The DOW dilemma, do the ends really justify the means?

[LaurieAG]

If NEWSCORP succeeds in wooing the DOW newswires into its stables will the whole world expect to see the same type of behaviour that its Australian newspapers trotted out as editorials and opinion pieces prior to the start of the continuing Iraqi war, when future market instabilities loom?

 

If you think that a US president has the moral right to invade another country and provide 80% pro war editorials and opinion pieces in the lead up to a war where the public opinion in the local letters pages is 70% against that same war, do you really care what the facts are?

 

Can you really trust someone to provide an independent financial service when they feel that certain deceitful practices should and must be foisted on the general public, for their own good?

 

It's probably just as well that Iraq turned out as it did, so we already know what to expect from future funny business of the same ilk, fabulously wealthy people making a killing!

[CraigD]

If NEWSCORP succeeds in wooing the DOW newswires into its stables will the whole world expect to see the same type of behaviour that its Australian newspapers trotted out as editorials and opinion pieces prior to the start of the continuing Iraqi war, when future market instabilities loom?

I’m confused by this question. The only DOW newswire I see in the first page of search hits for the phrase is Dow Jones Newswires, a news services dedicated to financial marketers. I can’t see how News Corporation (parent company of the US’s Fox Broadcasting Company and many others) acquiring the Dow Jones Newswire would have much impact on non-financial news services, either those owned by News Corporation or those not.

If you think that a US president has the moral right to invade another country and provide 80% pro war editorials and opinion pieces in the lead up to a war where the public opinion in the local letters pages is 70% against that same war, do you really care what the facts are?

I can’t answer this question, because I don’t qualify as a person who thinks “that a US president has the moral right to invade another country”.

Can you really trust someone to provide an independent financial service when they feel that certain deceitful practices should and must be foisted on the general public, for their own good?

I’m not a personal or professional investor, nor an officer or employee of a publicly owned company, but I think I can speak for the majority of them in saying that, if the information provided helps them and the people and companies they represent to prosper, it will be judged good. If it results in their financial decline, it will be judged bad. If bad information from a financial news provider can be proven to have been fabricated to cause the profit of some over others (other than investors over laborers, and other inequities inherent in various business models), it’s a safe assumption that that news provider will be sued by those damaged.

 

“Deceit” is less of a concern in the business community, I think, than profit.

It's probably just as well that Iraq turned out as it did, so we already know what to expect from future funny business of the same ilk, fabulously wealthy people making a killing!

I’m not willing to accept the deaths of hundreds of thousands and displacement and suffering of millions of human beings as the “just as well” cost of Americans, Australians, and other people learning a lesson in history and politics.

 

Although it’s only my opinion, concerning past and present alternatives of which there can be only speculation, I believe that the short and long-term well being of mankind has suffered as a result of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, far more than it would have had the invasion not occurred. In this opinion, I appear to disagree with about 1/3rd of my fellow Americans. In one area, however, nearly all Americans seem to agree: what has happened cannot be undone. Attention needs to be focused on what can be done now and in the future to improve the lives of humankind.

 

The beginning of the 3rd millennium has so far been much darker than optimistic predictions foresaw. It should not be allowed to remain so, and I will not support any person who seeks to perpetuate a state of indefinite war and state abuse of the People.

[LaurieAG]

The beginning of the 3rd millennium has so far been much darker than optimistic predictions foresaw. It should not be allowed to remain so, and I will not support any person who seeks to perpetuate a state of indefinite war and state abuse of the People.

 

Hello Craig,

 

I was just trying to position my statement so that people from both sides of the divide could see the problems that arise when people stop thinking and regard perception (and self gratification) as the be all and end all.

 

The real dilemma is that the proposed solution to guaranteeing the integrity of future operations of the Dow Jones newspapers etc is by setting up a governing commitee made up of two factions without any overlap, by intent.

 

You may think that there isn't a dilemma, but the proposed solution is no better than the democratic process that led to the Iraq war in the first place and the separation of the factions just promotes basic 'insider' faction manipulations as the main mode of operation.

