The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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
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: