Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua!

Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua.com,  Un foro donde se discute la Politica Boricua aparte de otros temas de actualidad e interes.  Aqui existe la mayor libertad de expresion donde pueden debatir libremente.  Registrate!

 
Como la mayoria de las comunidades en linea necesita registrarse para poder postear en nuestra comunidad, pero no se preocupe esto es un proceso simple que solo requiere minima informacion. Sea parte de Cafe Boricua creando una cuenta con nosotros.  Puede logearse con su cuenta de Facebook o Twitter.

  • Comienze nuevos temas y responda a otros
  • Subscribirse a temas y foros y recibir actualizaciones automaticas.
  • Crea su propio perfil y haga nuevas amistades.
  • Comparta sus posteos o temas en las redes sociales.
  • Personalize su experiencia aqui.
  • Crea una encuesta!   Una gallery de fotos.  Anuncie un evento. 

Animate a participar en nuestro foro boricua!


Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
napoleon888

Cae Ruperto Goebbels Murdoch

79 posts in this topic

[quote name='napoleon888' timestamp='1311106659' post='2934248']
Cuidau que no les caiga la espuma que botan por la boca las turbas republikkkanas...jajajajajajajajaajaja. Aqui le tengo una lista parcial de lo que pierde la claque de aberrados una vez les tumben en mother ship que controla todos sus pensamientos tambien conocido como Faux News:

Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.

Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.

Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin's mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they'll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.

Claramente el republikkkanete no se da cuenta... imaginense que no se dan cuenta como el escadalo en Gran Bretaña tiene alguna relacion con Faux News y como este canal de propaganda tiene relacion con las proximas elecciones jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja.. que se van a dar cuenta de las tacticas sucias de este canal...

Oiga y el pseudo republikkkanete de Parguito? Bien gracias...

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
[/quote]



Oiga Nap@ ahora si que estamos horrorizados con tu problema medico de personalidades multiples !!!!...Resulta que un dia te haces llamar[b] Arturito Rimjob[/b] el poeta de la verg..jajajaja , y de pronto brincas la cerca por completo y aflora tu lado femenino y te me conviertes en toda una damisela izquierdista anti capitalista y anti gobierno americano llamada [b]Cynthia Boaz[/b]....resulta entonces que tu eres una mujer atrapada en el cuerpo de un hombre???...Esa Cynthia Boaz es la persona que escribio ese escrito que tu alegas que es tuyo y el cual editaste y te negaste a poner el [color="#FF0000"]LINK DE LA FUENTE[/color] de donde proviene!!!!...jajajajajajajajajaja.....pues claro Negr@ , ya te tenemos leido por paquetero y fantasioso ....jejejeje....Oye Nap@ yo tu demando a Cynthia Boaz por [b]PLAGIO[/b] o sea , te ROBO tu escrito y lo puso en esa pagina y se dio credito por lo que [u]tu dices que escribiste!!!!![/u]...jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja....QUE BARBARO ESTE NAP@!!!!....Por ahi hay otra personita que tiene estas mismas costumbres de poner informacion tecata , editada y tergiversada proveniente de fuentes totalmente dudosas y desacreditadas ....a esa persona le tengo varias sorpresitas preparadas :lipssealed: ....jajajajajajajajaja

[size="4"][color="#FF0000"]Fourteen Propaganda Techniques Fox "News" Uses to Brainwash Americans[/color][/size]
Saturday 2 July 2011
by: Dr. Cynthia Boaz, Truthout | News Analysis
http://www.truth-out.org/14-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-brainwash-americans/1309612678

(Image: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: Alan Turkus, ario_, Eddi van W.)
There is nothing more sacred to the maintenance of democracy than a free press. Access to comprehensive, accurate and quality information is essential to the manifestation of Socratic citizenship - the society characterized by a civically engaged, well-informed and socially invested populace. Thus, to the degree that access to quality information is willfully or unintentionally obstructed, democracy itself is degraded.

It is ironic that in the era of 24-hour cable news networks and "reality" programming, the news-to-fluff ratio and overall veracity of information has declined precipitously. Take the fact Americans now spend on average about 50 hours a week using various forms of media, while at the same time cultural literacy levels hover just above the gutter. Not only does mainstream media now tolerate gross misrepresentations of fact and history by public figures (highlighted most recently by Sarah Palin's ludicrous depiction of Paul Revere's ride), but many media actually legitimize these displays. Pause for a moment and ask yourself what it means that the world's largest, most profitable and most popular news channel passes off as fact every whim, impulse and outrageously incompetent analysis of its so-called reporters. How did we get here? Take the enormous amount of misinformation that is taken for truth by Fox audiences: the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that he was in on 9/11, the belief that climate change isn't real and/or man-made, the belief that Barack Obama is Muslim and wasn't born in the United States, the insistence that all Arabs are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists, the inexplicable perceptions that immigrants are both too lazy to work and are about to steal your job. All of these claims are demonstrably false, yet Fox News viewers will maintain their veracity with incredible zeal. Why? Is it simply that we have lost our respect for knowledge?

My curiosity about this question compelled me to sit down and document the most oft-used methods by which willful ignorance has been turned into dogma by Fox News and other propagandists disguised as media. The techniques I identify here also help to explain the simultaneously powerful identification the Fox media audience has with the network, as well as their ardent, reflexive defenses of it.

The good news is that the more conscious you are of these techniques, the less likely they are to work on you. The bad news is that those reading this article are probably the least in need in of it.

[color="#FF0000"]1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.[/color]


3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.

[color="#FF0000"]4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin's mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they'll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.[/color]
5. Scapegoating/Othering. This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It's technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.

6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. This is more of what I'd call a "meta-frame" (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways news is reported constantly. For example, terms like "show of strength" are often used to describe acts of repression, such as those by the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009. There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force - it can turn wars into sporting events. Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence - whether manifested in war or debates about the Second Amendment - are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony) moral. Violence become synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.

7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a "win."

8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user's claims veracity in the viewer's mind.

9. Populism. This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one of "the people" and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always "elitist" or a "bureaucrat" or a "government insider" or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the right is that accused "elitists" are almost always liberals - a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate for non-elite groups.

10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and "real Americans" (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not. Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesn't love those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It's a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults.

11. Saturation. There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated cover and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. "Saddam has WMD." Veracity and hard data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over, regardless of whether it's true or if it even makes sense, e.g., "Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States." If something is said enough times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth. Another example is Fox's own slogan of "Fair and Balanced."

12. Disparaging Education. There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. Education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so viscerally demeaned.

13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Here's how it works: if your cousin's college roommate's uncle's ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachev's niece's ex-boyfriend's sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.

14. Diversion. This is where, when on the ropes, the media commentator suddenly takes the debate in a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where most Fox anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN or Media Matters, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or they'll talk about wanting to focus on "moving forward," as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an ironic use of the technique of projection/flipping.

In debating some of these tactics with colleagues and friends, I have also noticed that the Fox viewership seems to be marked by a sort of collective personality disorder whereby the viewer feels almost as though they've been let into a secret society. Something about their affiliation with the network makes them feel privileged and this affinity is likely what drives the viewers to defend the network so vehemently. They seem to identify with it at a core level, because it tells them they are special and privy to something the rest of us don't have. It's akin to the loyalty one feels by being let into a private club or a gang. That effect is also likely to make the propaganda more powerful, because it goes mostly unquestioned.

In considering these tactics and their possible effects on American public discourse, it is important to note that historically, those who've genuinely accessed truth have never berated those who did not. You don't get honored by history when you beat up your opponent: look at Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln. These men did not find the need to engage in othering, ad homeinum attacks, guilt by association or bullying. This is because when a person has accessed a truth, they are not threatened by the opposing views of others. This reality reveals the righteous indignation of people like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity as a symptom of untruth. These individuals are hostile and angry precisely because they don't feel confident in their own veracity. And in general, the more someone is losing their temper in a debate and the more intolerant they are of listening to others, the more you can be certain they do not know what they're talking about.

One final observation. Fox audiences, birthers and Tea Partiers often defend their arguments by pointing to the fact that a lot of people share the same perceptions. This is a reasonable point to the extent that Murdoch's News Corporation reaches a far larger audience than any other single media outlet. But, the fact that a lot of people believe something is not necessarily a sign that it's true; it's just a sign that it's been effectively marketed.

As honest, fair and truly intellectual debate degrades before the eyes of the global media audience, the quality of American democracy degrades along with it.



Dime Nap@ , todavia reconoces ese escrito como el que tu [b]"ESCRIBISTES"[/b].....O aceptas que eres un mentiroso patologico igual que tus amiguitos????

Dito nen@ , no pegas una !!!!.....te tenemos hasta el 8 de bastos!!!!

jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja
jajajajajajajajajajaajajajajajajajajajajajaja
jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajja
jajajajajajajajajajaajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja
jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajjajajajjajjajajajajajaj
jajajajajajajjajajajjajajjajajajajajjajaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Vemos... El "grilling" a fuego bajo se lo aplicaron en Londres, por hechos ocurridos en Inglaterra. Hasta el intento de pastelazo fie alla, y no aca. Solamente a un par de cabestros como ustedes se le ocurre meter esto en politica de los EEUU adelantandose a todo tipo de especulacion fantasiosa.. Aqui impera la ley del peine. Edited by charlie319

