Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasode | Hacker News Reader

>, but his entire media empire is built around promulgating his (increasingly revanchist) politics.

Yes, I understand that and we know that WSJ leans more conservative than New York Times. Murdoch's empire reflects his worldview.

I mean "stay out of it" as in micro-managing day-to-day newspaper stories or writing constant op-eds to respond to his critics. That's the type of distracting minutiae that Elon has sucked himself into with hyper-reactive Twitter bans and incoherent replies with juvenile statements.

View on HN

Murdoch is the worst possible example, being in it up to his eyeballs. It's especially the case in Australia, where his empire started and still dominates. This article is one of many, its headline and opening line being:

"Special report: Rupert Murdoch, a hands-on newspaperman"

"To illustrate the extent to which Rupert Murdoch used to micro-manage his newspapers,..."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newscorp-murdoch-papers-i...

The article is past tense, but there's no reason for it to have changed.

The difference between Musk and Murdoch is that Murdoch lets other people do the talking, even if they are his words.

>"To illustrate the extent to which Rupert Murdoch used to micro-manage his newspapers,..."

The 2011 article you linked emphasizes his activity with tabloid newspapers. I'm unfamiliar with those. From what I've read, he doesn't meddle with his "prestige" newspaper like WSJ. Maybe that's why the WSJ didn't censor itself on negative Theranos stories even though he invested $125 million in it and Elizabeth Holmes asked him to kill the articles.

I can't speak to the WSJ, and perhaps it's a good example of the owner not meddling, but using Rupert Murdoch as an example of someone who doesn't meddle in their media empire invites a lot of questions.

Rupert Murdoch's influence is a very hot topic in Australia, with 2 former prime ministers from opposite sides teaming up to try to push a royal commission into his media monopoly, and in particular his influence on elections. Some of the commission is directed at the actions of his properties, but a lot of it is directed at his specific meddling as an individual. There have been many claims of directives and squashed stories coming straight from the top, whether that's from him or Lachlan Murdoch.

Even though I don't agree with the WSJ I trust their reporting to the extent that if someone used it as a source I would accept it without debate.

Rupert Murdoch on the other hand is quite possibly the biggest piece of shit in the entire world outsides of dictators, the tailban , etc.

You should read how he meddled in UK politics and played king maker

https://www.businessinsider.com/gordon-brown-rupert-murdoch-...

I can't wait until he dies

As of 12/19/2022 he is very much alive.(https://isrupertmurdochdead.com/)

I assume you hate everyone who worked at Twitter on the "Trust and Safety" team, the FBI, mainstream media outlets, etc, and want them to die as well?

They meddled in USA politics to throw the presidential election.

Because they took down dick pics?

I assume you’re very mad at Russia too?

Yeah dick pics are definitely all that was happening with the Hunter Biden / NY Post saga.

Would you like to buy this bridge I have for sale?

Do you have any evidence or is this like the widespread election fraud lies?

Do I have any evidence? What, are you a policeman? If you truly believe it was just about dick pics, let’s sort out a price for that bridge.

NFI why you’re on about election fraud, you’ll have to show me where I made any claims about that.

I’ve found anyone that uses the “bridge to sell you” line doesn’t have any actual evidence for what they believe except it “feels right”.

Good for you. I haven’t seen any evidence for the “it was only dick pics, definitely nothing else” theory, I assume you have some?

So you want evidence to prove something didn't happen? How are you on Hackernews?

If this is your level of understanding of logic, reason, and debate, how are you even able to tie your own shoelaces?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Proving...

Normally you'd be right about how you can't prove something doesn't exist, but if you go up thread you'll see that xcrunner claimed that the laptop contained only dick-pics. It's fair for Alvah to ask for proof.

Had xcrunner simply asked for proof the burden would be on Alvah to provide it, but because xcrunner made a claim he took the burden of proof on himself.

Excuse me? No I didn’t.

I was never discussing the leaks. I was discussing what Twitter took down (aka what was reported to them).

They conspired to hide a leak that they thought would tip the election. Not that the leak was only dick pics, but if dick pics were enough to tip the election wouldn't that still be a valid expression of voter will?

> I assume you’re very mad at Russia too?

But, but, whatabout the other guys!

No, because I don't have a reason to trust Putin or the Russians, and neither do US citizens. But they do have a reason, and a right, to trust their elected officials.

The “twitter files” links has the Biden campaign reporting dick pics. We can actually view the links mentioned via the Internet Archive. Oops.

And no they don’t have a right for something illegal (revenge porn, unconcent) and the company certainly has their own right to censor how they want and choose who they listen to.

The Russian thing was about the actual facts about Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election and if you were crowing about that influence too.

Twitter blocked the NYPost and any DMs containing links to the article based on the set of advice you summarize as "reporting links to dick pics".

The emails are probably the most politically relevant, and possibly damaging, as they contain possible evidence of corrupt dealing.

Source? Be specific. I’ve only seen links reported that were dick pics.

Source that the FBI/Dems/etc only sent dick-pic links to be censored, or proof that the laptop leak contained more than dick pics?

Earlier in this thread you made a claim that the leak was only dick pics, have you read a source which claimed that, or is it only that you haven't seen a source talk about anything else?

There're these, many of which are verified: https://bidenlaptopemails.com/

I don't know the entire contents but it is certainly more than just dick pics. I've heard someone discuss using the dates in those to corroborate other stories which means they aren't just salacious either.

