I'm getting a kick out of Rupert Murdoch's recent trouble. This isn't some rogue reporter who worked independently. This was SOP for News of the World. FOCUS: Will the recent phone hacking scandal cause long-term trouble for Murdoch? Will it create any ethical reform in the media? ALT FOCUS: Who else do you know who has fallen from grace? Did your old boss get caught with a hooker and now works at Hardee's?
Speaking of: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14194623 News of the World phone hacking whistle blower Sean Hoare found dead.
He's under 50, his death is "unexplained," he's just exposed one of the richest and most powerful men in the world to possible (but clearly unlikely) ruin. Nope. Nothing suspicious here, folks. Go on back to your homes, nothing to see here.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time a mysterious death like this got swept under the rug. Has anyone heard anything about Piers Morgan being dragged into this? I recall he was, at one time, an editor at News of the World and worked at at least one other Murdoch owned business. Given his reputation as a slimy, amoral shitbag I wouldn't be surprised if he gets implicated in something sooner or later.
Maybe Bill O'Reilly will be implicated in this and we can exile him to a deserted island with Nancy Grace. I obviously don't watch his show, has he even mentioned anything about the whole scandal? Or that other whackjob Hannity?
Someone on facebook implied the same Michael Clayton level conspiracy. Ugh. What ever. If they had targeted Murdoch with the hacks instead of royals and dead teen girls they'd be celebrated hacktivist!
Yeah, and if you shoot an armed rapist you're a hero, but if you shoot a newborn puppy everyone hates you! What gives? Seriously though, of course corporations screwing the little guy is going to be a bigger story than the other way around. (edited for thread confusion)
Today's lessons: Absurdly coincidental and convenient unexplained death creating at least a base level of suspicion = Michael Clayton level conspiracy. Also, use of mediocre movie as historical reference = obvious lack of knowledge of actual history. Exposing rich, powerful moguls and/or corporations for their crimes against society = sleazy money-driven breaches of common decency and civility. In tomorrow's lesson, we'll learn that if you take what you're given, you deserve what you get!
Would that be the actual conspiracies you are referencing in our past or the way unfounded assertions and out right lies that become the truth in the publics mind because people are morons? My whole point is that it is hypocritical to think innocent people weren't violated by the fat sleazy basement dwellers from anon but innocent people were violated by fat sleazy waste of space from rag mags when the same illegal privacy invasion was used by both. The culture of corruption predated wikileaks and the "hacktivist" movement but these two certainly gave legitimacy to the tactics that were wrong to begin with. I refer to the illegal obtaining of information not the legitimate whistle blowers.
Umm, most people I know were pissed at the "Hacktivists" that hacked Sony, Nintendo, and the various other companies. They violated the privacy of millions for shits and giggles, or to expose "poor security." Bullshit. They did it because they can, just like these reporters did it because they could. I honestly know of very, very few people who weren't pissed at the hacktivists for their activities. Now, wikileaks, I can't speak for, as I barely paid attention to that. I know of very few people that weren't angry about the hacktivist activity putting their personal information at stake. The difference is simple: In the case of the Hacktivists, people weren't just angry at the hackers, they were angry at Sony for having such shitty security that it was so EASY to hack. Sony had complete control over their own security, and they dropped the ball, so people were angry at them. In the case of reporters hacking phones, the victims of the hacking had only minimal control over how secure their voice mail was (which consisted of choosing a PIN), so getting mad at them for "letting" themselves get hacked is just stupid. Edited to add: Lulzsec hacker group targets Murdoch and The Sun website Pot, meet kettle?
Say what you will about the "hactivists", but Lulz hacked the Sun's web page yesterday. The Sun, in case you didn't know, is the flagship paper for Murdoch. Here's the JPG of the site, spoilered for size. My favourite bit: That's fucking hilarious.
I don't know anything about Wendy Deng (Murdoch's wife, I think) or what Murdoch exactly is guilty of . . . but that overhand bitch slap to the face she delivered was fucking awesome.