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Chemo' timestamp='1311180975' post='2934335']
Oiga Nap@ ahora si que estamos horrorizados con tu problema medico de personalidades multiples !!!!...Resulta que un dia te haces llamar[b] Arturito Rimjob[/b] el poeta de la verg..jajajaja , y de pronto brincas la cerca por completo y aflora tu lado femenino y te me conviertes en toda una damisela izquierdista anti capitalista y anti gobierno americano llamada [b]Cynthia Boaz[/b]....resulta entonces que tu eres una mujer atrapada en el cuerpo de un hombre???...Esa Cynthia Boaz es la persona que escribio ese escrito que tu alegas que es tuyo y el cual editaste y te negaste a poner el [color="#FF0000"]LINK DE LA FUENTE[/color] de donde proviene!!!!...jajajajajajajajajaja.....pues claro Negr@ , ya te tenemos leido por paquetero y fantasioso ....jejejeje....Oye Nap@ yo tu demando a Cynthia Boaz por [b]PLAGIO[/b] o sea , te ROBO tu escrito y lo puso en esa pagina y se dio credito por lo que [u]tu dices que escribiste!!!!![/u]...jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja....QUE BARBARO ESTE NAP@!!!!....Por ahi hay otra personita que tiene estas mismas costumbres de poner informacion tecata , editada y tergiversada proveniente de fuentes totalmente dudosas y desacreditadas ....a esa persona le tengo varias sorpresitas preparadas :lipssealed: ....jajajajajajajajaja

[size="4"][color="#FF0000"]Fourteen Propaganda Techniques Fox "News" Uses to Brainwash Americans[/color][/size]
Saturday 2 July 2011
by: Dr. Cynthia Boaz, Truthout | News Analysis
http://www.truth-out.org/14-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-brainwash-americans/1309612678

(Image: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: Alan Turkus, ario_, Eddi van W.)
There is nothing more sacred to the maintenance of democracy than a free press. Access to comprehensive, accurate and quality information is essential to the manifestation of Socratic citizenship - the society characterized by a civically engaged, well-informed and socially invested populace. Thus, to the degree that access to quality information is willfully or unintentionally obstructed, democracy itself is degraded.

It is ironic that in the era of 24-hour cable news networks and "reality" programming, the news-to-fluff ratio and overall veracity of information has declined precipitously. Take the fact Americans now spend on average about 50 hours a week using various forms of media, while at the same time cultural literacy levels hover just above the gutter. Not only does mainstream media now tolerate gross misrepresentations of fact and history by public figures (highlighted most recently by Sarah Palin's ludicrous depiction of Paul Revere's ride), but many media actually legitimize these displays. Pause for a moment and ask yourself what it means that the world's largest, most profitable and most popular news channel passes off as fact every whim, impulse and outrageously incompetent analysis of its so-called reporters. How did we get here? Take the enormous amount of misinformation that is taken for truth by Fox audiences: the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that he was in on 9/11, the belief that climate change isn't real and/or man-made, the belief that Barack Obama is Muslim and wasn't born in the United States, the insistence that all Arabs are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists, the inexplicable perceptions that immigrants are both too lazy to work and are about to steal your job. All of these claims are demonstrably false, yet Fox News viewers will maintain their veracity with incredible zeal. Why? Is it simply that we have lost our respect for knowledge?

My curiosity about this question compelled me to sit down and document the most oft-used methods by which willful ignorance has been turned into dogma by Fox News and other propagandists disguised as media. The techniques I identify here also help to explain the simultaneously powerful identification the Fox media audience has with the network, as well as their ardent, reflexive defenses of it.

The good news is that the more conscious you are of these techniques, the less likely they are to work on you. The bad news is that those reading this article are probably the least in need in of it.

[color="#FF0000"]1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, the belief over at Fox seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren't activated, you aren't alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own audience? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don't think rationally. And when they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.[/color]


3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the viewer who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you're using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It's often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.

[color="#FF0000"]4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is Palin's mangling of the Paul Revere ride, which Fox reporters have bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they'll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.[/color]
5. Scapegoating/Othering. This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It's technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.

6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. This is more of what I'd call a "meta-frame" (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways news is reported constantly. For example, terms like "show of strength" are often used to describe acts of repression, such as those by the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009. There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force - it can turn wars into sporting events. Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence - whether manifested in war or debates about the Second Amendment - are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony) moral. Violence become synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.

7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a "win."

8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user's claims veracity in the viewer's mind.

9. Populism. This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one of "the people" and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always "elitist" or a "bureaucrat" or a "government insider" or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the right is that accused "elitists" are almost always liberals - a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate for non-elite groups.

10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and "real Americans" (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not. Basically, God loves Fox and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesn't love those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It's a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults.

11. Saturation. There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated cover and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. "Saddam has WMD." Veracity and hard data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over, regardless of whether it's true or if it even makes sense, e.g., "Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States." If something is said enough times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth. Another example is Fox's own slogan of "Fair and Balanced."

12. Disparaging Education. There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in many mainstream media discourses. In fact, in some circles (e.g. Fox), higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. Education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so viscerally demeaned.

13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart, both of whom have used it to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Here's how it works: if your cousin's college roommate's uncle's ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachev's niece's ex-boyfriend's sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.

14. Diversion. This is where, when on the ropes, the media commentator suddenly takes the debate in a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where most Fox anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN or Media Matters, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or they'll talk about wanting to focus on "moving forward," as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an ironic use of the technique of projection/flipping.

In debating some of these tactics with colleagues and friends, I have also noticed that the Fox viewership seems to be marked by a sort of collective personality disorder whereby the viewer feels almost as though they've been let into a secret society. Something about their affiliation with the network makes them feel privileged and this affinity is likely what drives the viewers to defend the network so vehemently. They seem to identify with it at a core level, because it tells them they are special and privy to something the rest of us don't have. It's akin to the loyalty one feels by being let into a private club or a gang. That effect is also likely to make the propaganda more powerful, because it goes mostly unquestioned.

In considering these tactics and their possible effects on American public discourse, it is important to note that historically, those who've genuinely accessed truth have never berated those who did not. You don't get honored by history when you beat up your opponent: look at Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln. These men did not find the need to engage in othering, ad homeinum attacks, guilt by association or bullying. This is because when a person has accessed a truth, they are not threatened by the opposing views of others. This reality reveals the righteous indignation of people like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity as a symptom of untruth. These individuals are hostile and angry precisely because they don't feel confident in their own veracity. And in general, the more someone is losing their temper in a debate and the more intolerant they are of listening to others, the more you can be certain they do not know what they're talking about.

One final observation. Fox audiences, birthers and Tea Partiers often defend their arguments by pointing to the fact that a lot of people share the same perceptions. This is a reasonable point to the extent that Murdoch's News Corporation reaches a far larger audience than any other single media outlet. But, the fact that a lot of people believe something is not necessarily a sign that it's true; it's just a sign that it's been effectively marketed.

As honest, fair and truly intellectual debate degrades before the eyes of the global media audience, the quality of American democracy degrades along with it.



Dime Nap@ , todavia reconoces ese escrito como el que tu [b]"ESCRIBISTES"[/b].....O aceptas que eres un mentiroso patologico igual que tus amiguitos????

Dito nen@ , no pegas una !!!!.....te tenemos hasta el 8 de bastos!!!!

jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja
jajajajajajajajajajaajajajajajajajajajajajaja
jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajja
jajajajajajajajajajaajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja
jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajjajajajjajjajajajajajaj
jajajajajajajjajajajjajajjajajajajajjajaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
[/quote]


Solamente una sorapa como tu se lo hubiese creido y eso que lo puse entre comillas para que se dieran cuenta, de todas maneras gracias por ponerlo completamente, para que tu veas que hasta a mi me hace falta que me cargen las maletas de vez en cuando.

Que brutt!! Que brutt!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sigue saliendo informacion, claro que Fox News va a negar todo, pero ya esta en la mira... :whistle:



[size="3"][b][color="#000080"]Rupert Murdoch's Fox News ran 'black ops' department, former executive claims [/color][/b][/size]

By Jon Swaine, New York

11:07PM BST 20 Jul 2011

[b][color="#FF0000"]Dan Cooper, who helped launch Fox News as managing editor in 1996, said that a “brain room” carried out “counter intelligence” on the channel’s enemies from its New York headquarters.[/color][/b]
[color="#FF0000"]
He was threatened after it found out he spoke to a reporte[/color]r, he claimed.

Another former senior executive said the channel ran a spying network on staff, reading their emails and making them “feel they were being watched”.

The channel, which has come under pressure amid allegations that outlets owned by Mr Murdoch might have attempted to hack the voicemail messages of September 11 victims, firmly denies all the allegations.


Mr Cooper, who left Fox News soon after its launch, provided a quote for a 1997 article about Roger Ailes, Fox News’s president, by the journalist David Brock in New York magazine.


The quote was not going to be attributed to him, but he alleges that before the article was published, Mr Cooper’s agent received a telephone call from Mr Ailes threatening to withdraw Fox’s business from all his clients.

“There are only two possible ways Ailes found out,” Mr Cooper said. “Either Brock told him or they got hold of Brock’s phone records and saw I spoke to him.”

He first alleged that the records were obtained by researchers in the “brain room” in 2005 in an article on his website about the launch of the channel.

“Most people thought it was simply the research department of Fox News,” he wrote. “I knew it also housed a counter intelligence and black ops office. So accessing phone records was easy pie.”
[color="#FF0000"]
Mr Cooper said yesterday that he helped to design the high-security unit. “It was staffed by 15 researchers and had a guard at the door. No one working there would engage in conversation.”[/color]

Mr Cooper said he was “willing to consider the possibility” that Mr Brock named him, but added: “I assume he operates under journalistic ethics and protected a confidential source. Brock told me at the time that Ailes told him he would never work again if he wrote the article.”

Mr Brock now runs Media Matters, a Left-leaning American media watchdog. A spokesman for the group said: “He declines to comment.”
[color="#FF0000"]
Another former Fox News senior executive, who did not wish to be named, said staff were forced to operate under conditions reminiscent of “Russia at the height of the Soviet era”[/color].

[b]“There is a paranoid atmosphere and they feel they are being watched,” said the former executive. “I have no doubt they are spying on emails to ensure no one is leaking to outside media.[/b]

“There is a unit of spies that reports up to the boss about who was talking to whom. A lot of people are scared that they’re going to get sidelined or even that they’re going to get killed.”

A Fox News spokesman said: “Each of these allegations is completely false. Dan Cooper was terminated six weeks after the launch of the Fox News Channel in 1996 and has peddled these lies for the past 15 years.”

The FBI is investigating allegations that journalists on a British newspaper may have tried to have September 11 victims’ phones hacked. Both former Fox News executives said they thought Mr Ailes would never have let his reporters do likewise

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8650631/Rupert-Murdochs-Fox-News-ran-black-ops-department-former-executive-claims.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Hay que defenderse cuando tu eres el 10% de la prensa y el otro 90% liberal te esta tratando de eliminar. Si fuera verdad, en el articulo no hay nada ilegal o algo que la competencia ya no estaba haciendo con anterioridad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
No nos olvidemos del incidente con Bill "falafell" Ohreally y la saca por el techo que le dio uno de los que llamo a su "show"....

O'REILLY: Orlando, Florida, Mike, go.

CALLER: Hey Bill, I appreciate you taking my call.

O'REILLY: Sure.

CALLER: I like to listen to you during the day, I think Keith Olbermann's show --

O'REILLY: There ya go, Mike is -- he's a gone guy. You know, we have his -- we have your phone numbers, by the way. So, if you're listening, Mike, [size="2"][color="#FF0000"]we have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit.[/color][/size]

HILL: Maybe Mike is from the mothership.

O'REILLY: No, Maybe Mike is going to get into big trouble, because we're not going to play around. When you call us, ladies and gentleman, just so you know, [color="#FF0000"]we do have your phone number[/color], and if you say anything untoward, obscene, or anything like that, [color="#FF0000"]Fox security then will contact your local authorities, and you will be held accountable.[/color] Fair?

HILL: That's fair.

O'REILLY: So, just -- all you guys who do this kind of a thing, you know, I know some shock jocks. Whatever. You will be held accountable. Believe it.

We'll be right back.



Fox Security????? jajajajajajaja mejor dicho Billy Boy iba a llamar al Fox Gestapo para castigar a Mike jajajajajajajajajajajajaja
Por eso se llama Propaganda Nazi-Republikkkana

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[quote name='Artaguito' timestamp='1311264912' post='2934403']
Hay que defenderse cuando tu eres el 10% de la prensa y el otro 90% liberal te esta tratando de eliminar. Si fuera verdad, en el articulo no hay nada ilegal o algo que la competencia ya no estaba haciendo con anterioridad.
[/quote]

Me imagino que para eso tenian a Fox Security verdad Parguito??

Que curioso que siempre sale un soplapote que se da con piedras en el pecho de democracia y libertad de expresion pero a la hora de la hora defiende este tipo de comportamiento... igualito que un gubano.

Pena que das!!! Edited by napoleon888

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='mimapr' timestamp='1311258400' post='2934392']
Sigue saliendo informacion, claro que Fox News va a negar todo, pero ya esta en la mira... :whistle:



[size="3"][b][color="#000080"]Rupert Murdoch's Fox News ran 'black ops' department, former executive claims [/color][/b][/size]

By Jon Swaine, New York

11:07PM BST 20 Jul 2011

[b][color="#FF0000"]Dan Cooper, who helped launch Fox News as managing editor in 1996, said that a “brain room” carried out “counter intelligence” on the channel’s enemies from its New York headquarters.[/color][/b]
[color="#FF0000"]
He was threatened after it found out he spoke to a reporte[/color]r, he claimed.

Another former senior executive said the channel ran a spying network on staff, reading their emails and making them “feel they were being watched”.

The channel, which has come under pressure amid allegations that outlets owned by Mr Murdoch might have attempted to hack the voicemail messages of September 11 victims, firmly denies all the allegations.


Mr Cooper, who left Fox News soon after its launch, provided a quote for a 1997 article about Roger Ailes, Fox News’s president, by the journalist David Brock in New York magazine.


The quote was not going to be attributed to him, but he alleges that before the article was published, Mr Cooper’s agent received a telephone call from Mr Ailes threatening to withdraw Fox’s business from all his clients.