We are taking about Twitter and all the censorship you’re on about. So obviously it should be things reported to twitter to remove.

And you're limiting this to only things disclosed during the Elon Twitter-files?

Because Jack Dorsey said to congress that they blocked the NYPost story because of reports by the dems and the FBI. The NYPost's story didn't have porn thus they reported at least some non-porn links.

We've known the broad strokes of this for quite a while and it's just the emails and chat logs of the conspirators that we're seeing for the first time now.

Umm..in latest release of Twitter files, you had members of the Biden administration reaching out to explicitly ban and de-platform accounts including accounts that simply showcased the CDC's actual data. There was severe and direct pressure from the white house to ban accounts of US citizens.

I cannot think of a more fundamental violation of the US first amendment.

Contain possible evidence? How do you know that?

There are 128k+ emails, many about the Biden's business dealings. I say 'possible evidence' because it hasn't been investigated yet.

https://bidenlaptopemails.com/

We also know that the emails, or at least many of them, are valid. The signatures, made years before the leaks, check out.

https://blog.erratasec.com/2020/10/yes-we-can-validate-leake...

Ok the emails are valid, why are you assuming a crime was committed?

I didn't say that I did. The scope of "corrupt dealings" is much wider than the scope of illegal dealings.

It contains possibly legal things that the voters might find to be a turn-off, such as the ne'er-do-well son selling access to his dad in his official position.

So dems would not have come out to vote if Biden's drug addicted son has naked pics of himself on his laptop? I don't see that changing things.

They did, or they wouldn't have spent so much time hiding it.

Or maybe your view of the impact should be revisited.

The democrats obviously believed the story would be impactful or they wouldn't have spent time blocking it.

This isn't a partisan viewpoint. I'm not in the USA or attached to either party.

As someone who reads Washington Post, NYTimes and WSJ daily, I too find their (WSJ's) reports trust worthy and accept the facts presented without too much fact-cheking. However, the editorial board and the opinion section are where Murdoch's influences reflect. The facts presented there are mostly murky and sometimes half-truths. I even found some "facts" that were out-right wrong and intentionally so.

Probably true, but the tabloid newspapers are what he uses to influence the public. Since this is a family website I won't express my feelings abut Rupert Murdoch.

He didn't discriminate with his Australian broadsheets. Maybe US editors have more spine than Australian editors?

The Murdoch dynasty (Keith, Rupert, Lachlan, ...) are master newspapermen. Why burn goodwill killing a story about money that is already lost when that goodwill could be spent on influencing even bigger things?

I think Murdoch is an excellent example to compare against Musk, right now. Not because he’s an exemplar of the non-interventionist, but because he’s all business. He will buy businesses, that are profitable, that present ideas against his current, perceived, goals. This is hedging his bets, somewhat. Musk, on the other hand, buys business, regardless of profitability, that suit his personal goals. Then make managing decisions based on whim. The difference isn’t that Murdoch lets others do the talking and Musk does his own, for better or worse. It’s that Murdoch makes business decisions and Musk makes emotional decisions.

To be clear - I’m not trying to suggest one is better than the other. Just that they are a very interesting comparison.

Outside of the absurdly conservative WSJ opinion pages, I wouldn't even say that. The Wall Street Journal is the paper of Wall Street, it has a slight inherent pro-business bias but besides that it reports the news fairly and accurately.

The rest of Murdoch's business empire is nothing like it, compare WSJ.com to FoxNews.com at any given point and you'll see a drastic difference.

In the context of politics, I think Murdoch's other American holdings (namely Fox and the NY Post) are arguably more important and relevant.

> Outside of the absurdly conservative WSJ opinion pages, I wouldn’t even say that. The Wall Street Journal is the paper of Wall Street, it has a slight inherent pro-business bias but besides that it reports the news fairly and accurately.

The WSJ had a right-wing political bias (beyond just a vague pro-business bias) under Dow Jones (in the news, not just the–even then–absurdly right-wing opinion pages), and it got stronger under Murdoch (I haven’t read it as much in recent years, but I did regularly around and for a while after the takeover.) It’s not strident in tone (outside of the opinion pages) the way that Fox News is, but its notable both in story selection and focus.

News reporting is one thing, opinion reporting is its own beast, and I think a lot of people are not considering the difference much if at all. Murdoch and Bezos and others like that can craft a narrative through opinion reporting decisions without touching the news. The discussion seems to mix the two when the opinion pieces craft thought far more than news story selection.

I would put WSJ to more of a centre than either left or right of political ideology assuming we can ignore their conservative leaning Opinions writers.

The editorial pages of WSJ are definitely conservative. The news side tends to lean center left. As a conservative and subscriber to Wall Street journal for the past 6 years, the news side regularly butts heads with editorial side.

I don't think even the WSJ leadership would agree that that news side has a "center left" leaning.

https://newsliteracy.wsj.com/news-opinion/

> The news side tends to lean center left.

Thanks for the laugh.

When you get far enough right, everything is left (and vise versa)

When we get far enough left, there's nothing left....

Exactly. The opinion pages are what craft thought far more than news. Those can be where the owners have impact without touching news.

How are you defining “center left”? The only way I could see that working is if you’re defining that as acknowledging climate change is real or something similar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com