Rupert Murdoch falls victim to his own game. The media mogul has recently fallen under intense scrutiny throughout different media mediums for the alleged phone hacking and illegal behavior of his company, News Corporation.
On July 15, 2011, an apologetic Murdoch pleaded in court to the parliament committee in London that he was not aware of the illegal actions being committed by his company. His son James, who took often charge of the defense rebuttals, agreed that they were just as shocked to discover their News of the World tabloid had been responsible for phone hacking victims of 9/11, as well as celebrities, and politicians. In one instance explained by Andrea McCrary on her blog Capricious Ramblings she explained the mysterious hacking of a murdered school girl in order to get a news story. This really leads me to wonder to what extent NewsCorp and other other news outlets like it would go in order to get a story.
It is reported that New Corp. was paying off confidential, large settlement amounts to victims of phone hackings as well as paying the legal fees of private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, who was accused of hacking the phone lines of the royal family staff members back in 2007. Yet, Mr. Murdoch denies any knowledge of these payoffs.
None of these acts surprise me. Personally, the fact that Rupert Murdoch and his company run a tabloid magazine and own Fox News, two media sources that are known for releasing subjective material, puts his integrity into question automatically. Tabloids are known to use shifty sources like paparazzi, he-say-she-say, and undercover analysts in order to get their information, while Fox News is notorious for twisting truths and broadcasting opinionated news. If you ask me, the man that oversees such companies is likely to share similar values.
What I do find interesting however, is the way different media sources are telling the same tale. When reading up on the event, I chose to view a few articles all from different news sources. I felt the New York Times would be a good place to start because it not only stands as a widely respected newspaper, but it is also now one of Murdoch’s biggest rivalries since his purchased The Wall Street Journal.
The Times did a good job of hiding its opinion, as it should, but the article made sure to reveal the skeptical facts in the case, as well as depict courtroom behavior to allow one to formulate his/her own opinion.
For starters, the article began by noting the hearing to be one of “riveting theater,” poking fun at the foam-pie-to-the-face stunt that was pulled on Murdoch and perhaps also in reference to the theatrical ‘acting’ that was performed by the Murdochs as they apologized and denied knowledge of illegal activity. It went on telling of the large payoffs the Murdoch’s knew nothing about, Mr. Murdoch’s long pauses to answer questions, James Murdoch’s quick attempt to answer questions when his father wavered, and ending the piece with a quote from Mr. Murdoch saying, “…I don’t remember what I said.” The Times kept to the facts, but not without some cynicism imbedded in the language and structure or the article.
In opposition, FoxNews.com used a more supportive dialect of their head boss, proclaiming that Murdoch “endured three-hour grilling,” during the hearing while he “escaped attempts to tar him with individual blame for the scandal that has rocked his empire.” Furthermore, they did not take the foam-pie-to-the-face stunt as a lightly as The Times. Instead of “riveting theater,” FoxNews.com tells of a prankster’s attempt as Murdoch’s wife sprang to his aid. Also, it shares the positive statements made by the Murdochs as opposed to the clueless ones such as when James Murdoch insisted, “these actions do not live up to the standards our company aspires to.” Lastly, the end of the article assures that “Rupert Murdoch is eager to stop the crisis from spreading…” clearly affirming their support for him.
The Times and FoxNews.com are prime examples of two major sources of media outlets that release propaganda in order to sway the listener or viewers opinions without providing objectivity to a story. Murdoch’s phone scandal will affect the world’s media outlets more than one would think. Dictators and tyrants alike can use this media event to combat those who support free press by claiming that “free speech” countries don’t actually abide by their ideals. This leads one to think that any and every country, regardless of system of government, can fall to corruption and espionage. In this case free press isn’t entirely “free” for that matter. One can put a price on gathering information illegally or not.
BECAUSE DRE THE PROPHET SAYS SO!!!!
dailybridgerton
pixelskylines
ellievsbear
turnnoffyourmind
vaporwave