David Horsey by David Horsey

?fh=aa05f4029ecb05b0f28afff6971c6a76

Comments (23) Jump to Comments Form

  1. believecommonsense

    believecommonsenseGenius_badge said, 2 months ago

    we can’t let that happen folks !

  2. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, 2 months ago

    And they seem to have long since given up on their corporate motto.

  3. harleyquinn

    harleyquinnGenius_badge said, 2 months ago

    To big to fail?

  4. chromosome

    chromosomeGenius_badge said, 2 months ago

    Google has only part of the responsibility for a lot of this. It is an Internet phenomenon.

  5. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, 2 months ago

    “Don’t be evil,” supposedly a “core value,” got dumped when they went into China and obeyed all their censorship restrictions. They rationalized this because, as the VP of communications put it: “Our hope is that our mix of measures, though far from our ideal, would accomplish more for Chinese citizens’ access to information than the alternative.”
    In other words, having Google is a greater good than the evil of Chinese Communist censorship. Yeah, right. They’re counting their thirty pieces of silver even as we speak.

  6. Gladius

    Gladius said, 2 months ago

    In this particular instance the evil started long ago when no one noticed the huge copyright extensions and if they did, didn’t seem to give a d–mn. That one wasn’t Google’s fault but it adds to this situation.

  7. LLeRay

    LLeRayGenius_badge said, 2 months ago

    The position of Gladius seems to fit my observations.

  8. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, 2 months ago

    Gladius, I noticed. And as I noted elsewhere, I have serious problems with the Google deal with the Author’s Guild, being a writer and the husband of a writer.

  9. GNWachs

    GNWachsGenius_badge said, 2 months ago

    If I understand the rules when big corporations make money it is evil because the poor unwashed public has to pay. But when big MSM, Hollywood, recording studios and writers make money that is perfectly acceptable because they are like the man in the street.

  10. M Henri Day

    M Henri Day said, 2 months ago

    Let us hope that any company that does business in a particular country will be forced to obey the laws of that country. The contrary situation, that a company can do business in a sovereign country without being subject to its laws - extraterritoriality as in, e g, Lewis Paul Bremer’s Iraq or, for that matter, pre-revolutinary China, is not something I care to contemplate. Or do you want Enron to rule you ?…

    Henri

  11. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, 2 months ago

    No, GNW, I am calling out Google on their own inconsistency and open hypocrisy. Other companies don’t claim moral superiority.
    Besides, authors are the last ones to make money. Trust me, I know…

  12. Gladius

    Gladius said, 2 months ago

    motive,

    I didn’t intend to include you in my general rant. I know a number of authors and many have issues with Google. I was frustrated when the copyright extensions first started and the general public didn’t seem to notice. If they did they swallowed the protect an American icon line without bothering to consider the consequences. There is one problem that I would like to see resolved and that is the issue of orphan books. In Google’s case I believe the negatives outweigh any amelioration of this problem.

  13. senorbullwinkle

    senorbullwinkleGenius_badge said, 2 months ago

    Merdoc has 1200 radio stations he bought, and the republicans said, Good For Him, and he not even an American.Oh, and he’s buying more.
    It’s All Good, sell the Sea Ports to the Arab’s, the water and sewers to the Germans, and sell all are mortgages to the Chinese. Why stop at the Internet ? We sold America, one piece at a time.

  14. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 2 months ago

    MR.BULL: As far as I can research, News Corp doesn’t own ANY radio stations, let alone 1200. You must be thinking of Clear Channel, which is not owned by Murdoch.

    But I could be wrong, so provide a link.

  15. senorbullwinkle
  16. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, 2 months ago

    churchill is right. Murdoch has a ridiculous percentage of media outlets in this country, but radio isn’t among them. As churchill and your link said, ClearChannel is the owner of all those radio stations. (And lots and lots of billboards, too.)

