梅鐸打的是甚麼算盤 盧峯TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。! X- S9 P. u. T
5.39.217.76; U( ?- E. X, m; `+ s; Y+ e3 J
公仔箱論壇9 }1 O$ L; G7 L( O1 U; s* I
要選對員工最關愛的老闆,原籍澳洲的傳媒大亨梅鐸可說無出其右。他為了保住得力助手,前《世界新聞報》旗手布魯克斯(Rebekah Brooks),情願關閉這份百年小報也在所不惜。要找另一位像梅鐸的老闆實在不容易。只可惜梅鐸的關愛只限布魯克斯一人,其他幾百位《世界新聞報》員工則沒有份,只能眼巴巴看着報館倒閉,成為犧牲品。當然,梅鐸這個「出人意料」之外的決定絕不是一時心軟或意氣作出的,而是精密政治計算的結果,以保證他在英國政壇、傳媒圈中的影響力。# }/ \9 i e1 k+ A6 j2 Z4 C
( T6 k# Y1 }1 Z( Q$ O, |對梅鐸而言,他的傳媒帝國不管是報章或電視都不僅僅是生財工具,更是他的政治工具,用以左右政局,擴大影響力。梅鐸旗下的《太陽報》,《泰晤士報》近三十年來在英國政壇呼風喚雨,誰想上台執政,誰要當下屆首相都不能不討好他,都不能不得到他的支持。九二年選前工黨本來形勢大好,很有機會藉經濟低迷擊敗保守黨,中止十三年在野的厄運。只是黨領袖金諾克(Neil Kinnock)不肯賣梅鐸的賬,梅鐸也對金諾克這類老派工黨成員有戒心,不想他成為首相。於是他旗下的「大炮」特別是銷量最高的《太陽報》不斷向金諾克發炮,把他打成冥頑不靈的共產黨殘餘,把他描繪成陰險、不可信、反覆的小人;而保守黨的馬卓安則被說成是誠實可靠的鄰居。在形同洗腦的敵意宣傳下,工黨的優勢逐步縮小,到大選時更反勝為敗,讓保守黨繼續執政,金諾克則要黯然辭去工黨領袖位置。公仔箱論壇6 ~" x O. B/ w# {0 X( a$ q
8 v( _9 k2 a* H- W吸取了這個可怕的經驗,九四年成為工黨領袖的貝理雅上位後第一時間改善跟梅鐸的關係,全力討好這位傳媒大亨。果然,梅鐸覺得 New Labour的掌舵人孺子可教,又感到保守黨已在位太久,受人厭棄,毅然決定支持工黨。大選前夕,《太陽報》就公開呼籲讀者及選民支持工黨,最終貝理雅及白高敦的新工黨順利大勝,入主唐寧街十號、十一號長達十三年。 * ]5 J, o, K/ G# E2 P8 b' n( `tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb5.39.217.76" B! x o: c' b5 W+ ] H7 E
對英國政壇朝野來說,梅鐸可說是全國影響力以至權力最大的人,比女皇、首相還要厲害,是百分百的造王者( king maker),誰也不想得罪他及他的親信,大家甚至盡可能討好、吸納梅鐸手下紅人為自己服務。醜聞主角布魯克斯的副手幾年前就被保守黨領袖卡梅倫聘為傳訊顧問,後來更成為首相府發言人!公仔箱論壇7 r$ W& _( T; X% q; i |
& \5 S! W( P7 x. W, ]) M! W" A) O《世新》停刊，因「竊聽」而起，然而，「竊聽」是新聞界行之有年的「採訪」技巧。「竊聽」本為間諜特工的「專用伎倆」，但早為劇烈競爭為「獨家新聞」拚個你死我活的傳媒所採用﹔「新聞工作者」是「斯文人」，不屑亦不嫻熟這種下三流的勾當，因此多請「線人」或私家偵探進行，行不通則設法賄賂相關官員……。近的不說（事實筆者亦因沒興趣而不了解），以遙遠的英國為例，十多年前大家看得津津有味的黛安娜王妃與馬術教練（？）情人電話中互訴「奸」情、查爾斯王子與「老」情人卡米拉（Camilla，今王妃）的綿綿（肉麻之極）「性」話，所以完完整整刊諸報端，便是「竊聽者之功」。可是，當年有誰會想起要追究責任，以這些社會寄生虫做「秀」娛樂人民，是他們的本份。但《世新》的觸須伸得太遠，「竊聽」大眾同情、景仰的人，而且刪除內容，令事件惡化，傷害當事人，因此罪無可赦！公仔箱論壇" ^% D I6 S9 Z/ q
5.39.217.765 Z8 C7 b4 O. q3 v2 b
《世界新聞報》竊聽案是新聞集團從高峰下墜的轉折點。5.39.217.761 X1 j0 v/ t* @4 P
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb- k3 y: Q3 j$ |, u
＊一向以來，人們以Tabloid形容「黃色報刊」，這是因為這類報刊大都以小張（十一吋乘十七吋）形式出之﹔近年為「方便閱讀」（尤其是在公共交通工具上展讀），不少所謂「知識分子大報」（highbrow newspaper）如《華爾街日報》已改為Tabloid大小出版，這等於說Tabloid和Broadsheet（十七吋乘二十二吋）隻有體積大小之分，與內容質量無關。本報是典型例子，《信報》是Broadsheet，隨報附送的英文EJ Insight是淺綠色的Tabloid，它沒有文化副刊、娛樂新聞，比《信報》還嚴肅（high brow），因此絕不能因其為Tabloid而稱之為「小報」﹔同理，若《信報》改為小張出版，只要內容不變，便不能稱為「小報」。按上引Tabloid和Broadsheet的呎碼，是美國的量度標准，實際上各地因新聞紙（Newsprint）的呎吋不同而略有分別。作者: felicity2010 時間: 2011-7-12 12:19 PM
本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2011-7-12 12:25 PM 編輯 * U. s) z3 s2 z: o. i# _8 atvb now,tvbnow,bttvb公仔箱論壇' W3 M- \( b- o6 F% u" N; X This media is corrupt – we need a Hippocratic oath for journalists ( m6 Q( k2 Q4 ~( i, @ George Monbiot The Guardian K: N' r% |' X+ b$ Z; Y5 U) c 6 { R7 i# y' b# N; y& r公仔箱論壇Is Murdoch now finished in the UK? As the pursuit of Gordon Brown by the Sunday Times and the Sun blows the hacking scandal into new corners of the old man's empire, this story begins to feel like the crumbling of the Berlin Wall. The naked attempt to destroy Brown by any means, including hacking the medical files of his sick baby son, means that there is no obvious limit to the story's ramifications.5.39.217.765 o8 b% P R( J( m, Q
TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。2 a, ?% a: j( r: R
The scandal radically changes public perceptions of how politics works,the danger corporate power presents to democracy, and the extent to which it has compromised and corrupted the Metropolitan police, who have now been dragged in so deep they are beginning to look like Murdoch's private army. It has electrified a dozy parliament and subjected the least accountable and most corrupt profession in Britain –journalism – to belated public scrutiny.3 p& B6 {( F$ \7 G1 r
