Do you feel that Mr. Murdoch and his son James should face jail time for allowing their employees listen in on other people? How much time do you think they should get? I personally feel the whole business should be absolved. The fox news, the papers...and they both should spend at least the next 10 years behind bars! And they should be made to do community service of 1 million hours...each!
WOW! I am very surprised about the different opinions with the strong reactions. I would like to ask that any further comments will be said with respect. This question is about what we do as a people to stop this from happening. No matter who is behind it? We can accomplish many things if we do it together and with respect for each other. Wire tapping is wrong period! Erasing messages from a phone of a young girl who was kidnapped is wrong, Period! I believe that listening into everyday Americans, is wrong! Period! I hope that you folks realize that this "wire tapping" doesn't exclude anyone. Our President and former Presidents have been listened on. No American is exempt from this. The question is.do we raise our voices collectively and say stop this? Do we allow the crap to keep hitting the fan? If we can change things, it will need to be in a positive and respectful tone and actions that will bring the truth to those who can't see clearly their actions.
I feel that they should receive jail time, especially after listening in on a murdered childs phone and the relatives of 7/7. I suspect that there's more dirty laundry to come to light following the investigations. He's already known in the Uk as 'the godfather.'
There are people who have violated the law in the U.K. and they will face the bench in due course. But has Rupert Murdock? Can it be proved? If it is just your personally held opinion that he should be punished perhaps Sarah Palin should be punished too because you don't like her? Or when political authority changes hands perhaps I can have those I don't care much for beaten? Wait, I wouldn't because I know better than to place my feelings about people above the law.
At no point did I say I liked or disliked Sarah Palin, you are clearly making assumptions. In terms of the phone hacking affair evidence is mounting against Murdoch Jnr, and executives of NOW. If it can be proved that he knew, and I believe he did (that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it) Then he should be sentenced to a custodial!
Rupert MOLOCH (deliberately misspelling here) is wtihout a doubt the closest resemblance to the devil I've ever come across. The man is pure evil. This is all LONG OVERDUE, and yes, the entire business empire should be dismantled no matter what the costs.
Why, because you feel it should? What legal basis is there for dismantling all of Murdock's businesses? Why do you hate all those working people that you want them thrown out of a job? What did the janitor or the secretary do to be thrown out of work? Where is your compassion? So Rupert Murdock should be drawn and quartered because you think so? How about the guy down the block who plays his music too loud? Should he be beaten for your pleasure M'lord?
You have never heard of George Soros then?
Then man who said that selling his own people to the NAZIs for the ovens, was the best time in his life. The man who has collapsed more than one economy and destroyed people all over the globe, who is even now over-seeing the managed decline of the American Dollar.
George Soros is walking evil and the American and world Leftists love him... sad. There is no comparison between Soros and Murdoch.
Evil transcends left and right. I would never condone 'acts of evil' just because someone purports to be of the same political leaning to myself. In the UK Murdoch has no political leaning as such, he merely supports whichever party he feels will help him further his business interests. He is neither left nor right, just plain wrong!
Mason, that is despicable of you to actually claim. Soros, in order to stay alive, was given to a family friend by his Jewish father (who decided to split his family up considering the coming invasion) and to claim he was his Christian son (to avoid being murdered). He accompanied his fake father on rounds as they confiscated Jewish property and handed out deportation notices. I hardly call that collaborating, and considering the circumstances of the 13/14 yr old Soros in occupied Hungary at the time...you really consider that collaborating with the Nazis?
That is low. You live in the "low", but that is scummy for even you.
I had two friends who worked with British and American intelligence during WWII. One was Lithuanian, the other Greek. Both were younger than 13/14. Both did everything they could to work against the Nazi's. It is kind of crappy to hold George Soros responsible for such ancient things. Now, the things he has done lately, fair game.
I agree. Could he have? Yes, of course he could have. However, one has to consider the circumstances. If the person your father entrusted you with tells you to come on, we're doing this today, then you probably get up and go. You are 14. I stayed up late and snuck out at 14, but when they said to get in the car, I pretty much got into the car and didn't think twice.
Then have him drawn and quartered. Mount his head on a pike outside the Tower. Isn't that the kind of law we advocate when we permit personal, individual emotions to act rather than support circumspect and thorough legal investigation, indictment and trial. I could see in the select committee hearing that was broadcast here that the politicians were licking their lips with the prospect of tasting blood. Is that the rule we want? The rule of men? Haven't we had enough of that horror show?
