Acquiring American Citizenship

In 1985 Murdoch became a United States citizen to satisfy legislation that only United States citizens could own American television stations. This also resulted in Murdoch losing his Australian citizenship.[29][30]

Asked about the Australian federal election, 2007 at News Corporation’s annual general meeting in New York on 19 October 2007, its chairman Rupert Murdoch said, “I am not commenting on anything to do with Australian politics. I’m sorry. I always get into trouble when I do that.” Pressed as to whether he believed Prime Minister John Howard should be re-elected, he said: “I have nothing further to say. I’m sorry. Read our editorials in the papers. It’ll be the journalists who decide that – the editors.”[31]

United States

McNight (2010) identifies four characteristics of his media operations: free market ideology; unified positions on matters of public policy; global editorial meetings; and opposition to a perceived liberal bias in other public media.[32]

On 8 May 2006, the Financial Times reported that Murdoch would be hosting a fund-raiser for Senator Hillary Clinton‘s (D-New York) Senate re-election campaign.[33]

In a 2008 interview with Walt Mossberg, Murdoch was asked whether he had “anything to do with the New York Post‘s endorsement of Barack Obama in the democratic primaries.” Without hesitating, Murdoch replied, “Yeah. He is a rock star. It’s fantastic. I love what he is saying about education. I don’t think he will win Florida… but he will win in Ohio and the election. I am anxious to meet him. I want to see if he will walk the walk.”[34][35]

In 2010 News Corporation gave $1M to the Republican Governors Association and $1M to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.[36][37][38]

Murdoch also served on the board of directors of the libertarian Cato Institute.[39]

United Kingdom

In Britain in the 1980s Murdoch formed a close alliance with Margaret Thatcher, and The Sun credited itself with helping John Major to win an unexpected election victory in the 1992 general election.[40] However, in the general elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005, Murdoch’s papers were either neutral or supported Labour under Tony Blair. This has led some critics to argue that Murdoch simply supports the incumbent parties (or those who seem most likely to win an upcoming election) in the hope of influencing government decisions that may affect his businesses. The Labour Party under Blair had moved from the Left to a more central position on many economic issues prior to 1997. Murdoch identifies himself as a libertarian, this use of the term, however, being one many would not recognize.[41][42]

In a speech delivered in New York, Rupert Murdoch said that the British Prime Minister Tony Blair described the BBC coverage of the Hurricane Katrina disaster as being full of hatred of America.[43]

In 1998, Rupert Murdoch failed in his attempt to buy the football club Manchester United F.C. with an offer of £625 million. It was the largest amount ever offered for a sports club. It was blocked by the United Kingdom’s Competition Commission, which stated that the acquisition would have “hurt competition in the broadcast industry and the quality of British football”.

On 28 June 2006 the BBC reported that Murdoch and News Corporation were flirting with the idea of backing Conservative leader David Cameron at the next General Election.[44] However, in a later interview in July 2006, when he was asked what he thought of the Conservative leader, Murdoch replied “Not much”.[45] In a 2009 blog, it was suggested that in the aftermath of the News of the World phone hacking affair, Murdoch and News Corporation might have decided to back Cameron,[46] although there had already been a convergence of interests between the two men over the muting of Britain’s communications regulator Ofcom.[47]

In 2006, Britain’s Independent newspaper reported that Murdoch would offer Tony Blair a senior role in his global media company News Corp. when the prime minister stood down from office.[48]

He is accused by former Solidarity MSP Tommy Sheridan of having a personal vendetta against him and of conspiring with MI5 to produce a video of him confessing to having affairs – allegations over which Sheridan had previously sued News International and won.[49] On being arrested for perjury following the case, Sheridan claimed that the charges were “orchestrated and influenced by the powerful reach of the Murdoch empire”.[50]

Private meetings with politicians

Murdoch has a history of hosting private meetings with influential politicians. Both parties describe such meetings as politically insignificant; social events, informal dinners or friendly drinks. It has however been argued that such meetings are significant because of Murdoch’s exceptional influence as an international media magnate, as well as his consistent interest in and involvement with political issues.[51]

David Cameron

In August 2008 British Conservative leader and future Prime Minister David Cameron accepted free flights to hold private talks and attend private parties with Murdoch on his yacht, the Rosehearty.[52] Cameron has declared in the Commons register of interests he accepted a private plane provided by Murdoch’s son-in-law, public relations guru Matthew Freud; Cameron has not revealed his talks with Murdoch. The gift of travel in Freud’s Gulfstream IV private jet was valued at around £30,000. Other guests attending the “social events” included the then EU trade commissioner Lord Mandelson, the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and co-chairman of NBC Universal Ben Silverman. The Conservatives have not disclosed what was discussed.[53]

Kevin Rudd

On 21 April 2007, future Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd dined with Rupert Murdoch in New York, following a one-hour private meeting at Murdoch’s News Corporation Building.[54]

News Limited‘s resources involvement and coverage, in Australia, on the 2009 OzCar affair controversy caused antagonism by Rudd. Rudd responded to a press conference question from The Australian journalist Matthew Franklin, questioning “what sort of journalistic checks were put in place” for publishing a story claiming he was corrupt without “having cited any original document in terms of this email.” Although such newspapers Daily Telegraph, the Courier-Mail and the Adelaide Advertiser are owned by News Limited, it has been viewed[who?] that Murdoch’s personal involvement is unlikely and “the anti-Rudd push, if it is coordinated at all, is almost certainly locally driven.”[55]

Murdoch once said that Rudd is “…oversensitive and too sensitive for his own good…” regarding Rudd’s response to criticism made of him by News Corporation’s Australian newspapers.[56] Murdoch also described Rudd as “…more ambitious to lead the world than to lead Australia…” and criticised Rudd’s expansionary fiscal policies as unnecessary: “We were not about to collapse…I thought we were trying to copy the rest of the world a little unnecessarily.”[57]

Stephen Harper

Canadian Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper had lunch with Murdoch and Fox News president Roger Ailes in March 2009, but the New York City meeting was not public knowledge until the summer of 2010 when a Canadian Press reporter learned of it from filings with the U.S. Justice Department. News of the meeting sparked speculation of a politically motivated drive to bring “Fox News North” to Canada.[58]

Barack Obama

In October 2008 Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff wrote a Vanity Fair story recounting a meeting between Barack Obama, Murdoch, and Ailes at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York early that summer. Obama had initially resisted Murdoch’s proposals for a meeting, despite senior News Corp. executives having recruited the Kennedys to act as go-betweens. According to Wolff, at the meeting Obama raised the issue of Fox News’s portrayal of him “as suspicious, foreign, fearsome – just short of a terrorist”, while Ailes said it might not have been this way if Obama had “more willingly come on the air instead of so often giving Fox the back of his hand.” A “tentative truce” was nonetheless agreed upon. Wolff also noted that Murdoch has met every US President since, and including, Harry Truman.[59]

Portrayal on television, in film, books and music

Rupert Murdoch and rival newspaper and publishing magnate Robert Maxwell are thinly fictionalised as “Keith Townsend” and “Richard Armstrong” in The Fourth Estate by British novelist and former MP Jeffrey Archer.[62]

Rupert Murdoch has been portrayed by Barry Humphries in the 1991 mini-series Selling Hitler, Hugh Laurie in a parody of It’s a Wonderful Life in the television show A Bit of Fry & Laurie, Ben Mendelsohn in the film Black and White, Paul Elder in The Late Shift and by himself on The Simpsons first in “Sunday, Cruddy Sunday” and most recently in “Judge Me Tender“.

It has been speculated that the character of Elliot Carver, the global media magnate and main villain in the 1997 James Bond movie Tomorrow Never Dies, is based on Rupert Murdoch. The writer of the film, Bruce Feirstein, has stated that Carver was actually inspired by British press magnate Robert Maxwell, who was one of Murdoch’s rivals.[63]

In 1999, the Ted Turner owned TBS aired an original sitcom, The Chimp Channel. This featured an all-simian cast and the role of an Australian TV veteran named Harry Waller. The character is described as “a self-made gazillionaire with business interests in all sorts of fields. He owns newspapers, hotel chains, sports franchises and genetic technologies, as well as everyone’s favorite cable TV channel, The Chimp Channel.” Waller is thought to be a parody of Murdoch, a long-time rival of Turner’s.[64]

In 2004, the movie Outfoxed included many interviews accusing Fox News of pressuring reporters to report only one side of news stories, in order to influence viewers’ political opinions[65]. The movie did a quick inventory of Rupert Murdoch’s media holdings, indicating that his media reached approximately 3/4 of the world’s population[66].

Tax avoidance

In 1999, The Economist reported that Newscorp Investments had made £11.4 billion ($20.1 billion) in profits over the previous 11 years but had not paid net corporation tax. It also reported that after an examination of the available accounts, Newscorp could normally have been expected to pay corporate tax of approximately $350 million. The article explained that in practice the corporation’s complex structure, international scope and use of offshore tax havens allowed News Corporation to pay minimal taxes.[67][68]

Remuneration and wealth

While CEO of News Corp. in 2008, K. Rupert Murdoch made a total of $30,053,157, which included a base salary of $8,100,000, a cash bonus of $17,500,000, stocks granted of $4,049,988, and no options.[69] According to the 2010 list of Forbes richest Americans, Murdoch is the 38th richest person in the US and the 117th-richest person in the world, with a net worth of $6.2 billion.[70]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

100 Comments leave one →
  1. lynande51 permalink
    August 26, 2011 7:56 pm

    Here in the USA sexual abuse of a child is the crime most falsely reported. Here is a link to a legal firm in California that specializes in those cases. Because laws vary here from state to state it is the best information that I have found on the allegations that MJ faced.
    http://www.shouselaw.com/lewd-conduct-minor.html

    Like

  2. Suzy permalink
    August 26, 2011 7:42 pm

    Thanks Kaarin!

    I agree that Jordan’s reactions during his interview didn’t look like a molestation victim’s at all!

    Actually there’s a very good analysis of it here: http://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/psych-interview-with-jordan-chandler/

    Like

  3. August 26, 2011 2:37 pm

    Sorry for the typos as usual. The copyright was for year 2004.

    Like

  4. August 26, 2011 2:34 pm

    I will give the ISBN 1-58562-057-2. Copyright @004.American Psychiatric Publishing,inc.

    Like

  5. August 26, 2011 2:23 pm

    Suzy, this will be the 2;nd part.Contentious spouses or ex-spouses
    may couch children to make unfounded disclosures.Such children may have
    vague and or changing narratives and may even look to the parent for assistance in perpetuating the false account.I´ll skip a bit.-..emphatize the need for careful evaluation,interviewing,documentation,sophisticated treatment and support…Children who are genuine victims of abuse most often are embarassed,ashamed,and less willing to reveal details of the events.In contrast,children who falsely accuse accuse may embellish events,incorporate unrealistic details,and have relatively little discomfort in revealing the alleged abusive acts(Yates1997)
    My P.S. both Jordan and Gavin had many interviews before any court proceedings.

    Like

  6. August 26, 2011 2:03 pm

    Suzy, I posted it underr some other headline,but. will post it again.It is from3:rd edition,The American Psychiartic Publishing,Textbook of Child and Adolescent Psyhciatry. It states re False Accusations;False accusations of sexual abuse and recantation of previous disclosures of abuse are not uncommon.(Bernet 1997)Chidren make false accusations for a wide range of conscious or unconscious reasons.In general,children have imperfect memories of events,and memories of of abuse become more
    inaccurate over time,particularly in yonger children(Goodman and Saywitz1994).Children are suggestible and may prefer to recount events in a manner that will please a parent or adult.–Here I will skip a bit, as it concerns divorce and custody battles.I may also have to break this into 2 parts as my computer tends to act badly on long posts.
    So this is the 1:st part.

    Like

  7. Suzy permalink
    August 26, 2011 11:51 am

    @ Kaarin

    You said you will post a part of a psychology book regarding false sex abuse allegations by children. I’d be really interested in that.

    Like

  8. August 26, 2011 11:37 am

    Sorry for typos again. I meant immediate recall, that you just don´t
    remember what just happened.
    I believe they want to blame “drugs” and cause “accidental” to get the insurance money.Also, do you think that some of the family might be more intersted in those 17 mln´s rather than clearing MJ`s name?

    Like

  9. August 26, 2011 11:31 am

    Suzy & Gigi, very bad news re DD there instead of Vogel. They have alredy mislead the jurors with false info; Propofol is NOT a prescription drug.And over here it is The Drug that has the most pages in our PDR, full of warnings.
    It was not 1 mistake. Murray engaged in a weeks,months long gross negigence and lethal malprctice. He did not even know the pharmacology or pharmacokinetics of Propofol.Didn´t he know that Midazolam depresses respiration and can even stop it.Did he not know that those meds wipe out immesiate recall(of the patient, not doctor as in this case).
    I can not watch the programs you talk about over here. Can you explain the conent,or the points briefly, I would be thankful.

    Like

  10. August 26, 2011 4:19 am

    @Suzy

    Just noticed you posted what happedend with DD here. lol I had mentioned the drama queen on the other post. That woman is nuts! She’s obviously blind cause the woman can’t read. What a big baby, a prime example of a hater who wouldn’t last a millisecond through the crap she dished/dishes out on MJ.

    Like

  11. Suzy permalink
    August 25, 2011 7:51 pm

    A glimpse into what we should prepared for during the Murray trial. If you had any hopes for a fair coverage, forget them. The media are deliberately gearing up to be very anti-MJ again. A TV channel called HLN will cover the trial. They already showed in what direction they are going with the Dr Drew show. And now this from Twitter (Joe Vogel is the author who will publish a book about MJ this autumn which will focus on his music and from the extracts it promises to be great, I recommend it to all fans: http://www.amazon.com/Man-Music-Creative-Michael-Jackson/dp/1402779380 ):

    JoeVogel1 Joe Vogel

    Busy week ahead, including interviews w/ Positively Michael (wed.), CNN’s HLN (Friday), and MJ Preservation Project (Sun.)
    22 Aug

    JoeVogel1 Joe Vogel

    The HLN taping is this Friday but will air in early September. I’ll let everyone know the exact time/date when I know.

    JoeVogel1 Joe Vogel

    Never mind about my scheduled appearance on HLN. Just found out I was replaced on the panel. People will hear from Diane Dimond instead
    15 hours ago

    Diane Dimond reacted to his tweets:

    DiDimond Diane Dimond
    @ @JoeVogel1 What are you talking about? I had nothing to do with picking a panel and you’ve got all Jacko fans screaming for my head. Come on
    7 hours ago

    DiDimond Diane Dimond
    @ @JoeVogel1 you have no idea what you’ve unleashed on my head.
    6 hours ago

    Joe Vogel:

    JoeVogel1 Joe Vogel @

    @DiDimond Never said you picked the panel. Read the tweet
    10 hours ago

    Like

  12. August 24, 2011 1:40 am

    Since this is the only post connected with Rupert Murdoch I’m placing here an article sent to me by a reader about an absolutely disgusting way News International was (or is?) manipulating the truth. Please go to the site to see the pictures and read it in full: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/aug/22/phone-hacking-newsinternational?CMP=twt_fd

    The only thing I would like to say here is that the article reveals the pattern of tabloid media lies.

    – First they throw in a lie and embellish it with “natural details” (say that the girl’s mobile is alive and even “reproduce” some of the conversation from it).
    – Then they accuse someone else of meddling with the girl’s mobile and feign disgust at this person’s behavior.
    – And then they “find” this culprit and report it with “a shock” on their faces that this deranged woman went as far as posing herself as a youngster.

    And all this they do while knowing all the way that it is actually THEM who are posing as a youngster! In addition to that you will learn that the person whose name appeared on hundreds of News of the World stories .. never existed and is a fictional character!

