2 T& \$ J( j, k0 }5 Q0 u收購英國天空廣播（British Sky Broadcasting, BSkyB），梅鐸看中的當然「這是一家一流企業」，但最重要的是天空廣播的巨額現金進賬，去年下半年該公司的營收便達三十二億英鎊，比○九年同期增百分之十強（今年上半年的數據快將公布），目前新聞集團持有該公司約百分之三十九股權，無權支配這筆巨額現金，梅鐸因此心痒難熬，誓欲全面收購。去年新聞集團出價七十八億英鎊（此間電視說一百四十億鎊，恐誤）收購由投資銀行高盛、投資公司Invesco及沙地王子阿爾瓦德持有百分之六十一左右股權，雙方已進行多次磋商、達成協議，只待政府拍板。公仔箱論壇* Z; |; E/ ?2 W
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。1 f- w3 g6 v2 E1 Y* H) Y. L
梅鐸「有恩」於英相卡梅倫，因此這宗足以改變英國電視媒介生態的收購，成功在望，天空廣播已是梅鐸到口的「天鵝肉」，哪知突然爆出《世報》因竊聽而關閉的丑聞，且由於其他「竊聽事件」數以千計，還牽涉該報總編輯批准記者通過私家偵探賄賂公務員的非法行徑，當局已下令組成兩個專責委員會進行徹查，一場傳媒大掃除的運動正在醞釀，導致新聞集團的這項重大收購被叫停，是卡梅倫首相自保之道。卡梅倫曾聘請○七年在一宗令《世新》皇室通訊員及一名私家偵探下獄的竊聽案時該報的總編輯庫爾森（Andy Coulson）為首相府傳媒總監（已因卷入「竊聽案」而於年初辭職），引起外間對卡梅倫與新聞集團「究竟有什麼外人不知的關系」的揣測……。與如日中天的傳媒巨擘友善，「政治加分」，如今梅鐸「大病纏身」，且病灶未明，當然宜疏遠之以求自清。卡梅倫因此必會趁機與梅鐸劃清界線。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb8 R, {, p' |+ U I! |8 C
4 s8 ] v [# ~' p$ Z
這種變化，可說大出梅鐸意外，梅鐸以給旗下編輯絕對新聞自由又能巧妙地令編輯們看他「無形之手」的指揮聞名圈內外。收購《世新》十年後，新聞集團在英國的報章主導了當地的輿論，令戴卓爾夫人於一九七九年坐上首相寶座﹔上台后她「知恩圖報」，競爭委員會遂給梅鐸收購《倫敦時報》及《倫敦周日時報》亮了綠燈﹔前年新聞集團的報刊及電視，突然從工黨擁躉轉而支持保守黨，梅鐸是卡梅倫能夠組閣的大功臣，因此，天空廣播已是他的囊中物，但機關算盡的梅鐸，這次恐怕遭逢滑鐵盧了！ 3 H+ k6 n; h$ ]9 ?: f" g( xTVBNOW 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 u( \8 F5 t6 A6 ]! f
《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！ + Q0 M4 I0 i, l( _ t) }tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb g; T5 X# \3 R1 _( f* j* `# BTVBNOW 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。《世界新聞報》竊聽案是新聞集團從高峰下墜的轉折點。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb$ C$ h8 V; `3 G7 a ~
$ {8 G; M, u- m; x. c, j+ i5.39.217.77:8898＊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 . M) b* m1 R& T9 Q% T, M
3 y5 S$ q+ ?& e! H+ _$ pThis media is corrupt – we need a Hippocratic oath for journalists 7 g, G: X, t; P" {: v9 a George Monbiot The Guardiantvb now,tvbnow,bttvb" ^8 h3 `7 O _% @- E4 r
1 `, z# `* @+ k z+ G! M6 z+ n5.39.217.77:8898Is 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. ' ?0 ^! t/ ?! [- gTVBNOW 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。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb+ M z* G& C* _8 _5 E) }
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. , c9 a! b' e: J$ k) vtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb8 S8 z; F. V* n
The 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." 5 s$ }' J5 a/ P: H6 ctvb now,tvbnow,bttvb公仔箱論壇* A; [$ Q$ x; \
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.公仔箱論壇* @& A7 m# T, v
/ ?9 a; ?. [$ y7 X& k公仔箱論壇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. % p% T" J u$ p, [ y8 `4 Z" H* q% o' z7 ?6 o! z; ?9 ?
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.公仔箱論壇% u3 l2 D! O6 T: F0 x7 M) q" O
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb+ \( b. ]# T& t
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. 8 F; E) c/ M; u" o' ltvb now,tvbnow,bttvbtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb0 B: \, Q: |, M) n; I
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. 0 ]8 y' i8 P. F- K, }" A( |+ ]5.39.217.77:88985 A( T8 c D' o$ |
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." P5 m. [, C% |7 K
3 Y# A% q2 n7 i `( N$ m5 ~/ EJournalism'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. 8 U+ ^5 _+ _$ \. Q- S q' v5.39.217.77:88981 q* f: L W1 v
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. / F* t( T; {# A& \4 d1 n9 `5.39.217.77:8898 3 F& k; k& i9 C4 U4 }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. & x# K6 d$ f+ t- N/ g公仔箱論壇. R1 D/ n# f) G) s* j
'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.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb4 Z4 |! m) M" u1 q/ `3 X
公仔箱論壇: b1 p2 Q6 K- k2 f, T
"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. % e! \& o( z# }% Y3 c, j) v& z* aTVBNOW 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。 / Z& M4 n2 y# L7 ?) M"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." g) M' G5 |, V. @/ V2 M! s公仔箱論壇 ; Q, {+ Q4 z! d. k; l! I9 v5.39.217.77:8898I 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. : k! ?3 u* l) t8 M, O5 }8 atvb now,tvbnow,bttvb : P) j1 e" h3 ^3 j& \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
本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2011-7-14 11:17 PM 編輯 " B# J( F4 h8 l2 v1 J
9 {' f2 s$ T) \0 e News International scandal: The sky falls in 8 R5 W1 s, n2 Z, b The Guardian 13 July 2011 2 V4 c; Z j2 {) t" V公仔箱論壇5.39.217.77:8898+ x6 w% r9 Y0 _! \& I+ U
[attach]1426755[/attach] , I. b4 t+ y9 C/ ], F/ t公仔箱論壇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。, \8 u7 Q0 B0 t+ T* R- s
It 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. 0 _9 [" y% Y2 ~/ ATVBNOW 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。公仔箱論壇) M8 D' P. `: Z0 `: E
Yesterday 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.公仔箱論壇5 ?8 m6 O% b) Y6 a. ^4 P* h
5.39.217.77:8898# @0 T. X6 d0 `+ @3 |
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. " r+ {+ M$ H- C, P公仔箱論壇 . }+ v0 z V3 s' W1 ~公仔箱論壇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. : W& W# r) C% J) u4 x+ [tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb$ d; D) f5 s+ e& D$ ^( F9 T8 u) r
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. 4 y ]9 W0 e: C; |5.39.217.77:8898 & e2 ?% d: ]9 A# F: R' S; [5.39.217.77:8898This 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
Bildunterschrift: 英国警方已经开始全面调查《世界新闻报》的窃听丑闻