Why, because you have a personal gripe about the perceived political slant of Fox News? Did Murdock know that his employees were violating the law? Did he encourage it or condone it? Do we just throw the rule of law away to please people's visceral reaction to the name Rupert Murdock? What happens when the political authority shifts into the hands of someone else and they don't like you?
Most likely. Certainly Murdoch's son James must have been aware of what was going on. Or he wasn't doing his job. Most of the commentators are saying that James is done for, and Murdoch's empire is crippled, as it should be. Nobody should be able to wield the power he has had over government in the UK and to a lesser extent in the US.
Really, what power does he wield that is not also wielded by every other news outlet regardless of political bent? Are Murdock's organizations the maker of events or just nibble enough to identify the curve of events? If James Murdock is guilty, as far as I know the only thing he has faced is a political kangaroo court, then the Crown will try him. If Murdock's empire falls for because of external political pressures rather than consumers abandoning his product than that is tyranny.
But the question still remains, why do you liberals hate working people so much as to want the destruction of their jobs?
Th government of the UK can hardly be seen as liberals.
I have no strong feelings one way or the othe rather than if they knew they should face sme pnishment.
We should ask why you always bend over backwards to defend big business even when you don't know the full story either.
I am thinking about the working class people employed by Rupert Murdock's companies. How many ordinary people who punch time clocks do liberals want to throw out of work. Just look at the attack on corporate jets. How many good paying jobs will it cost to make everyone equal? How many pilots, mechanics and hanger workers will lose their jobs because you hate big business.
I don't see how insisting that the public spectacle of beating up Rupert Murdock for television cameras is good government or even justice before the law. Obviously, select committees of legislatures are more about showing off for the camera than for service to the law. How about we ask Roger Clemens about that one. Since when is insisting that the law do its job with respect to the rights of individuals defending big business.
Maybe it would be better just to drag Rupert Murdock out into the street and shoot him in the head. As for liberals I never identified the government of Great Britain as liberal. I was speaking about liberals perhaps I should invite you to read more carefully.
So because you hate big businessmen they should be exempt from the law - its protections, that is.
I am making no case for or against Rupert Murdock's guilt or innocents. My concern is how quickly people are willing to strip society of the protection of the rule of law to fulfill some twisted emotional goal. Kinda Nazi like, doncha think?
There are about 14 million unemployed in the US thanks to failed GOP policies. Why the sudden concern over a few hundred Murdoch workers? I don't recall previous concern on your part over unemployment.
Really, who has had all the political power in Washington until January of this year. It is hardly Republican policies that have stalled the economy and shackled the "animal spirits" with fears of greater intrusions. Before Obamacare was enacted the economy was producing an anemic 69,000 jobs per month, after it has fallen to one tenth that and you blame Republicans? Barrack Obama must be the most ineffective President this country has ever had since having a majority in both houses of Congress wasn't enough to undo the terrible Republican policies after TWO YEARS.
Why do you hate Obama, I certainly do not degrade his effort as ineffective and useless. So the policies of the Republicans and that idiot George Bush were so completely effective that a genius like Obama and the hard working and brilliant Democrats couldn't make a change at all in 2 years of unchallengeable power.
Remember how Obamacare passed without a single vote by Republicans? Not one Republican vote was needed to pass anything for the first 6 months of Obama's administration. There was absolute power in the Democrats and they failed to undo the terrible policies of those monstrous, heartless, brutal, plutocratic Republicans?
No wonder independents are fleeing Obama. The Democrats are damn near useless. All that power and only a crushing drag on the economy to show for it.
And the GOP has been destroyed by the TeaTards.
There are times when you liberals say things that make no sense at all - what are you talking about? And if I am deciphering your meaning correctly shouldn't that cause much rejoicing among liberals with shouts of Huzzah and good tidyings and such gaiety?
The Republicans ruined the economy by starting two wars. Obama should end them immediately, and bring the troops home. Then the taxes on the rich, anyone making over $200K a year should be raised, not the middle class. The rich and corporations are paying less now than during your hero Reagan's years. And the military budget should be cut.
But instead he started a third - awesome. I guess that explains, for you, why things are getting worse or is that Bush's fault, too? Amazing, for an inept President GWB is still making things hard on Barry. He must be the most diabolically brilliant man in history. I wonder if he will still get blame a hundred years from now. Probably not since the history books will be written by the History Commissariat and nothing negative will be allowed - oops, wrong, nothing true will be allowed.
