Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Follow The Money

One of the perennial themes of the Guardianista is the uniquely evil agenda of Rupert Murdoch. I'm not sure his evil goes beyond a common love of money - the only unique feature being his singular efficiency and drive towards that goal.

Take the Guardian's near-monopoly of public sector job adverts. Rupert's boys have noted all the moolah and want a slice of the action.

Wednesday is the Guardian's "Society" section - why not steal a march with Tuesday's "Public Agenda" supplement.

But it's nowhere near as fat yet as "Society". How can they attract more publicly funded types ?

They know their market alright. The biggest feature is an interview with the Howard League's Frances Crook, the Lawyer of the Week is the guy who successfully defended Shambo (until it was overturned on appeal), the back page features heartwarming stories from the social exclusion frontline.

Frances Crook's ideas are a million miles away from Joe Public, who would generally like to see more villains put away, not fewer. It speaks volumes for the capture of our taxes by the Left that she is apparently considered a draw for publicly funded readers.

It's not all bad news though.

"Frances Crook has been burgled twice in the past year"


Anonymous said...

Frances has been mugged twice by reality and yet she's still a liberal. Must be something wrong with the old pithy saying.

ba ba said...


Anonymous said...

"Frances has been mugged twice by reality and yet she's still a liberal. Must be something wrong with the old pithy saying. "

I don't think burglary is the same as physical assault, the saying refers to the classical term of "mugging".

After all, burglary is really another form of distribution of wealth, and something I certainly believe she thinks people should _not_ be locked up for, after all, no-one really gets hurt do they ?!

Anonymous said...

"Frances Crook has been burgled twice in the past year"

LOL thank you Laban best news I have heard in a while!

Anonymous said...

It is rather simplistic to wave Murdoch' rap sheet away with a brisk "he just wants to make money, like everyone else". People wish to acquire money for a whole host of different reasons, and it's the sign of clinical libertarianism to claim that there's no moral difference between someone who runs a company to provide for kith and kin is no different to somebody who channels his wealth to agitate for world war.

To which of the two is Murdoch closer, then? Leaving aside his nepotistic promotion of family members to positions of unearned prominence, his business is certainly far beyond in scope to what any family needs. Of course, men have always striven for wealth beyond what they need, for the sake of their vanity.

Once again, there's is nothign whatsoever wrong with earning billions to leave a monument to oneself. After all, this earning involves mutually advantageous trades and so benefits others. And if the silly old bag wants to build himself a huge castle with his gains, then more fool him and more good for the rest of us.

Murdoch, however, works towards a different sort of monument. He uses his millions to support papers which often lose him money (most papers are at best highly uncertain as investments), but do exercise political influence. It was the Sun what won it for Major in '92 and for Blair in '97. It was Fox what publicised Kerry's interesting war record before '04.

The leaders he assists are belligerent as a rule. Kerry and Bush were virtually identical in '04, thanks to the former's flip-flops, save one thing: Bush was more tied up with the Iraq war. Equally, Blair effectively gave the country the centrist domestic policies of Major, with a more 'humanitarian' (i.e. aggressive) foreign policy. He gave us Kosovo, he gave us Sierra leone, he gave us Iraq and a whole host of other invade the world operations. For all his faults, Kinnock was a peacenik, and the Sun don't like dat.

Lo and behold, Murdoch is thinking of changing his support back to the Tories, just as the demonic eunuch Cameron starts talking about being global citizens (i.e. global soldiers). Hmmm, I wonder is it the Tories family tax polciy wot the Sun liked?

Murdoch's constant use of his vast fortune to agitate for military conflict between the West and various 'rogue nations' is what he stands accussed of. The Guardian recognise part of this (e.g. vis-a-vis the Iraq war), but not all of it (e.g. vis-a-vis Kosovo), because of their own ideological blinkers over one eye. You, it seems, wear the full ideological hood of neoconnerie.

Anonymous said...

'It was the Sun what won it for Major in '92 and for Blair in '97'

So..If the Sun said vote Monster Raving Loony party they'd win the next general election?


Murdoch simply knew which way the wind was blowing in 92 and 97 and cashed in
He'll back Brown next year

It's not that difficult Alex

Anonymous said...

Guardian recognise part of this ..., but not all of it (e.g. ... Kosovo), because of their own ideological blinkers over one eye

Let me try and clarify this - We shouldn't have intervened in Kosovo.


Anonymous said...

Dearie me, Alex, been snorting too much strong cocaine again have we? Leads to paranoia you know...

I was under the impression that Blair had a long-standing hatred of Saddam Hussein which he had publicised on many previous occasions. He didn't need Murdoch to agitate for war - he was more than happy to go to war without any real support. I suspect that niether Murdoch nor Blair realised that public opinion would turn strongly against the war if no WMDs were found. Thus the Sun was found on the wrong side of the war debate just as Blair was. At the same time, however, the Mirror's uncompromising anti-war stance neglected the fact that many Mirror readers have connections with the armed forces and disliked the paper's strong anti-war stance.

In my opinion the British people are not against the war, or continued involvement in Iraq, or removal of Saddam Hussein - they are simply against being told lies to start wars. Hence the public's attitude to the war in Iraq is more complicated than the average Guardianista can cope with.

Anonymous said...

"Frances Crook has been burgled twice in the past year"

She just blames it on MI5.....that's the Guardian Way

Rupert should set up a car trading Website and destroy Auto-Trader then The Guardian will have to pay its way without cars subsidising fiction

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately the Grauniad is subsidised by a trust fund - brainwashing from beyond the grave? Even then it only boasts a readership of 1million - that's a tenth the readership of the Daily Mail. Quite how the readership of such a newspaper seems to have such a grip on the way this country is run is beyond me. Particularly when you consider that the Liberal Left are practically guaranteed to cock things up big style. When are they going to admit "Ever since the 1960s we've been wrong - about everything. We are sorry and we want to help put things back the way they were". But no chance. If Liberal Left policy leads to disaster the answer is always more Liberal Left policy.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately the Grauniad is subsidised by a trust fund -

No it is not.

It is owned by The Scott Trust which was set up by the owners - the Scott Family - to protect the newspaper from death duties.

The Trust owns the assets - but the one that makes the profits is Auto-Trader

the group is wholly owned by Guardian Media Group, publishers of the Guardian and Observer newspapers which is, in turn, controlled by the Scott Trust.

Anonymous said...

Quite how the readership of such a newspaper seems to have such a grip on the way this country is run is beyond me

It’s not the ideas of the Guardian which drive policy, but the enormous influence of the bureaucratic class (the bureauclass?) to which the Guardian simply gives the most coherent voice.

It’s like the base/superstructure concept that Marx lifted from Saint-Simon: the class (together with all the apparatus of its dominion over the rest of us) constitute the base, while the ideas that we see in the Left media are no more than the superstructural expression of that class’s will-to-power.

In other words you don’t destroy the Left by attacking its ideology – which is hydra-headed and which, even if defeated intellectually, will simply regrow itself more formidable than before (“What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.”). It can be killed only by first fragmenting and then decimating the class that underpins it.

Anonymous said...

Actually fragmenting the BBC would remove the core of the problem - it alone has the financial independence to permeate the institutions and insinuate itself is the Secular Temple

Anonymous said...

Personally I think it is a lot simpler than this. It is a matter of the WAY in which people think. Lets take a simple example.

A young man rapes and kills an old lady.

A person with moderate to low intelligence will say "he is a bad man, he must be punished, and he must be kept away from the rest of us for a long time to keep us safe from him".

Someone with slightly higher intelligence will say: "He is a bad man, but I am a sophisticated intelligent person. The bad man is a victim of his previous circumstances so he doesn't deserve to be punished. He must be cared for. Extra time and expense must be given to such unfortunates". This, of course if the liberal leftie point of view.

But the very intelligent man says: "He is a bad man, I already predicted such people would exists, and care systems are in place to offer help. He did not take advantage of those systems. He chose of his own free will to break the law. The law is simple enough for anyone to understand and is based on a consensus so it is legitimate. He is such a bad man that society cannot risk him being on the streets. He should be kept away from people not just to prevent him commiting other serious crime but also to stop him influencing others to commit crime or to stop him passing his faulty genes onto his children".

The liberal leftie is always slightly more intelligent than the average person and knows this. They are not, however, intelligent enough to spot the obvious flaws in their arguments or the inevitable negative consequences of their actions. They are a personality type.

Polly Toynbee is a case in point. Intelligent enough to get to Oxford, but not intelligent enough to stay there (she got thrown out for being dim).

Anonymous said...

If Murdoch is simply following the trends already prevalent in society, then why did Blair bother asking for his opinion before decidng certain questions? Why do the parties try to garner his support? Are they all suffering from a cocaine overdose as well? (I'm flattered you're interested in my alleged drug habit. makes me feel as important as the Tory leader).

Anonymous said...

"It can be killed only by first fragmenting and then decimating the class that underpins it. "

What sort of people does this class consist of? Presbyterians? Hugeunots?