8 H x. }8 D$ q% U ]tvb now,tvbnow,bttvbThe cracks are appearing in the most unexpected places. Look at the remarkable admission by the right wing columnist Janet Daley in this week's Sunday Telegraph. "British political journalism is basically a club to which politicians and journalists both belong," she wrote. "It is this familiarity, this intimacy, this set of shared assumptions … which is the real corruptor of political life. The self-limiting spectrum of what can and cannot be said … the self-reinforcing cowardice which takes for granted that certain vested interests are too powerful to be worth confronting. All of these things are constant dangers in the political life of any democracy."公仔箱論壇% _+ }$ W1 I+ X# y; u/ Q1 ~
# x7 K& d, n3 h. ^5 w
Most national journalists are embedded, immersed in the society, beliefs and culture of the people they are meant to hold to account. They are fascinated by power struggles among the elite but have little interest in the conflict between the elite and those they dominate. They celebrate those with agency and ignore those without. ! u( Y' l3 d7 s' R7 ]% R2 ltvb now,tvbnow,bttvb2 x) {4 w* o+ Z& n
But this is just part of the problem. Daley stopped short of naming the most persuasive force: the interests of the owner and the corporate class to which he belongs. The proprietor appoints editors in his own image – who impress their views on their staff. Murdoch's editors, like those who work for the other proprietors, insist that they think and act independently.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb2 i/ T' ]1 W+ @( q9 m" q
/ @9 q7 R( s5 U
It's a lie exposed by the concurrence of their views (did all 247 News Corp editors just happen to support the invasion of Iraq?), and blown out of the water by Andrew Neil's explosive testimony in 2008 before the Lords select committee on communications. " Q0 f5 _9 J* ^% i. c 7 b/ a$ s' m6 J {TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。The papers cannot announce that their purpose is to ventriloquise the concerns of multimillionaires; they must present themselves as the voice of the people. The Sun, the Mail and the Express claim to represent the interests of the working man and woman. These interests turn out to be identical to those of the men who own the papers.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb' j- Z7 h% d! i' b- ^, z* J
' K: l) j: v- E; @9 V! V" R) fTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。So the right wing papers run endless exposures of benefit cheats, yet say scarcely a word about the corporate tax cheats. They savage the trade unions and excoriate the BBC. They lambast the regulations that restrain corporate power. They school us in the extrinsic values – the worship of power, money,image and fame – which advertisers love but which make this a shallower, more selfish country. Most of them deceive their readers about the causes of climate change. These are not the obsessions of working people. They are the obsessions thrust upon them by the multimillionaires who own these papers.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb! z0 e7 _$ N p" D) Y
$ m- r h+ E3 Q" [' ~
The corporate media is a gigantic astroturfing operation: a fake grassroots crusade serving elite interests. In this respect the media companies resemble the Tea Party movement, which claims to be a spontaneous rising of blue-collar Americans against the elite but was founded with the help of the billionaire Koch brothers and promoted by Murdoch's Fox News. , G8 }4 ]& K' {3 G5.39.217.76& i' V3 C" M$ c( o, [ }
Journalism's primary purpose is to hold power to account. This purpose has been perfectly inverted. Columnists and bloggers are employed as the enforcers of corporate power, denouncing people who criticise its interests,stamping on new ideas, bullying the powerless. The press barons allowed governments occasionally to promote the interests of the poor, but never to hamper the interests of the rich. They also sought to discipline the rest of the media. The BBC, over the last 30 years, became a shadow of the gutsy broadcaster it was, and now treats big business with cringing deference. Every morning at 6.15, the Today programme's business report grants executives the kind of unchallenged access otherwise reserved for God on Thought for the Day.The rest of the programme seeks out controversy and sets up discussions between opponents, but these people are not confronted by their critics.公仔箱論壇" L6 K7 m4 F2 X4 {4 e$ n. ~2 k7 t0 q
