The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Richard Branson blasts Rupert Murdoch for claiming an 18% stake in ITV. He argues that Murdoch has a reputation for using his power as an advantage over polititians and means that his empire, which owns many national newspapers as well as Sky TV, will virtually control the news and therefore have a great influence over the public.
He is quoted as saying "I think there comes a time when government needs to draw lines in the sand as Murdoch comes more involved with British media. If the government is so ... scared of upsetting him perhaps his empire should be looked at."
But this also comes after Branson's own attempts to secure a stake in ITV fell through, with ITV point blank refusing a takeover from NTL, the American cable group that Branson already owns a stake in.
But does it really affect the public that much? Is Branson just sour after his own rejection or does he have a point? Others have said that Murdoch has already taken it too far and the power he now holds threatens democracy by technically allowing him to decide on who the next party will be in government by way of influence and manipulation. Should he be prevented from going further and can this be classed as a monopoly, or is he simply a good businessman who deserves a chance to build his empire further without constraint?
He is quoted as saying "I think there comes a time when government needs to draw lines in the sand as Murdoch comes more involved with British media. If the government is so ... scared of upsetting him perhaps his empire should be looked at."
But this also comes after Branson's own attempts to secure a stake in ITV fell through, with ITV point blank refusing a takeover from NTL, the American cable group that Branson already owns a stake in.
But does it really affect the public that much? Is Branson just sour after his own rejection or does he have a point? Others have said that Murdoch has already taken it too far and the power he now holds threatens democracy by technically allowing him to decide on who the next party will be in government by way of influence and manipulation. Should he be prevented from going further and can this be classed as a monopoly, or is he simply a good businessman who deserves a chance to build his empire further without constraint?
Page:
Richard Branson blasts Rupert Murdoch for claiming an 18% stake in ITV. He argues that Murdoch has a reputation for using his power as an advantage over polititians and means that his empire, which owns many national newspapers as well as Sky TV, will virtually control the news and therefore have a great influence over the public.
He is quoted as saying "I think there comes a time when government needs to draw lines in the sand as Murdoch comes more involved with British media. If the government is so ... scared of upsetting him perhaps his empire should be looked at."
But this also comes after Branson's own attempts to secure a stake in ITV fell through, with ITV point blank refusing a takeover from NTL, the American cable group that Branson already owns a stake in.
But does it really affect the public that much? Is Branson just sour after his own rejection or does he have a point? Others have said that Murdoch has already taken it too far and the power he now holds threatens democracy by technically allowing him to decide on who the next party will be in government by way of influence and manipulation. Should he be prevented from going further and can this be classed as a monopoly, or is he simply a good businessman who deserves a chance to build his empire further without constraint?
He is quoted as saying "I think there comes a time when government needs to draw lines in the sand as Murdoch comes more involved with British media. If the government is so ... scared of upsetting him perhaps his empire should be looked at."
But this also comes after Branson's own attempts to secure a stake in ITV fell through, with ITV point blank refusing a takeover from NTL, the American cable group that Branson already owns a stake in.
But does it really affect the public that much? Is Branson just sour after his own rejection or does he have a point? Others have said that Murdoch has already taken it too far and the power he now holds threatens democracy by technically allowing him to decide on who the next party will be in government by way of influence and manipulation. Should he be prevented from going further and can this be classed as a monopoly, or is he simply a good businessman who deserves a chance to build his empire further without constraint?
How exactly will he decide the next election? Even with ITV there's still that biased piece of crap the BBC and Channel 4, there's plenty of newspapers out there which Murdoch doesn't own and also that little thing called the internet.
Branson's sucking on them sour grapes is all
Branson's sucking on them sour grapes is all
Kawada wrote:
> How exactly will he decide the next election?
Maybe you underestimate the power of The Sun, The Star, The News of the World ... maybe?
Is Branson right? - I don't know. I kind of think he might be, but I also believe he's sour. He likes to take on the established Power, doesn't he ... He did it with his airline - taking on BA. He did it with his record label, etc. Now he's trying to take (the high road) on Mr.Murdoch.
> How exactly will he decide the next election?
Maybe you underestimate the power of The Sun, The Star, The News of the World ... maybe?
Is Branson right? - I don't know. I kind of think he might be, but I also believe he's sour. He likes to take on the established Power, doesn't he ... He did it with his airline - taking on BA. He did it with his record label, etc. Now he's trying to take (the high road) on Mr.Murdoch.
Sibelius wrote:
> Kawada wrote:
> How exactly will he decide the next election?
>
> Maybe you underestimate the power of The Sun, The Star, The News
> of the World ... maybe?
Or the stupidity of the public, however i'd like to give them a bit more respect and hope they wouldn't actually use these publications as ways of deciding their vote
> Kawada wrote:
> How exactly will he decide the next election?
>
> Maybe you underestimate the power of The Sun, The Star, The News
> of the World ... maybe?
Or the stupidity of the public, however i'd like to give them a bit more respect and hope they wouldn't actually use these publications as ways of deciding their vote
Kawada wrote:
> Or the stupidity of the public, however i'd like to give them a
> bit more respect and hope they wouldn't actually use these
> publications as ways of deciding their vote
I'm not so sure ... I think the media had a huge involvement in our going to fight with the USA in Iraq ..
> Or the stupidity of the public, however i'd like to give them a
> bit more respect and hope they wouldn't actually use these
> publications as ways of deciding their vote
I'm not so sure ... I think the media had a huge involvement in our going to fight with the USA in Iraq ..
Or Blair's lucrative American university tour when he does step down.
To answer the question. Yes, he had far too much influence and control before getting ITV. The line has to be drawn somewhere for these massive companies or eventually you end up with a complete monopoly*
* May be bitter at Sky buying Lost
* May be bitter at Sky buying Lost
Kawada wrote:
> Or the stupidity of the public, however i'd like to give them a
> bit more respect and hope they wouldn't actually use these
> publications as ways of deciding their vote
Unfortunately, you give the public far too much credit. The funny thing is, the tabloids tell people who to vote for by deliberately delivering one-sided stories, and the human pulp that makes up the overwhelming majority of apathetic, politically uninterested lemmings that populate our failing society just go along with it.
Believe me, whoever The Sun says should win the next election, will win it by a comfortable margin.
> Or the stupidity of the public, however i'd like to give them a
> bit more respect and hope they wouldn't actually use these
> publications as ways of deciding their vote
Unfortunately, you give the public far too much credit. The funny thing is, the tabloids tell people who to vote for by deliberately delivering one-sided stories, and the human pulp that makes up the overwhelming majority of apathetic, politically uninterested lemmings that populate our failing society just go along with it.
Believe me, whoever The Sun says should win the next election, will win it by a comfortable margin.
Everpain wrote:
> Believe me, whoever The Sun says should win the next election,
> will win it by a comfortable margin.
It is frightening just how much manipulation the tabloids have.
So, Everpain, do think he should be limited by how much of the media he can own?
> Believe me, whoever The Sun says should win the next election,
> will win it by a comfortable margin.
It is frightening just how much manipulation the tabloids have.
So, Everpain, do think he should be limited by how much of the media he can own?
That is not the right question. The real issue is over what the tabloids should be allowed to tell the witless idiots that believe the Daily Mail is the bible's lost Gospel.
Freedom of speech is damaging, because while the tabloids are free to express one side of a story, they are not obliged in any way to express the truth, so long as they can cling to a few facts. Facts and truth being, of course, two fundamentally different things.
We underestimate the influence of other areas. The music industry regularly wades in with it's tuppence worth. Busted mentioned before the last election that they leaned towards the tories. Why did they mention this? Because now they have a fanbase consisting of mindless young buffoons who will be old enough to vote at the next election, and will potentially likewise lean towards the Tories.
Whether or not leaning towards Tory backing is a good thing is completely irrelevant. The issue is that democracy fails because it relies on a mass of individuals making nformed choices as individuals. The reality is that those individuals are largely apathetic and uninterested, and simply pick up the political preference of the closest social anchor to save having to either think or argue about it with anyone else.
Winston Churchill once said that the greatest argument against democracy was a five minute conversation with the average voter.
So while it can be argued as dangerous for one individual to have excessive control over media, allowing him to dictate a message onto the masses, a lá Big Brother/1984, the fundamental issue should instead be why are these easily led cattle given the power to dictate how the country is run? This is especially significant given that the people have largely delegated this responsibility to tabloid columns.
Democracy is the enemy, Murdoch is simply taking advantage of its weaknesses. In his position, I would do exactly the same thing.
Freedom of speech is damaging, because while the tabloids are free to express one side of a story, they are not obliged in any way to express the truth, so long as they can cling to a few facts. Facts and truth being, of course, two fundamentally different things.
We underestimate the influence of other areas. The music industry regularly wades in with it's tuppence worth. Busted mentioned before the last election that they leaned towards the tories. Why did they mention this? Because now they have a fanbase consisting of mindless young buffoons who will be old enough to vote at the next election, and will potentially likewise lean towards the Tories.
Whether or not leaning towards Tory backing is a good thing is completely irrelevant. The issue is that democracy fails because it relies on a mass of individuals making nformed choices as individuals. The reality is that those individuals are largely apathetic and uninterested, and simply pick up the political preference of the closest social anchor to save having to either think or argue about it with anyone else.
Winston Churchill once said that the greatest argument against democracy was a five minute conversation with the average voter.
So while it can be argued as dangerous for one individual to have excessive control over media, allowing him to dictate a message onto the masses, a lá Big Brother/1984, the fundamental issue should instead be why are these easily led cattle given the power to dictate how the country is run? This is especially significant given that the people have largely delegated this responsibility to tabloid columns.
Democracy is the enemy, Murdoch is simply taking advantage of its weaknesses. In his position, I would do exactly the same thing.
Page: