Ann Coulter on Rupert Murdoch

[Tez3]

Murdoch is Australian, who took American citizenship only so he could own American television stations, it is a citizenship of conveniencenot because he likes America. And you lot talk about 'anchor babies'. You have enough money it's easy to be a citizen!. His personal view is that he's still Aussie. However he has said he is responsible for what his employees have done, he has apologised profusely to the parents of the murdered girl, personally I think that's fluff but Milly Dowle'rs family do deserve that apology. If he's grovelling then no one can say he doesn't think he's responsible so he is!
It's not just the phone and email hacking that is upsetting us here it's the huge influence Murdoch has over politicians here, and while his views are right wing he's not adverse to supporting the left wing, the Sun newspaper here, a red top, has for a long time supported Labour only changing it's allegiance to the Conservatives recently.The old News of the Wordl was left leaning. There is also the matter of his employees bribing police officers. Now James Murdoch is now being accused of misleading MPs. In my opinion it's high time the Murdoch empire was brought down, Rupert Murdoch's influence has damaged far too much in this country.

 

[Ramirez]

we can debate the value of her education and experience all day, you wont care since you dont like her message, but thats ok, opinions are worth what you pay for them....

the FACT is that she is ONCE AGAIN spot on target.

your opinion is is based on experience Mark, Culter's are backed up with literally PAGES of footnotes to sources for accuracies sake.

I believe her facts before most people's opinions

lots of leftist loons have tried to say she was wrong about this or that, but they never prove it because they cant

she fact checks maticulously

oh yeah? Where was this checking of facts when she claimed evolution was false in her book Godless?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php

 

[Sukerkin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14245922

If only I was convinced that this would lead somewhere and not just be a smoke-and-mirrors excercise fueled by Murdoch greasing some wheels and calling in some 'markers'. Conspiracy to subvert the political process really should be made a capital offence {mind you that would probably get a few Western governments in trouble if it was an internationally applied law D:}.

 

[Tez3]

I find Coulter's assertion that the Murdoch story over here is boring to be extremely insensitive and shows a lack of understanding as to the situation here. His employees, erased messages on a dead girls phone leading the family and police to believe she was still alive, his employees hacked into the phones of the relatives of dead servicemen killed in Afghan, his employees have been bribing police officers ( admitted by the said employees), his employees hacked into the then Prime Minister's family medical records to see what was wrong with his son. Now, even Rupert Murdoch admits it's his responsibility, has put whole page ads in the newspapers here saying he is sorry. His employees have said there is more to come. Whether he knew or not about these crimes can be debated ad nausium but how can anyone say this situation is boring is beyond me.
If Murdoch himself is taking this seriously and has come over to sort the situation out ( which to me means cover up) how can Coulter belittle the situation and say it's boring, Murdoch wouldn't describe it as such I'm sure so why would she? She has misjudged this badly.

 

[Ramirez]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14245922

If only I was convinced that this would lead somewhere and not just be a smoke-and-mirrors excercise fueled by Murdoch greasing some wheels and calling in some 'markers'. Conspiracy to subvert the political process really should be made a capital offence {mind you that would probably get a few Western governments in trouble if it was an internationally applied law D:}.

Yes, perhaps Coulter could explain how this liberal conspiracy against Murdoch is now being taken on by a Conservative prime minister of Britain.

 

[Twin Fist]

I guess when you perform the equivalent to necromancy you are being viewed in a dimmer light than when you just follow a false lead....

a false lead? htey manufactured documents, it was a BS story from start to finish AND they reported it a week before the election, in a clear attempt to effect said election


a false lead?

what the ****

i guess you think Manson was a "little angry"

 

[Twin Fist]

oh yeah? Where was this checking of facts when she claimed evolution was false in her book Godless?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php

it isnt proven and actign like it is "fact" is intellectually dishonest

 

[Twin Fist]

her point, which is pretty damned valid is why is the CEO being called on the carpet over the activities of people 42 steps on the food chain lower than him?

her example of Moonves NOT getting treated the same way is spot on.


it is a given fact that if Murdoch didnt also happen to own Fox News, that this wanton and flagrant persecution wouldnt be happening.

I find Coulter's assertion that the Murdoch story over here is boring to be extremely insensitive and shows a lack of understanding as to the situation here. His employees, erased messages on a dead girls phone leading the family and police to believe she was still alive, his employees hacked into the phones of the relatives of dead servicemen killed in Afghan, his employees have been bribing police officers ( admitted by the said employees), his employees hacked into the then Prime Minister's family medical records to see what was wrong with his son. Now, even Rupert Murdoch admits it's his responsibility, has put whole page ads in the newspapers here saying he is sorry. His employees have said there is more to come. Whether he knew or not about these crimes can be debated ad nausium but how can anyone say this situation is boring is beyond me.
If Murdoch himself is taking this seriously and has come over to sort the situation out ( which to me means cover up) how can Coulter belittle the situation and say it's boring, Murdoch wouldn't describe it as such I'm sure so why would she? She has misjudged this badly.