    See for yourself:

    How News of the World’s Milly Dowler stories changed between editions

    Posted by
    Roy Greenslade Monday 22 August 2011 10.35 BST
    guardian.co.uk

    News Corp’s Wall Street Journal has published a lengthy article on the News of the World phone hacking scandal headlined Tabloid’s pursuit of missing girl led to its own demise.

    It casts some new light on the paper’s interception of voicemail messages on the mobile phone of Milly Dowler, the 13-year-old who was abducted and murdered in 2002.

    According to the WSJ, while police were hunting for the girl, the News of the World “scrambled at least eight reporters and photographers to an Epson ink cartridge factory… hoping to land a big scoop: missing Milly Dowler found alive.”

    The paper was confident that they would find her there because of its eavesdropping of her phone messages.

    Though it was a false lead it culminated, says the Journal, in the publication on 14 April 2002 “of the only articles containing discussions of the girl’s voicemails printed by the News of the World.” The WSJ continues:

    “A close look at News of the World’s quest for Milly Dowler scoops in 2002 sheds fresh light on the crisis that is shaking News Corp today.

    News Corp officials have identified the person from the weekly tabloid’s staff who commissioned a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, to target Ms Dowler’s phone.

    This amounts to an explicit acknowledgment that the tabloid targeted her phone for illegal hacking. The company hasn’t released that person’s name.”

    The Journal then deals in detail with key differences in three stories published in separate NotW editions on 14 April, the outline of which were reported in yesterday’s Observer.

    Version one: published in the News of the World’s earliest editions
    To illustrate the differences, the WSJ publishes cuttings (reproduced here) that show significant alterations between the story published in early editions and two others carried in later editions.

    The first edition story – published on page 9, bylined Robert Kellaway, and headlined “Milly ‘hoax’ riddle” – began:

    “The hunt for missing Milly Dowler took a new twist last night when it emerged that messages has been sent to her mobile phone after she vanished. One of them appeared to be offering her a job in the Midlands.”

    It went on to quote the message itself: “Hello Mandy. We are ringing because we have some interviews starting. Can you call me back? Thank you. Bye Bye.”

    It also mentioned two other messages, including a strange one left by a man who said, “Mortlake in Putney by Tangies” and signed off “Piggo baby”.

    Version two: on page 30
    However, none of this detail was published in the stories published in the NoTW’s later editions. The second version, which appeared on page 30 and was bylined Sarah Arnold, was headlined: “New Milly mystery”

    The intro was exactly the same as before. But this story focused instead on the possibility that a hoaxer had been posing as Milly and was therefore hampering the police investigation.

    It contained just one passing reference to a voicemail message.

    Version three: new headline
    Then, in the final edition, came a third version, also on page 30, also bylined Sarah Arnold, but headlined “Missing Milly ‘hoax’ outrage: Sick woman has posed as youngster.” It began:

    “The hunt for missing Milly Dowler took a shocking twist last night when it emerged a deranged woman has been posing as the missing youngster.

    Police believe the sick hoaxer called into a recruitment agency pretending to be Milly.”

    Citing “a person familiar with the matter,” the WSJ says that News International discovered the differences in the three versions last month and passed the information to Scotland Yard.

    It was three days before publication, on 11 April, that NotW staff were sent to the Epson ink factory. Reporters were told by news desk executive Neville Thurlbeck of a tip that Milly was working there. The reporters weren’t told the tip’s source.

    Thurlbeck refused to comment on the claim to the Journal. He was arrested in April by Scotland Yard on suspicion of unlawfully intercepting voicemail messages. He has not been charged.

    One of the Epson stakeout participants told the Journal that the team thought the tip was “a wild goose chase,” given that Milly was just 13. But staff monitored the factory exits for three days until Thurlbeck called them off.

    According to the Journal, neither Kellaway nor Arnold could recall writing the stories under their bylines. The paper says:

    “Former News of the World staffers say it wasn’t unusual for the News of the World’s editors to put a reporter’s byline on a story not written by that person.

    In fact, one reporter whose name appeared on hundreds of News of the World stories over the years — Edward Trevor — doesn’t actually exist, former staffers say.”

    Like

  13. August 14, 2011 6:55 am

    @ Suzy,

    “Problem is that no prior alleged victim claimed such things. Only Gavin.”.

    True, it is like that one allegation of telephone dirty talk, an accusation of forced sex, the stealing of songs from a minor or forced surgery to look like the assailant. None said the same thing so where is the pattern? There was no such M.O., but that doesn’t stop people from creating one.

    Did you read the discussion about the Blake case just before the comments about Michael? How it was understandable that Blake may have done his wife in, that she not a good wife as was Scott Peterson’s? I did not attend to the Blake case either, so to have Levin list all the things which weren’t there and should have been, the duplicity of the DA and confusion concerning the case was a real lesson. When the Media wants they can make a good accounting and when they don’t, they won’t.

    Now back to locating the real Levin link. I have a habit of renaming downloaded material.

    Like

  14. August 14, 2011 6:35 am

    Sorry, my earlier post has the wrong video link for Harvey Levin admitting the 2003 allegations were a setup. It nice he liked MJ’s album, but not what I meant to discuss. Will post correct link as soon as relocated. My apologies for the confusion.

    Like

  15. Alison permalink
    August 13, 2011 7:20 pm

    and they just hope people won’t notice the inconsistencies. they think we are stupid.

    Like

  16. Alison permalink
    August 13, 2011 7:20 pm

    Suzy –

    “Under such a system the truth per se is not taken into account because it is only the idea which matters. If the truth runs counter to the idea, it is the idea which takes the upper hand while the truth is suppressed and replaced by rumors, opinion, speculation and even lies.” – VMJ

    they are all so obsessed with the idea they say anything.

    Like

  17. Suzy permalink
    August 13, 2011 6:09 pm

    @ Dialdancer

    “In this case I can tell you what the prosecutors think the M.O. is, plying the alleged victim with wine. Showing them pictures of naked women. And if you can show that, then the judge can allow it in. “

    Problem is that no prior alleged victim claimed such things. Only Gavin.

    Like

  18. Alison permalink
    August 13, 2011 2:06 pm

    Dialdancer – the video is about the Michael album, doesn’t mention anything else.

    Like

  19. August 13, 2011 10:13 am

    Here is a set I’ve been looking for. I’d find one then misplace the other. This is on Harvey Levin. Twice to my knowledge he has expressed doubts about the allegation, actually he was made to admit what he must have discussed away from the public.. The 2003 allegations were a set up. After making these statements did it stop Levin from continuing to play “follow the leader”? NO.

    CNN International TRANSCRIPT: President Bush Holds End-of-the-Year News Conference
    Aired December 20, 2004 – Host Commentator:

    “LEVIN: No. You can do it. It’s called Prior Bad Acts. And you don’t have to actually be criminally charged with it. If you can prove that the defendant has some kind of an M.O. that he always follows.

    In this case I can tell you what the prosecutors think the M.O. is, plying the alleged victim with wine. Showing them pictures of naked women. And if you can show that, then the judge can allow it in. My feeling is that it may be admissible, but I don’t think it’s smart at all for prosecutors to do it. You open up a Pandora’s box.

    The first case, the ’93 case has a lot of problems. The kid took money, ran away from the case. The parents had their own issues. and I’m not so sure it’s real smart for prosecutors to go down that road”

    Then on Nov 15, 2010 he put right out there. Starts around 1:55.

    http://www.tmz.com/tmz-live/?autoplay=true&mediaKey=528a7c06-33c4-4910-a7e6-4691f73f9d1a

    I really hated using the TMZ site, but it was the only place i could find the video.

    Many thanks to the 2004 MJEOL Admin who provided the leads which made it possible to locate this information.

    Like

  20. Teva permalink
    August 6, 2011 4:42 pm

    @Shelly

    What Geragos said in that video is absolutely true, thanks for sharing. HLN’s primetime shows interview the tabloid for information. Grace interviews the National Enquirer on Michael’s death; Valez-Mitchell used to work for Harvey Levin so TMZ are regulars, and I have seen Dr. Drew & Bahar interview Radar Online (which BTW is owned by NE).

    Like

  21. shelly permalink
    August 6, 2011 2:06 am

    I think that video is interesting, it’s Geragos talking about the national Enquirer

    Like

  22. August 5, 2011 10:50 am

    Murdoch Hacked Us Too

    ““It was a rebirth. The Post is an orphan that has been adopted.” Our Daddy Warbucks would not only pour money into the paper’s impoverished coffers but also, as he told the Times, preserve its “essential characteristics,” “style of reporting,” and “­political policies.” The Post would continue to be a “serious newspaper.”

    “A day or two later, I was walking across the South Street newsroom when I ran into a young Australian reporter on the staff, Jane Perlez. You must know something about Rupert Murdoch, I said, feeling quite upbeat about our white knight from Down Under. Jane would have none of it. “He’s bloody why I left Australia!” she replied.”

    http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/murdoch-scandal-2011-8/

    From “The Browser”

    “Superb, excoriating attack on News Corp. Not just a UK issue. Says America is in denial about extent of Murdoch empire’s negative influence. And there’s a lot more to it than mere tabloid vulgarity and right-wing attack-dog politics ”

    http://thebrowser.com/articles/murdoch-hacked-us-too

    Like

  23. August 2, 2011 4:01 am

    These videos are interesting:



    Like

  24. July 31, 2011 7:47 am

    Please support this petition:

    “We support the establishment of a full public inquiry into phone hacking and other forms of illegal intrusion by the press”

    SIGN: http://hackinginquiry.org/index.php

    http://mjjrealrealm.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/sign-hacked-off-petition-in-honor-of-michael-jackson/

    Like

  25. anniedomino permalink
    July 23, 2011 2:34 pm

    So Murray’s defence have viewed hours of unreleased TII footage and concluded that Michael did not appear in poor health. Another myth shattered. All of these stories of Michael being an out of control drug addict, that he was in poor health, that they were using body doubles, etc…all started with Oxman and the Jackson family. LaToya’s various conspiracy theories are reaching the level of farce. She is being interviewed by Michael’s haters (Joey Behar) and just spouting all this contradictory rubbish. All in the hopes that somehow the Will will be overturned or AEG will be found liable in Michael’s death and the Jacksons will get their hands on Michael’s estate.
    The Rupert Murdoch’s of this world will be hampered if people like the Jacksons had more integrity and spoke the truth. Instead Michael’s family and “friends” (LMP, Tatum) are out there perpetuating myths. Notice that people like Liz Taylor, Diana Ross, Stevie Wonder, etc.. have kept their mouths shut. And people who were really close to Michael like the Cascios and Kathy Hilton have said that he was not on drugs.

    Like

  26. Suzy permalink
    July 23, 2011 9:15 am

    Martin Bashir bashes Rupert Murdoch, can you believe the hypocrisy?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/martin-bashir-rupert-murd_n_898462.html

    Like

  27. Alison permalink
    July 23, 2011 1:05 am

    i turned on th TV tonight and there was an advert – family camping for £1.00 a night – with coupons from The Sun!! murdoch really has no respect for people`at all – give them a coupon for virtually free camping and they will still buy our papers! The worst of is some will go for it!

    Like

  28. Alison permalink
    July 22, 2011 2:10 am

    a while back i saw a youtube, i think, video of Prince (of purple rain fame) being asked questions about Michael. one comment he made i thought was interesting – he said that he wasn’t going to comment because he didn’t know what Michael knew about. he was implying Michael could know some important things nobody else knew – factual things.

    i wasn’t sure exactly what he meant or where he was coming from.

    Like

  29. Alison permalink
    July 22, 2011 2:02 am

    “and one more says that Rupert Murdoch had 3 phone conversations with this politician within a ten-days period prior to the war in Iraq (one of them was on the eve of it – which started on March 20, 2003).

    Airing Bashir’s documentary about Michael Jackson early February 2003 naturally had nothing to do with the war.”

    It is so long ago now and there was so much about it for so long that i have no idea and no idea how to find out really, but can anyone remember where the first reports of the mythical weapons of mass destruction were published?? it was supposed to be info from MI5 et.c and that poor man supposedly committed suicide. i think we all know there was some very shady goings on about this so its very interesting what you have found above.
    When it was found that they did not exist, blair was looking very shaken, tho i suppose he would anyway.

    but about the bashir thing – yes it would seem likley they were trying to distract people but this was an ITV programme, so far as i know ITV has nothing to do with Murdoch?? but then they are probably all in bed together so to speak – or maybe literally!!

    Like

  30. anniedomino permalink
    July 21, 2011 11:34 am

    Freedom of speech is not an absolute right and was never meant to be. The freedom assigned to the press was based on the notion of a “marketplace of ideas” where people informed and educated themselves and then formed their own opinions based on what they gather in this marketplace of ideas. The problem is that the masses are, unfortunately, not diligently educating themselves as to the issues of the day and instead just taking whatever their news source is as gospel. Especially older people, I find, have a lot of trust in the press. They grew up in a time when journalists, doctors, lawyers, teachers and priests were trusted and respected. I don’t believe that press freedom should be curtailed. I do, however, think that it should be easier and cheaper for people to sue for libel. I also think they can introduce legislation to make it easier for people to evaluate the information they are getting – for example, when people are paid for interviews the amount of the payment should be a strapline on the TV screen throughout the story.
    In my country there are some very good laws. For example, you cannot name an accused in an alleged crime until he/ she has been charged in court. There has never been a televised trial here. The press had to ask the permission of the supreme court to report on the divorce of Nelson and Winnie Mandela. The supreme court only allowed it as it was considered to be of national interest as both were publicly elected officials whose private relationship had political implications. No other divorce proceeding in this country can be reported in the press. Until recently lawyers and doctors were not even allowed to advertise their services. Their is a press ombudsman where you can complain if you believe the reporting is unfair. And most newspapers and radio/ TV stations advertise this fact and give the numbers you can call to lodge a complaint.

    Like

  31. July 21, 2011 2:55 am

    Today articles are like fish in an over filled pond they are just out at me.

    Video Killed The Internet Star? Daily Beast To Introduce Online Talk Show
    http://www.mediaite.com/online/video-star-daily-beast-to-introduce-online-talk-show/

    “Tina Brown is planning to extend the Daily Beast’s brand and reach with an online talk show that is being described as having a format similar to that of The View”.

    “According to the Observer, the Newsweek Daily Beast company has already hired producers Kathy O’Hearn, formerly of CNN, and Susie Banikarim, who was “poached from Diane Sawyer.” O’Hearn has previously worked with Brown as the executive producer of CNBC’s relatively short-lived weekly talk show, Topic [A].”

    The same Daily Beast which removed all rebuttal comments from Dimond’s MJ pages just recently? The Same News Week which underwent criticism for the Princess Diana’s photoshop picture? As if Joy Behar wasn’t enough.

    Like

  32. July 21, 2011 2:28 am

    “Jeffery Scott a former Tabby turned Prosecutor whose mission became to expose former fellows deeds. I thought here was one who did his job, researched and did not relie on dubious insider information and personal bias due to environment. Upon further research I found I was wrong.”

    Dial, you mean to say that he is no better than the others, is not objective and is just taking revenge on his former colleagues? Then I will delete the quotes I’ve made from his article.

    Instead I’ve found another man speaking about Murdoch and he sounds like a serious and sensible person to me – it is Gordon Duff, Senior Editor of “Veterans Today”. I am not discussing his opinion of Murdoch’s role in world politics (have no idea if he is right or wrong) but as regards Murdoch’s influence on culture he is hitting the nail on the head – tabloids turn people into empty-headed, ignorant morons interested in dirty sex and scandals only, incapable of thinking on their own and prone to believing any crazy lie about anyone, let alone Michael Jackson – be it “blood baths” from Maureen Orth or stories about Gavin Arvizo being molested AFTER the scandal broke out and the whole world stared at Neverland.

    Gordon Duff says that Rupert Murdoch is teaching people to turn against the educated and intelligent:

    “One of his primary targets is to go after the intellectuals – he calls them elite – the natural leaders, which should be in a society the cultural leaders. By teaching people to turn against the educated, the intelligent, the accomplished, he has built in the US and Britain an addiction to dirty sex, scandals, ignorance and racism. And he has pandered to the absolute worst within humanity. He and those with him have created a popular culture.”

    And Michael Jackson, by the way, was a powerful cultural leader who was appealing to the best in every person. He asked everyone to look at himself in the mirror and make a change – and this is a definite opposite to Murdoch’s ideas. And this may well be a very good reason why they harassed him.

    Here is a shortened version of Gordon Duff’s interview:



    Now I doubt very much Rupert Murdoch’s puritanical views. All this “Christianity” and “high morals” they are talking of seem to be just a make-believe game.

    This post of mine should be fully rewritten.

    Like

  33. July 21, 2011 1:37 am

    Helena,

    There are times when I feel a real sense of let down by my fellow man. I truly do not expect the whole world to see as I see, but I expect people who called themselves experts to demonstrate the qualities attributed to the title.

    I still would have brought the article, but I would have taken a closer look at the author. You will find that his last piece is found on Andrew Breitbart’s site.

    Jeffery Scott a former Tabby turned Prosecutor whose mission became to expose former fellows deeds. I thought here was one who did his job, researched and did not relie on dubious insider information and personal bias due to environment. Upon further research I found I was wrong.

    Like

  34. July 21, 2011 12:51 am

    The former Director General of the BBC Greg Dyke criticized Murdoch heavily and was regarded by Murdoch as an “enemy”. Here is an article from the year 2002:

    The Evening Standard (London, England)
    July 10, 2002 | Horrie, Chris

    IT is one of the most implausible media marriages since Rupert Murdoch dumped his wife of 32 years and got hitched to Wendi Deng, a fecund Chinese TV executive 40 years his junior. Now he’s walked down the aisle with, if anything, an even more unlikely bride – his mortal foe and sworn enemy, BBC director-general Greg Dyke.

    The nuptials took the form of last week’s deal between Murdoch’s Sky and the BBC to take over the running of the UK’s digital terrestrial TV (DTT) system. Yet a matter of months ago Murdoch’s newspapers – The Sun and The Times – were running a personalised campaign to prevent Dyke taking over at the BBC.

    Murdoch reportedly told executives at Sky that Dyke was “our enemy”, a man on a mission to stop Sky in its tracks. Over the years, Dyke has been just as bitter a critic of Murdoch and his empire. Before he arrived at the BBC, he castigated Murdoch as “a threat to freedom” because he had … http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-88828490.html

    * * *
    After the scandal broke out Greg Dyke said about Murdoch in the Financial Times of July 12, 2011:

    “For those of us who have been warning about the tactics used by the Murdoch operation for many years, the events of the past week have been sweet. Over the past 30 years British politics has been debased by its relationship with the popular press, and the News International papers in particular. Mr Murdoch has had undue influence over broadcasting and media legislation for decades”.

    http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2011/07/12/618891/

    Like

  35. July 21, 2011 12:16 am

    Another article shows that the former British Prime Minister interfered in the work of some European commission at Murdoch’s request and one more says that Rupert Murdoch had 3 phone conversations with this politician within a ten-days period prior to the war in Iraq (one of them was on the eve of it – which started on March 20, 2003).

    Airing Bashir’s documentary about Michael Jackson early February 2003 naturally had nothing to do with the war.

    Article 1:
    Memo shows how Blair aided Murdoch
    • David Hencke and Rob Evans
    • The Guardian, Saturday 1 November 2008
    A newly disclosed Downing Street memo has revealed how Tony Blair helped Rupert Murdoch overcome an official investigation which was jeopardising one of his big investments. It shows that Blair, while prime minister, immediately ordered his top officials to help the tycoon who was frustrated that a potentially lucrative scheme was being blocked by a long-running European commission investigation.
    Blair told the media magnate that “he was instinctively sympathetic to what Murdoch was aiming to achieve”. The tycoon eventually won approval for the plan. BSkyB had teamed up with other big companies to develop an interactive scheme in which people could shop and manage their finances through their televisions.
    The memo is the first to be disclosed under freedom of information legislation documenting the contents of meetings between Murdoch and Blair. Blair has been accused of granting political favours to Murdoch in return for support from his newspapers; Lance Price, a former Downing Street spin doctor, said Murdoch seemed to be one of the four most influential people in the administration.
    The memo reveals an episode in 1998 – a year after the Sun’s conversion to Labour – in which Murdoch appears to call in one of those favours. Murdoch had privately approached Blair when he feared that the European commission investigation was hindering his business opportunities.
    Murdoch complained that the investigation by the European competition commissioner into one of his planned television schemes was costing him money. He told Blair: “The competition commissioner, [Karel] Van Miert, had come up a long list of complaints and the project was being delayed at huge cost. Sky’s own investment was very significant (£800m so far) and the success of the venture was crucial to their overall plans for developing digital services.”
    According to the memo of the meeting in January 1998, Blair backed Murdoch, saying “it was important that the UK remained at the cutting edge of developing this kind of media product”.
    ….Initially the service, known as British Interactive Broadcasting, performed well but by 2001 it collapsed as people found it easier to shop on the internet.
    Full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/01/media-rupertmurdoch?INTCMP=SRCH

    Article 2:
    Blair and Murdoch spoke days before Iraq war
    • guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 July 2007 11.49 BST
    Tony Blair spoke to the media mogul Rupert Murdoch three times in the 10 days before the outbreak of the Iraq war – once on the eve of the US-led invasion – it was disclosed yesterday.
    The telephone conversations were among six calls between the two men detailed by the cabinet office in response to a freedom of information request by the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Avebury.
    No details were given of what subjects Mr Blair and the News Corporation chairman discussed in the calls on March 11, 13 and 19 2003, ahead of the launch of US-led military action in Iraq on March 20.
    Lord Avebury said: “Rupert Murdoch has exerted his influence behind the scenes on a range of policies on which he is known to have strong views, including the regulation of broadcasting and the Iraq war. The public can now scrutinise the timing of his contacts with the former prime minister, to see whether they can be linked to events in the outside world.”
    Further conversations between Mr Blair and Mr Murdoch took place on January 29, April 25 and October 3 2004. The cabinet office response also listed meetings between Mr Blair and the Express Newspapers publisher, Richard Desmond, on January 29 and September 3 2003 and February 23 2004.
    The release covered the prime minister’s phone calls and meetings with the two men between September 2002 and April 2005.
    Lord Avebury initially asked for the dates of Mr Blair’s phone calls and meetings with Mr Murdoch and Mr Desmond in October 2003. When this request was rebuffed by the then leader of the Lords, Baroness Amos, he made a complaint under freedom of information legislation.
    In 2005, Downing Street said the information was exempt from disclosure because of the need for the prime minister to be able to undertake free and frank discussions.

    Full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jul/19/freedomofinformation.iraq?INTCMP=SRCH

    Like

  36. July 21, 2011 12:06 am

    Peppering this on serveral MJ Sites.

    Tabloids don’t deserve the 1st Amendment. Our respect for freedom of the press shelters their illegal conduct.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shapiro-tabloids-20110719,0,6426135.story

    So where was this guy during the witch hunt?

    Like

  37. July 20, 2011 11:32 pm

    Here is an article about meetings between senior executives of News International and senior British police officers.

    What is funny is that most of them were scheduled for the first day of the month or about it – which means that the meetings were regular, planned and most probably had an agenda behind them. The article ends with the list of dates and who met whom. Let me note that contrary to the usual practice when only one lunch or dinner was arranged, on June 1, 2009 three major events were organized between the newspaper executives and the police (it may not be anything special but I still wonder what they discussed so extensively?):

    Those senior Met Police lunches and dinners with News International:

    John Yates and other senior Metropolitan Police officers had regular meetings with News International staff over the last few years. Find out when.

    Boris Johnson will today be put under pressure to back calls for Met assistant commissioner John Yates to resign.

    Dee Doocey, a liberal Democrat member of the London assembly who is also a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, released dates of dinners and lunches attended by senior Met policing figures over the past few years, including since allegations of phone hacking at the News of the World first surfaced – based on a freedom of information request and information released by the Metropolitan police at the request of MPA members.

    Yates, who was responsible for reviewing the evidence the phone hacking affair has in 2009 and who now has responsibility for counter terrorism, wrote to London mayor Boris Johnson on Monday to express “great regret” for previously reassuring him that the initial inquiry into phone hacking had been “thorough” .

    Giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in light of the fast moving events of last week, Yates expressed the regret he felt at the way those affected were handled under his watch, and for ruling that there was no need to reopen the phone-hacking investigation in 2009. But he insisted this was “not a resignation matter” and that he intended to continue in his job. Asked by the chair of the committee, Keith, Vaz if he had considered his position, Yates told him: “No I haven’t offered to resign. If you are suggesting that I should resign for what News of the World has done, I think that is probably unfair.”

    Doocey, who is the LibDems’ city hall spokeswoman on policing, published information secured under a Freedom of Information request which showed Yates had five lunches with staff from the News International stable: three with the Sun newspaper, in August 2008, January 2009 and March 2009, one with the Sunday Times in 2009, and one in November that year with the editor and crime editor of News of the World.

    Doocey called on him to quit: “It is shameful that John Yates found time to have five lunches with the News of the World and News International, but after just a few hours decided there was no additional evidence to justify a further investigation into phone hacking.

    “John Yates has failed literally hundreds of victims of phone hacking. While he remains in post as Assistant Commissioner of the Met its reputation will not recover.He must take responsibility for this pitiful review and accept that he has lost all credibility. It is time for him to go.”

    The data that Doocey obtained is below.

    SOURCE: DEE DOOCEY
    .November 8, 2005. Dinner with News of the World Andy Hayman FOI request
    .February 1, 2006. Lunch with Editorial Staff, The Times Andy Hayman Response to request from MPA
    .February 1, 2006. Lunch with Editorial Staff, The Times Sir Ian Blair (Commissioner), Paul Stephenson (Deputy Commissioner) Response to request from MPA
    .March 1, 2006. Meeting Editor, Sunday Times Sir Ian Blair (Commissioner) Response to request from MPA
    .April 25, 2006. Dinner with News of the World Andy Hayman FOI request
    .June 1, 2006. Meeting Editor, The Sun Sir Ian Blair (Commissioner) Response to request from MPA
    .September 1, 2006. Dinner with Deputy Editor, News of the World Paul Stephenson (Deputy Commisioner) Response to request from MPA
    .November 1, 2006. Lunch, Editor Sunday Times Sir Ian Blair (Commissioner) Response to request from MPA
    .December 1, 2006. Meeting Editor The Times Sir Ian Blair (Commissioner) Response to request from MPA
    .March 29, 2007. Lunch with News of the World Andy Hayman FOI request
    .June 1, 2007. Lunch Editorial Staff, News of the World Sir Ian Blair (Commissioner) Response to request from MPA
    .July 1, 2007. Drinks Reception, The Times Andy Hayman Response to request from MPA
    .September 1, 2007. Lunch Editor The Sun Sir Ian Blair (Commissioner) Response to request from MPA
    .September 5, 2007. Lunch with News of the World Andy Hayman FOI request
    .November 1, 2007. Dinner with Deputy Editor, News of the World Paul Stephenson (Deputy Commisioner) Response to request from MPA
    .November 16, 2007. Lunch with News of the World Andy Hayman FOI request
    .February 1, 2008. Dinner with Deputy Editor, News of the World Paul Stephenson (Deputy Commisioner) Response to request from MPA
    .April 1, 2008. Dinner Deputy Editor The Sun Sir Paul Stephenson (Deputy Commissioner) Response to request from MPA
    .August 29, 2008. Lunch with The Times John Yates FOI request
    .October 1, 2008. Meeting with Deputy Editor, News of the World Paul Stephenson (Deputy Commisioner) Response to request from MPA
    .October 1, 2008. Dinner with Deputy Editor, News of the World Paul Stephenson (Deputy Commisioner) Response to request from MPA
    .January 6, 2009. Lunch with The Sun John Yates FOI request
    .February 1, 2009. Dinner with Deputy Editor, News of the World Paul Stephenson (Commisioner) Response to request from MPA
    .March 20, 2009. Lunch with The Sun John Yates FOI request
    .April 1, 2009. Lunch Editor The Sun Paul Stephenson (Commisioner) Response to request from MPA
    .May 1, 2009. Dinner with Deputy Editor, News of the World Paul Stephenson (Commisioner) Response to request from MPA
    .June 1, 2009. News Corporation reception Paul Stephenson (Commisioner) Response to request from MPA
    .June 1, 2009. Lunch Editor The Times Paul Stephenson (Commisioner) Response to request from MPA
    .June 1, 2009. Dinner with Deputy Editor, News of the World Paul Stephenson (Commisioner) Response to request from MPA
    .July 1, 2009. Lunch Editor Sunday Times Paul Stephenson (Commisioner) Response to request from MPA
    .September 8, 2009. Dinner with The Sunday Times John Yates FOI request
    .November 1, 2009. Lunch Head of News, Sky News Paul Stephenson (Commisioner) Response to request from MPA
    .November 5, 2009. Dinner with Editor and Crime Editor News of the World John Yates FOI request
    .April 1, 2010. Lunch Chief Executive News International Paul Stephenson (Commisioner) Response to request from MPA
    .June 1, 2010. News Corporation reception Paul Stephenson (Commisioner) Response to request from MPA
    .November 1, 2010. Drinks Editor The Sun Paul Stephenson (Commisioner) Response to request from MPA

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/13/john-yates-meeting-news-international

    Like

  38. July 20, 2011 11:11 pm

    More about Rupert Murdoch’s war against the BBC and on his very close contacts with key British politicians:

    Extraordinary attack on corporation’s coverage of New Orleans disaster

    By Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor

    Sunday, 18 September 2005

    Tony Blair has told Rupert Murdoch he believes the BBC’s coverage of Hurricane Katrina was “full of hatred of America and gloating”.

    In an extraordinary disclosure that will acutely embarrass Mr Blair, the world’s most powerful media mogul revealed details of a private conversation that took place in New York on Thursday.

    Addressing a conference of influential media figures in the United States, Mr Murdoch said the Prime Minister had told him he had been shocked at the way the BBC had handled the disaster.

    “Tony Blair… told me yesterday that he was in Delhi last week and he turned on the BBC World Service to see what was happening in New Orleans, and he said it was just full of hate at America and gloating about our troubles,” the chairman and chief executive of News Corporation said.

    Mr Blair’s criticism drew a withering response from the BBC last night and plunged its relationship with the Prime Minister to a new low. Opposition politicians and respected journalists also rounded on Mr Blair for siding with Mr Murdoch against his commercial rival.

    Greg Dyke, the BBC former director-general forced out in the wake of the Hutton report, last night said Mr Murdoch had provided a telling insight into his relationship with Mr Blair.

    “If it’s an accurate record, Mr Murdoch has provided a fascinating glimpse of his private relationship with Mr Blair,” he said. “It may not come as a great surprise that the Prime Minister aims to please Murdoch but it comes as a bit of a shock he goes this far.” He added: “Mr Blair, it might be said, is hardly the best judge of the impartiality of news coverage, given his behaviour in the run-up to the Iraq war.”

    Theresa May, Tory culture spokeswoman, said: “If that is Tony Blair’s view of the BBC’s coverage, he should be giving it to the BBC, not to the head of a rival news organisation.”

    Anger over Mr Blair’s comments will be heightened by a claim made in a diary kept by a former Downing Street spin doctor that Mr Murdoch was allowed to veto any change in UK policy towards Europe.

    An entry in a diary kept by Lance Price, who worked for the PM between 1998 and 2000, said: “We have promised News International we won’t make any changes to our Europe policy without talking to them.”

    But, according to today’s Mail on Sunday, that diary entry was altered on instructions from the Cabinet Office.

    Mr Murdoch revealed Mr Blair’s private remark as he took part in a New York seminar hosted by Bill Clinton on Friday night. The former US president also took the BBC to task, saying it was “stacked up” to criticise the federal government’s slow response.

    The BBC said in a statement last night: “The BBC’s coverage of the Katrina devastation was committed solely to relaying the events fully, accurately and impartially, an approach we will continue to take with this and other stories.” Some of the BBC’s most distinguished correspondents leapt to its defence. Charles Wheeler said: “If one looks back at what was said compared to what the federal authorities were saying, then and now, it becomes clear that it was first-class accurate reporting.” Sir Christopher Bland, a former chairman of governors, called Mr Blair’s reported remark “nonsensical”. Martin Bell added: “If Mr Blair is really siding with Murdoch against the BBC, many will despair.”

    Downing Street last night declined to comment.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-tells-murdoch-gloating-bbc-is-full-of-hatred-for-america-507356.html

    Like

  39. July 20, 2011 10:41 pm

    “On O’Reilly this morning some British guy was already making the apologist “freedom of speech, we hold politicians accountable” argument.”

    The Murdochs used this argument before against those whom they considered their enemy. The BBC was one of them. In view of what they themselves are doing their hypocrisy is UNBELIEVABLE – they accused the BBC of being a “threat to democracy”! Look what we learn of the Murdochs’ own past from this article:

    Murdoch’s Son: BBC Expansion Is “Chilling,” A Threat To Independent Journalism
    08/29/09 10:59 AM

    EDINBURGH, Scotland — The son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch has called the British Broadcasting Corp. a threat to independent journalism.
    James Murdoch, the 36-year-old executive in charge of News Corp.’s businesses in Europe and Asia, spoke late Friday at the Edinburgh International Television Festival — 20 years after his father delivered a keynote speech at the same event.

    “In this all-media marketplace, the expansion of state-sponsored journalism is a threat to the plurality and independence of news provision, which are so important for our democracy,” Murdoch said.

    The BBC is subsidized by the British government and funded, in part, by television licenses that consumers must pay if they use a television.
    Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. controls British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC, one of the BBC’s main competitors in Britain.

    “As Orwell foretold, to let the state enjoy a near-monopoly of information is to guarantee manipulation and distortion,” Murdoch said, referring to George Orwell’s book, “1984.”

    He said broadcasting policy had failed to keep pace with changes, relying on regulation and intervention from the state rather than empowering consumers.

    Greg Dyke, the BBC’s former director general, said Murdoch’s argument was “fundamentally flawed.”
    “Journalism is going through a very difficult time — not only in this country but every country in the world because newspapers, radio and television in the commercial world are all having a very rough time,” he said.

    Dyke said it was not the fault of the BBC that the recession and loss of advertising revenues had hampered news organizations.

    Last month, a journalist told a British parliamentary committee that James Murdoch approved an out-of-court payment to settle a controversial phone hacking case. News of the World editor Colin Myler said that Murdoch was told that 700,000 pounds ($1.1 million) would be paid to settle a case against the company.
    The suit was brought by Gordon Taylor, head of the Professional Footballers’ Association, one of the targets of the hacking.

    The allegations against the News of the World, part of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. empire, have been waged as part of a wider scandal concerning journalistic abuses.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/29/murdochs-son-bbc-expansio_n_271985.html

    * * *
    So in the summer of 2009 the Murdochs reached an out-of-court settlement with the Football Association and exactly due to a hacking scandal?

    And now both father and son say they’ve never heard of any hacking in their media empire?

    And after telling this outrageous lie the unbelievably hypocritical James Murdoch dares quote Orwell’s “1984” novel???

    Orwell was writing about a possible future awaiting the world where everything would be upside down – lies would be considered the truth and vice versa and the following slogans would be ruling the life of ordinary people: “WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”!

    The ministries described by Orwell were doing exactly the opposite to what their names called them for. This is how Wikepedia describes it:

    “The ministries’ names are antonymous doublethink to their true functions: “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation”. (Part II, Chapter IX — The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism)

    Ministry of Peace (Minipax)

    Minipax reports Oceania’s [imaginary country] perpetual war.

    Ministry of Plenty (Miniplenty)

    The Ministry of Plenty rations and controls food, goods, and domestic production; every fiscal quarter, the Miniplenty publishes false claims of having raised the standard of living, when it has, in fact, reduced rations, availability, and production. The Minitrue substantiates the Miniplenty claims by revising historical records to report numbers supporting the current, “increased rations”.

    Ministry of Truth (Minitrue)

    The Ministry of Truth controls information: news, entertainment, education, and the arts. Winston Smith [main character] works in the Minitrue RecDep (Records Department), “rectifying” historical records to concord with Big Brother’s current pronouncements, thus everything the Party says is true.

    Ministry of Love (Miniluv)

    The Ministry of Love identifies, monitors, arrests, and converts real and imagined dissidents. In Winston’s experience, the dissident is beaten and tortured, then, when near-broken, is sent to Room 101 to face “the worst thing in the world”—until love for Big Brother and the Party replaces dissension.

    And Doublethink is a picture of big lies fed to people:

    The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. Doublethink is basically the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

    — Part II, Chapter IX — The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

    P.S. Let me also add that Orwell’s novel was based on a book by a Russian writer written in the 1930s talking of oppression in the country in a symbolic form. Frankly I never thought it would be raised in connection with the Murdochs and their media.

    Like

  40. July 20, 2011 9:35 pm

    When you buy a faulty product you are entitled to a refund.This should also apply to news papers with faulty, or imaginary stories not based on thruth. So much c***has for example been written about MJ that has been proven to have no basis in reality.Just read the extensive story about how he slowly died of his last injection of Demerol. This is just one example of the corruption that seems all pervasive. Why should newspapers be exempt from selling stories that originate in somebodys mind and have no basis in truth? We need not pay for such.

    Like

  41. anniedomino permalink
    July 20, 2011 4:35 pm

    IMO the reason they are all so upset about phone hacking is because it affects “normal people”. I do believe that we get the press (and government!) that we deserve. These same people who are outraged about phone hacking don’t give a rat’s ass about tabs offering money to label MJ a p&do. Its the NIMBY syndrome – in other words, “I don’t care what happens to some rich rock star, but damned if I will allow them to hurt my neighbours, or me.” These people should have been outraged a long, long time ago. Paying people to accuse someone of a crime also impacts the police and legal system. Some would call it obstruction of justice. The tabloids who paid Blanca and company were partly responsible for a massive waste of taxpayers money,and gave a corrupt DA ammunition to persecute an American citizen. Matthew Drudge said “If it can happen to Michael Jackson, it can happen to you”. If everyone would remember that, the tabs would have been held accountable a long time ago.

    Like

  42. anniedomino permalink
    July 20, 2011 4:25 pm

    I feel that the media is going to start backing off Murdoch. On O’Reilly this morning some British guy was already making the apologist “freedom of speech, we hold politicians accountable” argument. They will back off Murdoch because they are all the same. If Murdoch falls – they all fall. The tabloid press have not only destroyed lives – they have turned the once-noble profession of journalism into a joke. According to a poll on Fox only 27% of people believe what they hear and read in the media. I am not surprised. And the traditional media is becoming less profitable. Obviously! I used to buy every damned magazine and newspaper. I don’t anymore. I am interested in many topics – but I am extremely interested in MJ, and I get all my news about him from sites like this. What is in the traditional press is just garbage.
    Regarding Diana’s death. Yes it is the most visible reminder of tabloid excess and incredibly tragic. But what was done to Diana in no way compares to what was done to Michael. They destroyed his reputation and labelled him a criminal and sexual deviant. They drove a wedge between him and his audience – specifically his own race, denied him the parentage of his own children!! and even tried to diminish the gifts that God gave him. It was a vicious, racist attack without precedent IMO.Basically they destroyed his soul and that lead to the insomnia that killed him.
    With all due respect to Diana – she actively used the tabloids to engage in marital warfare with Prince Charles. Her boyfriend’s drunk chauffeur caused the car accident that killed her – the paparazzi were only partially responsible. And the tabloids absolutely loved her. They built her up into a saint. Which she was not.

    Like

  43. July 20, 2011 2:48 pm

    “he uses his own transformation to make a statement about race, projection (in the Freudian sense), perception, etc..”

    I think the transformation of Michael from black into white was a statement made to the world by some much higher power – meant to fuse races into a joint humanity.

    Like

  44. Alison permalink
    July 20, 2011 2:20 am

    It was also the Daily Mail and the Mirror, which are not owned by Murdoch.

    However he owns the Sun – I would not have guessed he was -claiming to be – a Christian. I don’t know many Christians who endorse exploitation of sex to sell things and putting topless girls on page 3 in pornographic poses. interesting version of Christianity that i’ve not come across before.

    The phone hacking tho is more than what it seems because it includes bribery and corruption and obstruction of the law and controlling politicians – even when it was just about celebrities it seems that they got the police investigation stopped, so they have had power over the police as well as over politicians. and exposing things in newspapers that are none of anyone’s business is wrong. we just don’t yet know what sensitive stories have been got in this way. and if not obtained, the power over politicians to do what the media wanted.

    In Sean Hoare’s report he said that the important thing was getting a story and how you got it didn’t matter – well i hear this as about much more than phone hacking – it includes all the things you have mentioned and just lying and making things up and exagerating and twisting things. There is so much more that needs to come out, Phone hacking is the tip of the iceberg but is the obvious place to start.

    There was another TV programme in England a few years ago, i really cannot remember when but will look for it tomorrow, it was either Panorama or Despatches,i think it was a different reporter and it was an undercover report, and the reporter admitted to making up stories and that this was both accepted and encouraged. I cannot remember what paper he worked for it may not have been murdoch’s or it might have been. This needs to be found and highlighted so that this element can also be addressed. However i think this investigation is likely to go on and on so it may well come out, but we can encourage it to.

    Like

  45. lynande51 permalink
    July 19, 2011 9:14 pm

    The remark I think that is least justified by haters is that we (fans) believe, think or feel that Michael was a God. That is the mantra they spew to explain why there are so many of us that refuse to join with them in their hatred of an innocent person. However it is about as far from the truth as you can get. It is his humanity that we fight for and his humanity that we admired. At no point have we said that he was a God or was God. He said many things about being God or Christ like. Christ’s own words were to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Act with kindness, generosity, honesty and innocence like that of a child. That was Michael’s faith.
    That is the bedrock of Christian Doctrine, and so unlike the character that Rupert Murdoch (who claims to be a Christian Conservative) says is reflected in his media and publications. Like so many that work for him, used his doctrine and followed his lead, he is showing the world just what that character is. He believes in lies, hate, hurting other people no matter who they are, and selfish greed. Now his latest words show he has no loyalty or sense of accountablility either.

    At the start of proceedings, the elder Murdoch had rejected personal responsibility for the phone-hacking and corruption scandal but, with his son, said the company was deeply sorry and intended to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.
    Sitting next to James, who opened the much-awaited proceedings in a packed committee room at Westminster by apologizing to victims of voicemail hacking, the Australian-born chief executive of News Corp interjected:
    “I would just like to say one sentence,” he said.
    “This is the most humble day of my life.”
    He later said he was “shocked, appalled and ashamed” when he read two weeks ago of the case that has transformed the smoldering scandal into a “firestorm”, in the words of Prime Minister David Cameron. It has shaken Britons’ trust in the press, police and politicians, including Cameron himself.
    Murdoch has shut down his top-selling Sunday newspaper, the 168-year-old tabloid News of the World, and dropped a strategically important buyout bid for broadcaster BSkyB.
    But asked flat out if he considered himself personally responsible “for this fiasco”, Murdoch replied simply: “No.”
    Asked who was, he said: “The people that I trusted to run it, and then maybe the people they trusted.” His son said they did not believe the two most senior executives to have resigned, Rebekah Brooks and Les Hinton, knew of wrongdoing.

    http://news.yahoo.com/murdochs-face-questions-uk-parliament-001754467.html

    That is the ultimate betrayal. Murdoch is taking no responsibility for the phone hacking scandal, yet openly says that his company is a reflection of his beliefs. What about the people that have believed in his doctrine are we now supposed to believe that he had no influence over the actions of those who followed him? I for one have difficulty believing that Prime Minister David Cameron was asking for Rebekah Brooks’ endorsement alone or that it was her personal monies that went to the police and politicians that were bribed. If she encouraged her employees ( employees are employed, and are given direction by their employers, that is what a job is, your boss tells you what to do) to behave in this way is it impossible that she herself was encouraged to use any means necessary to accomplish the goal of her employer. That goal was to be more successful and powerful than any other media or publication at any cost.
    This is possibly the best example of how not to be as a person that there ever was. The people that read these publications and believe what is written in there should answer the question of : Where is the truth in what you read?The Publications owned By Murdoch were the worst when they spread news of Michael, he suffered more at their hands than any other, and I believe that they used him and the lies that they told about him to keep the truth a secret.A media version of a slight of hand trick, look over there,so you don’t see what is really here.
    With these people as examples and to the followers of their doctrine I have just one thing to say: Thank God I am a Michael Jackson fan.

    Like

  46. Suzy permalink
    July 19, 2011 8:50 pm

    @ ares

    “Correct me if am wrong but wasn’t the National Enquier offering money to kids in 1993 in order for them to say that MJ had molested them? This was revieled by Roger Friendman in 2005. I personally consider this even worse than the phone hacking.”

    I agree with you. It IS much worse. Yet, when people read a story like that about a celebrity they don’t bat an eyelid. This phone hacking thing only became a scandal because non-celebrities have been involved as well. Had they only hacked celeb’s phones, noone would say a thing. There is something wrong with this world, and we have to be honest, it’s not just the tabloids. After all it’s people who are buying that trash! It’s people’s mentality that needs to be changed.

    Like

  47. July 19, 2011 8:41 pm

    “Correct me if am wrong but wasn’t the National Enquierer offering money to kids in 1993 in order for them to say that MJ had molested them? This was revealed by Roger Friedman in 2005. I personally consider this even worse than the phone hacking.”

    Of course it is much worse than hacking – it is luring someone into betrayal and ruining other people’s lives through murderous slander. In the past they called it “selling one’s soul to the devil”.

    Ares, you’ve provided this article to us and I copied to my computer. Here it is again:

    Former Protege Vouches for Jacko
    Thursday, April 07, 2005
    By Roger Friedman

    No matter who testifies next in Michael Jackson’s alleged “prior acts” of sexual abuse mini-trial, the prosecution will have to deal with the fact that only one boy will show up to say he was molested many years ago by the pop star.
    Now comes Robert Newt, 30, long a “Holy Grail” for The National Enquirer from its investigation into Jackson circa 1993.
    Newt and his twin brother Ronald Newt Jr. (now deceased) were aspiring performers and spent two weeks as guests in the Jackson family home in Encino, Calif., around 1985. They were about 11 years old. This all occurred before Neverland was completed. Michael, Janet Jackson and LaToya Jackson were all there, as well as the Jackson parents.
    Fast-forward to December 1993. The National Enquirer, desperate to get a scoop that Jackson has abused children, heard that the Newt kids once spent time with Jackson.

    The tabloid offered the Newts’ father, Ronald Newt Sr., $200,000 to say that something happened between his kids and Jackson.
    Newt, a San Francisco “character” and filmmaker whose past includes pimping and jail time, considered the offer.
    A contract was drawn up, signed by Enquirer editor David Perel. Enquirer reporter Jim Mitteager, who is also now deceased, met with Newt and his son at the Marriott hotel in downtown San Francisco.
    It seemed that all systems were go. But the Newts declined the offer at the last minute.
    Ron Newt Sr., to whom $200,000 would have seemed like the world on a silver platter, wrote “No good sucker” where his signature was supposed to go. The reason: Nothing ever happened between Jackson and the Newt boys.

    Indeed, no kids, no matter how much money was dangled by the tabloids, ever showed up to trade stories of Jackson malfeasance for big lumps of cash after the first scandal broke in 1993.
    “Maybe there aren’t any other kids,” a current Enquirer editor conceded.

    I met Bobby Newt yesterday near the office where he works as a mortgage broker in suburban Los Angeles.
    Just as his dad promised me a few days earlier, he’s a good-looking kid. He’s half black and half Chinese.
    Robert and his twin brother were likely very cute kids. They have the same features as other boys advertised as alleged Neverland “victims.” But all Bobby Newt remembers of his encounter with Jackson is good times.

    And all he remembers about the man from The National Enquirer is that he wanted Bobby, then 18, to lie.

    “He said, ‘Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,'” Newt said. “He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told us he took all these other famous people down. All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, ‘We take these people down. That’s what we do.'”
    Prior to Bobby’s meeting with Mitteager, Bobby’s father met with him and brought along an intermediary, San Francisco politician, businessman and fellow jailbird Charlie Walker.
    Walker is infamous in San Francisco circles for being “hooked up” to anything interesting cooking on the West Coast.
    “My dad said these dudes are offering this money to take Michael Jackson down. And the guy [Mitteager] said, ‘Say he touched you. All you have to do is say it. But you might have to take the stand. You might have to go on ‘Oprah’ in front of all these people. You have to be prepared for this thing. Just say it. And we’ll give you money,'” Newt said.

    Two pieces of evidence confirm the Newts’ story.

    One is the actual contract proffered by the Enquirer and signed by Perel, who declined to comment for this story.
    The contract, written as a letter, says it’s an agreement between the tabloid and the Newts for their exclusive story regarding “your relationship with and knowledge of Michael Jackson, and his sexuality, your knowledge of Michael Jackson’s sexual contact and attempts at sexual contact with Robert Newt and others.”
    Mitteager expected them to sign, even though it was completely untrue and there was, in fact, no story.

    He knew you were lying, I reminded Bobby Newt.

    “Exactly! And he didn’t care! He was like, ‘Just say it and we’ll give you the money.’ And I was like, ‘He [Jackson] never touched me!” Newt said. “He [Mitteager] was really fishing and really digging. Think about it — most people you say it to, ‘We’ll give you this money,’ even [if it’s not true]. And they’d take it.”

    Bobby Newt recalled more details of the 30-minute meeting with The National Enquirer’s reporter:
    “He was trying to coach me — if I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said ‘You know, it’s going to be a huge scandal. You’ll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You’re going to be famous!’ But to me, you’d be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn’t do anything even close to trying to molest us.”

    Ironically, the second piece of evidence also backs up the Newts’ story. Unbeknownst to them, they were taped by Mitteager.

    [All these tabloid journalists seem to be employing dirty tricks like that! But what they wanted to use for ruining Michael turned into the evidence of his innocence! Aamazing, isn’t it?]

    I told you last week that Mitteager did more surreptitious taping than Richard Nixon. When he died, the tapes were left to Hollywood investigator Paul Barresi. His dozens of hours of tapes include a conversation between Mitteager, Ron Newt Sr. and Charlie Walker.

    When I read some of the transcript back to Newt the other day, he was shocked.
    “I said all that,” he observed, surprised to have his memory prodded some 12 years later.

    Back in the mid-’80s, Ron Newt Sr. put his three sons together as a singing group much as Joseph Jackson did. He called them The Newtrons.
    After much pushing, he got the attention of Joe Jackson, who agreed to manage the group. Joe Jackson got the Newtrons a showcase at the Roxy in West Hollywood.
    Michael showed up and loved them. The result was a two-week stay for the boys at the Encino house on Hayvenhurst Ave., where they were supposed to work on their music.
    “We would see Michael in passing. We didn’t see him, maybe, because he was working on an album. We saw him downstairs in the kitchen and we talked to him,” he said.
    The Newtrons eventually got a record contract and recorded the Jackson 5 hit “I Want You Back” at Hayvenhurst. They also spent the night at Tito Jackson’s house. But nothing about what Bobby Newt hears now about himself or others makes sense.
    “I don’t know what to believe. He had prime time with me and my brother in the guest room for two weeks,” he said. “And he didn’t try anything.”
    As a footnote to all of this: In the small world of the Los Angeles music business, Bobby Newt recently worked with choreographer and alleged Jackson “victim” Wade Robson on tracks for his first album, a potential hit compendium of original R&B ballads.
    Jackson’s former maid Blanca Francia implicated Robson in the case during Monday’s testimony. Robson is not testifying for the prosecution.

    “Wade is straight as they come. He’s getting married. And nothing ever happened to him, either,” Newt said.
    He shakes his head, thinking about those who have made claims against Jackson.

    “You have to look at these people, go back and see when their relationship with Michael fractured. The calls stopped coming,” he said.
    And Newt should know. After the adventure in 1985, the Newts never saw Jackson again. It didn’t bother them, Bobby says, as much as it might have others.
    “They probably didn’t like it. And this is their way of getting back at him,” he said.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152708,00.html

    Like

  48. July 19, 2011 7:24 pm

    This issue is not just about Michael. Remember how Diana died.
    Phone hacking, money for stories…regardless of truth, denigration of people no matter what their station in life resulting in ruined lives, spirits and reputations, cover ups,excuses, diverting blame… all of it. And that one old man sitting there had certain beliefs and a view of the world that he promoted as he destroyed innocent people.

    Like

  49. anniedomino permalink
    July 19, 2011 7:22 pm

    @Alison. Dr. Stillwater is not a medical doctor. All the issues you raise regarding the factors affecting Michael’s appearance are raised by her. She actually does some interesting photo comparisons where she compares Michael’s square chin and high cheekbones from the SOOML video to 2005, saying that if you really wanted to you could claim that Michael made his chin more pointy and his cheekbones less prominent! Her point was that pics can say anything you want them to say (like statistics!). And that the tabs set out to prove a certain point and chose the pics accordingly, but that you could use different pics to prove the exact opposite.
    I don’t have Kindle either, but have managed to read quite a bit of the book just rummaging through the internet. It is insane that LaToya’s fantasy can get published but that quality books like these are being self-published.
    My own little project for the year-end will be to donate a copy of Joe Vogel’s book and Moonwalk to every public library that will take it. If I had Dr. Stillwater’s book in hardcopy I would do the same with that.

    Like

  50. anniedomino permalink
    July 19, 2011 7:12 pm

    Watched a bit of the Murdoch thing. He is pretending to be senile LOL! I also wonder why phone hacking is so terrible, but offering people money to call someone a pedophile is OK! Or for that matter paying for the stuff in their garbage! MJ was the most vilified public figure of his time. No question. I have no sympathy for the “royal” family in all of this. They live and survive by the tabs. They serve no other purpose than to be tabloid fodder IMO. They all banded together to create the Will & Kate wedding extravaganza. So when the royal family acts all offended I just switch off. Michael was famous for a reason – he was the most talented, influential artist of our time. That is why people were interested in him. NOT because he happened to be born into a specific family.

    Like

  51. Alison permalink
    July 19, 2011 6:50 pm

    rupert murdoch – “im sure there are headlines that occasionally give offence but its not intentional!” and he struggled to answer the question about whether they would now reconsider their headlines. and he puts responsibility onto the editors, doesn’t accept any responsibility himself.

    they are totally hanging their employees out to dry and distancing themselves from the whole thing, claiminmg they didn’t know anything and that they encourage good and legal practice.

    STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH FROM JAMES MURDOCH:
    “the confidential nature of an out of court settlement is a normal thing” then he said a statement to the effect that there were very few settlements that do not include a confidential clause. ( i didn’t retain the exact sentence as i was so excited he said that!). he said it when asked about a settlement to someone and if it was to keep them quiet.

    now James is struggling a bit, he was asked if he knew about “wilful blindness” and if he was familiar with it, its a legal term defined as being still responsible for things they should have known about if it was reasonable for them to have known and could have known,

    rupert murdoch says he’s not really in touch with the editors of the papers except wall street journal, says he lost sight of news of the world maybe because it was so small.he claims that when he spoke to NOTW editor on a sat eve the editor would usually say nothing special was happening and he wouldn’t tell him somehting like paying a million pounds to someone for something.

    its one lie after another, they are very slippery customers.

    i’m going to shut up now, but it really is a fascinating watch. try and see it if you can get it.

    Like

  52. Alison permalink
    July 19, 2011 6:11 pm

    Sean Hoare – poor and courageous man. God bless him, may he rest in peace. and lets use every word he spoke about this.

    James Murdoch – “we are very sorry…” – YEAH, SORRY THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT!

    Rupert Murdoch -” This is the most humble day of my life.” LOL ! – YEAH, TRY SITTING THROUGH 5 MONTHS OF TORTURE IN A COURTROOM ACCUSED FALSELY OF CHILD M. f******* GIT!

    James – ” I sympathise with the frustration of this committe” – THIS GUY SHOULD HAVE BEEN A POLITICIAN, or a shady lawyer, HE CAN CERTAINLY TALK IT! he’s a slimeball with a good education.

    James – “….moving forward to aid the police in the the success of the important investigation that they are doing.” YUK!

    Tom Watson MP – “are you aware that in 2003 Rebekah Brooks gave evidence to parliamentary committee that payments were made to the police.
    Rupert – “I KNOW IT NOW, I DIDN’T KNOW IT AT THE TIME.” – EVIDENCE GIVEN TO PARLIAMENTARY SELECT COMMITTEE BY REBEKAH BROOKS AND HE DIDN’T KNOW!

    Tom Watson – he’s asking good questions and murdoch is struggling!! HEE HEE!!

    You gotta try and see this, hope it gets on youtube. he’s claiming he doesn’t know about criminal investigsations and worldwide attention.
    Tom – “a judge found a senior reporter guilty of blackmail” and murdoch says he didn’t know!

    murdoch can’t answer the questions ! he can’t make things up quick enough and keeps saying his son should answer.

    I like this Tom Watson. but I certainly wouldn’t want to be questioned by him!

    there’s a woman sitting right behind murdoch in pink, and she keeps leaning forward and coughing, i think she’s prompting him somehow. when he hesitates too much,

    murdoch is pretending to be old and frail with no memory of things he’s asked about.

    Like

  53. ares permalink
    July 19, 2011 5:56 pm

    Correct me if am wrong but wasn’t the National Enquier offering money to kids in 1993 in order for them to say that MJ had molested them? This was revieled by Roger Friendman in 2005. I personally consider this even worse than the phone hacking. This individuals working on those tabloids don’t hesitate to create dangerous false stories and having people reputation and even life destroyed for the sake of sales. When MJ sang about and spoke about the tabloids and media corruption, people said he was delusional and paranoid. He was right and he was one of the biggest victims of the tabloids, even though few are willing to admit it. And that’s why the media continue with all the false informations and lies concerning MJ,his life, his desease ect. Because Michael was the first person and artist with so much influence who spoke the truth about them. They will never forget about it. I pesonally fear about the upcoming Murrey trial because am pretty sure that the “objective” media will find a way to smear MJ’s name again. In fact they are waiting for it ready like the shark who is waiting for its prey.

    -“I was paid to go out and take drugs with rock stars – get drunk with them, take pills with them, take cocaine with them. It was so competitive. You are going to go beyond the call of duty. You are going to do things that no sane man would do. You’re in a machine.” –

    This pretty much says it all.

    Like

  54. Alison permalink
    July 19, 2011 5:00 pm

    @ anniedomino
    “And I believe that he was making a joke at Bashir’s expense when he “buys” all that artwork in LWMJ” – i aboslutley agree, i always thought that too, because for a start it was all reproduction expensive tat, i wouldn’t even necessarily describe it all as artwork, it wasn’t genuine antique, which he didn’t need, he had enough genuine things, he didn’t examine anything or ask questions about it which he would have and it also apparently all went back afterwards. he was clearly just deliberatley filling bashir with the crap he was looking for. i also think there are times on that programme where he looks very wary of bashir as if he feels its not quite what he wanted (tho he had no idea how much so at that time, OMG!). i wish he had believed it was OK to call a halt to it, because i think maybe he may have wanted to at times. when bashir is doing all the gushing fake flattery, Michael just hates it, you can see he feels very uncomfortable because he sees right through it, so in his place i would also have wanted to just give the guy the crap he was wanting.

    “Dr. Stillwater BTW believes Michael – that he only had surgery on his nose and chin. I think that Michael used his sexuality in the same way. I have not done the research that Dr. Stillwater has – but I am sure that someone with her background could make the case.”
    This is very good to see, I did see the book advertised but i don’t have KIndle so am waiting a bit. I am convinced Michael had far, far less surgery than they all make out, so i am not at all surprised, just surprised a doctor has had the courage to say it. all these comparisons miss a lot of reality, they compare a young man with an older man, they forget he lost and gained weight, he may have had procedures to do with the skin lupus that affected his appearance in some way, the change in his skin colour can mislead the brain into seeing the facial structure differently, Michael was not purely black either, he was mixed race, with white and native american blood so he was never going to grow up looking fully black, look at all the brothers in the 70’s, take away the afro hairstyles and it is obvious they are mixed race, (apart from Jermane and Marlon it is less obvious now because they have all gained quite a lot of weight) there are some photos of the grandparents to be found if you search hard on the internet and you can see it too, and above all, Michael Jackson was a singer, not just an occasional singer, he sang all the time, to state the obvious this means he moved his jaw muscles millions of times more than the average person, and not just by small amounts, the way he sang meant stretching those muscles a great deal, which would over time cause a change in the shape of his face. There are other singers who have the same shape of lower jaw.
    and also, if you look at some of the little boy pictures of michael, especially when he is singing out in force, you can see the beginnings of the shape of his face in later years, there is a sideways picture taken in the earliest days that shows it especially well.

    Yes he had some surgery, but the “changes” were also due to more fundamental things – genetics, weight, and facial exercise to a level not achieved by the average person.

    (sorry, followed that thought through more than i planned!)

    as regards Diana Ross – watch the end of the Motown 25 video when they are all going up on stage – having seen the way Michael goes to Diana and looks at her I need no other convincing! He totally loved her and was drawn physically to her.

    oh, its 2pm, am going to go watch rupert murdoch answer question to parliamentary commitee, will let you know what its like.

    Like

  55. July 19, 2011 4:50 pm

    “So the death is unexplained, but not thought to be suspicious”.

    Here is an article which describes the journalist who died on Monday. I am amazed to learn of their ways. It is like opening a can of worms – he at least tried to put a stop to it:

    Nick Davies guardian.co.uk, Monday 18 July 2011 18.46 BST

    Sean Hoare knew how destructive the News of the World could be
    The courageous whistleblower who claimed Andy Coulson knew about phone hacking had a powerful motive for speaking out

    At a time when the reputation of News of the World journalists is at rock bottom, it needs to be said that the paper’s former showbusiness correspondent Sean Hoare, who died on Monday, was a lovely man.

    In the saga of the phone-hacking scandal, he distinguished himself by being the first former NoW journalist to come out on the record, telling the New York Times last year that his former friend and editor, Andy Coulson, had actively encouraged him to hack into voicemail.

    That took courage. But he had a particularly powerful motive for speaking. He knew how destructive the News of the World could be, not just for the targets of its exposés, but also for the ordinary journalists who worked there, who got caught up in its remorseless drive for headlines.