[jackson33]

Newscorp is trying to acquire Dow, as its planning a Cable Business Channel to compete with Blomberg and CNBC versions. The Wall Street Journal, is a primary tool used by investors market annalist, along with many heads of the corporations in the public sector. statistically this group is considered, conservative or in the Republican Party camp. if the deal is completed, the then three-WSJ, Newscorp and the new Cable Business channel would be like minded entities, which independently are or would be anyway...

 

i don't understand trying to link the enforcements of the UN mandates to the Iraq and this merger. we are all, i assume, interested in a stable mid-east and the continuance of energy supplies around the world. this is what drives the world economy today and will for some time....like it or not.

 

the way the War turned out; the coalition won the war in a short time. the coalition obligation then turned to stabilization and rebuilding which is required under international law. the unforeseen factor, or the war on Terror, being fought today has created many problems. the deaths of innocents is a direct responsibility of the terrorist to influence media, the American/Worlds public and the desire to have Iraq become a Radical Islamic Nation.

[LaurieAG]

Newscorp is trying to acquire Dow, as its planning a Cable Business Channel to compete with Blomberg and CNBC versions. The Wall Street Journal, is a primary tool used by investors market annalist, along with many heads of the corporations in the public sector. statistically this group is considered, conservative or in the Republican Party camp. if the deal is completed, the then three-WSJ, Newscorp and the new Cable Business channel would be like minded entities, which independently are or would be anyway...

 

Hello Jackson,

 

The local, regional, state and national newspapers I read are all owned by NEWSCORP or companies in its stable, there is very little competition and the results are undesireable. Australian politicians have recently relaxed media regulation so that a media company can own newspapers and free to air TV stations in the same region as long as it doesn't own any radio stations (radio & TV but no newspapers or newspapers and radio but no TV etc), while Australia's richest man is divesting the media half of his empire (interesting timing with the Dow bid).

 

i don't understand trying to link the enforcements of the UN mandates to the Iraq and this merger. we are all, i assume, interested in a stable mid-east and the continuance of energy supplies around the world. this is what drives the world economy today and will for some time....like it or not.

 

You misunderstand my point. The strength of the opinions of the people of Australia were ignored by NEWSCORP in a way that amounted to blatant propaganda for political purposes. BTW, energy and the middle east had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, ask GWB, the official resons were protecting the USA from Saddams 'weapons of mass destruction' and then to give the people of Iraq freedom. The politicians strenuously deny that oil had anything to do with the war and the marked rise in petrol prices shows that even if energy reasons were admitted they would be regarded as much a failure as the war itself.

 

the way the War turned out; the coalition won the war in a short time. the coalition obligation then turned to stabilization and rebuilding which is required under international law. the unforeseen factor, or the war on Terror, being fought today has created many problems. the deaths of innocents is a direct responsibility of the terrorist to influence media, the American/Worlds public and the desire to have Iraq become a Radical Islamic Nation.

 

I can watch Fox and get the exact same beatup.

[jackson33]

its hard for me to imagine Newscorp, would back any government mandated program to force the public to buy certain products. since the Australian Government has mandated certain light bulbs and in a certain time frame, there must be additional information available.

 

the success of any publication, is based on what it can charge for advertisements. if the contents are not oriented to an acceptable view of the public, then i wonder how they survive. here, Newscorp, dominates the cable channels. additionally they are the ones gaining in all areas, where many have and continue to drop ratings. i would suggest, these opinions and publications counter your own, not necessarily the majority of Australian's. at least with regards to entertainment.

 

since i am personally an admirer of your continent, i will add the US public is as divided as it appears to be there. the pending sale of Dow Jones to the Newscorp family, is a good business move. an honest opinion would say the price is to high, but then i am not privy to what all is possible. the business channel venture alone is a very big risk, which must be playing a role in decision...

[LaurieAG]

its hard for me to imagine Newscorp, would back any government mandated program to force the public to buy certain products. since the Australian Government has mandated certain light bulbs and in a certain time frame, there must be additional information available.

 

Hello Jackson,

 

When you control a large portion of the news media you get paid by the government to 'advertise' its policies. This government advertising has increased dramatically in Australia under the Howard government in the past 10 years.

 

the success of any publication, is based on what it can charge for advertisements. if the contents are not oriented to an acceptable view of the public, then i wonder how they survive. here, Newscorp, dominates the cable channels. additionally they are the ones gaining in all areas, where many have and continue to drop ratings.

 

You do understand what a monopoly (or near monopoly) does to the free market law of supply and demand? Also, wasn't Newscorp allowed to gain a higher market share (up to 35% I think) by a decision that was later rescinded?

 

i would suggest, these opinions and publications counter your own, not necessarily the majority of Australian's. at least with regards to entertainment.

 

since i am personally an admirer of your continent, i will add the US public is as divided as it appears to be there. the pending sale of Dow Jones to the Newscorp family, is a good business move. an honest opinion would say the price is to high, but then i am not privy to what all is possible. the business channel venture alone is a very big risk, which must be playing a role in decision...

 

I am aware that before the Iraq war around 1/3 of the population were pro war and 1/3 were against the war with the other third undecided (but wouldn't throw their hats in with the pro war crowd). This pattern was consistent around most of the world (apart from the US). At present the 1/3 who were undecided have now wholeheartedly decided to support the anti war stance, just like the rest of the world (including the US), now that they are better informed.

 

You may not have noticed that the politicians who forced their countries into war against public (and non US global) opinion are now being removed from office and/or their governments are being replaced with ones that aren't as far right wing?

 

BTW Jackson, while most Australians are pretty easy going, do all Americans think that war is great entertainment or is it just the 1/3 who have been pro war from the beginning.

[InfiniteNow]

do all Americans think that war is great entertainment

 

Yes... of course. All of us. Each and everyone, by virtue of this large land mass on which we reside. :shrug:

[jackson33]

Laurie; googled *Newspapers in Australia*, for the fun of it, and found several hundred. since the total population (21 million) is about the of either the NYC or Los Angeles AREA, i have to assume various views are available. even spent some time reading one of the Sydney papers, finding it very much like any metropolitan US majors.

 

if your governments spends your tax dollars to promote a view, not that of yours and its the majority then that government will fail. here our papers take on political and issue viewpoint, to meet there intended audience. i would suggest over the past 20 years, its grown to be that of one of the two major political parties.

 

no the war is not entertainment. reading about the war, listening to comments on TV or the radio, has to be accepted as such. if i were to base very important decisions or opinions on one source, i would be in the streets demonstrating over any number of issues. The War, Terror, Israel/Lebanon, Immigration, Iran/Korea/Venezuela and a good many injustices given individuals. media, is in business to make a profit, through advertisements. i am sorry, but its not a product of current events with both views being expressed.

 

in Southern California, by far the dominant media's are Latino, pro-migration-amnesty, predominant liberal/Democrat, even formulated and written in Spanish. this media, could not survive in Omaha or most any other city in this country, certainly not to make money.

 

having said the above, IMO, the US and myself, would like seeing our troops come home from the mid-east. were still in Japan, Germany, Korea and many other places were the wars or conflicts are long over and i would like to see them come home. BUT, neither myself or over half the folks want them to leave Iraq until the government is stable. if this is a year from now or 20 years, the reality is neither party or any new party would take the action, my country did in Vietnam. its just not going to happen...

[C1ay]

I think this video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428&q=murdoch&hl=en illustrates the problem with the news media in general. It's long but I think most people will get the idea a few minutes in...

[jackson33]

C1ay; we have only landlines where i live to get on the web. would take a week to download the video...however, i pretty much gather the opinion is anti-Murdoch, which in return means pro-ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN and the host of other TV, radio and publications they are involved with. i am sure you know Disney Corp is a big player, several times larger than Newscorp...

 

personally, i have little trouble with media in general. i simply accepts whats given as news/editorials are going to be slanted toward a motive or concept of the host. there are many motion pictures and TV shows produced with the same agenda as well, which i enjoy for content as fiction.

 

the problem in my mind is, many people can see a good movie, say Day After Tomorrow and automatically link the fictional portrayal as gospel to warrant global warming concerns. the same with media and the views they express.

an example here is the day after day announcement of deaths in Iraq. one, two or any number is NOT good, would prefer they were not needed but the fact is 6,000 people die in the US every day for whatever reason, which a good 2000 could have been prevented or at least delayed. additionally much of what happens/happened in Afghanistan/Iraq are good things we rarely are told of, by any media. i pick up some from what folks that have been there say even if between the lines.

