Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

My bad. I didn't read the article, which was kind of necessary to get your point. We're on the same page. I really feel like for how hard they came down on Manning and Assange, half of Murdoch's employees should probably be in an interrogation room right now, at the very least.

[Leafsnail]

Media experts find News Corp. chief's claims of ignorance unconvincing

Papal experts find Pope's claims of protestantism dubious
Ursine experts find bear's claims of defecation outside the woods unlikely

My bad. I didn't read the article, which was kind of necessary to get your point. We're on the same page. I really feel like for how hard they came down on Manning and Assange, half of Murdoch's employees should probably be in an interrogation room right now, at the very least.

Who's "they"?

[RF]

Well, that's odd. There's another one dead, too, but I can't remember his name.

Big archive for you guys on the phone hacking business.

[freeformschooler]

Well, that's odd. There's another one dead, too, but I can't remember his name.

Big archive for you guys on the phone hacking business.

Wh-

Police said Hoare's death at his home in England was not considered to be suspicious, according to Britain's Press Association news agency.

NOT suspicious?

[Nadaka]

So, you find it odd that people who blow the whistle against the worlds largest propaganda machine with unethical methods and evil intentions would wind up dead? I don't find that odd at all.

[freeformschooler]

I don't find it odd, I find it perfectly logical. I do, however, find it suspicious (especially moreso now that I've read the whole article), no matter how logical or realistic. Mostly my suspicion is of the police who found it not suspicious.

[Leafsnail]

"People had a motive to murder him, therefore he was murdered"?

[freeformschooler]

"People had a motive to murder him, therefore he was murdered"?

I wouldn't jump to conclusions like that, because that would be quite silly. For all we know it very well could be a suicide or something. However, the lack of further inquiry is very strange, considering the number of people that have jumped down the throat of every lead they can get throughout this whole business.

[Nadaka]

"People had a motive to murder him, therefore he was murdered"?

No, but when 2 people drop dead shortly after blowing the whistle on someone with the methods, means and agenda of Rupert Murdoch, it is not "not suspicious".

[Aqizzar]

If you're going to act like two people have died, you have to find the other one first.  I already mentioned Sean Hoare the day it was first reported, wherein it was the police that initially ruled out murder, since he was dead in his home and decomposing with no sign of entry, struggle, or injury, and so his body was taken in pending an autopsy.  Believe it or not, a proper investigation takes more than 72 hours.

It is inherently suspicious to hear a police force immediately rule out foul play, in the death of a man who helped launch a trial investigating the bribing of police officers.  But only as far as that logical connection takes you.  Nothing about the specific facts is suspicious.

[Neonivek]

Besides it isn't unusual for the Police to be so sure something was a "open and shut" case that they ended up botching investigations.

Or heck attempting to bypass investigation altogether by offering "deals"

[Leafsnail]

There'll be an inquiry like there's an inquiry into every unexplained death.  In fact, there's a fairly big inquiry in this case due to the high profile nature of the dead guy.  It's just that the police have expressed there is no evidence at all to suggest murder.

This article sums it up quite nicely (bear in mind this is the paper that destroyed the NotW by breaking the phone hacking story, so it's not likely to be biased in their favour).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/19/news-world-whistleblower-post-mortem

In a statement released on Tuesday, the force said of the postmortem: "There is no evidence of third-party involvement and the death is non suspicious … there is an ongoing examination of health problems identified at the post mortem."

The examination was a section 20 autopsy, which would ordinarily be used in suspicious death cases. Hertfordshire police said this was just a precaution. "Because of the circumstances surrounding the case and the high-profile nature of the person believed to be involved, a decision was taken for a Home Office postmortem to take place to thoroughly investigate the matter," a spokesman said.

So, in summary: noone's ruled out foul play and they're still looking into it, but there's nothing to suggest it either.

Who's the other person, Nadaka?  Both of the articles linked before my post are about the same person.

[Nadaka]

The other guy?... RF mentioned one, I don't have any details on that.

[Nikov]

I watched a little MSNBC coverage of the proceedings and wanted to vomit. Fairly exact quote from an anchor, "You know, I don't want to seem mean, but isn't he looking kind of frail? I mean, he's eighty one years old and his testimony seemed slightly, I don't know, doddering..." Beyond that they were talking about "How could the CEO of a global corporation not know what one reporter in one company that was one percent of his whole operation was doing secretly?" As if it were incredulous to think otherwise.

I commented to another student at campus and we agreed when one news agency gets a scandal the others are going to inflate it as much as they can because damage to another agency's credibility means better ratings for the attackers. Its a sick little bit of interests getting in the way of objective journalism. Which, as the other student and I also agreed, is a complete sham. It would be better if news groups just declared what camp they were in on the front page instead of hiding their bias as they've done for the last fifty years.

[Leafsnail]

one reporter in one company

Hahaha.  There's been plenty of evidence to show it went a pretty goddamn long way beyond one reporter in one company (for instance, Rebekah Brooks, a key executive of Rupert Murdoch, admitted to bribing police officers years ago... as well as the huge number of stories that were clearly obtained by illegal means that the editorial staff of the newspaper should've inquired into).  There's a very good chance it was institutionalised.

I commented to another student at campus and we agreed when one news agency gets a scandal the others are going to inflate it as much as they can because damage to another agency's credibility means better ratings for the attackers.

This is true, but when a news agency is performing abuses on this scale (interfering with murder investigations and bribing police, for instance) reporting it is surely a public service.  I mean... would it be better if this weren't reported and NotW were still hacking phones?