公仔箱論壇. o2 i7 n4 g$ S k9 Y, c, |
So what can be done? Because of the peculiar threat they present to democracy there's a case to be made for breaking up all majority interests in media companies, and for a board of governors, appointed perhaps by Commons committee, to act as a counterweight to the shareholders' business interests. 7 G. M* B' t8 H6 mTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。& p0 T8 C( h# Y$ v
But even if that's a workable idea, it's a long way off. For now, the best hope might be to mobilise readers to demand that journalists answer to them, not just their proprietors. One means of doing this is to lobby journalists to commit themselves to a kind of Hippocratic oath. Here's a rough stab at a first draft. I hope others can improve it. Ideally, I'd like to see the National Union of Journalists building on it and encouraging its members to sign.% s: h `1 n4 q, e6 @& k3 I1 r
: f! `7 ~3 f8 p8 U
'Our primary task is to hold power to account. We will prioritise those stories and issues which expose the interests of power. We will be wary of the relationships we form with the rich and powerful, and ensure that we don't become embedded in their society. We will not curry favour with politicians,businesses or other dominant groups by withholding scrutiny of their affairs,or twisting a story to suit their interests. 4 u `, ?- H" p, w( f5.39.217.765.39.217.76. K! t W" z5 @& L
"We will stand up to the interests of the businesses we work for,and the advertisers which fund them. We will never take money for promulgating a particular opinion, and we will resist attempts to oblige us to adopt one. 1 L2 ^. o- W- T/ j1 r! a公仔箱論壇: V* u4 u. |+ \# I P" W2 ]- [
"We will recognise and understand the power we wield and how it originates. We will challenge ourselves and our perception of the world as much as we challenge other people. When we turn out to be wrong, we will say so." 3 Z" M% n' }' r1 }( h8 `$ L公仔箱論壇' T6 K9 Q& I4 ]
I accept that this doesn't directly address the power relations that govern the papers. But it might help journalists to assert a measure of independence, and readers to hold them to it. Just as voters should lobby their MPs to represent them and not just the whips, readers should seek to drag journalists away from the demands of their editors. The oath is one possibletool that could enhance reader power.& u8 Q* r. F+ d" l' N. R9 B
. t* u" A) y2 E9 @If you don't like it, suggest a better idea. Something has to change:never again should a half a dozen oligarchs be allowed to dominate and corrupt the life of this country.作者: aa00 時間: 2011-7-12 06:51 PM
新聞自由 ≠ 免死金牌TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。# J5 ]6 F. L# Z: x
. `$ B# p+ W* ?. E2 T% Q: U公仔箱論壇News International scandal: The sky falls in ; G* W0 D+ \8 }: {公仔箱論壇 The Guardian 13 July 2011 ; i: j- z' Q3 Q公仔箱論壇 - l2 g8 h% i% J. O; {5.39.217.76[attach]1426755[/attach]& E+ \, X' J1 K/ O7 R
8 u! c$ m+ \4 V% X0 j/ b9 B' a5.39.217.76It is a measure of how much has been achieved in this revolutionary week that by the time David Cameron set out details of the inquiry into media and police standards on Wednesday lunchtime, and News Corporation announced it was dropping its bid for BSkyB soon after, both things seemed natural and unavoidable. A wave of public and political contempt is reshaping the landscape. At the start of the month no senior politician dared defy Rupert Murdoch. Now, all of them have. Party leaders united around the terms of the inquiry and the Labour-sponsored Commons debate – itself presaged by the collapse of the deal it had been arranged to condemn. 