Mr. Murdoch: Why no coverage of one of the biggest untold stories in 2008: Condoleezza Rice has an oil super tanker transporting oil to and from the mid east: named on the side of the supertanker CONDOLEEZZA RICE; ok they erased her name when she went in politics and parade her as a provost.
Google it to see a picture of the CONDOLEEZZA RICE super tanker!
That fact should get the readers suspicion up that something is terribly wrong.
Intelligence analyst: Getzel
License reporters like Doctors, Lawyers, & CPAs
Any reporter on cable, satellite, or TV, or radio should be licensed and certified as a master in the field he/she reports on or they should not be allowed to call it news. We need talk radio to be free market, government butt out; however talk shows should be required to disclose the calls are not a random sample if the calls are screened as to the callers question.
The reporters today, which of course I do not have a TV, are almost invariably not remotely knowledgeable about the issues they cover and therefore do not even know how to ask the significant questions.
With one example I think I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt how broken the news reporters are and news reporting is. Out of 300 million Americans I doubt more than a few thousand are aware that Condoleezza Rice has an oil supertanker named after her; And that her name was changed off the supertanker before she went in politics and Condi is presented as a Provost instead of a major player in oil. I believe that constitutes outright fraud on the part of reporters in reporting to the American people. The reporters can not be relied upon to report and the American people accept Anna Nicole and Brittany as news instead of as people magazine.
The Presidential debates should be between the candidates; the people magazine reporters parading as newsmen, in my view, dumb down the whole thing. A system for questions to be asked should revolve around people posting question on line and people voting which questions should be asked.
I think reading on line news that does not contain Newsweeks standard for a talk back blog means you are reading someone???s biased agenda that is afraid of the truth being known.
Intelligence analyst: Getzel
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next Page »
Murdoch, Ink.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
The Murdoch camp is particularly miffed about two back-to-back front-page investigative stories in the Times that endeavored to detail the history of Murdoch's conflicts of interest. Murdoch also contends that Sulzberger misled him about the tone and content of an upcoming Times editorial about him when the two men encountered each other at a party aboard Internet mogul Barry Diller's yacht to celebrate Murdoch's Dow Jones victory. The way Murdoch tells it, Sulzberger assured him that he needn't worry about the editorial, which would be running in the next day's paper. But when he opened the Times, Murdoch cringed. The editorial reprised an oft-repeated anecdote about the mogul's once booting the BBC from a Murdoch-owned satellite television service, Star TV. The accusation was that Murdoch had pulled the BBC's news service as a reprisal for stories it carried critical of the Chinese government; at the time, he was trying to curry favor with the Chinese to ease his entry into the exploding Asian market. In an interview, as he has previously, Murdoch contended the network was pulled for financial reasons, not for its China coverage. Murdoch fired off a letter to Sulzberger, the content of which still rankles the Times scion: "Dear Arthur, It was a pleasure to see you last night ... I don't know how many times I have to state that I didn't take off the BBC ... Let the battle begin!"
Can Murdoch really win this fight? Many media-industry watchers, journalists and communications experts argue that the Journal will never pose much of a threat to the Times's franchise. In fact, the changes could damage the Journal brand. "Turning a paper into an old-fashioned variety show—we have a little of everything—I don't think is the route to success," says a former senior Dow Jones executive. "The risk you run is that you are not best at anything." But the same critics also warn that "it's never a good time to have to confront someone like Murdoch, who doesn't care about making money on a particular product," says newspaper analyst John Morton.
New York Times CEO Janet Robinson said last week that the Times is prepared for the confrontation with Murdoch. "The New York Times," she told analysts, "has had broad coverage for 156 years now, and from that perspective we are far advanced in the type of journalism we create and the type of advertising we bring into the paper."
Murdoch's challenge is just the latest of woes for the Times Co., which, with a market value of $2.7 billion, is a fraction of the size of News Corp. As the Times company's shares have dropped sharply in recent years, management has come under attack. Like many family-owned media companies, the Sulzbergers control the Times through a family trust that owns supervoting shares; public investors own the vast majority of a second class of common shares that have much less voting power. In the past two years, the Times has managed to thwart an aggressive assault on the two-class structure from a hedge-fund sponsored by investment bank Morgan Stanley. Then a second assault came, from a hedge-fund alliance that sought to kick out a Times slate of directors and elect a roster of dissidents in a bid to force dramatic change from within. To avoid a bitter and possibly losing battle for shareholder support, the Times invited two representatives of the alliance onto its board.
As the result of the Times's unrelenting troubles, takeover speculation abounds. The conjecture has mushroomed since Murdoch's success with his unwelcome bid for Dow Jones, where a two-class stock arrangement was believed to render the family-controlled company impregnable against a hostile offer. But the circumstances of the Times and Dow Jones are profoundly different—the far-flung, bickering Bancrofts were absentee heirs; the proud and cohesive Sulzbergers run the Times. Still, names like Google and legendary investor Warren Buffett, who is a director of The Washington Post Company, which owns NEWSWEEK, get floated as white knights for the Times.
But the loudest chatter is about Bloomberg, whose fortune—based on his stake in financial-information giant Bloomberg LP—Forbes magazine pegs at $11.6 billion. In a farewell column in January marking his retirement, Journal managing editor Paul Steiger touted the possibility of a friendly Bloomberg-Times merger. In NEWSWEEK interviews last week, a member of Bloomberg's inner circle confirmed that the mayor's confidants and closest associates are, in fact, encouraging him to explore the idea. The Bloomberg source wasn't authorized to publicly discuss the matter and, as a result, insisted on anonymity. Through a spokesman, Bloomberg declined to comment. According to the source, the proponents of the merger are appealing to the mayor's sense of "civic-mindedness," arguing that he is best suited to take the publishing company private to "help protect the brand" in the wake of relentless shareholder assaults. "It is clearly a brand that Bloomberg could help preserve and that he cares about immensely … and could pay a competitive price" for, says this person.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next Page »
Discuss