 

to the thread, my original post said, the Newscorp/Dow, buy out was a merger of the same mindsets. the net conservative/business/capitalism then in the media, would not be increased.

[C1ay]

C1ay; we have only landlines where i live to get on the web. would take a week to download the video...however, i pretty much gather the opinion is anti-Murdoch, which in return means pro-ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN and the host of other TV, radio and publications they are involved with. i am sure you know Disney Corp is a big player, several times larger than Newscorp...

 

Anti-Murdoch yes, pro-ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN no. It basically highlights Murdoch's career though, his acquisition of media outlets and his subsequent effect on news reporting. In short, all of the media is guilty of reporting news that supports their point of view and suppressing news that counters it. This is not objective reporting and the documentary points out that this essentially undermines democracy. Irresponsible use of free speech has allowed the growth of biased reporting which feeds misinformation to the voting masses effectively steering the countries policies.

[jackson33]

C1ay; Rupert Murdoch is a capitalist. what ever he does is to make money and the by product could be expression of his viewpoint. this is not something you do w/o an audience, which advertisers feel will benefit their product or service. he is additionally very successful in the media business and has ever increasing influence on whats available to the CONSUMER.

 

His counterpart Ted Turner, began on another principle or that of Cable News and in the beginning was somewhat a fair balance or attempted to cater to and receive audience from both sides the political spectrum. as Limbaugh and other Murdoch ventures grew in popularity and government requirements for balance lessened, Turner turned toward a personal viewpoint or that of a fundamental socialist/liberal. although Turner is by most standards a success story, the battle between the two is decisively in Murdoch's corner today.

 

i see no difference in business applications of either or the other giants in media, but the audience has been increasingly changing. the internet, also has changed the way people receive their news. we can chose from any number of publications and receive our daily dose, before the papers hit the streets or the anchors take the stage. what Chavez, is doing in Venezuela or the Democrats in Congress are currently suggesting (reenactment of the fairness doctrine) are not as easy to accomplish as what once was. that same old supply and demand capitalism will trump...

[C1ay]

You really need to find a broadband connection and watch the video...

[LaurieAG]

Yes... of course. All of us. Each and everyone, by virtue of this large land mass on which we reside.

 

It's good to see that other countries are developing a healthy ironic tradition apart from Australia.

[LaurieAG]

Hello Jackson,

 

Laurie; googled *Newspapers in Australia*, for the fun of it, and found several hundred. since the total population (21 million) is about the of either the NYC or Los Angeles AREA, i have to assume various views are available. even spent some time reading one of the Sydney papers, finding it very much like any metropolitan US majors.

 

Don't try googling for Queensland newspapers or you will get Queensland Newspapers the former Murdoch family company now sold to Newscorp. We did have one other state daily newspaper (not a copy of a NSW Newscorp newspaper with a few Queensland inserts) that folded after it lost the government advertising contracts many years ago. The skewed views I was talking about were related to the editorials and opinion pieces printed prior to the start of the Iraq war.

 

having said the above, IMO, the US and myself, would like seeing our troops come home from the mid-east. were still in Japan, Germany, Korea and many other places were the wars or conflicts are long over and i would like to see them come home. BUT, neither myself or over half the folks want them to leave Iraq until the government is stable. if this is a year from now or 20 years, the reality is neither party or any new party would take the action, my country did in Vietnam. its just not going to happen...

 

I would expect that the exit will begin when the real costs are weighed fairly against the benefits, particularly in gains/losses of world (and Iraqi) opinions.

[LaurieAG]

Rupert Murdoch is a capitalist. what ever he does is to make money and the by product could be expression of his viewpoint. this is not something you do w/o an audience, which advertisers feel will benefit their product or service. he is additionally very successful in the media business and has ever increasing influence on whats available to the CONSUMER.

 

Hello Jackson,

 

One thing separates Rupert Murdoch from other US media barrons, he's the only one to renounce his citizenship of his country of birth to facilitate his increase in wealth and power. That's the problem, he has no sense of real patriotism or love for your country, only opportunities for making more money.

 

While some capitalists may think that he's the perfect person to control a large slab of your financial media, when the crunch comes and the choice is between making money or doing the right thing by his country of birth (or citizenship), what would you expect him to do?