I wonder how they will handle Barry's spastic flailing in foreign and economic policies.
So you don't care about all those people tossed out on the street during a hard economy. Murdock's corporations employ tens of thousands not just a few hundred. Too bad you Democrats hate working people so much as to seek the destruction of their employers and consequently plunging them into poverty and unemployment.
Murdoch was allowed to get control of too many print and television outlets in the UK which he used to affect the elections. And in the US through Fox News he had more than half the GOP candidates or potential candidates on his payroll in the most brazen grab for political and economic power in our country's history.
Really, before or after they were running for office. Last time I checked Hannity and O'Reilly - their two biggest draws - have never run for anything. As for Murdock's influence over elections - was it illegal influence or just the kind you personally don't like. Did he comply with British law in the purchase of his media outlets in Britain? So he has too many news outlets in the U.K. to suit you personally? So because you don't care for the editorial positions his news outlets take he should be stripped of legally operating businesses? So your judgement is superior to that of the British government regarding events in Great Britain?
Thank God we have the First Amendment here, for now, but not for long if it was up to you.
No he has more media outlooks than is in the public interest. He has wielded enormous power over the British government no matter which party is in power.
"Really, before or after they were running for office."
Before and after in the UK.
Check yourself sir, you said Fox employed GOP potential candidates and candidates. There was no mention of candidates in the UK.
Murdoch's influence over British politics was even more pernicious. The back door to No. 10 Dowining Street was always open for him.
And yet still not reading your own original response that contends that the GOP and Fox share a revolving door. I couldn't care less about #10 Downing - let the Brits look to their own scandals. Besides we have already discussed on here how Murdock was the feather in the wind not the wind itself. Though he was a preternaturally precognitive feather.
This says it all--
Politico reports on a new, complicated development for Fox News: nearly all of the major potential Republican candidates for the presidency are on the channel's payroll as commentators, raising questions about how Fox News can cover them as the 2012 campaign approaches.
The website notes that Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and, of course, Sarah Palin have all expressed interest in a potential run for president. All four are paid political commentators for Fox News.
"With the exception of Mitt Romney, Fox now has deals with every major potential Republican presidential candidate not currently in elected office," Politico's Jonathan Martin and Keach Hagey write.
The situation is reportedly causing consternation both within and without Fox News. Sources inside the network told Politico they are growing increasingly agitated about having so many people who are still active in politics on their payroll:
I didn't see Rick Perry on that list. Hmm, how about some other notables missing - Michelle Bachmann - Nope. Herman Caine - oops no. Mitt Romney - you already conceded that one.
So who does that leave - Sarah Palin - who you would love to see run because she is such a dolt it even guarantees a disaster like Obama a second term.
Rick "I stopped being relevant when I lost my Senate race in 2006" Santorum - he is what a million points behind Romney in the polls. Does he have a pulse let alone a snowballs chance. And NEWT, he is running out of feet in his mouth to shoot himself in.
So who does that leave? Seems like the only strong candidates who have declared are not on Fox. Maybe Fox is the repository for future losers like Huckabee. When Rick Perry, Chris Christie or Marco Rubio are on Foxes payroll you might have a point - but Sarah Palin, it is to laugh.
So, what duo did you vote for last presidential election?
It was either the geezer and the hottie or two arrogant know nothings - not a good choice but I chose the hottie.
And you considered Palin to be non-arrogant and knowlegeable?
Compared to those two arrogant idiots I would have to yes.
872 Billion dollars later we are no better off.
Palin said it wouldn't work and Obama said it would.
Who da dummy now?
By comparison what other characteristic strikes you other than hottie is no concern of mine.
Ironically, it is CNN, the once mighty now fallen news outlet, that has employed a phone hacker - Piers Morgan
In other words Murdoch is smarter than his competition.
Yep, he's a conservative.
I'd love to agree with you Jim, he is from my home town.
I have watched his rise to riches, he would stoop lower than a snakes guts to see another dollar. I don't see that as smart at all.
Money and power don't deserve respect unless they were achieved with decency, something Rupert left behind first in Australia, then Britain, America, and now India and Pakistan.
He is a power hungry control freak with a problem around money. He can never have enough.
Addicted to money. The financial equivalent of pedophilia.