    Explaining why he had spoken out, he told me: “I want to right a wrong, lift the lid on it, the whole culture. I know, we all know, that the hacking and other stuff is endemic. Because there is so much intimidation. In the newsroom, you have people being fired, breaking down in tears, hitting the bottle.”

    He knew this very well, because he was himself a victim of the News of the World. As a showbusiness reporter, he had lived what he was happy to call a privileged life. But the reality had ruined his physical health: “I was paid to go out and take drugs with rock stars – get drunk with them, take pills with them, take cocaine with them. It was so competitive. You are going to go beyond the call of duty. You are going to do things that no sane man would do. You’re in a machine.”

    While it was happening, he loved it. He came from a working-class background of solid Arsenal supporters, always voted Labour, defined himself specifically as a “clause IV” socialist who still believed in public ownership of the means of production. But, working as a reporter, he suddenly found himself up to his elbows in drugs and delirium.

    He rapidly arrived at the Sun’s Bizarre column, then run by Coulson. He recalled: “There was a system on the Sun. We broke good stories. I had a good relationship with Andy. He would let me do what I wanted as long as I brought in a story. The brief was, ‘I don’t give a fuck’.”

    He was a born reporter. He could always find stories. And, unlike some of his nastier tabloid colleagues, he did not play the bully with his sources.

    [tabloid journalists bully their sources!]

    He was naturally a warm, kind man, who could light up a lamp-post with his talk. From Bizarre, he moved to the Sunday People, under Neil Wallis, and then to the News of the World, where Andy Coulson had become deputy editor. And, persistently, he did as he was told and went out on the road with rock stars, befriending them, bingeing with them, pausing only to file his copy.

    He made no secret of his massive ingestion of drugs. He told me how he used to start the day with “a rock star’s breakfast” – a line of cocaine and a Jack Daniels – usually in the company of a journalist who now occupies a senior position at the Sun. He reckoned he was using three grammes of cocaine a day, spending about £1,000 a week. Plus endless alcohol. Looking back, he could see it had done him enormous damage. But at the time, as he recalled, most of his colleagues were doing it, too.

    “Everyone got overconfident. We thought we could do coke, go to Brown’s, sit in the Red Room with Paula Yates and Michael Hutchence. Everyone got a bit carried away.”

    It must have scared the rest of Fleet Street when he started talking – he had bought, sold and snorted cocaine with some of the most powerful names in tabloid journalism. One retains a senior position on the Daily Mirror. “I last saw him in Little Havana,” he recalled, “at three in the morning, on his hands and knees. He had lost his cocaine wrap. I said to him, ‘This is not really the behaviour we expect of a senior journalist from a great Labour paper.’ He said, ‘Have you got any fucking drugs?'”

    And the voicemail hacking was all part of the great game. The idea that it was a secret, or the work of some “rogue reporter”, had him rocking in his chair: “Everyone was doing it. Everybody got a bit carried away with this power that they had. No one came close to catching us.” He would hack messages and delete them so the competition could not hear them, or hack messages and swap them with mates on other papers.

    In the end, his body would not take it any more. He said he started to have fits, that his liver was in such a terrible state that a doctor told him he must be dead. And, as his health collapsed, he was sacked by the News of the World – by his old friend Coulson.

    When he spoke out about the voicemail hacking, some Conservative MPs were quick to smear him, spreading tales of his drug use as though that meant he was dishonest. He was genuinely offended by the lies being told by News International and always willing to help me and other reporters who were trying to expose the truth. He was equally offended when Scotland Yard’s former assistant commissioner, John Yates, assigned officers to interview him, not as a witness but as a suspect. They told him anything he said could be used against him, and, to his credit, he refused to have anything to do with them.

    His health never recovered. He liked to say that he had stopped drinking, but he would treat himself to some red wine. He liked to say he didn’t smoke any more, but he would stop for a cigarette on his way home. For better and worse, he was a Fleet Street man.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/sean-hoare-news-of-the-world

    Like

  56. ares permalink
    July 19, 2011 3:43 pm

    So the death is unexplained, but not thought to be suspicious”. Yeah right. The thing is that Rupert Murdoch is like some kind of a mafia don. He has so much power and control in his hands that If you do something that he doesn’t like it, you are f***d. That man is dangerous and he needs to be stopped.

    Like

  57. anniedomino permalink
    July 19, 2011 1:03 pm

    Julie. That was my view exactly. Diana asked O not to ask about MJ. Don’t know if you have heard about the book by Dr. Willa Stillwater. It’s called M. Poetica and is available only in Kindle format on Amazon. In it the doctor uses the imagery in Michael’s short films to make the case that he used his face – the surgery and vitiligo – as a form of artistic expression. In short he uses his own transformation to make a statement about race, projection (in the Freudian sense), perception, etc…Dr. Stillwater BTW believes Michael – that he only had surgery on his nose and chin. I think that Michael used his sexuality in the same way. I have not done the research that Dr. Stillwater has – but I am sure that someone with her background could make the case. She speaks about how courageous Michael was in how he dealt with the vitiligo and the issue of his appearance. She says that he could quite easily have made his appearance more “acceptable” to the masses. But he chose not to. Becoming the “beast you visualised” through “foolish trickery”, so to speak. I think that Michael could so easily have been conventional in his approach to dating. LMP proves to me that he could have pretty much any woman he set his mind on. But he chose to be “different” in his approach. Becoming at once available to all and available to no-one. Even when it comes to wealth and money Michael makes very different choices to the average rock star. You NEVER see him flaunting money the way everyone and his dog does now. We saw his living room at Neverland, but never the garage full of Bentleys and Rolls Royce’s. And I believe that he was making a joke at Bashir’s expense when he “buys” all that artwork in LWMJ. So – when it comes to appearance, women and money, Michael Jackson showed himself to be a true individual. He never tried to impress anyone with how goodlooking, rich or desirable he was. Which to me shows a very high level of confidence.

    Like

  58. Suzy permalink
    July 19, 2011 9:54 am

    Here is the same story from CNN.

    “The death is being treated as ‘unexplained, but not thought to be suspicious,'” the report quoted Hertfordshire police as saying.”

    So it’s unexplained, yet they are quick to assure us that it’s “not thought to be suspicious”?

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/18/uk.phone.hacking.hoare/index.html

    Like

  59. July 19, 2011 3:18 am

    @Suzy

    There’ve already been other deaths

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/11/news-of-the-world-police-corruption
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/11/scotland-yard-murder-case-daniel-morgan

    An NotW investigator allegedly murdered another investigator in 1987 with an axe to the head. 5 police investigations later, including one where NotW are on record as having interfered, the people involved get off after police fail to supply any evidence at trial.

    Like

  60. Suzy permalink
    July 18, 2011 10:56 pm

    Phone-hacking whistleblower found dead

    http://news.yahoo.com/police-phone-hacking-whistleblower-found-dead-181711003.html

    Like

  61. Julie permalink
    July 18, 2011 8:56 pm

    I think the reason Oprah didn’t grill Diana about MJ had to do with Diana probably telling her from the get-go that she wasn’t going to talk about Michael. Otherwise, Oprah would have been all over that and would have grilled her children about whether or not Michael did anything inappropriate as only Oprah can do.

    Like

  62. anniedomino permalink
    July 18, 2011 7:46 pm

    Hi Shelley. I am referring to those remarks he made about the boys coming out of MJ’s room and how the guitarist quit. IMO he said those things because Michael “cuckolded” him while he was supposedly dating Diana. There can be no other reason. Why the hate? He knew MJ after all. Remember the dinner JRT writes about. Diana, Gene, Michael and some guy from Shalamar. Mickey Something. GS is just so out of character for Diana. She only went out with musical geniuses like Berry and Smokey, or sophisticated businessmen or artists. IMO Diana’s marriage to Arne was her attempt to put MJ behind her. As far as I know Diana has NEVER defined her relationship with Michael. I saw her on Oprah not so long ago – and we all know Oprah asks everyone about MJ. But she did not ask the non-family member he bequethed his kids to after KJ? I think Diana does not want to go there.

    Like

  63. Julie permalink
    July 18, 2011 6:54 pm

    Oh, and by the way I agree that Michael was in love with Diana and was only seemingly with the other girls for show. Although Michael did tell Shmuley that Brooke was one of the loves of his life and he mentions Tatum as puppy love. So he may have had feelings for these girls as well, but if Diana had told him to come with her — he absolutely would have. There is one part in the Glenda tapes and it’s unclear who exactly he was talking about but he said, “She had my nose so wide open.” Glenda asks what that means and he says it’s a black thing and then says he would have done anything for her, and bought her a house or anything she wanted. I think he was speaking about Diana.

    Like

  64. Julie permalink
    July 18, 2011 6:51 pm

    @anniedomino – what did you read what Gene Simmons said regarding Diana Ross? I mean this is the same jerk who twisted words from the trial and flat out lied and said one of the guitarists from one of the tours quit because there were boys constantly going up to Michael’s room. Michael’s longtime guitarist Jennifer Batten refuted that story and showed it for what it was, which was a lie. I have no idea why any woman would show any interest in Gene Simmons. I loved it when Chelsea Handler, who recently had him on the show, told him he looked ridiculous and made fun of his hair.

    Like

  65. anniedomino permalink
    July 18, 2011 11:16 am

    My views on MJ’s women. Tatum, Stephanie and Brooke were all “covers” for Ms. Ross. I never believed that MJ and Diana had a relationship until YouTube was invented! I saw some of the footage of them in the 80’s – but at the time I was just a kid and could not interpret the vibe. I thought they were just pals. If you look at Michael and Diana at the Oscars and AMA’s in 1981, at the AMA’s in 1984, etc..it is obvious he was in love with her. She was old enough to hide her feelings – but she makes a few very sly jokes that IMO point at the truth. I think that in the early 80’s it was unthinkable for an older Black woman to have a relationship with a much younger man – who had once lived with her as a “son”. I think the Ross’s, Gordy’s, Jackson’s and the extended Motown family would have been horrified. Tatum has claimed that they only saw each other when she was 13. Well there are pics of them together as late as 1984, when she was 20 and he 25. Brooke was the most famous virgin in America and Steph a virgin as well. So – underage Tate and virginal Brooke and Steph. All safe. To me, Gene Simmond’s remarks are absolute proof of an MJ-Diana relationship. Hell hath no fury…. Because he was Ms. Ross’s squeeze at the time. Just as Bob Whatever-his-name-was, covered for her relationship with Berry.
    IMO Diana Ross was the love of MJ’s life. No question.
    I think, however, that he planned to marry LMP long before he even met her. NOT because of any admiration he had for Elvis or her. I just think Michael had a plan to dominate the music world – both in fact and symbolically. And marrying Elvis’ daughter was like a dynastic marriage for him. The fact that he had her so smitten that she left her husband, defied her mother and even the Scientologists speaks volumes about MJ’s personal charm. In one of her interviews she even says that some “romantic” things happened before he left on the Dangerous tour in August 1993. The only time I know that he saw her face-to-face after their first meeting and before he left for Thailand was in May of 1993 at that Jimmy Carter thing. So…..
    And I think Debbie was just a great friend who he knew he could trust with the most important thing is his life – his babies. And she has loved him forever.
    I think it is significant that no-one in the world knew about Michael’s courtship of his wives until he married them. That means that he knew how to keep a secret! If he hid two away he certainly hid others.

    Like

  66. Julie permalink
    July 18, 2011 12:56 am

    @anniedomino I agree with you. Now that he’s gone and Tatum is pushing her memoir and reality show with her father — she wants to tell the truth. She was 15 and that would have made him 21 so yes, it would have been illegal. Brooke was also several years younger than he was as well. Just my opinion on Brooke — as he was rising to the pinnacle of his fame she was there. I think he thought she was too young at first, but had her on his arm at several events. When the Thriller phenomenon happened she was there too and older. I remember from the Schmuley tapes that Michael stated Brooke had made advances at him and he was too scared and that later on he regretted not following through with it. By the early 90’s, for her it seemed like the relationship had turned into more of a friendship and I think by that time he would have liked for it to have been more. The one thing, as I stated in my earlier post, that Tatum said was that Michael was in love with Diana Ross. I heard Michael say in the Glenda tapes that it took him “a hell of a long time” to get over Diana. You can see it on his face when he goes to hug her not to mention his book Moonwalk where he describes her as lover, mother, friend, etc. all rolled into one and then in Jet or Ebony back during the Thriller days when he was asked about marriage he stated he would marry Diana and when asked about the age difference — he saw no problem with that at all. I wish that he had been able to have the love of his life.

    Like

  67. anniedomino permalink
    July 17, 2011 9:28 pm

    Regarding Tatum. Almost all the women Michael was involved with have chopped and changed their stories over the years. Tatum likes to be the sweet innocent 13 year old. Lots of people believe that Michael was awkward around women when he was a young man because of Tatum! She was 13 at the time. If he had sex with her it would have been illegal! Can anyone see the double standard? Don’t have sex with a 13 year old girl and you must be gay. But let a couple of 13 year old boys accuse you of inappropriate behaviour and all hell breaks loose. Stephanie Mills also tells varying stories about their time together, as does Brooke. Ms. Ross says NOTHING! Haha. LMP is also IMO full of ish. The only one of MIchael’s girls who has been consistent is the second Mrs. Jackson. I know that she did some dodgy things in 2003 – but she still comes across as the most loyal. And Howard Stern is VILE to Michael.

    Like

  68. appleh permalink
    July 16, 2011 3:16 pm

    We have to do something now. The case with Robert Murdoch and the tabloid scandal who is revealed now piece by piece is the chance for us to take action and jump on that train.
    There will never be a better time to exploit the tabloids shameful behaviour and finally bring them down by law. Please support the Anti-Defamation-Legacy Law. More information under the link:

    http://www.cadeflaw.com/

    It´s important that we all stand together like we did with the Discovery-Channel. Please don´t miss it !!!

    Like

  69. Maria permalink
    July 16, 2011 1:37 pm

    I hope that Michael now in heaven prays for salvation for the world and continues to help the world. I hope that is the beginning of the end of the tabloid media. Then the world will be better.

    Like

  70. Lauren permalink
    July 14, 2011 8:37 pm

    You put into words exactly what I’ve been thinking about since Murdoch’s activities have been revealed. Of course he saw Michael as very powerful and capable of influencing
    many, many people in a way that Murdoch totally disagreed with. How best to blunt
    someone’s impact than to denigrate and slander that person in a conscious, concerted
    fashion over many years? Michael said that heard often enough, a lie becomes the truth. I believe Murdoch is personally responsible for much of the negative meme surrounding Michael; pea brains continue to parrot the garbage that Murdoch printed…it became the truth to them. Perhaps Michael was aware of what he faced and who was responsible.
    At some point, the discussion about ‘hacking’ must evolve into sensationalism for profit
    and the disasterous consequences of same. Princess Diana, sports figures, politicians,
    Michael and many others.

    Like

  71. lynande51 permalink
    July 14, 2011 12:32 am

    Rupert Murdoch is ranked 38th richest person in the US.I wonder how he compares to Michael in charitable donations? Well it truns out he ranks dead last in philanthropy.There are no surprises in his charitable donations either. His charitable donations are primarily to Rebuplican Party Gubenatorial,Senatorial and Representative races. What a great guy.Even BIll Gates and Warren Buffet outshine this guy when it comes to giving. Michael isthe number one most philanthropic celebrity.

    http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?last=Murdoch&first=Rupert

    Like

  72. Julie permalink
    July 14, 2011 12:25 am

    Tatum then admits that she began having sex at 13. So if you remember in LWMJ, Michael says Tatum called and told him she was going to do things to him and he went over there, but was very scared, etc. so nothing happened and the JRT stated in his book that Tatum stated that she was a young child at the time and that there was no way she would do anything like that — this pretty much shoots that out of the water. She was around 15 when she began seeing MJ.

