Salazar said:
He's just not sufficiently interested in egalitarianism for it to even approach, let alone impinge on, the raw economic self-interest you're talking about. He's radically disinterested in the political emancipation of people under dubious rule, but interested in the money they can make for him. It's chokingly stupid to excuse that as something 'favourable to his corporation', and therefore acceptable because we take it as read that Rupert is a greedy, unstoppably greedy motherfucker.
He's influencing swathes of people because his media empire has become sufficiently large to manipulate sections and determine the tenor of political discourse into the hype-obsessive, bristlingly argumentative, ENTERTAINMENT-fixated mode his channels and newspapers have propagated and perfected to an unprecedented degree. That suits the man and his allies' ideological colour, because there's rarely been a time when the Left, let alone (hahahahaha), the Centre, has been able to extract lasting benefit from moralist hysteria like the Right can.
I'm just putting Murdoch's perspective across. If there is a market for 'moralist hysteria' as you put it, which history through the ages has shown that there is, then even if Murdoch was to die tomorrow and News International disintegrated, another corporation would just fill the gap. If Murdoch suddenly developed a conscience and became 'radically interested in the political emancipation of people under dubious rule' (product of a Social Sciences education I see
), again someone else would just fill the void left by Murdoch. There is profit to be made in countries like China which has the world's biggest population doesn't it? Can't blame the guy myself, he is evidently ambitious. If I had the amoral temperance and the means Murdoch has then I'd probably do the same.
Gary Whitta said:
Nobody has ever said that business should be moral? Nobody? Ever? Really? Okay, then let me be the first. Business, particularly a business which controls a large percentage of a nation's broadcasting and print news media, should have a moral obligation not to blatantly deceive the public purely for financial gain.
I misquoted.
You know what I mean though, I don't think anyone in the mainstream left or right really really really 100% plans to force corporations to adopt a more moral outlook. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement half the time, and odds are just stacked up against anyone who did try to seriously oppose these capitalist forces.
travisbickle said:
Aren't you the guy that was using "business leaders back Tory policy to not raise National Insurance contributions" to show how right the Tories were, and how wrong Labour were?
Talk about a misrepresentation. I'm the guy that said that NI rise will hit the poorest paid which everyone accepts! Nor have I denied that I wouldn't personally benefit from a Conservative government. People vote in accordance to their self-interest and self-preservation - true altruism is hard to come by.
Dark Machine said:
It's called 'Manufacturing Consent' The Tories do things that are good for Murdoch, like get rid of Ofcom and the BBC, and Murdoch does things that are good for the Tories, like make up crap about immigrants, slander opponents, bully those who oppose them etc. THAT is the connection between brainwashing and good business. That is why people fear and loath Murdoch. The news affects a person's view of the world. Getting people to agree with his view of the world is good for Murdoch, he doesn't want competition, like you said he wants a monopoly of himself. HE already owns and controls 40% of news media in this country. Break up the BBC and allow him to get more then suddenly you're getting close to China, with news media being controlled by a single entity, with no duty to impartiality or morality.
I'm not going to get into a debate about the 'dubious rule' of China. But I fully agree that Murdoch commercial interests probably isn't in the national interest. What I am disputing is the extent of this alleged brainwashing. Yeah the Tories portrays the Tories in a positive light, he did the same with Labour under Blair. A lot of media institutions have arrangements where they can extract favour from, but I don't think a die-hard socialist is going to pick up the sun tomorrow and suddenly think "crikey, I have been living a lie, I must go out and vote for the Conservatives'. The fact that we are having this discourse about the influence of Murdoch shows that he can't be as effective or as influential as you are making him out to be!
