Entertainment For Lively Minds
"Oscar! Oscar!"
Posted by itfc1959 on 19 July 2011 - 5:04pm.
Rupert Murdoch: a performance to rival that of Ernest Saunders.
Discuss.
- More from itfc1959.
- Login or register to post comments
-
User login
Recently Updated
Hot Topics - Last 7 Days
Hot Topics - Last 4 Weeks
The Sites We Like
- And Another Thing
- Another Nickel In The Machine
- Crying All The Way To The Chip Shop
- Freaky Trigger
- Fula Fula Ord
- The Ghosts Of Electricity
- Guardian Music Blog
- Idolator
- I Love Music
- The Lefsetz Letter
- McSweeney's
- Mixmag
- My Band T-shirt
- No Rock And Roll Fun
- Paul Du Noyer
- Planet Mondo
- Popjustice
- Pretty Goes With Pretty
- Tales Of The City
- The Arts Desk
- The Rising Storm
- The Rocking Vicar
- Scarlet Mist
- WFMU Blog
Saunders was definitely acting...
...Rupert may not be, especially given his absolute equanimity/immobility/lack of awareness in the face of a custard pie.
Either way,
I suspect his American investors may well be wanting to have a few words after his performance today.
Wendi Murdoch:
A performance to rival that of Zelda: Warrior Princess.
Rupert Murdoch
Am I right in thinking that as he was a non brit, he did not have to appear today?
If that is the case, then I take my hat off to him for doing so.
I suppose it was good of him to grace us with his presence,
given the position he has as owner of a huge slice of the UK media market.
Sincere, I think
I reckon he came over pretty well. His responses appeared unrehearsed on the whole and I think he is credited for having more influence than he has and certainly more interest in the UK and politics than he appeared to have today. EG speaking to the NotW editor once or twice a month only asking "what was up?" and revealing that that paper represented 1% (one per cent) of his business.
Given that scenario, he cannot be expected to have known the answer to many of the silly questions put to him, particularly by the first MP.
I thought that was interesting, too.
Especially as seeing that the last time he was up before the committee (three years ago, I think)he made mention of being in touch with the NOW editor two or three times A WEEK.
Andrew Neil - who let us not forget, as editor of the Sunday Times was subject to immunerable late night calls from Rupe wanting to know what was going on - expressed considerable surprise at Rupe's 1 to 2 calls a month assertion, and made the point, with an apparently straight face, that things had certainly changed over the past few years.
Surely
therefore a blatant, well-rehearsed tactic to downplay his involvement, but of course he took a keen interest and used his papers to aid his other media business. So yes he deserves the oscar - no sincerity there I think.
In fairness....
He did say he called the editor of The Sunday Times (Andrew Neil's old job) every Saturday evening without fail.
I really cannot comprehend how people can imagine a Chairman of any company, let alone one with 53000 employees across the world, will know the minutiae of a 1% section of his business. And after all, until a fortnight ago, most of us thought the phone hacking was not much of a big deal anyway involving only the likes of Sienna ("who?") Miller. Hardly something to put on the News Corp Board Meetings agenda.
I accept Rupert's point: the people whom he had trusted (and their trusted people) should take the hit. For me, that must include Brooks.
I also think the Police are far more culpable in all this than the Murdochs. Their cosy relationships, lack of judgement and incompetence have been truly revealing.
I would say, however, that NotW hacks are put under serious job-depends-on-it pressure to come up with juicy stories and that creates and encourages an environment where 'anything goes' takes place. You can level that at the Murdochs' door of course, as well as the people who run the Express, Mail etc.
Yes
Yes, and that gets to the heart of what the questioning should have been about yesterday. More about the structuring of the company, the way that the dictatorial "man of few words" would control things by implication.
The Murdochs got a very easy time, and they were well prepared. Some of the questioning was very weak. As soon as the panel saw their bearing and heard the opening statement; from then on there was a certain lack of enthusiasm for the grilling they deserved. "Stupid questions" my ass. The first MP was the only one to give them any kind of serious grilling. And as a result was one of the few that got anything of interest out of them. Such was Murdoch Seniors gruff attitude and long pauses at these questions, you could also tell that from both James, and Ruperts wife's nervousness and attitude whenever he was speaking, that an opportunity was missed.
I have yet to see
it, but I would be very surprised if he had not been extensively briefed by some very high powered legal experts. I very much doubt that that the MPs would have been all that forensic in their examination, but I could be wrong. However he is far more worried about the U.S authorities giving him a good kicking and that would explain why he has a former official from the Justice dept carrying out an investigation. The authorities over there would not have given the time of day to the feeble in-house investigation that was carried out over here a few years back.
They were very slick.
Murdoch Junior came across as startlingly bright and he clearly knows how to work a potentially hostile crowd. Clearly intent on demonstrating just how amenable and cooperative he can be in our collective hour of need, I was left with the impression that this is one dangerous sonofabitch.
Do you know who he reminded me of? Albert Speer, as seen on The World At War: apologetic, educated, charismatic, contrite, willing to bring us in and show us a glimpse of the inside tack, but really, all the unpleasantness was nothing to do with him.
Do you know who he reminded me of? Albert Speer
Sorry itfc 1959, but aI think a sense of perspective needs to be applied here.
He may not be top of your Christmas card list, but he is no Nazi war criminal.
Not sure about acting ability
but I'd like to have seen a review from this man:
I've still got the whole interview on VHS somewhere. It seemed important at the time - and still does.
Still,
he's got a nice wife.
© every review of Jean-Michel Jarre 1977-1989.
Has
anyone seen Herr Flick and Jimmy M in the same room ?
reminded me
of the lack of accountability expressed at the iran contra hearings...
or hitler blaming the wermacht for systematic genocide..
never known such an interfering megalomaniac bastard to be so sloppy vis a vis the chain of command...
of course he could be a lying interfering megalomaniac bastard
He was...
...trying to be Mr Reasonable and Mr Contrite, but he couldn't stop himself banging the table.
I don't much like the man
I think he has driven his profit motivated ideals too far into a media empire that needs to be more responsible for its actions and the impact of those actions than it has been in the past. Just to drive for profit is not enough when your business is that vast and that influential.
However, I do think he showed some balls to go before the committee and I also think some of the questioning was mighty naive. The idea that Chief Execs will read every inch of a document before they sign them is just unreal - particularly those that have such wide ranging business to manage. What do they think the Executive Summary was invented for?
He came out of it better than I expected he would. That isn't saying much though.
FYI
I thought this dictionary definition might be useful.
Perspective: "The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance".
Was anyone else thinking..