 

[granfire]

it isnt proven and actign like it is "fact" is intellectually dishonest

quit being obtuse.

 

[JohnEdward]

her point, which is pretty damned valid is why is the CEO being called on the carpet over the activities of people 42 steps on the food chain lower than him?

her example of Moonves NOT getting treated the same way is spot on.


it is a given fact that if Murdoch didnt also happen to own Fox News, that this wanton and flagrant persecution wouldnt be happening.

That is because she has never held a management or executive position, and she is going for controversial shock value. And Yes, what he did or allowed happen directly or through company culture. Ms. Coulter is a controversial conservative social and political commentator, and she is paid for that. She says what ever will get the most attention. She has described herself as, a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do." This is how she makes a living. She took lessons from Rush, and did him better; more intelligent and a lot more risky. Her chosen profession doesn't have her being hired for her specialized knowledge or expertise, say like a CEO. She is a writer who gives her opinion which is published. She does interviews and speaking gigs too. That is her career, "to sir the pot." Is she a political or social expert? No. She is a controversial writer by choice. More importantly, She is a women working outside of the typical conservative women's stereotype. She has shattered that stereotype all to hell, by being loud, brash, bullish, opinionated, educated, argumentative, controversial. Completely the opposite of the typical conservative women. She isn' in some kitchen listening to Tammy Waynette's "Stand by your man" barefoot and pregnant, with a baby in one arm and the bible in the other. She definitely isn't NO Palin or Bachmann. Coulter more than anything is a female activist, a liberator of conservative women who is over-the-top to be heard, in a male run conservative world. I don't take what she says to be the "truth" when she "stirs the pot." The truth lies in what she really means by what pot she is really stirring. When it comes to Ms. Coulter many don't see the forest for the trees.

 

[granfire]

That is because she has never held a management or executive position, and she is going for controversial shock value. And Yes, what he did or allowed happen directly or through company culture. Ms. Coulter is a controversial conservative social and political commentator, and she is paid for that. She says what ever will get the most attention. She has described herself as, a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do." This is how she makes a living. She took lessons from Rush, and did him better; more intelligent and a lot more risky. Her chosen profession doesn't have her being hired for her specialized knowledge or expertise, say like a CEO. She is a writer who gives her opinion which is published. She does interviews and speaking gigs too. That is her career, "to sir the pot." Is she a political or social expert? No. She is a controversial writer by choice. More importantly, She is a women working outside of the typical conservative women's stereotype. She has shattered that stereotype all to hell, by being loud, brash, bullish, opinionated, educated, argumentative, controversial. Completely the opposite of the typical conservative women. She isn' in some kitchen listening to Tammy Waynette's "Stand by your man" barefoot and pregnant, with a baby in one arm and the bible in the other. She definitely isn't NO Palin or Bachmann. Coulter more than anything is a female activist, a liberator of conservative women who is over-the-top to be heard, in a male run conservative world. I don't take what she says to be the "truth" when she "stirs the pot." The truth lies in what she really means by what pot she is really stirring. When it comes to Ms. Coulter many don't see the forest for the trees.

calling her a liberator is maybe taking things too far....

 

[Ramirez]

it isnt proven and actign like it is "fact" is intellectually dishonest

No it is intellectually dishonest to say evolution is not a fact when criminals are convicted every day based on DNA evidence, evolution is the whole theory on which things like genetic engineering and DNA evidence and molecular biology is based. It is as robust a theory as quantum mechanics which was used to develop the chips in the very computer you are using right now or relativity which explains why the sun is shining right now.
I guess Ann wasn't too "maticulous" in her research.

 

[Twin Fist]

not a fact, sorry

 

[Ramirez]

not a fact, sorry

your saying so isn't a fact sorry. Her JD doesn't compare to ph.ds in molecular biology. You need more "maticulous" research, and perhaps better debating skill than would be found in a school yard.

If it isn't a fact then you will be quite all right with freeing anyone convicted with DNA evidence?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

her point, which is pretty damned valid is why is the CEO being called on the carpet over the activities of people 42 steps on the food chain lower than him?

her example of Moonves NOT getting treated the same way is spot on.


it is a given fact that if Murdoch didnt also happen to own Fox News, that this wanton and flagrant persecution wouldnt be happening.

