Rupert James Murdoch, the [son of the] billionaire media mogul who owns Fox TV, Fox News, 20th Century Fox, NY Post, London Sun, FX, Myspace, Sky Networks in addition to many more media entities accuses the BBC of megalomania.
» Breaking News
Babysitter Synjan Mitchell Arrested For Leaving Kids To Go Drinking
Gemma Atkinson Promotes Command & Conquer Red Alert
Uganda Cops Warn About Knock-Out Breasts
CNBC Forced To Cut Costs
Sumner Redstone Sells Midway Games To Ease Cash Crunch
FYI, OW, the megalomaniac executive referred to in the story is actually James Murdoch, Rupert’s younger son.
The point of your post still stands, though.
This supports a theory I’ve had for a long time that you don’t really read most of the articles you link to.
(How’s that cancer stem cell research going? Is that “stuff” being studied yet?))
No, it doesn’t. He mistook James (speaking for his father) for his father.
Is Oliver really worth such lame, meticulous nitpicking just to score some stupid imaginary point?
It’s important to get the facts right. I needed a severe correction recently on my blog, and I’m glad I got it. Opinions are another matter. Those can be disputed.
Anyway, Rupert Murdoch has been kissing up to Hillary, sponsored a fund raiser for her, so I guess he figures she will do him favors.
The sole concern of the Murdochs is with expanding their media empire, which is why they attack the BBC, ie the competition. They have no “ideology,” beyond the one that is so pervasive that it seems like a universal truth: ie that winning is the only value.
I wouldn’t call this nitpicking. James Murdoch was not speaking for his father. He was speaking on behalf of himself and the company he is chairman of. The only reference to Rupert Murdoch in the article is the fact that they are father and son. Otherwise, it was all James.
Oh yeah- but “conservatives are always wrong on everything…”
If he was speaking the company he’s chairman of, he’s speaking for his father.
Let me put this to you gently, Nimrod.
Murdoch the younger is the Chief Executive of BskyB and was speaking on behalf of himself and the company for which he is Chief Executive.
He was not speaking on behalf of his father or of Newscorp or it’s other subsidiaries.
Read the article if you’re unsure who James Murdoch was speaking for.
I corrected myself, yet the criticism still stands. I honestly have no idea what Marty is talking about re: stem cells except that the Bush administration has effectively banned federal research into the potentially life-saving and changing science.
Let me put this to you gently, Marty.
If you think that the son of Rupert Murdoch and chairman of BSkyB would express an opinion contrary to the interests of his father, in a speech at which he represents his father’s company, the company with which his surname is most linked, then there’s something wrong with you.
You said it yourself, he was speaking for BSkyB. Ergo, his dad.
Oliver- the stem cell example is a reference to something else you didn’t read very carefully before you posted about it.
And Nimrod- Let’s try again. James Murdoch is the Chief Executive of BSkyB. Ergo, he is speaking for the company that He is chief executive of. He is not speaking for Newscorp or any of the other companies that Newscorp is the parent of, regardless of whether his father or the other companies may agree with him or not.
“Ergo, he is speaking for the company that he is chief executive of.”
That’s what I said. He’s speaking on behalf of BSkyB. Ergo, he is speaking for Rupert. You can’t divorce one from the other. Sky is Murdoch and Murdoch is Sky. The same goes for The Sun. This is not a difficult concept to understand.
Marty: you think I’m sitting all day on these threads. I read the article. We’re not doing federal research on stem cells, which is what everyone is in favor of besides a small sliver of society including you and George Bush.
Murdoch speaking for one arm of Newscorp is subject to criticism for the remainder of Newscorp. One is not separated from another.
“We’re not doing federal research on stem cells.”
That is factually incorrect. In fact some types federally funded stem cell research has been going on for decades and continues to this day. Ever hear of a bone marrow transplant. Research on bone marrow stem cells has not been stopped by restrictions on embryonic stem cell lines.
And if you had really read that cancer stem cell article, you would have realized how off point your post was. The research on the stem cells taken from the cancerous tumors was obviously being done, and most likely with federal funds.
I think you are confused about what stem cells are, and the many different types that are already being researched using federal and private funds. And that confusion comes from your need to make this strictly a polarizing political issue.
By the way- you are also factually incorrect in my opinion of embryonic stem cell research (which is also currently still being federally funded- but not to the extent that many want it to be.) My personal opinion is that couples should be allowed to donate leftover embryos from in vitro procedures to have stem cells taken for federal funded research before those embryos are destroyed. However, it should be illegal to receive compensation for such donations. In other words, I don’t think it should be legal to create human embryos, either through in vitro fertilization or through human cloning specifically for embryonic stem cell research. I think that would be a serious ethical breach.
As for the Murdochs, don’t twist my point. Yes, the parent company can be criticized for what the subsidiary does. But that doesn’t mean that the Chairman of one necessarily speaks on behalf of the other.
For the example, the CEO of BET Network could say something about price of land for building a new studio in Atlanta. Does that mean he is speaking on behalf of Phillipe Dauman and/or Viacom (whether they agree with the statement or not.) How about for the executives at MTV or Spike TV?
But as far as you are concerned, I just found it humorous that you didn’t really read the article for this post either and only saw the name Murdoch. Especially after the “Republicans are wrong on everything” thing you’re pimping now.
OH- excuse me. The “Conservatives are wrong on everything” thing you’re pimping now.
In fact there is no federal funding for stem cell research. The lines that are supposedly being researched are no good and the Bush administration has banned any further work. At this point it isn’t a matter of what ever crazy scheme *you* wish we would use, but a matter of what the vast majority of Americans want: federal funding of stem cell research. Period. It’s not that complicated, and folks like yourself tie your tongues into knots trying to claim otherwise. In the case of the cancer cells, it would be worthwhile if we were doing stem cell research so we could look into this stuff and not just pray and hope some corporation feels like doing it.
In the case of a BET exec, of course its speaking on behalf of Viacom. Why the heck is it one corporation in the first place? Even more so when the two speakers are related as father-son. Come on, you’re just being stupid on purpose.
Why are you arguing the toss about this, for Christ’s sake? Sky is irreversibly associated with Rupert Murdoch, and vice-versa. Someone speaks explicitly on behalf of Sky, whatever he says will be attributed, subliminally or otherwise, to Rupert.
“In fact there is no federal funding for stem cell research.”
Oliver- you are factually incorrect. Even if you believe that the only kind of stem cell research is embryonic stem cell research, you are factually incorrect.
Read the article you quoted. They are studying the cancer stem cells. (Not to mention adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, stem cells from the liver, kidneys, and pancreas, and all sorts of other federally funded research on stem cells.)
Do you really belive there is only one kind of stem cell research? Or are you just being stupid on purpose?
I will correct myself on those particular article on the colon cancer stem cells. That was Canadian research. However, federally funded research on adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, organ tissue stem cells, bone marrow stem cells, etc. goes on unabated in the U.S.
And the “lines” you are talking about are only embryonic stem cell lines, not other types that are being researched. AND the Bush administration did not ban anything, or the state of California and Missouri would not have been able to pass bills on embryonic stem cell research in those states.