    Like

  73. Julie permalink
    July 14, 2011 12:07 am

    Ok, I was listening to Tatum O’Neal talking to Howard Stern regarding her new reality show and her relationship with her dad and of course, Stern is his usual disgusting self and asked her about her relationships when she was young and she stated that she “made out” with Michael Jackson. Of course, Howard makes the gross sounds and says that MJ was a closet homosexual and Tatum says Michael was sweet and shy and then she said he was in love with Diana Ross and no one could compete with her.

    Like

  74. ares permalink
    July 13, 2011 7:25 pm

    Am watching the Outfoxed series right now and all i have to say that it is a must watch.A trully amazing program.But what made me the biggest impression is that Fox host Bill O’Relley. That man is a total wack job.How the hell does he still have a job? I mean seriously, the guy is a mental case and he can’t hide it either, it damn obvious. He ought to be in some kind of an insitution and not in tv poisoning everyones mind with his crazy ish. How can people not uderstand that the dude is not alright, how in hell there are people out there who support that crazy bastard? Am really flabbergasted by the stupidity of people.
    Oh and thank you to whoever posted the Outfoxed videos. Very informative stuff.

    Like

  75. July 13, 2011 9:54 am

    Dialdancer, yes, the Outfoxed series is impressive.

    Part 2 is great as it tells of the Fox news techniques. They speak of Rupert Murdoch’s contempt for journalism, show Billy O’Reilly saying “shut up” to everyone around and quote the Fox’s sources as “some say”.

    If this kind of Murdoch’s TV-and-press machine, operating worldwide, turned against Jackson neither he, nor anyone around him could survive it:

    Like

  76. July 13, 2011 9:39 am

    @Daildancer

    I watched that Outfoxed series and its amazing. I never cared for Fox news. I don’t particularly like any news network these days. O’Really gets on my nerves can’t stand his bulldog tactics. Hypocrite is thy name O’Really.

    Like

  77. July 12, 2011 10:15 pm

    What is being reported or told by employees who elected to move on when Murdoch moved in is not new information. Many groups advocating Media reform, calling for true balanced reporting and holding those who report rumors without clarifying statements or authenticated evidence to support their claims are hoping this wave will cross the Atlantic and wash over onto the US Media as well.

    It is ironic that the same publications which are now reporting on the Murdoch journalism doctrine are themselves guilty of the same.

    Daily Beast: Murdoch Scandal’s Appalling Turn
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/05/britain-s-phone-hacking-scandal.html

    Daily Beast: Michael’s Foreverland
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/09/01/michaels-foreverland.html

    The only thing worse then their reporting is their hypocrisy.

    Like

  78. Suzy permalink
    July 12, 2011 8:27 pm

    “Fresh allegations that not one but three of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers have been involved in illegal activities have marred the media mogul’s multi-billion dollar deal to buy full control of British Sky Broadcasting. Many analysts believe the deal may be dead in the water.

    Monday’s allegations that News International’s Sunday Times and Sun newspapers allegedly used deception to try to obtain former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s private financial records were the latest in an unfolding scandal that saw Murdoch’s News of the World fold last Sunday.

    […]

    The Sun went much further when it allegedly stole Brown’s family’s medical records. Though no one but his family knew in 2006 that Brown’s newborn baby son, Fraser, had cystic fibrosis, the Sun splashed the exclusive across its front page in November 2006.”

    More: http://abcnews.go.com/International/murdoch-hack-attack-papers-caught-scandal/story?id=14050871

    Like

  79. July 12, 2011 2:13 pm

    My name is Gossip
    I have no respect for justice.
    I maim without killing
    I break hearts and ruin lives
    I am cunning and malicious and gather strength with age
    The more I am quoted the more I am believed
    My victims are helpless. They cannot protect themselves against me because I have no name and no face.

    To track me down is impossible. The harder you try, the more elusive I become.
    I am nobody’s friend.
    Once I tarnish a reputation, it is never the same.
    I topple governments and wreck marriages.

    I ruin careers and cause sleepless nights, heartaches and indigestion. I make innocent people cry in their pillows.

    Even my name hisses. I am called Gossip
    I make headlines and headaches.
    Before you report a story, ask yourself.
    Is it true?
    Is it harmless?
    Is it necessary?
    If it isn’t, don’t repeat it.

    Renaissance, thank you for sharing it! It is great!
    It should become our motto and be put on the wall in every home!
    And these three questions are indeed crucial:

    Before you report a story, ask yourself.
    Is it true?
    Is it harmless?
    Is it necessary?
    If it isn’t, don’t repeat it.

    Like

  80. July 12, 2011 10:40 am

    I believe the Media here is not so much embarrassed as concerned. Lets face it they all do business together, use each other to spread rumors, share drinks at the press club and brag of deals in the making, who has the ear of which politician or Govt official with a sense of entitlement bestowed for the express purpose for them to destroy the peace and happiness of others while ensuring they keep their own scandals, illegal activities and brushes with the law out of the public eye. (Nancy Grace’s law suit by the Davis family could have been covered but wasn’t) They are concerned how deep the investigation will go and whose name may pop up as having received stolen information or provided funds used to bribe UK Officials.

    There is also the fact that many of the libelous stories which seem to originate in the UK on famous Americans are in fact created in the USA, sent to the UK or AU to be published which allows the Media here to dodge the civil suit bullet. (I think the Discovery Autopsy originated here, received its approval here.)

    “PLEASE don’t tell me that this man was and is not powerful enough to tell the press and TV channels owned by him what to say about Michael.”

    True, but do not forget the parent corporation of NBC, General Electric, the 3rd largest financial conglomerate in the USA. A powerful worldwide financial institution. Now I doubt that GE CEO Jeffrey R. Immelt spent his time plotting against Michael, but you do not get to be where he is without knowledge of what is going on. Specially if it evolves a household name even more recognizable then yours.

    Helena if you have never seen Outfoxed (proper title: OUTFOXED Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism Interviews Video) You must. It is available a single 48 min video or broken up into 5 smaller. Pay attention to what David Brock says video #1 @ 0.1:24

    Like

  81. Teva permalink
    July 12, 2011 3:24 am

    I carefully search the list of Murdoch holdings and found exactly what I was looking for, “New York Post”

    Like

  82. RENAISSANCE permalink
    July 12, 2011 2:42 am

    A friend of mine came across a write up on gossip and I wanted to share this with you.

    NOBODY’S FRIEND

    My name is Gossip
    I have no respect for justice.
    I maim without killing
    I break hearts and ruin lives
    I am cunning and malicious and gather strength with age
    The more I am quoted the more I am believed
    My victims are helpless. They cannot protect themselves against me because I have no name and no face.

    To track me down is impossible. The harder you try, the more elusive I become.
    I am nobody’s friend.
    Once I tarnish a reputation, it is never the same.
    I topple governments and wreck marriages.

    I ruin careers and cause sleepless nights, heartaches and indigestion. I make innocent people cry in their pillows.

    Even my name hisses. I am called Gossip
    I make headlines and headaches.
    Before you report a story, ask yourself.
    Is it true?
    Is it harmless?
    Is it necessary?
    If it isn’t, don’t repeat it.

    Author Unknown

    Like

  83. July 12, 2011 1:08 am

    This is a list of assets owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. Imagine all of it being biased against MJ!

    Filmed Entertainment

    20th Century Fox
    Fox Searchlight Pictures
    20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
    Blue Sky Studios
    20th Century Fox Español
    20th Century Fox International
    20th Century Fox Television
    Fox Studios Australia
    Fox Studios LA
    Fox Television Studios
    Shine Group

    [edit] Television
    [edit] Broadcast/Production assets

    20th Century Fox Television
    20th Television
    Foxtel
    Fox Broadcasting Company
    Fox International Channels
    Fox International Channels Italy
    Fox Sports Australia
    Fox Telecolombia
    Fox Television Stations
    Fox Television Studios
    Imedi Media Holding
    Latvijas Neatkarīgā Televīzija
    MyNetworkTV
    STAR TV
    TV5 Rīga
    British Sky Broadcasting (39%)

    [edit] Cable Assets

    Big Ten Network (49%)
    Fox Business Network
    Fox College Sports
    Fox Movie Channel
    Fox News Channel
    Fox Soccer Channel
    Fox Sports Enterprises
    Fox Sports en Español
    Foxtel (25%) –
    Fox Sports Net
    FUEL TV
    FX Networks
    Fox Reality Channel
    National Geographic Channel (50%)
    National Geographic Channel UK (50%)
    Speed Channel
    SportSouth
    LAPTV (Latin America — co-owned with Paramount Pictures/Viacom, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer/MGM Holdings and Universal Studios/NBC Universal)
    Telecine (Brazil — co-owned with Globosat Canais, Paramount Pictures, MGM, Universal Studios and DreamWorks);

    [edit] Television Assets

    BSkyB [United Kingdom] (39.1%)
    Sky Deutschland [Germany](49.90%)
    SKY Italia [Italy](100%)
    SKY Network Television [New Zealand] (43.65%)
    Foxtel [Australia] (25%)
    Star TV [India & Greater China] (100%)
    Tata Sky [India] (20%)

    [edit] Internet

    Fox Interactive Media
    AmericanIdol.com
    AskMen.com
    Fox.com
    Foxsports.com
    GameSpy
    Hulu.com
    kSolo
    IGN
    MyNetworktv.com
    NewRoo.com
    Strategicdatacorp.com
    Scout.com
    SpringWidgets
    WhatIfSports

    News Digital Media
    Slingshot Labs
    Authonomy via HarperCollins
    MySpace (5%)

    [edit] Magazines and Inserts

    All titles sourced from News Limited – NewsSource: Magazines on 15 October 2010.

    Alpha
    Australian Football Weekly
    Australian Golf Digest
    Australian Good Taste (with Woolworths)
    Australian Parents (with Woolworths)
    Best of the Gold Coast Magazine
    Big League
    Chopper
    Country Style
    delicious. (with the ABC)
    donna hay
    Gardening Australia (with the ABC)
    GQ Australia
    Inside Out
    Lifestyle Pools + outdoor design
    Live to Ride
    MasterChef Magazine
    Modern Boating
    Modern Fishing
    News America Marketing
    Overlander 4WD
    SmartSource
    Super Food Ideas
    Tattoo
    Truck & Trailer Australia
    Truckin’ Life
    Two Wheels
    Two Wheels Scooter
    Vogue Australia
    Vogue Entertaining + Travel

    [edit] Newspapers and Information Services
    [edit] United Kingdom

    News International

    The Sun
    News of the World (closed after a scandal on July 10th 2011)
    The Times
    Sunday Times
    thelondonpaper (a free newspaper which closed in September 2009)

    [edit] Australia

    News Limited

    [edit] Metropolitan newspapers, magazines and news distribution channels
    [edit] National

    The Australian including weekly insert magazine The Deal and monthly insert magazine (wish)[1]
    The Weekend Australian including insert magazine The Weekend Australian Magazine[2]
    Australian Associated Press (45%)
    http://www.news.com.au National online news website

    [edit] New South Wales

    The Daily Telegraph[3]
    The Sunday Telegraph including insert magazine sundaymagazine[4]
    mX (Sydney)[5]

    [edit] Victoria

    Herald Sun[6]
    Sunday Herald Sun including insert magazine sundaymagazine[7]
    mX (Melbourne)[8]

    [edit] Queensland

    The Courier-Mail including weekly insert magazine QWeekend[9]
    The Sunday Mail[10]
    Brisbane News[11]

    [edit] South Australia

    The Advertiser including the monthly insert the Adelaide* magazine[12]
    Sunday Mail[13]

    [edit] Western Australia

    The Sunday Times[14]

    [edit] Tasmania

    The Mercury[15]
    The Sunday Tasmanian[16]

    [edit] Northern Territory

    Northern Territory News[17]
    Sunday Territorian[18]

    [edit] Community suburban newspapers
    [edit] Sydney

    Cumberland/Courier (NSW) newspapers[19]

    Blacktown Advocate
    Canterbury-Bankstown Express
    Central
    Central Coast Express Advocate
    Fairfield Advance
    Hills Shire Times
    Hornsby and Upper North Shore Advocate
    Inner West Courier
    Liverpool Leader
    Macarthur Chronicle
    Mt Druitt-St Marys Standard
    NINETOFIVE
    North Shore Times
    Northern District Times
    NORTHSIDE
    Parramatta Advertiser
    Penrith Press
    Rouse Hill Times
    Southern Courier
    The Manly Daily
    The Mosman Daily
    Village Voice Balmain
    Wentworth Courier

    [edit] Melbourne

    Leader (Vic) newspapers[20]

    Bayside Leader
    Berwick/Pakenham Cardinia Leader
    Brimbank Leader
    Caulfield Glen Eira/Port Philip Leader
    Cranbourne Leader
    Dandenong/Springvale Dandenong Leader
    Diamond Valley Leader
    Frankston Standard/Hastings Leader
    Free Press Leader
    Heidelberg Leader
    Hobsons Bay Leader
    Hume Leader
    Knox Leader
    Lilydale & Yarra Valley Leader
    Manningham Leader
    Maribyrnong Leader
    Maroondah Leader
    Melbourne Leader
    Melton/Moorabool Leader
    Moonee Valley Leader
    Moorabbin Kingston/Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader
    Mordialloc Chelsea Leader
    Moreland Leader
    Mornington Peninsula Leader
    Northcote Leader
    Preston Leader
    Progress Leader
    Stonnington Leader
    Sunbury/Macedon Ranges Leader
    Waverley/Oakleigh Monash Leader
    Whitehorse Leader
    Whittlesea Leader
    Wyndham Leader

    [edit] Brisbane

    Quest (QLD) newspapers[21]

    Albert & Logan News (Fri)
    Albert & Logan News (Wed)
    Caboolture Shire Herald
    Caloundra Journal
    City News
    City North News
    City South News
    Ipswich News
    Logan West Leader
    Maroochy Journal
    North-West News
    Northern Times
    Northside Chronicle
    Pine Rivers Press/North Lakes Times
    Redcliffe and Bayside Herald
    South-East Advertiser
    South-West News/Springfield News
    Southern Star
    The Noosa Journal
    weekender
    Westside News
    Wynnum Herald
    Weekender Essential Sunshine Coast

    [edit] Adelaide

    Messenger (SA) newspapers[22]

    Adelaide Matters
    City Messenger
    City North Messenger
    East Torrens Messenger
    Eastern Courier Messenger
    Guardian Messenger
    Hills & Valley Messenger
    Leader Messenger
    News Review Messenger
    Portside Messenger
    Southern Times Messenger
    Weekly Times Messenger

    [edit] Perth

    Community (WA) newspapers[23] (50.1%)

    Advocate
    Canning Times
    Comment News
    Eastern Reporter
    Fremantle-Cockburn Gazette
    Guardian Express
    Hills-Avon Valley Gazette
    Joondalup-Wanneroo Times
    Mandurah Coastal / Pinjarra Murray Times
    Melville Times
    Midland-Kalamunda Reporter
    North Coast Times
    Southern Gazette
    Stirling Times
    Weekend-Kwinana Courier
    Weekender
    Western Suburbs Weekly

    [edit] Darwin

    Sun (NT) newspapers[24]

    Darwin Sun
    Litchfield Sun
    Palmerston Sun

    [edit] Regional and rural newspapers
    [edit] New South Wales

    Tweed Sun’

    [edit] Victoria

    Echo
    Geelong Advertiser
    GeelongNEWS
    The Weekly Times

    [edit] Queensland

    Ayr Advocate
    Bowen Independent
    Cairns Sun
    Gold Coast Bulletin
    Gold Coast Sun
    Herbert River Express
    Home Hill Observer
    Innisfail Advocate
    Northern Miner
    Port Douglas & Mossman Gazette
    Tablelander – Atherton
    Tablelands Advertiser
    The Cairns Post
    The Noosa Journal
    Townsville Bulletin
    Townsville Sun
    weekender

    [edit] Tasmania

    Derwent Valley Gazette
    Tasmanian Country

    [edit] Northern Territory

    Centralian Advocate

    [edit] Papua New Guinea

    Papua New Guinea Post-Courier

    [edit] United States

    New York Post

    Community Newspaper Group

    The Brooklyn Paper
    Courier-Life Publications
    TimesLedger Newspapers
    Bronx Times Reporter Inc.