This "wanton and flagrant prosecution" is happening over in Brittain, not the U.S. That was Parliament that Murdoch almost got pied in front of, not a Congressional Committee. Fox News maybe the American arm of the Murdoch empire, but it is still only one arm. Saying that the investigation is entirely based on Murdoch's owning Fox News ignores the minor little detail that the investigation is mostly occurring across the pond.

As for his being a CEO, please note that his main defense is "I didn't know about it", which is the usual line (true or not) given by higher-ups in corporate wrongdoing cases. It's called agency law, and employers can very often be found responsible, partially or fully, for the wrongdoings of their employees. That's why Parliament was grilling him and his son about what they knew, what they should have known, whether it'd been tacitly approved, etc. Also note the frequency with which this wrongdoing was occurring. It's much easier for a corporate higher-up to deny knowledge and/or responsibiliity when it's a few isolated incidences rather than frequent, ongoing actions of employees.

Face it, TF, this investigation (not persecution) is occurring because BAD **** HAPPENED, not because of the political association of a single branch of Murdoch's empire. I'm pretty sure that if this had occurred within a liberal corporate empire, you'd be screaming for the CEO's head.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

You need more "maticulous" research, and perhaps better debating skill than would be found in a school yard.

*twitches*

It's meticulous.

 

[Ramirez]

*twitches*

It's meticulous.

I know......:

 

[aedrasteia]

.... she is going for controversial shock value...(snipped) Ms. Coulter is a controversial conservative social and political commentator, and she is paid for that. She says what ever will get the most attention. She has described herself as, a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced, I don't take what she says to be the "truth" when she "stirs the pot." The truth lies in what she really means by what pot she is really stirring.

thanks JE. I've thought the same. One of her closest analogs, oddly, is Howard Stern.

Not in content, obviously, and without (technically) obscene language but certainly structured for maximum shock effect. And delivered in that droll, un-hysterical tone and phrasing, providing contrast with the vile content of her opinions, similar to Sterns. The tone (auditory and in language choice) both of them use is mocking, deeply sarcastic, mannered and cultivated for shock effect as performance, not persuasion. She's developed a successful delivery based on attacks and smears (embedded in opinion) that is crude and rude - just as Stern has adopted. People who share her view of content are delighted that she flusters some opponents and delivers her viewpoint in deadpan mockery - like Stern and his fans. And presents herself (as Stern does) as courageous and the 'victim' of attacks for her willingness to be 'honest and forthright'.

Her verbal tone/pitch and appearance, like Sterns, functions in deliberate and well-tuned contrast to the snark and content. She is cheerful, humorous, like Stern, attractive (unlike Stern and with much better hair) and able to rarely become provoked or visibly angered (unless intentional) like Stern. Her 'arguments' are facile and riddled with fallacies and logical dead-ends but nobody much notices or cares, anymore than they notice or care when Stern or Michael Moore does the same.

and yes, I did lots of review of video (w/no sound) and audio (w/no video) and written transcripts of all these folks (and others) for a linguistic anthropology analysis on the use of intentional sarcasm/ridicule in public discourse. Without question, Ms. Coulter is one of the most currently successful in her practice of performance celebrity.
Thanks JE for reminding me of that similarity. Though it makes me sad for us all.

 

[JohnEdward]

Yea, I was going to use Howard Stern instead of Rush, your right a better choice.Agreed it would be more accurate. I choose Rush because of the conservative parallel and the relation to the bigger picture of Ms. Coulter. Thanks for bring up Stern which I can't agree more on.

 

[Tez3]

I don't think some non Brits are understanding the magnitude of the problem here, it isn't a minor hiccup by a lower ranked employee. The investigation by Parliament ( which is not the Government btw, Parliament is her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition) is a major inquiry into the actions of News International and the Murdochs. It may well be that Murdoch knew nothing about the hacking and the bribery BUT he launched his own investigation into it and stated that it was only one person. So, it's the internal investigation and Murdoch's involvement in that which is a big part of the Parlimentary and Police investigations.
Here is the Parliamentary site so people can read for themselves the questioning etc from the Select Commitee ( an all party commitee btw)
http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...-international-executives-respond-to-summons/

This is a nasty mess and don't be fooled for one minute that Murdoch isn't up to his neck in the mire. Murdoch is very closely involved in UK politics and in his newspapers here. I think people forget he's an Australian who came here first to set up his empire then moved to America where he bought his citizenship to enable him to buy media outlets there.
This from The Independent which doesn't lean left or right ( my daily and Sunday paper)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/has-the-old-boy-finally-lost-the-plot-2314922.html