“There are only two possible ways Ailes found out,” Mr Cooper said. “Either Brock told him or they got hold of Brock’s phone records and saw I spoke to him.”

He first alleged that the records were obtained by researchers in the “brain room” in 2005 in an article on his website about the launch of the channel.

“Most people thought it was simply the research department of Fox News,” he wrote. “I knew it also housed a counter intelligence and black ops office. So accessing phone records was easy pie.”
[color="#FF0000"]
Mr Cooper said yesterday that he helped to design the high-security unit. “It was staffed by 15 researchers and had a guard at the door. No one working there would engage in conversation.”[/color]

Mr Cooper said he was “willing to consider the possibility” that Mr Brock named him, but added: “I assume he operates under journalistic ethics and protected a confidential source. Brock told me at the time that Ailes told him he would never work again if he wrote the article.”

Mr Brock now runs Media Matters, a Left-leaning American media watchdog. A spokesman for the group said: “He declines to comment.”
[color="#FF0000"]
Another former Fox News senior executive, who did not wish to be named, said staff were forced to operate under conditions reminiscent of “Russia at the height of the Soviet era”[/color].

[b]“There is a paranoid atmosphere and they feel they are being watched,” said the former executive. “I have no doubt they are spying on emails to ensure no one is leaking to outside media.[/b]

“There is a unit of spies that reports up to the boss about who was talking to whom. A lot of people are scared that they’re going to get sidelined or even that they’re going to get killed.”

A Fox News spokesman said: “Each of these allegations is completely false. Dan Cooper was terminated six weeks after the launch of the Fox News Channel in 1996 and has peddled these lies for the past 15 years.”

The FBI is investigating allegations that journalists on a British newspaper may have tried to have September 11 victims’ phones hacked. Both former Fox News executives said they thought Mr Ailes would never have let his reporters do likewise

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8650631/Rupert-Murdochs-Fox-News-ran-black-ops-department-former-executive-claims.html
[/quote]


Esto es otro "periodicazo" fabricado de la nada. Cualquiera que haya trabajado en una empresa de cierto volumen de empleomania te puede referir a la politica de uso de mediso ciberneticos o de comunicaciones... Esto, y su contenido pertenecen al patrono y no al empleado... Por eso es que yo no manejo nada del trabajo en mi cel... Y encima el tipo era otro "disgruntled former employee"...

Hoy tambien salio que el escandalazo britanico esta empezando a esparcirse a otros periodicos...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Stelter Paints Far-Left Fox-Bashers as Harmless 'Public Interest' 'Media Reform Group'
By: Clay Waters
July 21, 2011 13:08 ET



Not content with its front-page drumbeat of stories related to the “News of the World” hacking scandal, the Times keeps uncovering multiple angles of attack against Rupert Murdoch’s media empire News Corp. [i]Media reporter Brian Stelter made the front of Wednesday’s Business Day by relaying threats from the hard left – or rather “progressive activists and public interest groups” – that want to break up Murdoch’s right-leaning stable of newspapers and networks: “Scandal Stirs U.S. Debate On Big Media.”[/i]

When the Times, a division of the New York Times Co., uses the term "Big Media," it's presumably not including NYT Co.'s two major newspapers (including the Times' international edition), its 16 regional newspapers, or the many web sites it owns. NYT Co. sold its nine local television stations in 2007.

[b]Free Press is a hard-left “media reform” group run by Craig Aaron, the former editor of far-left magazine In These Times. Free Press has received funding from left-wing media maven George Soros’s Open Society Institute. It has taken liberal stands mergers of media companies like Comcast and NBC Universal and net neutrality[/b].


Yet [i]Stelter and other Times reporters rarely if ever inform their readers about the group’s ideology, merely calling FP a“public interest group,” or one that “calls itself nonpartisan” as Stelter did on May 24, 2010: “A Site Collects Complaints About Media.” Without commenting on the obvious tilt of the "complaints" (Fox News and Sarah Palin), Stelter blandly stated: “It is regularly described as a liberal group.” Not in the Times it isn’t[/i].

Stelter couldn’t even bring himself to use the L-word on Wednesday, using the “progressive” euphemism instead.

Progressive activists and public interest groups have long blasted Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation for political biases. But in recent weeks they have seized on a new and more tangible reason to call for the revocation of his TV licenses and the breakup of his company: the British hacking scandal.

The scandal, they say, is an opportunity to raise awareness of -- and, they hope, objection to -- media consolidation at a time when the American government is reviewing the rules that govern how much companies like News Corporation, Comcast and the Walt Disney Company can own.

But media reform groups like Free Press, which advocates for more diversity in media ownership, say their interest extends far beyond any single investigation.



Stelter devoted several paragraphs to the Free Press side, offering free publicity for “the most popular feature on the Free Press Web site” from group president Craig Aaron, while leaving off his left-wing background.

Proponents of media mergers say such combinations improve consumer access to news, information and entertainment. They say the Internet has fostered competition, creating new choices for consumers.

Groups like Free Press say the opposite -- that such combinations reduce the country’s journalistic corps and decrease the diversity of voices in print and on the air. [b]Aaron said he sensed that most Americans were aware of big media brands like Fox and NBC but unaware that their owners also controlled dozens of other brands[/b]. Media companies present an obstacle to awareness: “Most media outlets don’t like to cover themselves.”

But “when people find out just how much those companies own, they are worried about it and want to know more,” he said, adding that the who-owns-what chart was the most popular feature on the Free Press Web site.


And reporter Edward Wyatt fawned that Free Press was “a nonprofit group that often advocates for consumers on media and telecommunications issues” in a March 27 story.

El mismo articulo del NYT al que hacen referencia menciona al ex-black-panther Bobby Rush de la siguiente manera: "[i]Representative Bobby Rush, a Democrat of Illinois and a past critic of Mr. Murdoch, questioned in an interview whether the media mogul had been allowed to amass too much media power. “We can’t forget the fundamental tenet of media ownership in the United States. It’s not a right, it’s a privilege. And it’s a privilege based on trust and responsibility,” he said[/i]. Rush es un ex-convicto... Edited by charlie319

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='charlie319' timestamp='1311272173' post='2934415']
Editado por contenido cantinflesco y baboso


And reporter Edward Wyatt fawned that Free Press was “a nonprofit group that often advocates for consumers on media and telecommunications issues” in a March 27 story.

El mismo articulo del NYT al que hacen referencia menciona al [color="#FF0000"]ex-black-panther [/color]Bobby Rush de la siguiente manera: "[i]Representative Bobby Rush, a Democrat of Illinois and a past critic of Mr. Murdoch, questioned in an interview whether the media mogul had been allowed to amass too much media power. “We can’t forget the fundamental tenet of media ownership in the United States. It’s not a right, it’s a privilege. And it’s a privilege based on trust and responsibility,” he said[/i]. [color="#FF0000"]Rush es un ex-convicto[/color]...
[/quote]


Jajajajajaja esa Carlota fue a la escuelita de Faux news...

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. [u]No category of character assassination is off the table[/u] and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people i[u]n an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. [/u]This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.


Que mucho aprendio!!!

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Que brutt!!! Que brutt!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Ja, ja, ja... Arturit@: que te pasa, tu puedes hacerlos y nosotros no? Como siempre, te estoy dando de tu misma medicina, pero en comprimidos, como mas te gustan en tu rimbaudistica perversion... Sin vaselina para que pidas que te los saquen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='napoleon888' timestamp='1311275151' post='2934418']
Jajajajajaja esa Carlota fue a la escuelita de Faux news...

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. [u]No category of character assassination is off the table[/u] and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people i[u]n an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. [/u]This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.

Que mucho aprendio!!!

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Que brutt!!! Que brutt!!
[/quote]

A ver Arturito@: de que he acusado to s Rush que no sea cierto? El tipo es in ex-terrorista convicto y confeso. Quien trata de usar esos ataques para silenciar la disencion son tu y tu nodriza. Pero mas pronto cae un mentiroso que in cojo y PPD eso Andaman PPD el piso agarrandose de cuquier anyone espevulstivo y silenciando a quien se atreva a decir que "el emperador no tiene ropa"... Siguen tratando, y siguen fallando.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='napoleon888' timestamp='1311275151' post='2934418']
Jajajajajaja esa Carlota fue a la escuelita de Faux news...

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Fox does not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person's credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. [u]No category of character assassination is off the table[/u] and no offense is beneath them. Fox and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people i[u]n an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. "liberals," "hippies," "progressives" etc. [/u]This form of argument - if it can be called that - leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.

Que mucho aprendio!!!

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Que brutt!!! Que brutt!!
[/quote]

A ver Arturito@: de que he acusado yo a Rush que no sea cierto? El tipo es un ex-terrorista convicto y confeso. Quien trata de usar esos ataques para silenciar la disencion son tu y tu nodriza. Pero mas pronto cae un mentiroso que in cojo y PPD eso Andaman PPD el piso agarrandose de cuquier anyone espevulstivo y silenciando a quien se atreva a decir que "el emperador no tiene ropa"... Siguen tratando, y siguen fallando. Edited by charlie319

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Bueno, ARturit@, por fin el asunto parece progresar de rumores a... rumores:

[url="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20081826-503543.html"]Report: U.S. readying News Corp. subpoenas[/url]
By Tucker Reals

[b]The Wall Street Journal, [u]one of Rupert Murdoch's own papers[/u][/b], reports that the Justice Department is preparing subpoenas as it ramps-up its early investigations into claims News Corp. journalists in Britain sought to hack into the phones of Sept. 11 victims.