Earnest, you make a very good point here. He has demonstrated that his love of money is greater than his love of man. His values are clouded by success and the ultimate control that allot of money can bring into the person’s life and make things happen. I think maybe as a child, he had suffered abandonment or at least some point in his life. Money for him is something that fills the void. This is only an opinion based on his actions and the beliefs of the man.
I wish I knew what happened to him as a kid. His mom was really nice, and as far as I know she and Keith her husband and Rupert's father began the publishing business without having to caste morals aside.
He (Keith) kept a house in rich Toorak and the family still has the property in Mornington where Dame Elisabeth (his mom) still lives as far as I know.
Rupert had a very privileged upbringing, except as a boarder at Geelong Grammar where he got a hard time from the other kids because his father had gone before him, and he had a lot to live up to.
The family are quite religious, the grandfather was a preacher.
Rupert lost his Dad when he was only 22 and took over from his father as a college kid.
Murdock may or may not be a reprehensible character but even the lowest deserves fair treatment before the law. If we deny Murdock a fair day in court who is next? Even the guiltiest must be treated justly because what happens when those standards are abandoned, because of uncontrolled passions, is horrendous to witness. The lynch mob rules when the law is emasculated.
How does Rupert Murdock get a fair hearing when he has been paraded through the media as already guilty without a trial? If he is responsible let him pay. Dismantling his empire does little more than throw lots of good people out of work - is that justice? Is convicting Murdock on one's personal, individual dislike for him justice?
What is at stake in every high profile case is not the guilt or innocence of the accused but the viability of a system of justice that protects the innocent from the mob. Politicians should just shut the hell up and let the law do its job.
I agree with you in principal about the right to a fair trial and that we should let the police do their job, unfortunately however, that is the problem, the police in Britain were not doing their job, they were not investigating fully and did not even look at much of the evidence they had retrieved from Mulcaire. They left it in bin bags and then, when they were supposed to be investigating NOW were going out to dinner with the NOW executives and accepting hospitality from them. Can you see why people smell a rat?
So all the police were negligent? There are no police detectives untouched by the corruption? There are no elements of law enforcement capable of investigating except politicians who want to do all their investigations in front of television cameras thereby introducing another corrupting force. If the UK has no trust worthy police force or prosecution available it is likely that Rupert Murdock is the least of their problems.
Again, more assumptions. At no point did I state that all police are corrupt. But, three of the top brass of the met, who not only led the investigation but also made the decision to neither pursue or review the evidence that they had retrieved, were accepting hospitality from Murdoch et. al. during the time of the supposed investigation and also after the investigation had ended.
So let them face the Crown Prosecutor as well. If there are people of integrity available in law enforcement in the UK let them work but that is not what politicians want. Politicians want accolades and the television camera perverts the law. My biggest problem in all of this is the violation of Murdock's right to a fair hearing because politicians inserted themselves.
They did the same thing here to Roger Clemens - though his transgression wasn't of the same magnitude - his right to a fair hearing before the law was complicated and threatened by politicians perverting the law.
In terms of polititians in the UK compromising his trial, the leading party in the UK, the tories, have been fierce supporters of his. The so called Labour party were until he withdrew his support. What's happening in the UK is pretty much people led, we're all sick of the power he has.
What you say about a fair trial is right. He should not be convicted by the press, yet this happens to many high flyers.
I believe that the man at the top is responsible for the morals of the company, and expect to see him accept that responsibility.
I agree. Uncorrectedvision makes the point about innocent workers being thrown out of their jobs but it was the Murdochs who made that decision, yet they have not accepted any responsibility themselves.
Murdoch was not too concerned when he devastated the printing industry in England to gain control of it and caused massive job losses and damage to the economy.
Aren't we to be better? Shouldn't we be concerned with those unfortunate souls who found their stars hitched to a turd? If guilty let Murdoch fall but there are those who want the destruction of all the businesses he has built. This is cruel and hateful since those businesses employ tens of thousands who have done nothing wrong.
The businesses themselves are stable and profitable. It is not analogous to Enron but rather like Apple. If Steve Jobs had died rather than survive his recent illness what would have happened to all those employees? Don't the employees of Murdoch's businesses deserve those same considerations?
Yes, they should be allowed to keep their jobs. If the murdochs accept that they are accountable for what has happened, then they should also accept responsibility. Resigning from News Inc. would be a good start.
