Apply Now!

British MP Says Rupert Murdoch Must Answer for Glenn Beck

witness23

witness23

Veteran Expediter
This one is for our resident English Woman. ;) It would seem that this guy get's it. This is a long story, so I only placed a small quote from the end of the transcript. Click the link for the full video and or transcript of what the British MP Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) said of Mr. Beck.

Link: British MP Says Rupert Murdoch Must Answer for Glenn Beck

British MP Says Rupert Murdoch Must Answer for Glenn Beck
Posted on January 21, 2011 by Sarah Jones

If Glenn Beck were here today I would say to him: “Glenn Beck, you are a bigot. You bring shame to your country, not because you lack balance, but because you are an unthinking buffoon. Rupert Murdoch tolerates you because you are his useful idiot. He uses you to get a foothold in the doors of the powerful. Like his phone-hacking journalists and his pugnacious leader-writers in Australia, you are expendable. Let us hope he disposes of your nasty brand of intolerance sooner rather than later.”
It is Rupert and James Murdoch who should answer for bigots such as Glenn Beck and phone hackers such as Clive Goodman and Glen Mulcaire. They employ them. They promote them. They are responsible for them. It is time for thinking citizens in the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia to unite against the “Murdochs’ vicious brand of politics that masquerades as publishing”.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
EnglishLady

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
witness23 said:
This one is for our resident English Woman. ;) It would seem that this guy get's it. This is a long story, so I only placed a small quote from the end of the transcript. Click the link for the full video and or transcript of what the British MP Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) said of Mr. Beck.

Link: British MP Says Rupert Murdoch Must Answer for Glenn Beck

British MP Says Rupert Murdoch Must Answer for Glenn Beck
Posted on January 21, 2011 by Sarah Jones
Click to expand...


LOL cool :cool:

he says what he means, no messing around with niceties.

He apparently likes the term 'pipsqueak" too :D
 
greg334

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Well I'm not defending him, but want to know what in that list is bigoted?

What I see is atypical response from a MP who doesn't get the idea that the British public doesn't have to have access to that show and we, the people of the United States don't have to have someone in another country tell us what we can or can not watch. If you read the actual transcripts, you can see the difference between a free country and one who controls content of their programs to "protect" the public (no offense Sue). Antisemitism was being examined over there but it left out the realities of their own actions when the holocaust was brought up. Nevertheless the subject of Beck's show popped up as an example and anyone can see it seems to be about progressives most of the time. Soros gave up that right to be treated as a victim by funding both openly and in the dark groups that espouse hate. IF it was an issue with Beck, Soros can bring legal action against Beck, that is allowed but apparently he either doesn't care or some of the stuff he says is true. I don't see the real antisemitism with Soros and Beck but again I also think that we carry the sensitivity thing too far when we speak of events that we could not control AND happened in more than one place to more than one religion or ethnic group.
 
LDB

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Beck has equal right to be on air as that venomous hater Ed Schultz. I have equal right to not listen to either of them. I exercise that right regularly.
 
jaminjim

jaminjim

Veteran Expediter
Maybe there is justice:

Keith Olbermann exits MSNBC: 'Just too much for me' - USATODAY.com

By Ann Oldenburg, USA TODAY
69Comments
35Recommend

CAPTIONBy Jeffrey Ufberg, WireImage
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann surprised viewers by saying he had "been told" it was his last show, after nearly eight years, and so he was saying farewell.

"There were many occasions, particularly in the last 2 years, where all that surrounded the show — but never the show itself — was just too much for me," Olbermann said, his only explanation for his abrupt departure.

Olbermann, 51, who has the highest-rated evening anchor on MSNBC, came to an agreement with NBC's corporate management late this week to settle his contract and step down, says The New York Times. Olbermann signed a four-year contract extension in 2008 for an estimated $30 million.

The show host has butted heads with management over the years and was suspended in November, after he revealed that he had made donations to several Democratic candidates in 2010 — one of them, coincidentally, was Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

As the New York Post reported: "The garrulous gasbag will likely also have to stay off the air at least until fall under the agreement."
Click to expand...
 
EnglishLady

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
greg334 said:
What I see is atypical response from a MP who doesn't get the idea that the British public doesn't have to have access to that show and we, the people of the United States don't have to have someone in another country tell us what we can or can not watch. If you read the actual transcripts, you can see the difference between a free country and one who controls content of their programs to "protect" the public (no offense Sue).
Click to expand...


None taken, although I do think you are still making it look, to ppl who have not visited England, that we live in a Soviet type state, with words like Controlling ....
Pink Floyd, the Wall Album ..... where those "ppl" willingly walk up the ramp to the mincer :p

We have a "watershed" time usually 9pm, so any programs with "adult content" are shown after this time when all the munchkins should be tucked up in bed.
TV Stations will announce and show a "warning" letting the viewer know that the following program etc contains ...Violence...Nudity ....Bad Language etc, enabling us to make up our minds if we want to watch or not.

I hardly think any of the above counts as controlling, or not being a Free Country. :p
 
Tennesseahawk

Tennesseahawk

Veteran Expediter
I believe he means news content. Like Canada, the major news station is owned by the state. Major difference is Canada allowed Fox in recently. But state sponsored media smells funny to me also.
 
EnglishLady

EnglishLady

Veteran Expediter
Tennesseahawk said:
I believe he means news content. Like Canada, the major news station is owned by the state. Major difference is Canada allowed Fox in recently. But state sponsored media smells funny to me also.
Click to expand...


:p thank you ....

The BBC yes, but we have many News channels that are independent.
 
greg334

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Sue,
My point is that England, like other countries are not as free as people want to make them appear. The MP said it clearly when he was trying to apply his standard onto an American company who produced an show for the American audience under different standards and freedoms and he was bringing up the EU/OfCom's broadcast standards to make a point that the show has no place for the English audience because of the offensive nature and the standard that they lack.

England is not any where close to a soviet style of governance on most things but there are things that are along the lines that can be considered in this country intrusive and a violation of privacy rights - the use of CCTV cameras is one and how the evidenced is used against a person that is gathered by those CCTV cameras.

BUT with that said, and to clarify the issue, I am not just talking about journalistic programming, I am talking about entertainment and freedom of expression and speech and the differences between the two countries.

Going back to the point the MP bought up, the offending nature of Beck and the point that his speech was not just antisemitic but also offensive illustrates the difference we spoke about before. They, the government in England under two laws for broadcasting can intervene in any show if the content is deemed to be offensive by different standards, many of them are not written but emotional. OfCom and the EU broadcast standards are those two laws, but that isn't the only laws or action taken. The use of other laws, mostly discrimination laws are used to stifle and in some cases prosecute people for exercising expression. This has been done to children and adults alike and it looks like a Soviet style persecution to the outside world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top