[u][b]An unnamed government official [/b]apparently confirmed the early stages of the quest for information from News Corp[/u]., but told the newspaper senior Justice officials have yet to sign off on the subpoena request.


Officials confirmed to the Associated Press last week that the FBI has launched an investigation into claims reporters working for News of the World - Murdoch's now-dismantled U.K. tabloid - [b]tried[/b] to pay ex-cops in New York to obtain the personal information of 9/11 family members.


Meanwhile, the BBC reports Friday that FBI agents are to contact Jude Law over his claim that his cell phone was hacked into by The Sun - another Murdoch-owned U.K. tabloid - while he was at a New York City airport.


[u]So-called phone hacking, accessing someone's voicemails without their knowledge, is illegal under U.S. law, as is trying to bribe an ex-police officer for a third party's personal information. [/u]

Rupert Murdoch himself returned this week to his corporate headquarters in New York after facing British lawmakers' questions over the scandal.


The media baron insists he had no knowledge the hacking practice at his newspaper (or newspapers) was widespread, and both he and his son James - in charge of all News Corp. operations in Europe and Asia - told a Parliamentary committee as much on Tuesday.


[u]Friday, however, one crucial claim made by James is in question, and it goes to the very heart of the underlying claim that his family's $43 billion business went to great lengths to shove the hacking issue under the carpet several years ago by making large payouts to an early hacking victim. [/u]

[b]Did James Murdoch lie about scope of hacking? [/b]

James Murdoch told the British lawmakers, and still insists today, he never saw an email containing a transcript of an allegedly hacked phone message by one of his reporters. He says, at the time, he believed the hacking was an isolated misdeed by just one of his journalists. The email proves otherwise.


[u]Now, a former legal aid and an ex-News of the World editor have come forward claiming the younger Murdoch's testimony on Tuesday was [b]"mistaken," [/b]as they both informed him of the email - which would have made him aware of the true scope of the alleged illegal practices at his newspaper.[/u]


Puede ser que esto llegue a algun tipo de accion legal, pero el lenguaje que veo aqui me hace pensar que si se avienta el DOJ, lo hara en el ambito civil y no el criminal. Muy para la ira y amargura de mas de un socialista de pacotilla empedernido de los que conozco en este foro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Ay ya se enteroooo. Ay mama yoyoooo jajajajajajajajaja

Suficiente para auto proclamarte "mente agil", ah negrita. Ahora falta que se lo cuentes a tu subordinado lazaro "enano" pilla-do.

Que brutita eres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sigue sin aparecer el crimen en los EEUU... Y si te fijas que a Murdoch Jr. nadie lo acusa de nada delictuoso...

Esperemos a que se atrevan a acusar a "alguien", pues creo que se van a ir por la ruta facil del tribunal civil y nadie vera cargos criminales y todo se resolvera con una multa... Sin embargo, por ahi vienen las elecciones, Obama tiene una serie de escandalos a punto de caramelo y el republicano Darrell Isa es el tipo de sobresedor que con gusto le comeria las nalgas con investigaciones consecutivas sobre todos sus escandalos manteniendolo en la primera plana y bajo el peor de los reflectores... Particularmente, si estuvieras en lo cierto con tus sospechas de que aqui hacian lo mismo que alla, no solo Fox cubriria con gusto esas noticias, sino que las encontraria por medio de investigaciones poco ortodoxas. Claro es, asumiendo que tus sospechas fueran otra cosa que fantasias febriles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
No hacen falta cargos criminales ya la suertevesta hechada para el propagandista y su maquinaria de fantasias nazi-republikkkanas. Los republikkkanos no ganan ni asi se tire Colibri por los democratas...

Pena que dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='napoleon888' timestamp='1311372486' post='2934530']
No hacen falta cargos criminales ya la suertevesta hechada para el propagandista y su maquinaria de fantasias nazi-republikkkanas. Los republikkkanos no ganan ni asi se tire Colibri por los democratas...

Pena que dan
[/quote]
Hasta que no haya al menos una investigacion, solo son tus Kansas y fantasias. A menos que le limpies el zafacon a Holder, estas fantaseando.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='charlie319' timestamp='1311372818' post='2934531']
Hasta que no haya al menos una investigacion, solo son tus Kansas y fantasias. A menos que le limpies el zafacon a Holder, estas fantaseando.
[/quote]

Si carlota porque para dar subpenas no hace falta ningun tipo de investigacion....

Que brutt! Que brut!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
To se que Lo tuyo es contestar aunque estes mas equivocas@ que in annuity en el Gobi. Estas segur@? Cuantos juices conoces tu que firmen un subpoena sin que medie un proceso investigativo? De Clarence Darrow no tienes mi la pelusa de su oficina en tu plumero de faduloso conserje rimbaudistico.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0