Murdochs very good at nipping things in the bud when it suits him. He has had way to much power in the UK and several other countries for too long. Personally, I don't think he gives a damn about money anymore (he has so much) just power and control. He's been able to make and break whomever he chooses with devastating consequences. I for one will be glad to see the back of him.
So your answer to the question of the rule of law being subjected to your feelings is, yes?
Absolutely not. If Murdoch or any of his henchmen are convicted in a court of law they should get appropriate penalties. I strongly suspect that Murdoch and his son James knew more about what was going on than they have admitted so far. Aside from this they have been allowed to wield more power in the UK and in the US in ways not in the public interest.
Yes. Rupert Murdoch started his business life in Australia and there are many people here who know his strategies very well.
He is one of the most hands-on managers who ever lived. He's one of those people who's not happy unless he knows exactly what's going on in his businesses.
He's also immoral. He tells his managers to do whatever it takes to get more business, and to buy off anyone who complains or tries to take legal action. There are countless examples of situations where his companies have done exactly that - screwed their competition by doing something illegal, then bought them off so it doesn't go to court.
His son certainly knew there was a problem because he authorised huge "hush money" settlements. There is no way Rupert would've been unaware of that.
So Australian authorities lack the moral fortitude to enforce their own laws thereby facilitating Murdock's lawlessness - sounds like there is a bigger problem in Australia than Rupert Murdock.
I am glad to see such certitude let's dispense with the legal system then and have you act as Judge, Jury and Executioner.
Yes and 10 years. If they broke the law they need to pay the price like everyone else. Murdoch deserves due process, but if found guilt should be locked up as a reminder to all that break the law.
If you can send Murdoch to jail for that, then it could open a real can of worms as far as civil liberties are concerned. Today Murdoch, tomorrow any employer - even if they genuinely have NO idea what their employees are doing.
So my answer to your question would be "no", even though I have very little time for Murdoch.
Edit: I really, really should read further down the page before posting lol:
Only if they broke the law. Personally it should be them as well as the employees. A person has a choice in this situation to participate or not. If they broke the law, then they need to do the time. In the USA this would be a states issue. So if it was considered a felony all parties would've charged and rightly so. Now if it is only a misdemeanor in that state or states involved... Then would need to pay the court fines. In my state not even the F B I can listen in on a phone conversation without the permission of a judge. The evidence would be ruled indissmissable in court and the perpetraters fined for breaking that persons right to certain civil liberties. But again, it all a matter of the how the states interrupts the law on ease dropping for their state.
A leader is responsible for what their subordinates do,period.
Oh come on, Rupert Murdoch Empire Ltd are the new fall guys for hiding greater misdoings.
When the multi-bulti millionares of this world take a fall, it's because they have tread on toes even heavier.
Why should we be surprised to learn News International have been doing for years what private elite squads for various governments have been doing forever?
Maybe the difference is someone's pockets are not being lined any more?
Hands up anyone who thinks politicians are honest.
Where do you get FOX News knew about or was involved in this? Where do you get Murdoch or his son knew of it? You all should really spend a lil time cleaning up the Left and the Mass Media which is so blantently corrupt and full of lies, not to mention George Soros involvment... then talk about FOX and Murdoch.
The pot calling the kettle black.
What a joke.
I think some contributors are missing the point.
The Murdochs say that they had no idea phone hacking was going on. Three years ago two News of the World journmalists went to prison for their part in hacking - this ought to have put the Murdochs on enquiry. Then James Murdoch actually approved payment of damages to some other people whose phones were hacked, but it never occurred to him to wonder if this was the tip of the iceberg?
Either these guys are uttery incompetent or they are complicit in crookery. I have never heard anyone suggest these guys are not competent.
Could they have concluded that the aforementioned convictions and imprisonment have been seen as sufficient warning that phone hacking would end badly for the hacker? What can an employer do that is more drastic than what the government can do with a prison term?
Let me get this straight: A news company is going around spying on people, and we're all demanding that they be hanged.
But when our government has been doing this day in and day out on the entire population for over a decade, no one gives a damn?
This is absolutely messed up.
If you're demanding Murdoch's head, then we should be demanding the same of Obama and Bush.
If you run a business you have a responsibility to ensure it runs lawfully and ethically. Once you are aware there is a problem in your company you as a manager need to get to grips with the problem - not pretend it does not exist and no-one told you.
The US government has been spying on Americans for decades, can we get them all fired?
There's a term for it ?? convenient or intentional ignorance??
Willful blindness I believe is the term.
