Murdoch’s political and cultural influence over his media empire is regarded as a serious concern to all readers. News Corp is so huge that often it causes intimidation for smaller cooperation’s. Despite Murdoch reinforcing statements that his company is on an even playing field, to any one with eyes this is not the case. According to Agence France- Press Murdoch’s Fox news channel threatened to take legal action against ‘The Simpsons’ over a parody of the channels political right-wing stance (Center for American Press 2004). In an interview Matt Groening recalled how News Corp threatened to lay charges against the channel, despite the fact that ‘The Simpsons’ is broadcasted via sister Network(Center for American Press 2004). According to Groening, to repay them Fox had taken a version of The Simpsons where Fox news was rolling news tickers which parodied the channels anti- democratic stance with headlines saying “Do Democrats cause Cancer” (Center for American Press 2004).
To see article go to
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/110103J.shtml
It is obvious from these allegations that News Corp is run by a dictator that is willingly to use his authority and power in any ways on questions that’s interest him. News Corporation is structurally based around the fundamental ideologies of Rupert Murdoch. With Murdoch being the tycoon of media worldwide he has the ability to change how his material is presented as he contains so much power. Australia and other countries should take a stance now or otherwise in our present mood we will hardly care..just as we did in the past from his mistakes in the invasion into Iraq.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Blog 7:#Amelia Said:
Rupert Murdoch’s insistence and determination to support Bush’s foreign policy has had a political significance also. Throughout 2002 and 2004 Murdoch was displayed within a less favorable light, he was greatly criticized by the Labor party for his biased press. Hundreds of Murdoch’s press releases attacked both the former leader Simon Creans unwillingness to go ahead with the invasion into Iraq with UN sanction, and also Mark Latham’s promise to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq before Christmas 2004 (The Monthly 2005). Despite initially the public was in favor towards Labor’s refusal to support an invasion; Even though the Howard government’s justification for the attack on Iraq was FRADULANT; even though the post – invasion into Iraq was the WORST intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor, the issue of Iraq in all posed a political asset for the Howard government and a liability towards the Labor opposition, all due to the fact that Murdoch’s press was the driving power and manipulator of the Australian choice(The Monthly 2005). The Murdoch press is so huge that it interprets the way we determine our world. Over 70 percent of print media in Australian is owned by News Corp (Woopidooo Bibliographies 2001). This is a frightening thought it almost leaves no room for choice. Due to Australians limited amount of media ownership it seems that the only choices audiences have to hear, see and read is Murdoch’s opinion. And not only that but any party that is willing to go against News Cooperation on certain issues of material importance to it, like the invasion in Iraq or cross media ownership laws is facing a potent risk.
BLOG 6:#Greg Said:
In 2003 Murdoch was questioned as to whether he uses his political influence over our newspapers and television, in reply he claimed it as being ‘nonsense’ (Center for American Press 2004). But taking a close look at his previous records it seems that Murdoch has imparted his far –right agenda throughout his whole media empire. The Guardian newspaper reported that Rupert Murdoch gave his “full backing to war, praising George Bush” as acting “morally “and “correctly” not only this but Murdoch praised Tony Blair as “full of guts” for his participation within the war process(Guardian 2003).
To reach web site just search http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/feb/12/uk.iraqandthemedia
It is clearly seen from these statements that Murdoch is not only placing his impressive tactics within his political views but he is leading the American war in Iraq via his power through the media. Like his father, Rupert Murdoch is using his existing political powers to gain commercial favors from the government (Gentile 2003). As a result the bigger his empire gets the more that the print media industry will be highly concentrated as a result.Greater concentration of ownership will most definitely consolidate the power of the media cooperation, strengthen the influence they have on government policies, and weaken the power of investigative journalism (The Australian Collaboration 2009). This will in turn promote homogeneity, which will affect the content that goes into the press (Australian Parliament House 1992). Herman and Chomsky(2002, p. 14) further imply this by stating “the dominant media firms are quite large businesses who are subject to sharp constraints and have important common interests with other major cooperation’s, banks and government. This will affect choices”. Consequently this most certainly reducing the quality of reporting in the Australian media and affecting the way print media is structured.
To reach web site just search http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/feb/12/uk.iraqandthemedia
It is clearly seen from these statements that Murdoch is not only placing his impressive tactics within his political views but he is leading the American war in Iraq via his power through the media. Like his father, Rupert Murdoch is using his existing political powers to gain commercial favors from the government (Gentile 2003). As a result the bigger his empire gets the more that the print media industry will be highly concentrated as a result.Greater concentration of ownership will most definitely consolidate the power of the media cooperation, strengthen the influence they have on government policies, and weaken the power of investigative journalism (The Australian Collaboration 2009). This will in turn promote homogeneity, which will affect the content that goes into the press (Australian Parliament House 1992). Herman and Chomsky(2002, p. 14) further imply this by stating “the dominant media firms are quite large businesses who are subject to sharp constraints and have important common interests with other major cooperation’s, banks and government. This will affect choices”. Consequently this most certainly reducing the quality of reporting in the Australian media and affecting the way print media is structured.
BLOG 5:#Steven Said:
Within a month the invasion into Iraq had supposedly been ‘accomplished’. President Bush shortly said afterwards that the coalition’s “mission” had been “successful”. By successful was this inferring to 1, 700 American soldiers and tens and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians been killed (The Monthly 2005). Due to the mess they caused within Iraq, it is now one of the most violent countries in the world and has been invaded several times due to the fear and danger of arsenal and the supposed links with Islamic terrorists. Three months after the invasion no mass destruction weapons were found. Therefore the comments made by The Australian rather a hoax than a reality. The Australians argument about the justice they got out of the war was they had…’disarmed Iraq’ (The Monthly 2005). The Australian further backing up this comments by stating that it was “an incontrovertible fact” that in the past Saddam had possessed and used WMD, it was “no crime” to have “erred on the side of caution” by attacking him (The Monthly 2005). It’s clear to see from these statements that The Australian newspaper is backing up the faults of Bush. In any persons right mind print media wouldn’t support such false accusations from the government if the organization themselves weren’t tied to the political scene. Therefore it is a deal for a deal. In summary it is vital for consumers to acknowledge that the media is controlled by groups within society that make sense of society on behalf of others, thus having a controlling influence.Therefore till this day big media cooperation’s have had ties with the political scene. Much of what is reported in newspapers “consists of media releases or statements made by public relations (PR) firms, politicians, union leaders and government officials’’(The Australian Law Postgraduate Network 2007).
BLOG 4:#Tania said:
I fully agree with the last comment!
In 2002, Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper The Australian was beginning to speculate about nuclear attacks to New York (The Monthly 2005). The foreign editor of the Australian Greg Sheridan was quick to pronounce that “Bushes task, which is huge, is to make sure there is not a single state in the world, starting with Iraq, whose machinery can be used by terrorists” (The Monthly 2005). Later that year Sheridan made according ‘factual’ statements within The Australian stating that Saddam Hussein possessed a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that it was certain in ‘one or two years’ he would possess nuclear weapons (The Monthly 2005). Murdoch also warned that the world should be prepared for more terrorist attacks. "It's very possible to see freelance suicide attempts both here and in London, and that would psychologically shake this country up," (Gentile 2003) he said.The usage of fear in these statements makes the individual rethink their stance on whether we should go to war, and in turn with Murdoch’s cultural and political influence the fear drives us to be supportive of Bushes Foreign policy. Clearly Murdoch is very tactical in the way he organizes his media…he should be disgusted with the way he corners individuals into believing his right. You can see that from these viewpoints made by Sheridan they are consistently promoting the left wing in the support for the war on Iraq. It has to be taken on board that the owner, chairman and managing director of The Australian himself has had several allegations of left wing bias (Woopidooo Bibliographies 2001). Taking into account that above Murdoch openly said that “he is committed to Bushes Foreign policy” (The Monthly 2005) further reinstates the idea that with the power News Corp can affect its content.
In 2002, Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper The Australian was beginning to speculate about nuclear attacks to New York (The Monthly 2005). The foreign editor of the Australian Greg Sheridan was quick to pronounce that “Bushes task, which is huge, is to make sure there is not a single state in the world, starting with Iraq, whose machinery can be used by terrorists” (The Monthly 2005). Later that year Sheridan made according ‘factual’ statements within The Australian stating that Saddam Hussein possessed a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that it was certain in ‘one or two years’ he would possess nuclear weapons (The Monthly 2005). Murdoch also warned that the world should be prepared for more terrorist attacks. "It's very possible to see freelance suicide attempts both here and in London, and that would psychologically shake this country up," (Gentile 2003) he said.The usage of fear in these statements makes the individual rethink their stance on whether we should go to war, and in turn with Murdoch’s cultural and political influence the fear drives us to be supportive of Bushes Foreign policy. Clearly Murdoch is very tactical in the way he organizes his media…he should be disgusted with the way he corners individuals into believing his right. You can see that from these viewpoints made by Sheridan they are consistently promoting the left wing in the support for the war on Iraq. It has to be taken on board that the owner, chairman and managing director of The Australian himself has had several allegations of left wing bias (Woopidooo Bibliographies 2001). Taking into account that above Murdoch openly said that “he is committed to Bushes Foreign policy” (The Monthly 2005) further reinstates the idea that with the power News Corp can affect its content.
Blog 3:#Bob said:
A Journalist from the Guardian reported that ALL Murdoch’s 175 owned newspapers worldwide had supported the invasion in Iraq. Oddly enough, however in 2002 the Mercury DID NOT. A journalist from the Mercury reported that when the paper was told to alter its position on Iraq, a senior editorial writer backed down and therefore was given different duties. This comment suggests that Murdoch’s employees don’t have the independent freedom to exercise judgment when it comes to questions of serious importance such as war. This was further reinforced when Murdoch explained to an ABC journalist in October 2004: “with our newspapers we have indeed supported Bushes Foreign policy. And we remain committed that way” (The Monthly 2005). Therefore this suggests that Murdoch’s cooperation has close ties to the political scene. This reality is due to the fact that as long as Murdoch is getting what he wants from the conservative government, News Corp will always pull their side of the bargain and display the government in a favorable light, and thus it is inevitable that this will effect what the audiences see and read (Angel Fire, No date). So I fully agree that Murdoch played a major part within the Invasion into Iraq. There is no doub about it.
Blog 2:#Sarah said:
Not only this but Rupert Murdoch is a far right partisan who has strategically over the years used his media empire explicitly to pull not only American political debate to the right but also worldwide (Center for American Press 2004). Throughout the chaotic invasion of Iraq EVERY newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch has in some way or another supported the ups and downs of the American, British and Australian policy line (The Monthly 2005).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)