Archive for May 2nd, 2012

May 2, 2012

Rupert Murdoch: Not Fit and Proper, headlines around the world

The Culture Media and Sport Select Committee into News International and phone-hacking, included this comment(p70)

If at all relevant times, Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindess to what was going on in his companies and publications.

This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International.

We conclude therefore that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company.

This is the man who controls 70% of Australian media. Around the world, the true nature of Murdoch is being revealed, in Australia, nothing. Not Fit and Proper. Apparently there is no need for a media enquiry in this country

The Guardian

Rupert Murdoch deemed ‘not a fit person’ to run international company

Huff Post Media

Rupert Murdoch ‘Not A Fit Person’ To Run Major Company, Phone Hacking Report Says

Sydney Morning Herald

Murdoch ‘not fit’ to run company after turning blind eye to hacking

The Age

British MPs slam Murdoch on phone hacking

BBC News Business

Murdoch ‘not fit’ to run News Corp

The verdict: Rupert Murdoch ‘not a fit person to run an international company’


Parliament Report: “Rupert Murdoch Not a Fit Person” to Run International Company

CNN International

Rupert Murdoch not fit to run business, UK lawmakers rule

The Australian

Murdoch attacks ‘partisan’ report


ABC News Australia

News Corp hits back at ‘not fit’ attack

May 2, 2012

Dissecting A Media Beat Up – The MP and the Channel 7 reporter, and the Ch 7 reporter admits making it up

Channel 7 ran a story that a senior Labor MP told PM Gillard to her face that she no longer had her support.

That is channel 7 news with 2 million viewers, those viewers who will now go away from that story believing that… But what if it wasn’t true. How would you know? Would you even be told they got it wrong? Or even made the whole thing up completely?

Latika Bourke, of ABC, (who gets credit for once, for going to the source, the subject of the story, and not merely parroting Tony Abbotts interpretation) asked Joel Fitzgibbon, Chief Government Whip, if the story from Sarah Wiley, channel 7 reporter, was true

Latika Bourke: Hey @fitzhunter, can you confirm the 7 report you told PM Julia Gillard personally that you no longer support her?

Joel Fitzgibbon: @latikambourke not true!

But that is not good enough for some intent on destabilising a successful government, or a bit-part reporter trying to make a name for herself.

Sarah Wiley: 7 confirmed Joel Fitzgibbon told PM face 2 face she’d ‘lost his loyalty’ and he’d no longer mobilise numbers for her ( @latikambourke )

Latika Bourke: @SarahWiley8 but Joel Fitzgibbon himself says that’s not true. Hmmm.

Sarah Wiley: @latikambourke but which part is he saying isn’t true ?

Latika Bourke: @SarahWiley8 all of it.

Sarah Wiley: @latikambourke just repeating what he told us

At this point, another channel 7 reporter jumped in

Alex Hart: @latikambourke @sarahwiley8 game of semantics… 7 confirmed fitz told pm no longer has loyalty

The source is denying it, yet the channel 7 reporters keep insisting it is true. As Sarah said HE told US, not, we were told

Latika Bourke: ‘Not true’ ain’t exactly ‘semantics.’ RT @alexhart7: @latikambourke @sarahwiley8 game of semantics… 7 confirmed fitz told pm…

Both Sarah and Alex defend the story

Sarah Wiley: @latikambourke perhaps he’s back tracking ?

Alex Hart: @latikambourke I think that may relate to the use of the word “support”

CFMEWHO?: #politicalreporterdispute @latikambourke v @SarahWiley8

Sarah Wiley: @CFMEWHO @latikambourke it’s not a dispute. Just letting you know what we were told

Latika Bourke: @SarahWiley8 @CFMEWHO I’m with you on this Sar.

Because clearly, what would Joel Fitzgibbon know? Choosing sides, and Latika takes the word of the reporter over the MP, with no fear of missing out on future exclusives, because all reporters stick together.
[editted to add: Correction: I’m with you means Ms Bourke agrees that it was not a dispute, not that she was siding with Sarah Wiley against Fitzgibbon, apologies]

But Joel Fitzgibbon, the supposed source, is having none of this ‘maybe’, ‘perhaps’, he denied it once, he denies it again

Joel Fitzgibbon: @SarahWiley8 @latikambourke no “back tracking”, simply and absolutely untrue!

And then suddenly the truth comes out, and it the channel 7 reporter who is doing some backtracking…

Sarah Wiley: sorry quote not from @fitzhunter but from a reliable source. ( @latikambourke )

Yet the source who turns out wasn’t the source, and the reporter admitting the source wasn’t, Latika persists with trying to wring a story out of a non-story

Latika Bourke: okay @fitzhunter, which story is right here? Can you clear this up. RT @SarahWiley8: @latikambourke just repeating what he told us.

Joel Fitzgibbon: @latikambourke @sarahwiley8 for the last time, completely untrue and it appears 7 has now conceded so!

Latika Bourke: @fitzhunter Thanks Joel.

Sarah Wiley: I stand by that original quote I tweeted

So the story that the Prime Minister had lost support, turns out, was completely made up by the channel 7 crew. First Sarah says, ‘he told us’, then later on she corrects herself, it is what a source told them, who remains unnamed

Perhaps their source is a member of the Liberal party PR team, we don’t know, but we are expected to believe the story, because THE TV SAID SO!!. Really dodgy to go to air with those kind of untruths.

If that doesn’t make you wonder how much other news, from confirmed sources, is not exactly as true as reported to be… then it should.

May 2, 2012

Senior Minister admits democracy for sale: Either Buy Your Way Onto The Field, or You Are Irrelevant

When a coalition of farmers, greenies, youth, mothers, blue-rinse Liberals, and average citizens get together to oppose the complete and total handing over of our environment to mining companies, the government doesn’t like.

Governments prefer to divide and conquer, keeping various interest groups fighting against each other in a race to the bottom.

Apparently the united effort against coal seam gas and mining in New South Wales, doesn’t sit too well with the Planning Minister, Brad Hazzard.

Under the current Liberal government farmers have lost practically every right they might have had, and if you live in the suburbs even more, coal seam gas wells are allowed no closer than 200 metres – which is only slightly larger than an AFL football field.

Brad Hazzard says, the farmers are almost irrelevant. Apparently no one needs food, and food security is not a big issue with the NSW government. Signalling the Governments loyalty, in the issue of Farmers versus Miners, the Government will side with the miners.

Although, if our power sources are so scarce that we need to rip up prime food producing land, makes you wonder why the NSW Government is so opposed to solar and wind power production, it is practically free.

Have no fear, though, farmers – all hope is not yet lost. Even though you are practically irrelevant, it does not need to be that way. Brad Hazzard has a solution for farmers:

They should buy relevance and get back in the process instead of just sniping from the sidelines.

And there we have it. Men and Women of Australia, our future is for sale, our democracy is for sale. If you can afford it, you can have everything you want. If you cannot stump up enough dosh, the politicians think you are irrelevant.

So, tell me, Mr Hazzard, just how much does it cost to get on the field of play? In round numbers, no need to be specific.

source of quote: here

May 2, 2012

Art – Gutter Press and Rabid Dogs

photo by @jot_au

May 2, 2012

Defeated After Surrendering

image by @redglitterx
quote: It is far better to be defeated while attempting to implement Labor policies than to be defeated after surrendering them. I do not believe we can win by surrendering these or, if by any chance we did win, that winning would be worthwhile. Jim Cairns, 1975