6 ]! Y P; o3 y# P$ Q. L" O5.39.217.76 : p* I2 m9 Y# SYesterday Wednesday brought a drama in four acts. At prime minister's questions Mr Cameron sought unsuccessfully to rid himself of the taint of proximity to the News International executives who oversaw phone hacking, of which more in a moment. In his Commons statement, the prime minister set out the terms of an inquiry into media standards of extraordinary scope and potential. By mid-afternoon, News Corporation pulled the plug on the BSkyB deal: a victory for plurality over the power of a rootless corporation. In particular it was a success for Ed Miliband, whose decision to break with News International has become the definitive act of his leadership so far. Finally, Gordon Brown delivered a powerful speech whose justified moral outrage was only equalled by its divisive consequences in the chamber.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb2 ?. I! d S' @" O% y! j7 S" }4 r7 y
1 `& G+ P7 H) g8 u/ O9 N
Mr. Brown presented himself in retrospect as a white knight who stood up to the Murdoch empire, only to be let down by the timidity of others. Not everything at the time was like that. The Brown government was far from pure in its dealings with the press. But the former prime minister was on firmer ground when he questioned Mr. Cameron's record. The prime minister's response raised further significant questions about his slapdash approach to phone hacking and the appointment of Andy Coulson as his media adviser.公仔箱論壇+ s8 n7 n) e3 H4 R" H5 i
7 L3 k: _6 M, }( G3 _( NTVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。In February 2010, this paper ran a story which should have given Mr Cameron pause for thought. For legal reasons it contained only limited details of the News of the World's decision, while Mr. Coulson was editor, to employ a private investigator who had served a seven-year sentence for perverting the course of justice and who had been charged with conspiracy to murder. Believing that Mr. Cameron should be made aware in private of the full details, the Guardian passed them to his senior adviser, Steve Hilton. * o5 o; H' d( k* ~3 p. H+ X9 c公仔箱論壇tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb' z* W* {8 h" W+ ]/ e
In the Commons, however, Mr. Cameron told MPs that the Guardian passed no significant private information about Mr. Coulson to his staff. That is incorrect. Second, he suggested that the Guardian had been able to put all the significant facts of the story in the public domain at the time. That is incorrect, too. Third, he claimed that the fact that the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, did not mention the story to him at two later meetings implied it was not important. That is an evasion: the first meeting followed the private warning and the second took place after Mr. Coulson had resigned. Mr Cameron could have been in full possession of the facts, and acted on them, had he chosen to be. Instead he gave Mr. Coulson a job in Downing Street. Y! H& k! u7 k- O. `# B5.39.217.76 _ ]4 S! A7 J' X$ @# Y5.39.217.76This matters because at the core of the whole affair lies the shoddy and secret way in which some powerful media groups have dealt with political leaders from both main parties. In this, Mr. Cameron may not even be the greatest sinner. But he happens to be the prime minister who must address all what has gone on. He cannot do so properly while he continues to evade the truth of his own past dealings.The world is changing. Mr Murdoch's spell has been broken. The BSkyB deal is off. The inquiry can lead to a cleaner, more plural, future. Mr. Cameron is trapped by his past.
Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: 美国新闻集团总裁默多克TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。/ P M: F: g# D
Bildunterschrift: 英国警方已经开始全面调查《世界新闻报》的窃听丑闻公仔箱論壇, b& |* i+ c: z; q