  17. senorbullwinkle

    senorbullwinkleGenius_badge said, 2 months ago

    I alway see his name connected with 1200 radio stations.
    I stand corrected, Then again I dont really care if I use Rupert Murdoch as my whipping or poster boy for a handful of cooperations that control 90% of TV, radio, and news.
    This problem is of their own making. If they had run their companies unbiased, instead of turning it into their personal mouthpiece, and pushing their agenda onto an unsuspecting public, There wouldn’t be all this outrage. http://lonelytxliberal.blogspot.com/2005/10/does-rupert-murdoch-own-radio-stations.html

    http://radio.about.com/library/weekly/aa020403a.htm

    http://www.thinkandask.com/news/mediagiants.html

    http://tinyurl.com/nt8boo

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-8-2007/the-henry-stops-here

  18. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 2 months ago

    ^ Wrong again. The first “blog” also can’t distinguish between two unrelated companies, News Corp and Clearchannel. He put Murdoch’s name in the headline, and then wrote only about Clearchannel. For some reason, he, like you, can’t make the distinction. (I can only speculate where that came from)

    The second link doesn’t mention News Corp or Murdoch at all.

    The third link is correct, and clearly shows the two different companies. Note there are no radio stations under News Corp.

    Your fourth link is broken, but it’s from salon .com, so it’s worthless anyway.

    The link from your last post is meant to be a hit job on News Corp for their perception that Fox somehow was in the bag for Clinton in the primaries. (Huh?) They correctly blamed the Telecommunications act of 1996 for deregulation of media outlets (which I was against, BTW) but then singled out News Corp for going on a buying spree of TV stations (yet they still own “only” 34 stations) yet don’t mention the effect it had on larger players, like GE/NBC/Vivendi, Disney/ABC, CBS (too complex for here), or Sony. I can only conclude the author had no problem with those, only Murdoch.

  19. senorbullwinkle

    senorbullwinkleGenius_badge said, 2 months ago

    I could go on for days. If I had Lexis Nexis, maybe I could find where Murdoch sits on the board of clear channel, but I dont. Anyway, there’s a lot more out there.
    You just go on debunking us loons. keep on saying ” the left media”, And never say a word about, Birther’s, Deather’s, Indoctrinationer’s, about the sanity of Beck or Rush. Hell we need MORE of them.
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-6-2009/michael-wolff

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-10-2008/the-meter-is-running-pt–1

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-27-2007/new-media

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-20-2007/straight-talk-express

  20. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, 2 months ago

    senorbullwinkle and churchill – back to the main point: media consolidation has been remarkable and is a danger to the nation. I think you would both agree with that? I don’t care if it consolidates under Murdoch, Clinton, or John Philip Sousa – it’s removing alternate views. As it happens, I think there is more conservative than liberal leadership of these consolidated firms – Clear Channel and Murdoch being the strongest examples, but who cares? I don’t think the Internet is making up for it, since so little of it is valid content.
    Too bad you wrote off Salon.com, church’. When they’re good, they’re very good indeed. They’re not like HuffPo.

  21. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 2 months ago

    MOTIVE: As I wrote, I was against the Comm Act of ‘96, and knew that it would lead to consolidation, even though it was touted at the time a good for competition. I remember debating it (well, not specifically that bill) back in Comm 101 back in the ‘70’s .

    BULL: Murdoch doesn’t sit on the board of Clearchannel. Get over it.
    Per wiki: Current members of the board of directors of Clear Channel Communications are: Alan Feld, Perry Lewis, Lowry Mays, B.J.(Red) McCombs, Phyllis Riggins, Theodore Strauss, J.C. Watts, and John H. Williams (although I was surprised to see JC Watts there, but good for him, I suppose)

  22. believecommonsense

    believecommonsenseGenius_badge said, 2 months ago

    church, responded to you on Gorrell 9/4

    let me know if you respond further …:-D

  23. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 2 months ago

    BCS: I have responded to you on Gorrell 9/4. I hope you (and others) read it. Just as you took a lot of time to gather your links, I took a lot of time to gather my comment. We both have too much time on our hands!