Deeds, Thomas , get over yourselves ! That has happened on both "Sides" , why is it that guys like you play this moronic partisan crap. Soros is as bad as Murdock , Thank your own Clinton for de regulating media so that monopolizing owners control agendas!
You are hot with the personal attacks tonight.
If perhaps you read one of my earlier posts you will see that I argued wrong is wrong, irrespective of whether that's from the right or left!
Soros is a brilliant investor who supports democratic free market capitalism and a generous philanthropist who supports personal and political freedom around the world. Murdoch is an unethical, power hungry businessman who will support whomever or whatever cause that furthers his limitless greed for money and power.
Here is an accurate and I would say unbiased look at the whole family.
It is a bit long, has 2 short adds, one for Australian cars, but well worth seeing in the interests of forming opinion from a position of real knowledge.
You will be in for some pleasant surprises about the Murdochs, and my problem with Rupert's obsessions may be biased, so to be fair, let's all be on the same page literally and discuss it from there.
The video includes some very rare footage you will not likely have seen before.
http://www.theage.com.au/tv/show/dynast … pgod_WKSWg
I tried, but apparently the video can only be viewed in Australia. .
Of course, he deserves a jail. He was the boss and he definitely knew about all happening in his companies.
This nonsense about Murdoch is all because he took advantage of lots of different parties through his lacky staff and editors. Police were offered bribes, phones were hacked - voice mails were listened in on using a simple security flaw in mobiles...most folks never bother changing their voice mail password from "0000". And so thousands of people were targeted and never knew how the hell journalists were getting all the juicy details of their lives. Well now we know how journalists did it.
And some editors cosy-ed up to certain politicians and other people of importance. It is Murdoch's staff who are in the spotlight right now, and people are sick and tired of reading about their shallow apologies. And their unbelievable explanations and denials. What goes for the Uk goes for the USA too. Many would love this story to go away. But Murdoch has had too much power for far too long, and he is due some so-called "payback".
Why hack into the phones of victims of 9/11? Why hack into phones belonging to victims of murder? What kind of sick mind thinks this up? These people did this, all for ratings. For selling more copy. That is what makes this a big news story.
People are fascinated by just how low News Inc can go. And they went pretty low...
Sounds like our government!
"Police were offered bribes" - our government has done that
"Phones were hacked" - *Cough* the patriot act *cough*.
... why aren't we equally mad at our government?
Do the government make public their findings and use them to increase revenue?
You continue to point out that the government also does these things, but what, exactly, is your point? Is your point that we should ignore sleazy illegal activity from big business just because the government does it, too?
Is your point to say that it doesn't matter whether power is entrenched in big business or government; they are both corrupt? That one, I can agree with.
No, I'm saying "we're all pissed off at Murdoch, but you should 50,000 times more pissed off at government".
But no one seems to see this.
by Ralph Deeds 7 years ago
Rebekah Brooks, Murdoch's head person in UK arrested in hacking scandal.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/world … ng.html?hpTop Murdoch aides resign--Rebekah Brooks and Lee Hinton, WSJ Publisher.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/world … amp;st=cse
by Susan Keeping 6 years ago
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/ed … O09z5MDQeLEspecially this part:"He needs to bring Romney into the discussion by reminding voters — some of whom may have been swayed by media partisans who eagerly spun Obama’s Jersey trip as a quasi-endorsement — just who his candidate...
by Scott S Bateman 2 years ago
I'm always amazed at how many people don't understand Fox News. It has a successful business strategy of appealing to people's conservative biases, which is why a majority of viewers are conservative Republicans.Fox is not a news channel that seeks the truth. It provides reporting and commentary...
by Scott S Bateman 7 months ago
I believe our country is in a political mess in part because of certain cable "news" channels that pander to people's political biases.Yes, MSNBC does it. But Fox created the concept.http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/20/media/f … index.html
by Mike Russo 18 months ago
Below is a link to an article written by Trump's author for Art of the Deal. It explains why Trump's behavior today was formed in his childhood and continues today. It is very revealing and explains the rational that drives his behavior. http://wapo.st/2pU2yRl?tid=ss_tw&ut …...
by Sychophantastic 4 years ago
Caught these little factoids about Fox News, courtesy of the Nielsen ratings:The median age of a Fox News viewer is 68.Only 1.1 percent of Fox News prime-time viewers are black.How do you think this affects how they cover the news and what they report?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|