digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Murdoch of Fox News Admits Manipulating the News for Agenda watch!

youtube.com — Rupert Murdoch of News Corp / Fox News Admits Manipulating the News for Agenda - Admits he supported the Bush Agenda in Iraq - He is part of the Bilderberg group - This is why Fox News has an agenda against Ron Paul in the 2008 Presidential Election

show profanity settings
expand all
  • nretamp, on 06/09/2008, -3/+244"We've supported Bush policy"... really? no kidding.
    • ciaran036, on 06/09/2008, -1/+37He owns 'The Sun' and 'The Times' in the UK. It's a fairytale of lies and ignorance.

      *****, war support and rubbish reality TV shows, they've got it all!

      "Our boys" "Fallen heroes" and all that nonsense: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaign ...

      No mention of the almost 10,000 Afghan civilian deaths... or why Bin Laden was never found...

      • Dzonatas, on 06/10/2008, -3/+3For some reason I read that as "We support open Bush policy"

        My mind... lol
      • sodoh, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4I wouldn't worry too much. The Sun is not considered a paper that gives news. Just jubblies and what person britney/paris is sleeping with now.
        • MiNGLED, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2Several million people in the UK would disagree, given it's large readership.
        • rabidbob, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5The fact that anyone pays money for The Sun, the Daily Mail, et al is a damning indictment of the human species.
        • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4I was about to read the Guardian the other day at work, then I thought to myself they'll think I'm a posh *****! So I went upstairs and read the usual 'Sun' and 'Daily Star' that sits there on the tables every day...
          The problem is that people believe the lies they spin and base their opinions around what the paper tells them to. That's why I'm concerned.
    • overtoke, on 06/10/2008, -5/+37Hey guys, turn on CSPAN, and start digging.

      Kucinich is in the process of reading 35 articles of impeachment.
      (sorry for hijack)

      • bjornski, on 06/10/2008, -1/+8Thank you, turned it on now.
      • pintomp3, on 06/10/2008, -1/+10thanks for the heads up. there is at least one man left standing for justice.
    • JettaMan, on 06/10/2008, -9/+8Charlie Rose attended Bilderberg in 2008. For my money, Murdoch didn't really admit anything in this video that wouldn't apply to other news organizations like CNN and the big three networks.
    • gaapgod, on 06/10/2008, -3/+6IMHO, CNN has blatently skewed its coverage to support Obama over Hillary and it will now do the same against McCain.
    • pitlord, on 06/10/2008, -12/+3Thank G-d somebody came along to give a voice to the REST of America. We were getting sick and tired of being preached to by the hippy, socialist, left-wing media for decades.
      >.>
      The funny part is how you libtards seem to think FOX is ultra-conservative when they are really more moderate. I know a few ultra-conservatives and they think FOX is part of the left-wing conspiracy.
      o.o
      You liberal nut-jobs just don't realize that your preferred news sources are so radically socialist and left-wing that they make moderates like FOX look more conservative than they are.
      (8^D
      And SO WHAT if he admitted that he supported Bush's policy. You honestly think Olbermann or Stewart haven't been supporting their favorite candidates? Did you miss the entire Clinton presidency when the media acted like a bunch of love starved puppies following the Clintons around? I say we need more guys who are even MORE conservative than Murdoch before G-d decides He's let you freaks defile His divine creation long enough and finally brings The Hammer (no, not Fred Williamson) down on us all.
      • chunkbot, on 06/10/2008, -1/+4dugg because you are hilarious.
        • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1I wondered who dugg up!
        • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1"libtards" "hippy" "left-wing conspiracy" "nut-jobs"

          Liberal, Democrat, Republican, Conservative... whatever it does not matter what you support supporting the Bush administration is no different to sticking a label on your head that says "I love murder" or "I love stealing oil from poor people".

          By the way, you are quite clearly crazy.
      • cyberprunes, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1What kool-aid did you drink? Every assertion you've made is ridiculous. Yes traditionally the news media tends to lean left. Fox leans right. Also the issue is not about liberalism or conservatism. It's about lies and deception. It's about the OPEN SUPPORT OF POLITICAL POLICY. This is not the function of the news media. The "free press" was created as a tool to keep the citizenry well informed. Remember... "a government of the people, by the people, for the people." The news media failed us (not only Murdoch's Fox) in that they did not question the President and the administration adequately. This is a dangerous road. Once the news media is in the pocket of the Government our democracy is weakened. It robs people of the ability to reason and form opinions based on accurate information. That is precisely what endowes us with the power to hold our government accountable.

        So you can throw around useless terms like "libtards" and liberal nut-jobs all you like but it does not address the issue at hand. The issue is... The news media took an active role in attempting to shape public opinion in support of the Bush War policy. That is patently un-American.




  • alapoet, on 06/09/2008, -3/+175is anyone surprised?
    • ciaran036, on 06/09/2008, -2/+27Not at digg. We know what's going on. As for everyone else, they believe this fairytale. Which is why this article should be spread far and wide.
    • callinthelaw69, on 06/10/2008, -0/+8Nope. Not at all.
    • lamiaconfitor, on 06/10/2008, -0/+10I seriously think no one is, the ones who insist that fox is still fair and balanced actually know better, they are just proud of the bias.
    • Versh, on 06/10/2008, -0/+18Hey, this could be vital information for the:
      -- People waking from a prolonged coma
      -- Those whole dwell beneath rocks
      -- People waking from a coma under a bunch of rocks
      • synergye, on 06/10/2008, -0/+11or for most of the mainstream public
        • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1unfortunately! At one stage after it emerged that Iran didn't have a nuclear program I thought well I'm glad that's over there's no chance of an attack now.

          But just today, Bush makes another threat to Iran: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7445370.st ...

          And Obama just the other day:
          http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080604/twl-uk-usa- ...

          There is no threat! And still people believe the lies and the mainstream media fail to make the point that America has more than 9,000 nuclear warheads and no hesitation of using them. Not to mention they cannot be trusted over the lies they told about Iraq.
    • evanct, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5no, but the point isn't what he said, it's that he said it.
    • ostracize, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5I was surprised he admitted it. All we get from them is "Fair and Balanced" and "You choose" slogans.
    • girlflesh, on 06/10/2008, -0/+6That he admitted it? Yes.
    • rabidbob, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2In other news: "Water is wet!"
  • Surferess, on 06/09/2008, -9/+58What good is it to be disgustingly rich if you can't have power too?
    • ciaran036, on 06/09/2008, -3/+19What good is there in using that power to support wars that leave thousands of innocent people dead?
      • Surferess, on 06/09/2008, -14/+3Wow, that is heavy! Sorry to be flippant when everyone is so serious. I hadn't realized I stepped into such a dark room on digg. *poof*
        • ciaran036, on 06/09/2008, -2/+12It's heavy but it's the reality of it.
        • popfrogs, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5You may want to try door #2, with wacky "i can haz cheezeburger" pictures and Britney Spears videos.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 06/10/2008, -2/+5Who said you have to be doing good things?
      • Memitim, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1As someone who profits from controversial stories and benefits from being a sycophant to the ruling administration, there is a whole hell of a lot of good in using that power to support wars that leave thousands of innocent people dead.
    • yellowcakewalk, on 06/09/2008, -2/+29If he weren't disgustingly rich, he'd be merely disgusting.
    • backgen, on 06/10/2008, -1/+3well done good sir, you actually made me laugh out loud.
    • tyywebb, on 06/10/2008, -1/+4What good is it to have the money and the power if you don't have the women?
    • airwalkery2k, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2Having dignity?
  • lostlyrics, on 06/09/2008, -9/+113Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism:
    http://www.outfoxed.org/
    • mikedoth, on 06/10/2008, -2/+13That was better than I expected.
    • bhamster, on 06/10/2008, -2/+10pretty tight
    • babyphatman, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2I've seen this before and it's still awesome. Thanks for the refresher.
  • dennisrhidalgo, on 06/09/2008, -7/+77Yellow Journalism, anyone? They lied, and our boys died. They lied, and we colonized. When would we stop going in circles? It is about time that we take a different path!
    • ciaran036, on 06/09/2008, -2/+3Love the rhyming!
    • RedHerringHack, on 06/10/2008, -14/+3Yeah, what else rhymes with moron.
    • Pittance, on 06/10/2008, -2/+1Colonizing would actually be a good idea instead of occupation. With colonizing we would actually gain from the country under our control. We would control them directly and it would be like a territory or common wealth. They would benefit, and so would we. Not saying this is a good idea, but it would be better than simply pouring money at a country.
      • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3Well the British record of colonisation hasn't worked out well though, has it? N.Ireland, Sri Lanka, Cyprus, Africa....etc. It seems that wherever they went they left realms of destruction.

        Not to mention they murdered and enslaved several MILLION black people and sent them to S.America. You thought the racism in America was bad?
  • dbizzell, on 06/09/2008, -32/+19Way to throw Ron Paul into the mix there for no reason at all. He isn't gonna win. Move on.....vote Obama instead.
    • ciaran036, on 06/09/2008, -12/+14Obama? He called Iran a "grave threat" and claimed that they have an "illicit nuclear program" which is totally false. There is zero evidence of Iran having nuclear weapons. Obama should know this - the CIA have admitted it, the IAEA have confirmed it and the Iranians themselves have assured us - they do not have nuclear weapons. Obama is also a liar, and is therefore not to be trusted. We can't take any more chances, not after the destruction caused by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq.
      Regardless of Ron Paul being last in the Presidential race, it is important to note that the only reason he is there anyway is because the mainstream media have ignored him, lied about him and slagged him off to get him out of the picture. As David Icke says: "Once you control the media you control the mind".
      • dbizzell, on 06/09/2008, -13/+4Haha. Oh man you are really into this.
        • fredmv, on 06/10/2008, -3/+7What a roundabout way to say: "I got owned and don't even know how to reply."
      • JoeVet, on 06/10/2008, -12/+2The reason he didn't do well is because he is a right wing fanatic and even the Republicans are tired of them. No body wants to be stripped of their right to freedom of religion, right to privacy and right to equal protection under the law. H.R. 300 is proof that Paul wants to allow the establishment of state religion and gut the bill of rights.
        • oldhick, on 06/10/2008, -1/+8Way to skewer the truth on that one... HR300 is about decentralizing the authority of the Federal government and respecting the Constitution. You know the little part that you hate where it says those powers not expressly given to the Federal government by the Constitution are there by the rights of the states.
          You're as bad as FOX News dip *****. Just debate the actual bill, don't spin it.
      • MillionsLivio, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1I agreed with you up until you quoted David Icke. You're quoting a guy that thinks the governments of the world are made up of a reptilian family of aliens.
        • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1Yes that is one of his beliefs. Which I do not believe. And you don't have to neither. Everything else he has written about and predicted has been spot on though, such as his prediction of 9/11 and the war on terror in the middle east etc.
    • sp4zzj4zz, on 06/10/2008, -7/+3Yeah, ***** democracy, right?
      • sexypeon, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3***** democracy? Democracy is voting for who you want. If we only voted for one candidate it wouldn't work, other peoples ideas come into play too.
        • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1The only reason McCain is there is to make it look like America has a choice. Let's face it who would really vote for him?

          "Same *****, different *****".
      • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Sarcasm?
    • ath1337, on 06/10/2008, -5/+1http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=20 ...
      • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1His name or race has got nothing to do with it. It's about his continuation of the threats against Iran I'm particularly concerned about.
  • freyaXgefn, on 06/09/2008, -6/+135***** murdock
    • Unriggable, on 06/10/2008, -2/+17He's old, that'd be gross.
    • Stavrosian, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2Just make sure nobody ***** with B.A.
    • DavidtheDuke, on 06/10/2008, -4/+2I don't think it would ever be delicious, Unriggable. Murdoch sure does feel the pain, freya. That '***** you' has clearly put a dent in his media empire.
    • matttay, on 06/10/2008, -4/+1Murdoch has endorse Obama, Murdoch believes Obama will win and in fact calls Obama a "rock star"

      Not sure why you are so upset.
    • joe122370, on 06/10/2008, -2/+2you ***** him, we're not gay
  • iancgi, on 06/09/2008, -9/+74I cant believe he just admitted that. All these treasonous criminals are going to be brought to justice. These are high crimes, If it was 1780 they would all be hung.
    • greenlight2001, on 06/10/2008, -1/+15Hanged... I was recently corrected on using 'hung', it's not the appropriate past tense.

      Oh, and I agree with you.
    • oyourmom, on 06/10/2008, -1/+9*hanged*
      • Klowner, on 06/10/2008, -2/+8Yah, hung means something else, in a sentence for example: "Klowner is hung"
    • paradexes, on 06/10/2008, -1/+3And by hung....well that only works if you are making a porno flick...so these guys are pretty much not getting hung.
    • Shawn4168, on 06/10/2008, -3/+3Are you going to demand the same punishment for your buddies over at the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, etc?
      • sexypeon, on 06/10/2008, -4/+1You think the media is in some conspiracy to get you? Or all of America? Come on, grow up. There may have been some minor instances of manipulation, but as an avid reader of the New York Times for a few year, I can gladly say they are one of my top media sources ever. Unless of course I am already entrenched in their evil plot.
        • Pittance, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5"but as an avid reader of the New York Times for a few year" and now everyone has stopped reading your comments.
        • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1Clearly. The mainstream media have NEVER questioned the actions of the US government. Why do you think that is? Strangely, the only people to ever question the actions of the US government are lone individuals, anti-war groups or tiny independent media groups. The only newspaper i know of which has been questioning what is really going on is the UK's 'The Guardian'.
          The mainstream media have been ignoring important information such as news relating to the Bilderberg conference, Iraqi and Afghan civilian deaths, US possession of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction etc.
          The only thing we get through the news is a daily dose of lies and war propaganda.
    • Kallius, on 06/10/2008, -1/+5In order for these treasonous criminals to be brought to justice, one needs people brave enough in the right positions to make that possible. Honestly, I can't see anything happening to these monsters except for a one-way ticket to the Dubai skyscrapers, because anyone who is in a position to do anything resembling justice is either too cowardly or is complicit in their affairs.
    • Maxamegalon2000, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3Um, that interview was in January 2007, so he didn't "just admit" that, nor is he all that likely to be brought to justice. I'm not sure what bringing him to justice would entail either; I don't think he's admitted to anything illegal here.
      • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1That's why I submitted the article in "Education" rather than "News".
    • TurdZilla, on 06/10/2008, -1/+3No Sir....... They would be tarred and feathered, then Hung :-)
      • misguidedmonkey, on 06/10/2008, -0/+0HANGED!! if you cant know the correct enlgish then you need to get out of my country!
        I don't mean to be a grammer nazi but HUNG is not the correct way to say it.
        IT's HANGED you basterd!!
        GO back to school and get a education or go back to Mexico.
    • tramblings, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2I'm not a history buff but I think that if this were the 1780's then people who opposed those in power would be *hanged* for supporting insurrection.
    • ultragush, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1I hope so my friend, I really do hope so.
  • rrouse, on 06/10/2008, -21/+19I wonder if Fox news will be supporting President Obama or working against him? If they just Pro-America they should support him. If they are just Pro-Republican or just plain Racist they will oppose him.
    • OffPiste, on 06/10/2008, -9/+4What have the other networks done when a Republican was in office?
    • beezneez, on 06/10/2008, -13/+18Ah, yes, the preemptive Racism accusation. Because anyone who doesn't carry Obama's water must be a racist.
      • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1I actually looked up about groups or individuals that don't support Obama. It turns out they are all racist.

        Which is a shame because Obama would make an awful President. He has already lied about Iran he wants to attack them too. The American people, on the other hand, DO NOT want to attack Iran.
    • czeman, on 06/10/2008, -5/+18You are just as big an idiot at Murdoch. Not supporting Obama does not make somebody anti-American. Also, it certainly does not make somebody a racist.
      • benecere, on 06/10/2008, -2/+8Under the Fox creed, which is the creed of most of the Fox crowd, one must respect the office.

        I don't buy that, but I don't go around telling others that they "should" either. So they will have made themselves unAmerican by their own standards if they do not show Obama respect in the event he becomes president.

        That's how I see it, anyway.
    • paradexes, on 06/10/2008, -2/+14FOX news racist? *cough* Obama muslim *cough* terririst *cough* No FOX NEVER said those things....at least not in so many words.
      • benecere, on 06/10/2008, -1/+10No they never spoke those things; they "misspoke" them -- over and over and over. "Osama -- I mean Obama". You know, making the same mistake that many times ought to prompt one to seek out an EEG.
    • thrashertm, on 06/10/2008, -2/+9They'll be doing whatever they can to make the most $$$
    • roodammy44, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3It's not pro-america to blindly support anything the president does and try to discredit anyone else.
      That's called brainwashing your population into fantasy world, it's not good for america or anyone else.
    • rolf, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Wow rrouse, you sound like a different version of Bush spouting the same type of rhetoric.

      Either you are for America. Or against it.

      If you don't support the US Patriot Act, you are not patriotic.

      If you don't support the war, you hate America.

      Need I keep going? I ain't supporting Obama and I don't feel particularly pro-Republican this year either. Maybe I'll write in someone I have in mind.
    • joe122370, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2your mistake is in assuming that Obama will ever be president of anything
    • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1I read a ridiculous statement in a magazine that whether people will vote for Obama or not will be a test of how racist America is...

      No offence, but it will be a test of how stupid they are. Obama is not new to lies either. Not after his recent false claims that Iran is a "threat" with an "illicit nuclear programme" that must be "eliminated".
  • thesubs, on 06/10/2008, -1/+7say it aint so...
    • paradexes, on 06/10/2008, -1/+5Oh it's so.
    • Amadeus2490, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4Your news is a heartbreaker.
    • dvazgird, on 06/10/2008, -0/+0I will not go, turn the lights off, carry me home...
      na na na na na na na na na naaaa...
  • swrostmore, on 06/10/2008, -3/+27Charlie Rose ***** rules so hard. The Ron Paul bloc had me worried by pointing out that Rose attends both Bilderberg and Davos, but look at that! Sitting on the throne of the alleged NWO, he gets Murdoch to openly admit his media monopoly is a propaganda outlet!
    • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -1/+10IMO Rose is using a bit of propaganda technique himself, "an enemy of my enemy is my friend."

      This however does NOT legitimize Rose, the NWO, Davos or Bilderberg. It shows that these Elitists are willing to trust Rose's discretion as their exclusive "media puppet", and everyone knew Fox was propaganda already anyway.
      • swrostmore, on 06/10/2008, -2/+4Question - what do you think the NWO wants that they don't already have, via their contro of the WTO, World Bank, IMF, etc?
        • wtfpwned98, on 06/10/2008, -3/+3If you listen to these paranoid nuts, you'll hear that the plan is to exterminate 80% of the world's population. No, I'm not kidding. www.endgamethemovie.com

          Never, ever, ever get taken in by conspiracy theories until you're sure that you've heard all of the conventional explanations first, because it's a fact that these theories are most appealing to people who are confused/ignorant. They make it all seem so simple, and diabolical...the only problem is that now you're living in an alternate universe, and the longer you stay there, the more unlikely it is that you'll ever truly educate yourself and see the truth, which is almost always pretty mundane.
        • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Well how else are they going to drop the price of food and oil? It's always been a game of "More for us, and less for everybody else".

          Ever since the British went to Africa, enslaved and murdered millions of people, they have been colonising and murdering ever since, stealing resources etc. Nowadays they do it through the USA.

          Governments have been covertly and openly manipulating populations for a long, long time!
          Sometimes, it is necessary - for example China had to adopt a one-child policy to prevent mass starvation if the population continued to rise. But in other situations, it is highly immoral. The West have allowed many people to starve to death in countries like Ethiopia and Sudan, for example.

          And in the UK/US, they have encouraged woman to work so as to reduce fertility and reduce the birth rate. Encouraging the use of birth control and encouraging homosexuality (Why else do you think it is such an acceptable thing to do now) have also been part of the governments plans to keep the population low.

          I don't agree with the way they do these things without telling us though. Probably something they talk about at the Bilderberg conference. Probably why gay scenes are all over our TV screens these days...

  • Dumbledorito, on 06/10/2008, -6/+52This is obviously a liberal media conspiracy. That's either Dan Rather under a bunch of makeup, or the LiberalConspiracy(tm) has built a Rupert-bot and they're just tricking us! Liberals! LIBERALLLLS!

    Fox is fair and balanced, fox is fair and balanced, fox is fair and balanced...
    • lamiaconfitor, on 06/10/2008, -0/+9did you remember to click your heals when you said that? Because it hasn't happened yet :P
    • brian4572, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2brought to you by Carl's Jr. brought to you by Carl's Jr. brought to you by Carl's Jr. brought to you by Carl's Jr.
    • danconia, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3Say it enough times and maybe some day it'll become true... that's a tactic I've seen used a lot more than I'd care to see.
      • Memitim, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1It's worked well enough for a few thousand years.
    • Damien2101, on 06/10/2008, -0/+0You win at cognitive dissonance! Congratulations! :)
    • michelebot, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Don't forget to cover your eyes, ears and mouth after you say that.
    • heylookltsme, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3I dugg that comment because you have an awesome user name.
  • Serphyas, on 06/10/2008, -7/+25"Obviously if you're in media and you're concerned with what's going on in the world, you'd like to make a difference by putting forward your opinions."

    The man just SCREAMS "scumbag." ***** you Murdoch.
    • dannyboy3020, on 06/10/2008, -3/+9Hmmm...sounds a bit like digg, don't ya think?
      • hellsing47, on 06/10/2008, -2/+2You have made the statement of the century.

        I'm glad somebody else made that connection.
      • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1That's not what the problem is though. Diggers are generally very positive people - exposing lies, generally anti-war and quite liberal etc.
        Murdoch on the other hand, is quite negative. Approving war (or mass murder), for example.
    • pagno, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2Once again, for those of you at home: ***** Murdock!
    • Iztikeit, on 06/17/2008, -0/+0It's true though. If any of us had power we'd use it to make things the way we wanted them. His views just happen to be ***** up.
  • borez, on 06/10/2008, -14/+2Rupert Murdock is trying too hard, no Aussie could ever manipulate the American public.

    You can leave that up to your own government
    • benecere, on 06/10/2008, -2/+8I will fully concede that the public he manipulated were full willing drones seeking manipulation. They are the weak-minded and pathetic amongst us. They are also the enemy, since it is they who are killing our population in pursuit of an ignorant, ugly agenda.
    • TheRealToma, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5Because the American public is so good at spotting liars?
    • crackedlogic, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4clearly you don't know how many people actually listen to Fox News.
  • FrankHope, on 06/10/2008, -1/+63Murdoch owns substantial stakes in the media in the US, Australia, and Great Britain. His papers will plant a story in one country and then quote it in another. Then it gets picked up by Fox News Network owned by, you guessed it, Uncle Rupert.
  • shutthefrntdoor, on 06/10/2008, -1/+3http://this-strange-world.blogspot.com/2006/04/rup ...

    so those of you with wasteofspaces...keep supporting the cause!
  • evan119, on 06/10/2008, -9/+42summary: "i make money off dead soldiers"
    • jaydoj, on 06/10/2008, -5/+5Digg me down but they signed up to join the military
      • TheSnuffster, on 06/10/2008, -2/+2They didn't sign up for a pointless, needless war though
      • BigPapi, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3My cousin did, three years after the war began. It didn't matter whether it was pointless to him. He wants to serve his country and he ships out to Iraq next month.

        In fact there are lots of people in the military who signed up before the war and still haven't served in Iraq and feel like they owe it to their country. It's easy to assume that nobody wants to go. But that's not the case.
      • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1They were fooled into joining the military. In the same way a cake shop will use colourful icing to disguise a nutty, raisin filled cake (not to my fancy), the military recruiters will use guns and humvees to promote their cause. It's a bit different though because a cake does not lead to death (unless your allergic to nuts).
        • jaydoj, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2how the hell do you get fooled, Have you ever heard of the phrase 'Buyer Beware'?
    • JohnnyHotballs, on 06/10/2008, -2/+1"dead soldiers" is also a term for turds. i guess that's true, too.... hannity, o'reilly, oliver north, etc.
  • RomanticRights, on 06/10/2008, -5/+6As has already been pointed out - how is this surprising?
  • Wiini, on 06/10/2008, -20/+7Being honest here: I honestly didn't see much evil in it. I mean sure, in a perfect world I'd got for "100% just the facts" but we know that's impossible, in both conservative and liberal media.

    Did his answer really convict him of anything? Maybe I'm just in the middle of liberal-crazy digg... but I just didn't get enraged about this like I do about similiar topics.
    • pagno, on 06/10/2008, -1/+4A media conglomerate manipulating the news doesnt raise a flag for you? If youre in America right now, please, get the ***** out of my country, you fascist *****. Please. Thank you.
      • Wiini, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Our government lies about evidence as motive for war, and you're worried about what the almighty media tells you? And I'M the one that needs to leave?
        • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1The government lies about evidence as motive for war, then the corrupt media repeats it so many times you believe it. David Icke calls them "repeaters". (don't mention the reptilians, I don't believe it).
      • tomasII, on 06/10/2008, -0/+4"A media conglomerate manipulating the news doesnt raise a flag for you?"

        You mean like NBC, CNN, PBS and the like?
        • zombies187, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Doesn't that raise a flag for you? Or do you think we aren't smart enough to have objective media? Is it all just relative?
      • Julik, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1They all do the same thing.
    • BlackAdderIII, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5Why do you think it's impossible to see just the facts?

      That's quite sad, really.
    • ClosedCaption, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3Amazing...Someone ADMITS that they manipulate the 4th pillar of democracy to shape public opinion aka Propagandize Americans and STILL some dont see a problem with being fed lies. Some people will justify anything Wiini is one of those people.
      • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1I try telling people things like about how Iran does not have an nuclear weapons program and how America is going to launch another illegal attack - but the response is always the same. They DON'T CARE. They're so roped into their Xbox's and iPods and music channels that they simply do not care about the things that WILL affect them. I have an Xbox and an Ipod and watch music channels, but that does not mean I'm going to leave it up to fascist liars to decide my future.
  • GordonClass, on 06/10/2008, -6/+26If FAUX News was any farther to the right it would fall off the flat earth it lives in.
    • Atomic05, on 06/10/2008, -10/+2While I agree with what you say, "faux" is pronounced as "foe." Look it up.
      • d03boy, on 06/10/2008, -0/+10I don't think anyone was pronouncing it on the internet. We read things around here. The point is the meaning of the word ("fake") and the similarity in spelling if you choose to use an alternate phonetic. But seriously... did I really have to explain that?
      • xsquirrel378x, on 06/10/2008, -7/+3lololol i see what you did there! faux/fake news that looks like the word FOX. XD

        my favorite is M$. see it looks like MS (Microsoft) but the $ instead of an S makes it classic

    • tyywebb, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3I was always unsure if I should be reading it as "foe" news. Kind of created a cognitive dissonance that pained me deep down inside without really being aware of it...
      • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Never crossed my mind actually. I always read it as 'faux' news, thinking they're French or something. I never actually made the connection between foe (faux) and Fox.
  • clickwir, on 06/10/2008, -1/+6Thankfully there's people all around the world and right here in america that don't need someone to tell them that the media has an agenda and using it's resources to help shape it.
  • czeman, on 06/10/2008, -2/+10Most media outlets do the same thing. Is this really all that surprising? The bottom line is that you can't trust the mainstream media. This is a basic fact that we've known for quite some time. Do your own research on candidates, not relying on the media for information.
    • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Can't trust them is right. Turn off the TV's and turn to places like Digg.com for your news. Just stay clear of the lolcatz articles and such.
      • czeman, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Digg.com contains the same stories shown on the mainstream news outlets. I read Digg mainly for the Offbeat stories.
  • MadOgre, on 06/10/2008, -6/+20I love how some Diggers think he's the only one that has done this. It's cool that he has admitted it... Where are the Head Cheeses of ABC, NBC, CBS, ,MSNBC, CNN, and BBC?
    • flashman2006, on 06/10/2008, -2/+3I don't see none of them flashing "Fair and Balanced" every fking hour. At least they know they're biased that they don't have to BS us with that crap.
    • WaxenPith, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2Mmmmm, head cheese.
    • Fungus53, on 06/10/2008, -4/+3BBC is hardly biased.
      • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Well as one example today: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7445370.st ...

        Notice how they fail to mention that the IAEA and the CIA confirm that Iran does not have nuclear weapons or that America has nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. The BBC don't intentionally make up lies or anything, but they simple repeat the lies the politicians are telling us. Despite these lies, the BBC has yet to question anything a government has ever done.

        And the 'Have Your Say' section consists of BBC hand-picked questions, which is heavily moderated.
  • sgregory416, on 06/10/2008, -6/+4boring! like we didn't know before.
  • levelred, on 06/10/2008, -4/+13Fixed News
  • cmapes2, on 06/10/2008, -16/+2The Penguin strikes again...
    • cmapes2, on 06/10/2008, -2/+1Double Post = Loss

      Deserved bury my fellow diggers, have at it.
  • cmapes2, on 06/10/2008, -17/+2The Penguin strikes again...
    • cmapes2, on 06/10/2008, -2/+2Double Post = Loss

      Deserved bury my fellow diggers, have at it.
  • LiberalsSuckAss, on 06/10/2008, -21/+36How is this any different than what Digg does by posting every pro-Obama article, and every anti-Bush, anti-Cheney article? Has anyone ever tried to get a pro-conservative article front paged here? It doesn't happen. Digg's founders have been quoted as saying they want to use this platform to promote their own personal agendas. Digg isn't any better than Murdoch on that front.

    Objectivity is something you really can't find anymore. Not on broadcast television OR on the Internet. Not on Fox, and certainly not here either.

    • Wiini, on 06/10/2008, -12/+5I like you.
    • bullcutter, on 06/10/2008, -5/+11Digg's motto isn't "Fair and balanced."

      And stuff critical of global warming has made it to the front page, which technically counts as a conservative viewpoint, but you're right, if you're looking for objectivity you might as well go back to The News Hour with Jim Leher because you won't find it on Fox, Digg or anything as exciting or interesting.
    • BlueBirdTS, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2It's not as if it has ever been easy to find objectivity. Even the best journalism tends to have a nuanced bias.
    • ph1sh55, on 06/10/2008, -3/+13How could you possibly expect a site based on the model of users pumping up articles to be 'fair and balanced', or that it claims to be so? Controversial and exaggerating headlines will draw the strongest reaction, and thus get bumped up the most. Now is not a time that pro-conservative articles will carry popularity...and I think you can guess why. Regardless I don't see digg claiming to be fair and balanced as Fox news so repeatedly does, only that the content it displays is based on what it's users digg to send to the top.

    • DeFex, on 06/10/2008, -5/+5most conservatives have trouble working a computer. thats what slaves are for.
    • thrashertm, on 06/10/2008, -4/+3lots more conservative stuff on Reddit, better site than Digg IMO.
    • Hangly, on 06/10/2008, -2/+18Digg isn't a media outlet, it's a herd-driven meta-news site. Regular people are allowed to have any crazy-ass opinion they want.
      Even Murdoch is entitled to his opinions. Professional journalists though, when they are performing their functions as journalists, have a responsibility to the truth and should be held to a higher standard.
      • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1True. But with freedom of speech comes a responsibility to be truthful and to be nice.

        Freedom of speech means that we should respect someone's ideas that "All black people should die" for example.

        That's why there is the ability of being able to digg down articles and digg up others. So with that system in place as long as there are sane good people at Digg then truth and positivity will win over the likes of war-supporters and Hitler fans, for random example.
        • Hangly, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1Freedom of speech means someone has the right to say "all black people should die."

          It also means everyone else has the right to say he's a racist *****, his boss has the right to fire him, his wife has the right to leave him, and his kids have the right to never call him on fathers' day.
    • Vodd9, on 06/10/2008, -1/+8This is different because of who is controlling the content.
    • tyywebb, on 06/10/2008, -1/+9LiberalsSuckAss, you're missing the point. I don't come here for objectivity, I come here because it's filled with like-minded people who also enjoy tech stories, Bush/Hillary bashing, Zero Puncuation, XKCD, and HILARIOUS pictures of cats!!!!!!
    • sodoh, on 06/10/2008, -1/+5It is social based news. If more conservatives actually had a beef they would post and digg. But the fact is liberals... no wait everyone in general has a lot to bitch about in how the Republican party is screwing everything up. Unless your part of the hardcore who agree with Bush (who thankfully statistically are less likely to believe in science, so probably don't even use a computer).

      Also names like LiberalsSuckAss is not going to win you any points on bringing a fair and balanced debate. If you have to name call then you have already lost.

    • DeskFlyer, on 06/10/2008, -0/+6If you need to ask a question like that, you probably don't deserve the correct answer.
    • jaxcs, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3The difference is that there is one guy calling the shots. Here, no one calls the shots. They are supposed to be objective. There is no requirement like that here.
    • flashback99, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1Reality has a well known liberal bias. The people who claim Digg has a liberal bias are generally douches who usually don't have a solid counter argument to what the story claims.

      It happens so often that the dumbasses think digg is some kind of liberal conspiracy against them.

      BTW the difference is that Rupert lies about reality and prints it as fact.
    • Disregard, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Don't be surprised not to find many Bush supporters here when he's polling in the low 20s. And you won't get many rapture bunnys on a site with so many blasphemous articles and big words.

      But there are plenty of economic and anti-war conservatives - look at RPs popularity a few months back.
      • LiberalsSuckAss, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1You make a good point about Ron Paul. I considered that after I posted my initial rant above.
    • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1How do you make that out? Articles that feature on the home page are submitted by anyone and on any topic. It is completely people-powered. And there has yet to be any allegations of fixing diggs or manipulating stories or anything, has there?
  • PabloIV, on 06/10/2008, -1/+8Not exactly breaking (not that anyone claimed it was) the time stamp read 1/26/07
    • had3l, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah, this was on the front page a year ago
    • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1That's why I submitted it under 'Education' rather than 'News'. It is not news but I am submitting this now because it is still highly relevant.
  • cyclades, on 06/10/2008, -0/+10I'm shocked... Shocked.
  • dustin32, on 06/10/2008, -9/+6And you don't think other networks manipulate the news for their agenda?
  • bullcutter, on 06/10/2008, -8/+6sorry but reality has an agenda against the Paul campaign. this would have been an OK submission if it weren't for that last part.
    • xBobTheALienx, on 06/10/2008, -2/+2LOL, greatness.
    • thrashertm, on 06/10/2008, -2/+3"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Stephen Colbert
  • rescu911, on 06/10/2008, -2/+10I'm just as angry over the idiots who insist that Fox is a legitimate news agency. Then again there are people who swear by his other publication, The Star, a cheap supermarket tabloid. Same lazy mindset, I guess.
    • perrym, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1The Star???

      you must be stuck in the 80's.
      Rupe sold that a long time ago.
      • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2It's still full of crap though.

        And he's still got The Sun, The Times and Sky TV. So he's still pretty much in control of us in the UK!
    • rescu911, on 06/11/2008, -0/+1"you must be stuck in the 80's."

      So... I guess that means I should get rid of my "Hammer pants" and mullet???
  • letmesleep, on 06/10/2008, -12/+3and?

    If you owned a giant news corporation and you wanted to support your president, you'd probably do the same thing. Its not some giant conspiracy, just a rich man using his influence. The fact that he has questionable judgement doesn't make this some huge evil crime.
    • beardiethor, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5You have to have worked for the man to understand
      his type of agenda. There are lots of "rich men" with
      better judgement and use their money for much
      more altruistic purposes. He is living proof that money
      does NOT buy class.
    • Rigor, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5No foreign company may own more than 45% of a media. During Clinton, Murdoch was given a waiver, less he abuse it.
    • Delphium226, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1try raising your standards.
  • kermithefrogand, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2the system
  • thelastwarrior, on 06/10/2008, -3/+1As if we needed him say that ...Screw Faux News
  • Rigor, on 06/10/2008, -1/+5All Corp. news is manipulated...
  • ratheunknown, on 06/10/2008, -6/+2Scene It! But still very interesting.
  • cellacyben101, on 06/10/2008, -2/+2And this hasn't hit fox news WHY??..... oh..... oh yeah
  • redxninja, on 06/10/2008, -6/+20***** DUDE SUCKS!!!!
  • Vtorch, on 06/10/2008, -13/+2BURIED FOR INACCURACY AND MISLEADING. BTW,...........CNN has been manipulating the news for years. Fox News was built because of CNN's bias against conservatives,
  • beardiethor, on 06/10/2008, -2/+5In a nutshell, what less can we expect from the Prince
    of Machiavellia?
  • beardiethor, on 06/10/2008, -1/+10Or as Fox News so proudly states "We distort, you divide".
  • stockjones, on 06/10/2008, -1/+5This is surprising? Big media has been doing this for years. Its all got some bias. Thank God for the internet.
  • sadfly, on 06/10/2008, -9/+6[Where have the tech and science stories gone?]
    They have passed like rain on the mountain, like a wind in the meadow,
    The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.
    Who shall gather the smoke of the dead wood burning,
    Or behold the flowing years from the Sea returning?

    JRR Tolkien
    • insinuate, on 06/10/2008, -7/+3stfu LOTR fag
    • backgen, on 06/10/2008, -3/+7A digger shows some true culture and appreciation for one the greatest writers of literature this century has ever known and you people are digging him down? Shame on you all.
    • ciaran036, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1The tech and science stories are in the tech and science section. The front page may not be cluttered with such stories as much, but instead with articles that actually have importance.
  • justinlarsen, on 06/10/2008, -7/+5*insert comment about how the bush & co should be impreached, jailed, ect.*
    • siobhankeogh, on 06/10/2008, -1/+4*inserts penis into your girlfriend*
  • wdwpsu, on 06/10/2008, -4/+4Sadly Fox News is going to cost the GOP any chances of winning in November. Their freshness in 2000 and 2004 won the elections. Now, their irrelevance is going to lose it.
  • futurekill, on 06/10/2008, -3/+8Wow, that's pretty close to treason...
    • Playos, on 06/10/2008, -4/+1Really? Really? are you really that dumb? a) I'm not sure he is a citizen of the United States... one must be a citizen to commit treason... b) if he is a citizen, then that whole 1st amendment, you know the one that lets you say stupid ***** and not get arrested, just doesn't really apply to the media... I wonder what whole freedom of the press thing was all about.

      People speaking in support or opposition of an opinion about goverment action... thats what we call political speech, and in case you missed civics 101, its pretty much always protected (unless the information is classified and obtained through classified clearance)
    • MaceSoul, on 06/10/2008, -3/+1And even closer to the First Amendment.

      /still surprised at digg commenters ignorance. I guess I shouldnt be.
      • crackedlogic, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1If he's not a citizen of the United States, he doesn't have rights as an American.
        • MaceSoul, on 06/11/2008, -0/+3Yeah, nor is he subject to our laws. Duh.
  • RedHerringHack, on 06/10/2008, -5/+4What's funny is all the people that think that this makes any difference. Like they have everyone under some kind of hypnotic spell. No single news source is correct. You think everyone is feeble-minded enough to be programmed by a TV channel? In order to not be obvious, it has to fall below the BS threshold of the intelligent, yet be persuasive to the stupid. I don't believe it has had any effect at all.
    • AtomicCow, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3You don't need everybody, just a plurality.
    • BigPuddle, on 06/10/2008, -0/+5You grossly overestimate the intelligence of the masses.
    • flashback99, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3Take a lie, repeat it, quote from it and slowly over time it becomes truth.
      If you havent noticed this in Murdoch's media and think it's simply ok since "no news source is correct" you are pretty naive.
  • vexingmodstwo, on 06/10/2008, -7/+6The only difference between Murdoch and the respective heads of CNN, ABCNews, NBCNews, et al is that Murdoch admits there's an agenda.
    • slifty, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3it is easy to say that all media has an agenda simply because there is always more information than can be reported. In the case of fox news the problem is that the agenda was so blatantly one sided. Unfortunately because of their role as information providers and the way in which people take in information to selectively reinforce their existing beliefs, people always (often incorrectly) assume that when others call fox news is a huge ***** it is strictly out of politics.

      All that being said, I got very pissed off at the networks you listed during the election season because it was so blatant the way editors and anchors would create issues out of nothing. So yes, they all have an agenda, they will all have SOME degree of bias, but if you were to quantify it I would posit that Fox is significantly more one sided.
    • backgen, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2Though it is true that Fox has a stronger agenda than the rest of the big news organizations, i don't think this is necessarily wrong, what the public needs however is another source of news which would be biased the other way around, so that people could then examine both and be able to find a middle ground themselves. True journalists were supposed to find it and report it, but there doesn't seem to be any true journalists anymore.
      • slifty, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1Careful backgen - there are still journalists. The problem is that no matter how good the journalist is their work can be edited and clipped so that the facts they find are selectively presented, taken out of context, and thus the story they intended to tell is shaped by a "higher power" before being presented to the public.

        I do tentatively agree that it is OK to have bias in the news - but it has to be honest bias. Fox needs to formally brand itself as the "right wing news outlet" for it to be ok. Otherwise you have people saying "Fox isn't bias!" which makes for difficult conversations...
    • jgardner100, on 06/10/2008, -0/+2We were so lucky to be rid of Murdoch here in Australia. You can keep him and his tin pot company. The man has no idea what News is about, he only cares about his ego.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.