    [edit] International

    Dow Jones & Company

    Consumer Media Group

    The Wall Street Journal – the leading US financial newspaper.
    Wall Street Journal Europe
    Wall Street Journal Asia
    Barron’s – weekly financial markets magazine.
    Marketwatch – Financial news and information website.
    Far Eastern Economic Review
    Financial News

    Enterprise Media Group

    Dow Jones Newswires – global, real-time news and information provider.
    Factiva – provides business news and information together with content delivery tools and services.
    Dow Jones Indexes – stock market indexes and indicators, including the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
    Dow Jones Financial Information Services — produces databases, electronic media, newsletters, conferences, directories, and other information services on specialised markets and industry sectors.
    Betten Financial News — leading Dutch language financial and economic news service.

    Local Media Group’

    Dow Jones Local Media Group (formerly Ottaway Community Newspapers) – 8 daily and 15 weekly regional newspapers.

    Strategic Alliances

    STOXX (33%) – joint venture with Deutsche Boerse and SWG Group for the development and distribution of Dow Jones STOXX indices.
    Vedomosti (33%) – Russia’s leading financial newspaper (joint venture with Financial Times and Independent Media).
    SmartMoney (50%)
    FiLife.com (50%)

    [edit] Books

    HarperCollins
    HarperCollins India (40%) joint venture with India Today Group
    Zondervan Publishing
    Youth Specialties — organisation helping youth workers worldwide through training seminars and conventions, resources and the internet.
    Inspirio — religious gift production.

    [edit] Miscellaneous

    National Rugby League (NRL) (50%)
    Ansett Australia, Until 2000 (50%)
    Fox Music
    Jamba! – Mobile Entertainment/Mobile Handsets Personalisation/Games.
    Maximedia Israel (67%)
    Mosgorreklama (50%) – Russia sign and marketing material manufacturer
    NDS Group (49%) – DRM and conditional access company.

    [edit] Dormant or shuttered News Corporation businesses

    The following companies are subsidiaries of News Corporation that either are no longer active or have been absorbed into another part of the company.

    Four Star Entertainment (1952-1989)
    Fox Kids (1990–2002)
    Gillett Communications (1979-1991)
    Gold Key Entertainment (1969-1984)
    New World Entertainment (1970-1997)
    SCI Television (1991-1993)
    Storer Communications (1927-1983)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation#Broadcast.2FProduction_assets

    Like

  84. July 11, 2011 11:36 pm

    Here are the articles by journalists who know the ways of Rupert Murdoch. If anyone is interested here they are:

    Robert Fisk: Why I had to leave The Times
    Excerpt:
    When he worked at The Times, Robert Fisk witnessed the curious working practices of the paper’s proprietor, Rupert Murdoch. Despite their jocular exchanges, the writer knew he couldn’t stay… “We all knew Murdoch had signed up to all manner of guarantees of editorial independence, oversight and promises of goodwill when he bought The Times – and had then fired his first editor, Harold Evans. He would deal with the trade unionists later.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/robert-fisk-why-i-had-to-leave-the-times-2311569.html

    RUPERT MURDOCH – A PORTRAIT OF SATAN
    Excerpt:
    …Then in 1981 Rupert Murdoch returned to Britain and took his revenge. He bought the Times.

    It was an act that united both the liberal elites and many old Tories in shock and outrage. This got worse when Mrs Thatcher’s government allowed the takeover to proceed without it being referred to the Monopolies Commission. Under law this should have happened, but the government excused it with the flimsy excuse that neither the Times nor the Sunday Times actually made money.

    There was a growing sense that Murdoch was now manipulating British politicians for his own personal gain. So the BBC decided to investigate Murdoch’s business and personal background.

    A Panorama was made called “Who’s Afraid of Rupert Murdoch?” It was in two parts. First is a film which tells the story of Murdoch’s rise to power in Australia, Britain and America. And then he is interviewed live in the studio by yet again – David Dimbleby.

    The film is tough. And Murdoch is made to sit and watch it in the studio as he waits for the interview. It lays out and reports all the accusations that would become the foundation for future criticism of the way Murdoch both built and ran his media empire.

    -That he takes over intelligent newspapers and turns them into trash. As the ex-editor of the New York Post says – “he took it towards a readership we believed didn’t exist”

    -That his critics say he turns the news reporting in his newspapers into a propaganda wing of his chosen editorial line, and then uses that to destroy politicians he doesn’t like and help elect those he does.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/01/rupert_murdoch_-_a_portrait_of.html

    Like

  85. July 11, 2011 9:04 pm

    “It had nothing to do with a misunderstanding. Michael had a history with Demerol. This way they could label him a drug addict”

    Chris, of course it wasn’t a misunderstanding. Michael was so honest that he never tried to hide his history with Demerol (both in his interviews and lyrics of his songs). But no matter what history he had, neither a tabloid, nor a quality newspaper had the right to invent things – they are supposed to be reporting facts, and not their fantasies. And over here – just imagine it – the Sun invents a story at midnight on June 26 (!), the Times reports it with a reference to the Sun and the whole thing is immediately reprinted by somebody else at something like 12:06 am!

    By the way a tandem between a tabloid and a quality paper working under one umbrella is very convenient – one fabricates lies, the other refers to them as “a source” – so everyone is happy and no one is to blame.

    “This is what I been waiting for. If people treat this differently to Dowler it says that it is 1 rule/law for 1 and one for another. If this is the case I think I will save up and buy a greek island or live in a cave.”

    In this time of trouble and turbulence you’ve made me really laugh. Thanks a lot!

    Like

  86. July 11, 2011 7:48 pm

    “I feel crushed just by reading of the wealth and influence of this mogul.Thank you vindicatemj for the extensive search.”

    Kaarin, all the information comes from Wikipedia – I haven’t changed a single word in it. What worries me about Rupert Murdoch is the concentration of media channels in his hands. And his empire is not only national – it crosses the borders of countries, enabling him to shape the views of people worldwide. So if he doesn’t like someone, this someone can forget about living a calm life ever since then.

    In fact, Rupert Murdoch is probably a prototype for the role of the Producer in the “Truman show” movie (which was about Michael Jackson according to the movie script writer). But over there the Producer was directing the worldwide live show from the Moon, while in our case Rupert Murdoch is directing the show from Los Angeles where he now lives.

    Everyone seems to be living in Los Angeles. Rupert Murdoch, Larry Feldman, Victor Gutierrez…

    Like

  87. Chris permalink
    July 11, 2011 7:14 pm

    It had nothing to do with a misunderstanding. Michael had a history with Demerol. This way they could label him a drug addict. They probably didn’t know what diprivan was the morons.
    It hasn’t been confirmed but Gordon Browm former PM may of had phones hacked of one of his children and also The Sun obtained information that his son was dying and published it.

    This is what I been waiting for. If people treat this diffwerently to Dowler it says that it is 1 rule/law for 1 and one for another. If this is the case I think I will save up and buy a greek island or live in a cave.

    Like

  88. July 11, 2011 7:07 pm

    “at the moment they just think its immoral ways of finding out truth, whether its in the public interest or not its still seen as hidden truth. its the outright lies that need to be revealed.”

    Alison, you are right in stressing that. As regards lies – I’ve added today what the Sun and the Times said on June 26, 2009 about the reason of Michael’s death . They assured people it was Demerol, a narcotic drug, while it was anesthetic Diprivan (Propofol). I guess it sounds very much alike but it makes all the difference in the world. The Sun started with this lie but the very same day the Times repeated it – only in a much more respectable way.

    But no matter how you tell a lie it is still a lie. None of them had the right to publish this nasty innuendo, especially since it was clearly a fabrication – they cited some sources among Michael’s staff, but now we know that at the moment of Michael’s death there was no staff present who could have witnessed it.

    This is a kind of a game between two newspapers presenting two extremes in Murdoch’s empire – the tabloid launches a lie thus doing all the dirty work and the quality newspaper refers to it as a “source” thus staying clean and respectable (as they are only quoting). But when you realize that it is one and the same media system you understand that it is impossible for the Times not to know the true worth of what the Sun is writing – it is like the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.

    The screen shots from both the Sun and the Times were added to the post.

    Like

  89. Alison permalink
    July 11, 2011 5:13 pm

    this scandal has erupted in Britain, can’t remember what first revealed it, its been going on so long, but for years most people haven’t given it much attention because of the same “celebrity” chestnut, they didn’t get touched emotionally, just as Hugh Grant said in the videos on the other post. now they are more bothered.
    However this is not a “British problem”, it has to be worldwide, and Murdoch might be the power here but there are other big news organisations, they all need to come under the same spotlight, its the same as the Arbuckle thing and that was a different news organisation, name escapes me just now.
    then you have not only each organisation but also the competition between them.

    and the documentaries, like the one here, are still just banging on about phone hacking, where people’s privacy is invaded as if thats the only immoral thing they do, in the past journalists have admitted to just making up stories, its been on TV, – that needs to be highlighted asap. then that will show people more what they did to Michael. at the moment they just think its immoral ways of finding out truth, whether its in the public interest or not its still seen as hidden truth. its the outright lies that need to be revealed.

    Like

  90. July 11, 2011 3:59 pm

    On disconcerting I found:deranged,distracting,disappointing,hindering,
    confusing. For Murdoch´s ways I feel distracting and confusing may fit the best.Sly wuold be best, but maybe too direct.

    Like

  91. July 11, 2011 3:51 pm

    I feel crushed just by reading of the wealth and influence of this mogul.Thank you vindicatemj for the extensive search.-The NYT yesterday
    said:”…a scandal that is rocking Britain´s media, policeforce and government.”-It is dangerous that an individual or an entity can have
    this much power when not democratically elected.With his diconcerting
    (has several linked meanings,I am sure you know,I chose confusing&distracting)ways he can worm himself everywhere.And adopting the micropayments he more or less gave a free for all.This must have fuelled the slander against Michael Jackson.It does not take much of a brain to get something on MJ thanks to Victor Guitirrez and his follovers.The MJ slander gives you a front seat into this scandal and
    it´s devious ways.

    Like

  92. July 11, 2011 2:31 pm

    Here is a good collection of what Rupert Murdoch’s “Sun” lied about Michael Jackson after his death (complete with the pictures):http://littlemorsals.blogspot.com/2009/08/michael-jackson-vilified-by-sun-and.html

    I can add to it a fantasy published by the Sun about the way Michael died. Now that we’ve read the testimonies of those who finally arrived at the crime scene, you can compare the Sun’s version with the truth. It is like a game – “find the one hundred differences between the two pictures”. For a start, it wasn’t Demerol, but Diprivan which is also known under the name of Propofol. The rest of it is indescribable:

    “Rupert Murdoch’s Sun coaxed some paramedics and UCLA hospital employees into talking anonymously about Michael Jackson’s death today, and according to those sources, Jackson collapsed shortly after an injection of the painkiller Demerol.

    Reports the Sun:

    A Jacko source said: “Shortly after taking the Demerol he started to experience slow shallow breathing.

    “His breathing gradually got slower and slower until it stopped.

    “His staff started mouth-to-mouth and an ambulance was called which got there in eight minutes “But found he was in full respiratory arrest, no breathing and no pulse. They started full CPR and rushed him to hospital.

    “When he arrived they started resuscitation, giving him heart shocks and inserted a breathing tube and other supportive measures to try and save his life.

    “He never regained consciousness. The family was told that he had passed.”

    The Sun also has a photo of a paramedic’s computer screen displaying the information relayed by the dispatcher from the 911 call that came from Jackson’s home (“50 year old male Not breathing at all.”), along with all sorts of other “Do I really need to know this” information. So very morbid.”

    http://gawker.com/5302772/sun-reports-michael-jackson-collapsed-after-a-demerol-injection

    Like

  93. July 11, 2011 11:58 am

    Rupert Murdoch is a Roman Catholic?

    So here is another of those “devout Christians” who are sure they can replace God on this planet? Another of those new Pharisees who think that a man can be humiliated, tortured and beaten to death because his views and behavior do not follow their rules?

    However it seems the Heavens are taking matters into their hands. It must be only due to their powerful intervention that this phone-hacking situation has been uncovered and received so much publicity. I hope that due to this scandal people will wake up much quicker to everything monsters like this media mogul did to Michael. As to Rupert Murdoch himself, he is 80 and there is little time left before he answers for his deeds personally.

    Like

  94. July 11, 2011 11:44 am

    Folks, the more I read about Rupert Murdoch the more I understand why a great part of English-speaking media was in so much unison when harassing Michael Jackson.

    PLEASE don’t tell me that this man was and is not powerful enough to tell the press and TV channels owned by him what to say about Michael.

    Wiki provides a picture of Rupert Murdoch at a party arranged by the Vanity Fair. With a backing like Murdoch’s all those Maureen Orths and Co. felt absolutely safe in telling the craziest lies about Michael – vodoo rituals, blood baths or whatever – because they were sure that they could get away with anything said about Jackson with someone like Rupert Murdoch by their side.

    This was the reason why Michael refrained from suing all those newspapers. It was USELESS – when one head of the dragon was cut several new ones grew in their place.

    If people understand that the harassment campaign against Michael Jackson was a well-orchestrated effort by someone like Rupert Murdoch and his buddies, half the job of Michael’s vindication will already be done.

    I’ve added to the post full information about Rupert Murdoch from Wiki for you to decide yourselves whether this kind of a person was able (or unable) to arrange the world-wide hatred for Michael Jackson.

    As to me I do not doubt it even for a moment.

    Like

  95. Chris permalink
    July 10, 2011 1:58 pm

    @ Gigi
    Well I obvisously don’t agree witht his idiot but if I were in his position I would of turned round and said doesn’t your profession of comedians mock celebs on every occassion?
    how can you say anything about us blah blah blah.

    It doesn’t excuse this low life but it would b a good point but he such an idiot he can’t put a decent argument or point across.
    Morally bankrupt indeed.

    Like

  96. July 10, 2011 4:46 am

    @Chris

    Omg that Paul McMullen is one sad lost soul. He’s throwing tantrums constantly whining about how much celebs earn. That’s the man’s problem he can only think of in terms of money. Whenever a celeb or whoever mentions the fact McMullen and his kind hacked into Milly Dowler’s family’s privacy and other people who are not rich privacy. He doesn’t say a word on that its always “oh celebs make such and such for this movie…you walk the red carpet, so who cares if we look at your messages”. Geez, what in the world kind of lame excuse of reason is that to invade people’s privacy. Pathetic.

    Like

  97. ares permalink
    July 10, 2011 4:38 am

    That Paul McMullen is one cynical b..rd. I like how he always uses the excuse that celebrities gets tons of money compared to ordinary people so they shouldn’t complain about things that tabloids do to them or write about them. This is how they justify all the imorals and sometimes illegal things that they do. When the public is going to wake up, i don’t know but now is a good start. This people are dangerous. I loved how Steve Coogan handled the debate,by the way. You can clearly see that he was very angry at the whole tabloid thing and especially at the cynicism of McMullen.

    Like

  98. Chris permalink
    July 10, 2011 3:01 am

    lol frightens sorry. “Hitler was nice to dogs” Standing and applauding Mr Coogan.

    Like

  99. Chris permalink
    July 10, 2011 2:51 am

    It frightehs me there are people lots of ppl out there like this man.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: