It's Official: News Corp to Buy DirecTV

Guppy06 writes "According to this Washington Post article, the heads at both News Corporation (owners of Fox) and DirecTV have agreed to a $6.6 billion deal to secure the purchase of DirecTV by News, with GM getting a little less than half of that total in cash. All that remains now is the actual exchange. For the record, EchoStar was going to pay $30 billion before the FCC shot them down."

Comments

I don't see this being a big change

[andih8u]

Except for CNN and MSNBC mysteriously vanishing in favor of fox news

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[Flounder]

Hey, two more channel slots to be filled with Pay per View!! Spiderman, every half hour on the half hour, whether you want it or not!

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[RobotRunAmok]

Except for CNN and MSNBC mysteriously vanishing in favor of fox news

MSNBC is accomplishing that quite nicely on its own, thank you very much. And although the war has driven viewership of all three cable newsers up, the real losers have been the Old School "News By Appointment" telecasts on the broadcast nets. Check the ratings for the past three weeks. I mean, really, who wants to wait until the "Friends" re-runs are over to find out what is happening in Iraq?

News on TV -- Now, Today -- must be two things: Immediate, and Entertaining. If I want deep analyses and differing perspectives (and I do), I get them on the 'net. Twenty years ago I read the NY Post, Times, Daily News and my local Gannett paper every day. Now I read twice as much news from papers around the world, and I don't have to wash the newsprint off my hands afterwards. The broadcast outlets fail at providing those two criteria. Fox succeeds in spades, and their numbers are reflecting this.

The Fox News "phenomenon" is better understood not as a "right wing conspiracy" but a failure of one by the left wing that has been percolating for 30 years. It is, rather, the "mainstreaming" of the news. People "enjoy" seeing the news delivered by preenters who clearly share their perspective on the events they are reporting. This may not be good journalism, but it is turning out to be good television. Golly, who knew...?

They may not float your particular boats, but it does seem that a not insignificant majority of people in the US share views closer to those of O'Reilly and Hannity than of your average Ivy League University Latino Studies Profeessor. And Murdoch would be insane to ignore that fact. The broadcast news outlets have had their collective heads in the sand on this topic for years, and are now imperiled.

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[ChrisNowinski]

The majority Americans are socially liberal and economically moderate when polled. Just because the conservative echo chamber seems loud dosen't mean that it is.

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[RobotRunAmok]

The majority Americans are socially liberal and economically moderate when polled. Just because the conservative echo chamber seems loud dosen't mean that it is.

"Socially liberal and economically moderate" would not put them out of lock-step with the "conservative" talk show hosts/entertainers who are in the front of the new media bus. (But I'd still like to see your source of that stat...)

My point here is that TV News is Show Business, and that Fox -- with whatever political party label you classify it -- is being more entertaining than their competitors by delivering the events of the day in a fashion that the majority of the people who are watching cable news want to see it presented.

It's all relative. The US is a nation of -- what?? -- 250 million? And the cable news numbers are in the under 10 million ballpark, so it is possible that the majority of people in the country are rabid Proust-reading liberals all getting their news downloaded into their Linux-powered Seikos as beamed directly from newsrooms in Paris and Zurich, but I don't think so...

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[zerocool^]

Fox succeeds in spades, and their numbers are reflecting this.


Hear, hear! When the war started, I, of course, turned to CNN. But, then, I realized that CNN was boring, if I wanted to be entertained, I turned to Fox News. Everyone knows it's sensationalism at it's worst, but it's so entertaining!

~Will

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[ChrisNowinski]

Americans call themselves conservatives, but they believe in abortion, and equal rights for women.

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[RobotRunAmok]

Wow! Those are very interesting stats! I had absolutely no idea so few Americans favored unconditional freedom of choice when it came to abortion!! Only 39 percent? Jeepers...

...which makes the first stat, about how many people call themselves "conservative," quite consistent and logical.

I question the relevance of the last stat. "Equal Rights for Women?" Dude, it's 2004! Might as well use a question like "how many favor powdered wigs?" as a socio-political litmus test.

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[PD]

I've also noticed that most of the Americans who say that liberals are the devil's spawn are also strangely against dictatorships, and think the bill of rights and constitution are wonderful ideas.

If they only knew...

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[Slime-dogg]

That's because you've run into the definition barrier. On one hand, you have the American definition of "Liberal" and "Conservative," and on the other hand you have the real definition of "Liberal" and "Conservative."

The American "Liberal" is closer to the classical definition of a "Socialist," while the American "Conservative" is closer to the classical definition of "Liberal." American Liberals are more fans of big government (as far as I see), yet are big fans of relaxed social views. They seem to want government to take over the responsibility that every dutiful American should have.

The American Conservative is a proponent of "Every man for himself." This includes smaller government, as well as little help for those that are in need, or little care about what other people are doing that may affect what you're doing. They are a bit more concerned about social issues though, and tend to be more strict with the social rules.

The classical Conservative, however, is a rarity within American culture. This individual holds the philosophy that every man and woman has a responsibility to uphold and ensure the well-being of the community. This is completely different from just letting the government take care of everything. This revolves more around personally taking care of the sick and shattered in your community, as well as pitching in to help someone out. This view sometimes springs up among the Christians and the Muslims, and also in the small neighborhood where everyone knows everyone else.

The U.S. was founded on classically Liberal ideals, but don't let the American version of the Liberal take credit for it. The philosophy that they preach usually is a crime against the bill of rights and the constitution. When it comes to the American version, think in terms of money. "Liberal with the money" means willing to spend and spread around in Gov't. "Conservative with the money," shows that conservatives are in favor in spending less money, and limiting government power.

The difference sprang up between them with the interpretation of the unmentioned power clauses in the constitution.

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, because that wouldn't get them in trouble with regulators...

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[PD]

while the American "Conservative" is closer to the classical definition of "Liberal."

Ahhh, I get it. So, the classical definition of Liberal means to be against women's rights, to be for slavery, to be against desegregation, to hold greediness as the highest value, to be in favor of war, to be in favor of any religion as long as it's Christianity, to be concerned about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

Liberal is not a bad word, and it's a damn shame that psychobitch Ann Coulter and her cronies have slandered it so badly.

You don't seem to have a good handle on what conservative means. You left out the entire conservative South. Yes, THOSE people. The ones you'd rather go away. The ones that count the dildoes and keep you from buying whiskey on Sunday.

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[Zarquon]

They keep you from buying it at the stores, wholesale.. but you can still buy it by the shot at bars (at least in Atlanta)..

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[Anonymous Coward]

I gotta write that down. I can get mighty grumpy looking for a drink on a Sunday in Atlanta. Almost enough to go to church to take communion. Thanks.

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[jafac]

But you see, the Iraqi Freedom Show is much cheaper to produce.

All the special effects and actors' salaries are paid for by the US taxpayer. (excluding the top 1%, who get the giant tax cut this year.)

Now THAT'S entertainment!

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[Anonymous Coward]

If only they knew what?

That the bill of rights and constitution facilitate dictatorships?

That the devil's spawn also think the bill of rights and constition are wonderful ideas, when it suits their purpose?

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[Anonymous Coward]

Dildoes, whisky, pot, and abortion... are those the things you value most? If not, then name one thing you consider more important. Lampshades?

Those are what you value most in life. While some conservatives would outlaw (or *gasp* regulate them), most consider them necessary evils, protected by the costitution which allows actual postive values. Like having families, religion, property, food, life, etc. Freedom is an abstract thing that only facilitates happiness.

If your only joy comes from getting stoned and spreading disease, no wonder you're pro-abortion & homosexuality. How many times have you said or thought: "I would never want to bring a child into this world" ?

Well, plenty of people feel different. There are better things in life than drugs, or even sex. You're not happy with your depravity not only depriving yourself, but you want to bring everybody else down with you, and have them pay for you to do it at the same time.

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[PD]

WTF? EOM

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[PD]

If they only knew that the constitution and bill of rights are the perfect expression of liberalism.

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[mixmasta]

umm, no. It's obvious you don't understand a word he is saying.

First you'll need a history class or two. Pay attention during the 18th century, french revolution and american independence quarter.

Re:I don't see this being a big change

[PD]

You obviously like to bash liberals without understanding anything about liberalism. Go back to your Ann Coulter column. There's no hope for you.

Constitution: LIBERAL.
Bill of Rights: LIBERAL.

If you don't like liberals, then you must be against our democratic form of government. An alternative explanation is that you're just ignorant.

Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$

[joebagodonuts]

"For the record, EchoStar was going to pay $30 billion before the FCC shot them down."

The article neglects to mention that Murdoch has offered more (much more) in the past
He had planned a more than $20 billion offer for the company in 2001, and an even larger, $30 billion-plus offer in 2000.

I found the above info in a google search. We do contract work for DTV and I remember kind of scratching our heards when the Echostar bid was the one accepted. Directv accepted the offer from Echostar, even though iirc Newscorp offerd more. No one was confident that the Echostar deal would get approved. The rumor was that the management at Directv was scared that if Murdoch bought the business they were all out of work.
Now Murdoch gets Directv at a much better rate.

Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$

[GMontag]

So, is this the "helping hand of government" or is it a case where someone just got the finger?

The people who support this meddling keep telling us it is somehow a good thing. Maybe good things are not that obvious here?

Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$

[s.a.m]

Ummm, no.

They DON'T own DTV now, they just control ~34% of the stock. Sure they may be the largest stakeholders but by no means do they outright OWN it.

Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$

[s.a.m]

Just as a follow up, it's called a Stock takeover. If you don't sell directly, then I'll just buy out all your shares and become the largest stakeholder.

Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$

[stripes]

So, is this the "helping hand of government"

Well to the extent that I think the goverment can ever help the "free" market out...yes, yes it is. DirecTV was beign sold, and the choices were to sell it to the only other USA satalite TV system, or to sell it to some media content conglomarate. One of those radically reduces the consumers avilable choices of satalite TV delevery (from "not much choice" to "no choice"), and even if you accept DISH/DTV's viewpoint that they compete with Cable TV systems then the choice goes from 3 to 2 in most places (some places from 4 to 2, a few places from 2 to 1 still).

So from the consumers viewpoint at least in the short to mid term DirecTV being bought by Sky, er, Fox, er, Murdoch is better then DISH. In the long term? Well who knows, it might have been better to let the 2 satalite componies merge and ovver more channels or something.

Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$

[nelsonal]

They will have enough interest to have decision making privledges over the company. Echostar was only going to buy roughly this stake as well.

Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$

[Sethb]

I accept that argument, I just switched from Cable to Dish Networks on Friday. I got tired of the horrible analog signal on my "digital" cable. I'd have gone to DirecTV, but they don't have local channels in my area, and we're in an NRTC zone, meaning that you're locked into buying your DirecTV from your local licensed retailer, and can't get them off the 'net from places like American Satellite.

So yes, the satellite networks are competing with Cable.

Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$

[sheldon]

EchoStar offered $30 billion to buy Hughes Electronics.

Murdoch also offered to buy Hughes Electronics.

This deal isn't about Hughes Electronics, rather he has now offered $6 billion to buy Hughes Electronics 20% interest in DirecTV.

"Now Murdoch gets Directv at a much better rate."

But he doesn't get Hughes Electronics. Hughes is the GM satellite services group... they launch all sorts of commercial broadcast satellites. DirecTV was part of that, but so is XM radio and Onstar system and a whole slew of other things.

Re:Originally, Murdoch offered more $$$

[leviramsey]

Also, when it becamme apparent that Rupert wanted DirecTV (at the height of the media bubble), there was talk of him buying General Motors outright and selling off the non-DTV assets, because it would be cheaper to buy all of GM than to just buy DirecTV.

What else do you expect?

[Eric Ass Raymond]

We're heading for a one world government that's not going to be feared but loved by the public because the media monopoly tells it that everything's just great.

Re:What else do you expect?

[sigep_ohio]

It will be just like libria. can i have my next dose of librium please. i am starting to feel some emotions and libral thoughts coming on.

Re:What else do you expect?

[Organic_Info]

"We're heading for a one world government"

Actually I believe we are heading for three namely Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. The Ministry of Truth will tell me everything I need to know and the Ministry of Love will protect me.

Read a classic...........1984.
.

Liberal media!

[cmason32]

This is just more evidence of the liberal media bias.

No, they withdrew

[PhilHibbs]

http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?na tive_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6513398631

Re:No, they withdrew

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't dredge up facts.

Like the fact Bush won Florida, and the economic began in 2000 downturn (18 mos before Bush's first budget).

The people here don't want to hear them.

Re:No, they withdrew

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a site for smart people. Maybe you dont belong

Re:No, they withdrew

[PhilHibbs]

Like the fact Bush won Florida,

t|n>k!

Slanderer!

[0xdeadbeef]

It's fair and balanced. They say so themselves. Why is everything a conspiracy with you liberals?

FOX?

[johnkoer]

I couldn't help thinkin of the Simpsons on this one:

Lisa: It's wonderful to think for ourselves again.
Bart: You said it, sister!
TV: You are watching Fox.
All: [Zombie-like] We are watching Fox.

Re:FOX?

[laughing_badger]

Coffee --> nose as I remembered:

Homer:

We apologize for misleading you and urge you to watch as many Fox shows as possible.

So in summary, NBC bad. Fox good.

*pause*

CBS great-*gunshot, thud*

Re:FOX?

[Icculus]

I own 60% of those networks! I suppose you don't like tabloid newspapers either, eh?

What liberal media?

[Joe the Lesser]

What liberal media?

Fox, CNN, NBC etc. are all run by corporations and have a strong conservative bias, which can be proven by the number of conservative 'specialists' they bring on their shows, and thus they don't offend their conservative owners/contributors. Works out nicely for Bush, since he's rarely criticized on TV, unlike Clinton.

What's disturbing to me about this is that there's actually a company called 'News Corp'. Talk about population control *shiver*. I'm stickin' with PBS. At least they consider all things ;-)

Re:What liberal media?

[Flounder]

1) Since when has CNN, NBC, etc had a strong conservative bias?? Obviously, I'm watching the wrong channel. When 90% of journalists working for a 24 cable news channel voted liberal in the previous 3 elections, that has a tendency to skew the reporting of that particular channel.

2) Notice that Clinton was never criticized on TV for the things that actually mattered. Campaign donations from foreign countries is the kind of thing that causes presidents to get impeached (and they actually get kicked out). CNN was more interested in cigars and stained dresses.

3) And if you consider PBS to be unbiased, what exactly do you call liberal?

Re:What liberal media?

[Anonymous Coward]

These are liberal topics that no one with a TV is interested in, except maybe my old grandmother who is stupid enough to believe that crap.
Most likely, your grandmother came from a time when the USA was building up and it was ppl like her that built it into what it was in the 50-60's. The USA literally took on horrible countries that invaded not just one disbuted area, but was truely seeking global conquest.
Now, we take on 2 bit dictators that we installed and suddenly think that we are great???? Please.
If you wish to see how great we are doing, check our economy. Likewise, check our current deficit. Finally, if you want to do a bit more observation, notice who all the re-build contracts are going to: not just USA companies, but more specifically most are going to Texas. The only state in in the union that is more polluted and decrepted than the country that it will be trying to rebuild

Re:What liberal media?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed something strange. Look at the countries that went to war in Irak. England, Australia, and USA.

Am I the only one to notice that they are the only country where murdoch's news are successful ?

I'm not saying he created the opinion, maybe his channels are successful there because of mob mentality. But it's amazing how pro-war goes hand by hand with murdoch's news. I don't know the anwser to the question of which one (pro-war, murdoch's news service) created the other, yet, i find that disturbing.

Re:What liberal media?

[ChrisNowinski]

Bullshit. 1. Your 90% number is a misquote. It's based on a poll of all kinds of "Washington" reporters - but it's weighted such that the Middle Of Nowhere Gazette has an equal weight to the Washington Post.

2. Bullshit. Kosavo?

3. Paul Begala is liberal. Fox News is Conservative. PBS is unbiased.

Re:What liberal media?

[ryanvm]

And if you consider PBS to be unbiased, what exactly do you call liberal?

You know you're talking to Michael Moore, right?

Re:What liberal media?

[shplorb]

What's disturbing to me about this is that there's actually a company called 'News Corp'.

It's called that because the company started here in Adelaide, South Australia when Rupert became the owner of a newspaper called 'The News'.

Re:What liberal media?

[toddhisattva]

Fox, CNN, NBC etc. are all run by corporations and have a strong conservative bias

Obviously, this moron has never worked for a corporation. They are all damned liberal. I remember chowing down in the IBM cafeteria when they had 50-foot high fag love banners hanging in it. Damn perverted shit-fucking posters in a cafeteria where people try to eat! Just try to tell a good joke at work anymore -- you will be FIRED.

Humorless, brainless, perverted liberals have made all business suck.

Re:What liberal media?

[Adam Wiggins]

The debate on this topic is heated and there is definitely no consensus. On one hand you've got journalists who are mostly Democrats or otherwise self-identifying liberals. On the other hand the corporations which actually own the media networks are run by conservatives in most cases.

Larry Elder confronts this topic pretty well in his book "Showdown". One of the most interesting sets of statistics compared the adjectives attached to the words "liberal" and "conservative" in a number of newspapers around the country. He found that politicians were often identified as "hard-line conservatives", but never "hard-line liberals" (to take one example).

There's a brief snippet on his website:

http://www.larryelder.com/mediabias.html

The hell with Directv

[Joshuah]

I had Telocity DSL. GREAT SERVICE! then Directv buys them to make Directv DSL. I had that service until i had to move, and with 1 month left on the contract, they said i had to pay a $150 early cancel fee, i even offered to just pay the last month, no deal. so, after being kinda pissed about that, i move, find out that directvdsl is the best service i can get, i give them a call up and they give me $40/mo. static ip 1.5/256 connection for 12 months to make up for the $150 they robbed me.

well, that lasted an entire month before the division shut down!

directv does have great sport packages, but no G4 channel, no Fox news, no Cricket. The only thing i like about directv's service now is their menu system. i sure hope that selling the company means that i can break my contract to go with someone else now...

Re:The hell with Directv

[andih8u]

fox news is channel 360

Re:The hell with Directv

[Anonymous Coward]

directv does have great sport packages, but no G4 channel, no Fox news, no Cricket.

So you're trying to tell me there's a channel just for Mac users, people watch Fox news, and people can be entertained by cricket? Well I can believe the channel just for Mac users :)

Re:The hell with Directv

[blueorder]

actually G4 is a gaming channel...

Re:The hell with Directv

[Anonymous Coward]

A gaming channel just for Mac users? What do they do -- show Mac users going to the store to buy gaming consoles? Do they tape-delay all of their shows by two months to pretend like Mac games are new and innovative?

Re:The hell with Directv

[Anonymous Coward]

I have had nothing but trouble with Directv / Directv DSL. They screwed me when they bought Primestar and converted my system and started charging a "rental" fee on the equipment they replaced that I supposedly owned. They installed it wrong and never returned to fix it. I signed up for Directv DSL and was told that I had to disconnect my existing DSL first and they would then get theirs hooked up within six weeks. TEN weeks later nothing had been done and I told them to go to hell and had to pay a reconnection fee to return to qwest (who also sucks). I am finally taking their dish off my house and having Dish Network installed on Saturday. Those bastards at Directv can kiss my ass

Re:The hell with Directv

[geekopus]

I'm astounded that there's a /. reader who can't install his/her own satellite dish.

And DirecTV DSL rocked. It really sucked that they went under. Rock solid connection and an SLA that stated that you can do whatever you want with *your* bandwidth! And a static IP.

Anyway, sorry you had a bad experience with DirecTV. I've had nothing but good. Except once when they trashed my card going after pirates, and they mailed me a new card within a day or two IIRC. (No, I wasn't pirating...)

Re:The hell with Directv

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey if you wanna get out of your DTV contract just find out where the nearest Pegasus area is and tell em your moveing there...Pegasus is still DIrect TV Programing (same box, HU or P4 card and channels) you just get your bill from Pegasus. Great way to get out of the contract a year early I know I've had to do it and worked quite nicely.

Re:The hell with Directv

[Anonymous Coward]

If you did want to get free satellite, then go for DISH and its hacks...more reliable, and less effective ECM's. Plus, you don't even have to have your card in the stream for it to work.

Re:The hell with Directv

[Anonymous Coward]

they were a great ISP for their el-cheapo price, but they should never have tried to go into the ISP business.

i transitioned back to speakeasy.net. (more expensive but worth it since nobody else will give you a servers-allowed static up like directv/telocity).

FYI - *all* DSL companies bang you for early cancellation. speakeasy did it to me on my 11th month when i moved out of my apartment and into a house i just bought. that's why i looked around and found directvdsl in the first place.

Re:The hell with Directv

[msimm]

I gotta agree with you there!

And DirecTV DSL rocked. It really sucked that they went under. Rock solid connection and an SLA that stated that you can do whatever you want with *your* bandwidth! And a static IP.

I was with them from the Telocity buyout. Their customer service was awesome too. Now I'm using Earthlink and sure miss the good service!

Re:The hell with Directv

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you say they have great sports packages but no Cricket?

This is great news

[Anonymous Coward]

Direc TV has always been a potentially great service but it has been consistently held back by lack of investment and poor marketing. Hopefully the Murdock millions will allow it to become truelly viable to the large number of Americans who just want to watch TV as easily and painlessly as possible.
WHat I want is a PVR that will allow me to pause live TV, have digital and analogue recording to a massive hard drive and to record programs that I might want to watch as easily as possible. Throw in the ability to play OGG/WMA and I'd be a happy man.

Re:This is great news

[Anonymous Coward]

tivo.

Re:This is great news

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought TIVO with DIRECTV served that purpose

Re:This is great news

[cbuskirk]

Oh yes because the Dodgers have improved so dramatically with Fox at the helm. I mean the pump all kinds of money into their properties.

Screw Fox
Screw Murdoch

Re:This is great news

[ePhil_One]

WHat I want is a PVR that will allow me to pause live TV, have digital and analogue recording to a massive hard drive and to record programs that I might want to watch as easily as possible. Throw in the ability to play OGG/WMA and I'd be a happy man.

Go get a DirecTiVo and sign up for a package with local channels, then you won't need analogue recording. Well, you won't be able to feed it old videotapes, but Tivo really isn't an archive medium. But you can tape two shows while watching a third from the Now playing list, and DirecTiVo's subscription rate is only $5/month (Free w/ Ultimate package)

And if you really want Ogg Vorbis, Hack the damn box cause it Linux at its heart. :^)

Re:This is great news

[msimm]

Forgive my ignorance, but if Direct TV works like regular cable (with a pci TV tuner card) then you are describing MythTV which is a Linux software base PVR project.

1. It doesn't play WMA (which is a downside for those of you not rabidly anti M$) but has a plugin (Mythmusic) to play OGG.
2. It pauses live TV.
3. It has AWESOME recording and scheduling feature (including features like "record this program when ever it plays anywhere" "on this channel" "only this time" and recording conflict fixer).
4. It has a great TV guide list.
5. It displays information on current programs on demand.
6. It shows local weather forecasts.
7. It will display photographs.
8. It will play videos from you local hard drive.
9. It supports multiple TV tuner cards! (if you want to watch a different program then the one your recording, record more then one program, etc)
10. Its supports Picture in Picture.

Now that I've got it working (took a little work, mostly because perl module Tk::MMutil wasn't installed or listed in the dependencies) I understand why people get so worked up about it.

I just dropped my digital cable and moved over to extended basic and was missing the extra features with the digital box. But MythTV does EVERYTHING it did, but better and with a lot of better features (ever the GUI is easier to use).

Anyhow, I'm probably preaching to the choir. Anyone who's been thinking about doing it should really stop making excuses and get it working, it one of those rare instances where something works pretty much like you imagine it *should*, but then you notice something you'd never thought of, and it works right too!

Anyhow, I'm thinking of doing a step-by-step on a clean install of Mandrake 9.1 this weekend, would anyone be interested?

Re:This is great news

[hypertex]

I've been on the fence about which way to go inre PVR's. If you do a stepped guide for installation from scratch, please send a copy this way. thanks

Re:This is great news

[Anonymous Coward]

Already accomplished, I have a direcTivo made by hughes. Two tuners watch and record at the same time. Embedded Linux so the HD is upgradeable--although not officially supported.

Re:This is great news

[msimm]

Sure, it really does work better then I'd imagined. I'm going to install a blank hard drive this weekend and go through the whole thing, taking step-by-step notes as I go. I'll send you a ruff.

Re:This is great news

[Anonymous Coward]

me too. If you could post it, I'm sure its worthy of a slashdotting on your DSL homepage. ;)

Yay! Finally a great deal for everyone!

[standards]

It's great to hear that the world-wide media industry is getting more and more efficient over time. With only a few large players in the industry, billing can be consolidated and redundancy of equipment and programming can be minimized, saving globs of cash.

In the end, this is sure this will bring higher quality service and programming at significantly lower prices!

Alas, the savings and increase in quality will happen only over an extended period of time.

And with inflation and government regulations, we customers might perceive lower quality and higher prices.

But no... it'll be much better than it would've been... just look how radio has improved in the past 20 years!

I'd rather have cash

[PhilHibbs]

GM said it would receive about $3.1 billion in cash, and the remainder would be paid in News Corp. preferred American Depositary Receipts (ADRs).

ADR's? No thanks.

Re:I'd rather have cash

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. What insight. ADRs have fallen in line with the rest of the market. Moron.

Re:I'd rather have cash

[PhilHibbs]

That's why I don't have much in stocks. My investments are primarily in real estate, which is doing very nicely over here, thank you.

a lot of money

[tankdilla]

...a little less than half in cash....

$3 billion dollars in cash??? IN CASH???

I guess he's gonna build a money vault like Scrooge McDuck next, convert some of the paper bills into gold coins, and go swimming in money next.

Re:a lot of money

[pyrote]

...convert some of the paper bills into gold coins, and go swimming in money next.

Hell I would...less papercuts.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[Flounder]

1 conservative propaganda outlet. Countless liberal propaganda outlets.

I think Murdoch has a ways to go to catch up.

For us non-usians

[rf0]

Could someone explain which coporations on what? Here in the UK its basically the BBC + Sky but not sure about any other major players

Rus

Re:For us non-usians

[s.a.m]

AFAIK Sky is owned by News Corp.

Re:For us non-usians

[I-Rev]

There is also ITN and CNN Europe.

And then there are all the news agencies, that supply news to TV channels - Reuters, etc.

Ian.

Re:For us non-usians

[ItaliaMatt]

O.K. - for the people who aren't in the states here is the breakdown: There are 5 major and 1 minor (based on Nielsen ratings) television news outlets in the states. This is in no particular order of importance, preference, or popularity.... 1. American Broadcasting Company - ABC - Owned by the Disney Corporation 2. National Broadcasting Company - NBC - Owned by General Electric 3. CBS - Owned by Viacom 4. Cable News Network - CNN - Owned by AOL Time Warner 5. Fox News - Owned by News Corporation The one minor player is the Public Broadcasting Service and is funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the annual support of viewers like you. Thank you. ;)

Re:For us non-usians

[evilviper]

Could someone explain which coporations on what?

Sure, it's pretty simple really. Directly or indirectly, News Corp (the owner of everything with FOX in it's name) pretty much owns half of all of the noteworthy media companies in the USA, and has global conquest on it's mind, so watch out!

For more details, check this out http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool /giants/, and prepare to realize that there are really only 6 companies providing all the media in the US.

Re:For us non-usians

[jafuser]

Someone should make a graphical nodemap of what companies own what other companies.

I have a feeling it would be quite shocking to see just how bad it has become.

Re:For us non-usians

[SN74S181]

Actually, PBS is 0wned by the Ford Foundation, and various other liberal special interests.

Re:For us non-usians

[Isaac-Lew]

Here is a link, not just news but also radio, televsion and recording (the major players in the US at least):

http://www.cjr.org/owners/index.asp

Re:For us non-usians

[daBum]

Alternately, there is a site out there - who owns what: http://www.cjr.org/owners/. It has a pretty good listing of who owns a variety of things.

Of course, I haven't looked too closely at it in a while, so I don't know how current / accurate the info is, but it used to be rather good.

Re:For us non-usians

[japhmi]

I thought Fox News had more viewers than CNN does now...

Re:For us non-usians

[Anonymous Coward]

and in the past, it was only BBC. What's your point?

Re:For us non-usians

[Anonymous Coward]

That page is a freaking joke. You might notice that the "bigger than them all" media company, General Electric, is not even mentioned.

Re:For us non-usians

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure glad we can trust government funded (look into state funds, and federal "grants", dipshit.) PBS to expose the conspiracy. Thank God for Frontline, brought to you by GE... the company that makes medical imaging equipment, is the largest US Government contractor, has a power monopoly over half the country, but no, they do not have any influence over the media. NBC is a figment of your imagination. Tune in next week for Will & Grace and afterwards, turn back here for a special on why Islam should be adopted as the state religion in America.

Re:For us non-usians

[neafevoc]

Someone should make a graphical nodemap of what companies own what other companies.

Not quite a graphical nodemap, but if you don't mind clicking on each of the parent companies to view who/what they own, it does the job.

Who Owns What

Re:For us non-usians

[Ko5mo]

Nice link. Thanks.

Re:For us non-usians

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: it's not owned by anybody. It's a public entity or how do you explain them having to go one every month to ask for more money to stay running. You watch too much O'Reilly my friend.

Re:For us non-usians

[SN74S181]

Yeah. And politicans aren't 0wned by anybody, because they have to get re-elected.

haha

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[Zigg]

Oh no, people might watch something and agree with it!

Quickly! We must get the government to stop this! Only Vendekkai-approved news sources must be allowed to have audiences!

Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia the media owns Murdoch!

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Of course. Obviously holders of conservative veiwpoints can't be allowed to excercise free speech or press.

Do you somehow think that HBO will come off as "more conservative" over the satellite if Rupert Murdoch owns DirecTV? Will it Janine Garafollo suddenly stop in the middle of a Comedy Special and launch into a Pro-Bush, Pro-War propeganda dialog on the "DirectTV" version of the broadcast?

How about the News... oh wait he already owns FoxNews.

How exactly will this change things again?

I'm not a big fan of the guy, but aren't we being just a wee bit paranoid here?

Moving towards a unbalanced view of the news...?

[I-Rev]

Does this mean that there is less choice in the US over who supplies the news? If it is, it's got to be a bad thing.

You only have to look at the past few months, with camera men being sacked for editing photos for publication in major news papers, and footage of the Iraqi war to show that news groups need to be more honest - and have competition to measure their views.

Views on the push by the US forces ranged from "Hurrah, the people are free", to "Look how the Americans allow people to loot" - with all the channels showing the same footage. One side said it was the whole city rising up, with another saying only a few hundred were celebrating.

So far this morning, the BBC have said both!

I find modern news channels being more political than ever before, and views on the same thing seem to contradict each other.

It all makes it harder to find out the real facts - especially if a company wants to be classed as friends of a political group to get more information - would they really state the facts if it was going to hurt a 'friendly' political group?

Ian.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[phyreman]

Can it be? A voice of reason within the first 25 comments on slashdot....

Security

[st0rmcold]

I wonder is security measures are gonna be upgraded, or maybe prices. Many claims that prices go up are due to piracy and illegal use of the satelite system. Something is gonna happen when Newscrop gets into that mess, and it won't be nice for the consumer :)

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a re: it could be one from the bottom.

This is GOOD news

[bosabilene]

This is the best thing to happen for subscribers. The only party getting screwed here is GM (and maybe some Directv employees who are dead wood). Newscorp now has the ability to put some capital into the business and make it run better because they got it for so cheap. They are also in the media business which means they will take a bigger interest in getting network channels to everybody and more type of service. Directv was the stepchild of GM. Now it will be run by a successful company. PS - Newscorp controls SKYTV. 1 more thing - CNN sucks.

Re:Yay! Finally a great deal for everyone!

[TopShelf]

No, I disagree - DirecTV should have gone to a small, independent outfit like Clear Channel Communications...

Does this mean

[JSmooth]

a 24Hour Simpsons channel with NO watermarks?? ;)

Ok, maybe show the occasional Furturama EP now and then.

Me. I can't wait for the boot leg itchy & scratchy movie 'The best little mouse in texas'

Re:Does this mean

[Hellkitty]

Ok, maybe show the occasional Furturama EP now and then.

Already done. Channel 296 at 11:00pm Eastern Sunday through Thursday. If Murdoch tries to take this from me, he can bite my shiney metal ass.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[Anonymous Coward]

You have *seen* FoxNews haven't you?

Here's an accurate interpretation

All your media outlets

[Anonymous Coward]

All your media-outlets are b3long to Murdoch.
Make your peace.

High priests of the world:

[jay-be-em]

Gates, Murdoch, Turner, Oprah.

Not necessarily in that order.

Fear them.

Re:High priests of the world:

[RedX]

Gates, Murdoch, Turner, Oprah.

Turner? He can't even scrape up enough cash to buy his beloved Braves back from AOLTW.

And people say the US government isn't corrupt..

[kiwi-matgar]

Funny how Murdock is the Republican party's largest donator, Fox is promoting the war 24/7 in the typical fashion of "all the way with GWB", and who would have guessed it, regulators "suddenly" allow the buy out with no questions asked.

Funny how on one hand we have GWB scream about the terrible and corrupt regeme of Iraq, yet, something like this just slips through and worst still, the US isn't like most countries. Most countries have a publicly funded television network that allows a voice of opinion to be broadcasted that isn't always "politically acceptable". Just look at Fox and the pro-war stance and the number of suckers sucked into the vacuum.

What the US needs first is a publicly funded broadcasting corporation that is at an arms length of government and receives no funding from the private sector. This is the only way to ensure media independence as the number of "media outlets" strink.

Hughes

[SirFlakey]

The deal really is about Hughes whose main product is DirectTV - but I think they also have some stakes in the wireless data sector. Let's hope he brings some of that back with him to Australia.

Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly will this change things again?

Earlier this year, a group of anti-war protesters put together a television advertisement. The major networks refused to run it because it was "too controversial". In order to get air-time, they had to go to cable companies and buy local advertisements.

With newscorp controlling DirectTV, one more advertising venue becomes consolidated under the same management structure.

Re:Advertising

[WindBourne]

I suspect that there was not that much that was controversial. W has been putting all sorts of pressure on the media owners, who then puts it on the employees and broadcasters. Worse yet, take a long look at the media now that they are allowed to own huge amounts of the market. The current FCC is allowing you to own whatever you want as long as you have the right views. Comcast vs Echo is a very interesting study.

Things that make me go, "Hmmm"

[Anonymous Coward]

Gates
Oprah
Turner *pre-retired frittering his fortune away on civil war epics*

Eisner
Murdoch

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[foxtrot]

How about the News... oh wait he already owns FoxNews.

Well, it was kinda nice back in the day when I had three cable news channels to choose from...

In truth, I don't see CNN or MSNBC going away any time soon. They're too big and would cause too much of an uproar-- and frankly, they're still profitable to carry [0]. I can, however, see some of the smaller channels go away-- you don't need this Jefferson Pilot affiliate, because you've got Fox SportsSouth. Never mind that SportsSouth doesn't carry Georgia Tech football games...

[0] One might think that given how CNN tends to lean left and FoxNews tends to lean right that the folks who own FoxNews might want use this sort of market power to squash CNN so that people would get right-slanted news. Thing is, many of NewsCorp's news channels on Sky and the like lean left-- Rupert Murdoch isn't interested in brainwashing you to think like he does. He's interested in your money.

Re:Yay! Finally a great deal for everyone!

[pr0nbot]

It's great to hear that the world-wide media industry is getting more and more efficient over time.

Absolutely! With all those different channels offering differnt viewpoints in the news I was getting confused!

With only a few large players in the industry, billing can be consolidated and redundancy of equipment and programming can be minimized, saving globs of cash.

Yes! Naturally, the large players won't pocket the savings, they'll pass it on to us!

In the end, this is sure this will bring higher quality service and programming at significantly lower prices!

Yes! Those with the most power and the least competition always deliver the best products! That's why I use Windows XP!

Alas, the savings and increase in quality will happen only over an extended period of time. And with inflation and government regulations, we customers might perceive lower quality and higher prices. But no... it'll be much better than it would've been... just look how radio has improved in the past 20 years!

*POP* ok now I know you were being sarcastic too.

Propaganda

[Joe the Lesser]

Because we can prove it:

Mmm, propaganda

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[nelsonal]

MSNBC isn't that profitable, and GE doesn't like being third in anything they do. If the war had drug on, MSNBC would have likely begun the beginning of their end.

VOTE NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

GHM stock holders (and perhaps GM stock holders)
can and should still vote "NO" to the sale.
DirecTV is better of independent; rather than be owned by Fox. Hughes is a great business and should vote to keep their DirectTV unit a part of Hughes.

Stock holders : vote NO!

Did you know

[CowardNeal]

News Corp (NWS) is incorporated in Australia. All the profits going down under! yay!

Re:Did you know

[Anonymous Coward]

So what?
Most assetts, employees and even ceo aren't spending much time down under.

Re:Did you know

[Isaac-Lew]

Didn't Murdoch become a US citizen just so he could buy more TV stations here?

Stoopid Law suits

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if they will now call off those stoopid law suits against its own customers.

http://www.legal-rights.org/DTVBOX.html

Down with Dave!

Sky News does not lean left

[Anonymous Coward]

Sky News does not 'lean left', although it may not be as far right as FoxNews it is still fairly right wing by British standards.

Re:Sky News does not lean left

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn't. They're on similar parallels to the BBC, with a more central stance, hoping to appeal to a broader audience.. remember the're not the UK's most popular news channel, BBC News 24 is. Sky news is competing with them for audience, so wants to cover as broad an audience as possible.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[amcguinn]

You're missing the point if you think the purpose of News Corp is to advance any political position

Politics comes a distant second to business in News Corporation. In the UK, Murdoch is seen as the very definition of a dangerous monopolist, controlling all satellite TV (which is more popular than cable) as well as several of the most popular newspapers (The Sun, The News of the World, The Times, The Sunday Times). The Murdoch media are generally populist right-wing, but they pretty soon slotted in behind Blair when they saw which way the wind was blowing. They are populist right-wing because it sells, that's all.

Okay, I'll bite

[Karl Cocknozzle]

1) Since when has CNN, NBC, etc had a strong conservative bias?? Obviously, I'm watching the wrong channel. When 90% of journalists working for a 24 cable news channel voted liberal in the previous 3 elections, that has a tendency to skew the reporting of that particular channel.

Uh...Do you have any evidence to back that up? A link to a survey? An exit poll? Anything? I know plenty of conservative journalists... (Having been, at one point, a journalism student in the state of Indiana.)

2) Notice that Clinton was never criticized on TV for the things that actually mattered. Campaign donations from foreign countries is the kind of thing that causes presidents to get impeached (and they actually get kicked out). CNN was more interested in cigars and stained dresses.

Sorry, but you must have been asleep during those controversies. There was widespread press criticism of the president in that scandal. Also, the "focus" on cigars and stained dresses should be traced back to a witch-hunt launched by Clinton's political adversaries. Is it a coincidence that the first democrat to be elected and serve TWO FULL TERMS (since...what, FDR?) was "investigated" endlessly by conservative political appointees who, after many years and $40 million of tax money could only "get" him on the technicality that he didn't wish to disclose an extra-marital affair when the investigation was supposedly focused on a real estate deal?

3) And if you consider PBS to be unbiased, what exactly do you call liberal?

The biggest white elephant ever from the conservatives is the "liberal media" one. If the widespread "liberal" bias really existed, I would expect to see widespread outright opposition to President Bush's policies, since he is a Republican.

Yet the opposite is true. The networks are giving us non-stop, nearly pornographic (positive) coverage of this war and there are very few dissenting voices on the airwaves right now.

Again, you'd think if the media was so "liberal" they would show civillian casualty numbers which (once again) it appears will end up in the multiple thousands. I haven't heard even ONE PEEP on American television about civillian casualties... Except for when they hit a busload of civiliians with a missile, we heard about THAT "accident." But after the bombing of a residential area where potentially hundreds of civilians could have been affected... nothing. Not one peep.

Re:Okay, I'll bite

[calbanese]

Again, you'd think if the media was so "liberal" they would show civillian casualty numbers which (once again) it appears will end up in the multiple thousands. I haven't heard even ONE PEEP on American television about civillian casualties... Except for when they hit a busload of civiliians with a missile, we heard about THAT "accident." But after the bombing of a residential area where potentially hundreds of civilians could have been affected... nothing. Not one peep.

According to the Iraqis, who have been known to inflate the number of civilian casualties reported, nearly 600 civilians have been killed, with 4,000 wounded. And while the networks haven't shown many pictures, civilian casualties have been reported. And as for the Syrian Bus we hit, I wouldn't be too surprised if it was full of Arab fighters and less of an accident than a targeted strike. I mean, while there have been tons of reports of fighting in northern and southern Iraq, very little fighting seems to have occured (unless not reported) near the Syrian border. The 600 dead is truly a tragedy, but ask an Iraqi if we hadn't done anything for the next 2 years, if more than 600 would have been killed by Husein.

Re:Okay, I'll bite

[elefantstn]

Again, you'd think if the media was so "liberal" they would show civillian casualty numbers which (once again) it appears will end up in the multiple thousands. I haven't heard even ONE PEEP on American television about civillian casualties... Except for when they hit a busload of civiliians with a missile, we heard about THAT "accident." But after the bombing of a residential area where potentially hundreds of civilians could have been affected... nothing. Not one peep.

Either you're lying or you're not watching the news you're criticizing.

Re:Okay, I'll bite

[lobsterGun]

Also, the "focus" on cigars and stained dresses should be traced back to a witch-hunt launched by Clinton's political adversaries.

A witch hunt? You must be joking. You could only call it a witch hunt if Clinton hadn't done the things for which he was being investigated. Similarly, you can't say that they were slanderous or libelous attacks on Clinton, beacuse he really did do what they said he did. You may be able to claim that Clinton's political adversaries conducted a campiagn of character assassination against him, but even that is a stretch, since he really was the man that they were claiming him to be.

Re:Okay, I'll bite

[mdwebster]

What are you on about? If Clinton had done the things for which he was being investigated then where was the proof after 3 years and 40 million dollars?
The only thing the Starr Report documented was the Lewinsky matter and Clinton's conduct regarding it while under oath. This was not the 'things' that the Independant Council was initially investigating.

Re:Okay, I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

What a fucking moron you are. Clinton had an affair with "that woman". What else did he do? As the parent to your post pointed out, NOTHING. After $40 million, not one illegal act could be uncovered.

The unconvering of the affair was meant to embarrass and cripple Clinton. THAT IS ALL.

Get a fucking life and accept the truth. Clinton was persecuted from DAY ONE. The republicans are evil assholes that couldn't stand him and wanted to trash his presidency.

Re:Okay, I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

While a little dramatic, he's mostly correct. The US media is having an orgasm over the war (but losing money... ahhh, all things are not perfect) and very few items which are "negative" get into the news.

Re:Okay, I'll bite

[sheldon]

"You could only call it a witch hunt if Clinton hadn't done the things for which he was being investigated."

Then we all agree.

It WAS a witchhunt.

Re:Okay, I'll bite

[rayvd]

Again, you'd think if the media was so "liberal" they would show civillian casualty numbers which (once again) it appears will end up in the multiple thousands. I haven't heard even ONE PEEP on American television about civillian casualties... Except for when they hit a busload of civiliians with a missile, we heard about THAT "accident." But after the bombing of a residential area where potentially hundreds of civilians could have been affected... nothing. Not one peep.

I certainly have... maybe you're the one asleep? The news always mentions when civilians may or may not have been bombed... when news outlets are accidentally hit, etc. The frustrations you and others have shown is that the media doesn't go into great depth on these things and try to criminalize the US for what is a natural by-product of war.

People like you will find the media biased unless it constantly portrays the US as the evil bully you would like to believe it is.

Bye bye karma, but someone had to say it!

Re:Okay, I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

Another fucking moron. He wasn't being investigated for blowjobs, and he wasn't found to have done anything else.

I hope you're not a programmer. I'd hate for you to use your shitty logic on a computer.

Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

Great News channel. Fair and balanced. NPR is the most unbalanced coverage there is.

Re:Fox

[linuxjack55]

Yeah, right.

Roger Ailes is not a name I associate with "fair and balanced".

Evidently, Fox thinks that if they include those words in every promo for their news channel, people will believe it. After all, that kind of mindless repitation worked very well for the phrase "liberal media conspiracy".

Re:Fox

[Anonymous Coward]

Roger Ailes is not a name I associate with "fair and balanced".

And Ted Turner is?

So where are they unbalanced? I always hear about the Fox News bias, and when I ask some low level dumbshit ideological complete waste of oxygen dumber than rocks asshole for examples, they invariably point to the shows that are clearly opinion shows. Wow! Bias on an opinion show! You can almost hear the asshole's brains going "Duuuhhhhh!!!! Boooooop!!! Drive Not Found!!!"

Fox News has a lot of news *analysis* programs, and that's what the low wattage bulbs of this world misconstrue as biased news *reporting*.

Anyway, what are you? Clear or frosted?

Re:Fox

[tomdarch]

So where are they unbalanced? I always hear about the Fox News bias, and when I ask some low level dumbshit ideological complete waste of oxygen dumber than rocks asshole for examples, they invariably point to the shows that are clearly opinion shows.

It's sort of stunning to come face-to-face (so to speak) with a Fox-fan who doesn't understand the bias. (There are plenty of Fox-fans who are aware of the bias and just like it). Nonetheless, the AC poses a fair issue.

First of all, why do people care what the opinion hosts have to say? It's becuase their opinions form a lens through which Fox viewers are more likely to interpret the 'facts'. This is particularly a problem for viewers who are not independently well informed. Their worldview is particularly easy to 'massage' to a particular position.

That said, why do more broadly informed people percive Fox News to be biased? It's not just the opinion shows. My biggest objection has to do with the low standards for fact checking and journalism. During the Sep. 11th attacks, the Fox crawl reported that handcuffed hands had been found on a rooftop in some debris. Just in case you're confused - no such 'hands' were found. Is this inherently politically biased? No, but it is sensationalistic and the kind of gory anecdote that is often used in rabble rousing. During the Clinton/Bush transition Brit Hume and Paula Zahn reported as fact that there was widespread vandalism of the White House by departing staffers. It was compared to "Animal House". There was no signifigant vandalism and Fox News never really corrected their reporting on air. I hope that the political bias of this sort of fabrication is clear in and of itself. Perhaps is isn't fair to present, but of course, Fox 'reporter' Heraldo Rivera lied on air about his being kicked out of Iraq by the US military.

It isn't just the poor journalism that lends to the perception of bias. It's the comments by the (nominally non-pundit) news hosts. Brit Hume asked, on air, why civilian casualties of US military action should even be reported given that it's part and parcel of war. I recently saw the (nominally non-pundit) Fox newscasters 'reporting' on GWBs visit to Northern Ireland to meet with PM Blair to discuss post-conflict Iraq. Blair was going in to the meeting to stress the importance of UN involvement to lend legitimacy to the process. One Fox newscaster commented that the Bush administration opposes this. The other newscaster replied "Well, France will be crying!" Cut to commercials. She was clearly cheer-leading the Bush administration. Even as they are supposedly 'just reporting the facts' they are adding editorial comments to 'help' the viewers to form the 'correct opinion' of them.

Former Fox News employees report how management interferes with the reporting process to modify stories to make them more appealing to right-wing viewers. Analysis of the pary affiliation of guests on Fox News reveals an overwhelming slant towards individuals from the Republican party.

Perhaps the most sad thing here is that while the Fox staff are personally commited to the the Conservative agenda, the News Corp. fundamentally produces this stuff because it makes money. The irony of all of this is that while Fox promotes the Bush administration and its policies, the average Fox viewer doesn't make enough money to benefit from the Bush tax plan.

Re:Fox

[valkraider]

"WORLD'S SCARIEST NEWS REPORTS IV", tonight at 8 on FOX.

"WHEN GOOD FACTS GO BAD" - Saturday, on FOX.

Anyone else remember the Saturday Night Live skit where the "interpreter" for Gorbachev was just making up stuff - and then he got chewed out, saying "He was a disgrace to the FOX network" ?? It was funny back then, because FOX was almost non-existant. But now - it almost seems like it had been foreshadowing...

Re:Fox

[WindBourne]

When Jed's daughter was caught with drugs:
Fox's 2x report:
Florida's Govonor's Daughter was caught with rock's of cocaine. (next).
CNN: Jeb Bush's daughter and the presidents neice was caught with crack cocaine. She was sentenced earlier to prison, but was apparently not in prison anymore. (next).
Fair and Balanced???? I think not.
The real story should be, why was she out of prison and able to do the drugs in the first place? Jeb stepped in and got here out.
Personally, I think that families are entitled to their privacy until they interfer in public process. Then, by definition, it becomes public business.
Should I keep going? No, it is just a waste of my time. Fox is just mouth piece for the republican party. Is CNN liberal? Not really. They are sensationalist though. They will chase angles that give them ratings. Right now, it is a very conservative bent. It use to be very liberal.
Probably, if you want something that is more balanced about us, try the BBC or any other free nation news service. They do not have the undue governmental influence that is happening right now. and it is happening.
But to be honest, that is probably true for any news in any localitly. If you wish to find out about europe, read about it int the States or Canada.

Re:Fox

[HarveyBirdman]

The antics of Bush's daughters have been debated endlessly on Fox News on shows like O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes, Beltway Boys, etc. In general, most people took a dim view of their behavior. As for the non-opinion shows, I remember Shepard Smith reporting on it multiple times.

I mean, seriously, you know the complete Fox News coverage of that story? The fact that you didn't see it when you happend to watch is utterly meaningless. C'mon, youread SlashDot. I assume you're of a geeky mindset. You should know the statisical value (or lack thereof) of a smaple size of one, or anecdotal evidence in general.

As for the famous getting away with crimes, well, what's the big news there? Left, right and center all get away with that crap.

As for jail for the Bush daughters, I'm opposed to jail terms for drug users, and opposed to the Drug War in general.

Re:Fox

[WindBourne]

As for jail for the Bush daughters, I'm opposed to jail terms for drug users, and opposed to the Drug War in general.
So am I. But I am far more opposed to corruption int the government. As I said, the story is not that she was jailed, but how she got out.

Re:Fox

[HarveyBirdman]

And the answer is - the powerful protect one another, even across ideological boundaries. This has been true for 5000 years. Where have you been? ;-)

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[DASHSL0T]

What the US needs first is a publicly funded broadcasting corporation

I agree. We need something like Iraq TV. Baghdad Bob, come back, we need you for the 5 O'Clock Eyewitness News.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[ChrisNowinski]

CNN leans left? Tell that to Wolf Blitzer and Aaron Brown. I'm certain they would be surprised to find that out.

Re:Yay! Finally a great deal for everyone!

[blueorder]

sweet lord!... this made me laugh so hard... thanks for the laugh so early in the morning...

That explains why my cable co. started chargin'

[Anonymous Coward]

That explains why my cable company started charging an extra $2 for the right to have the Sports-related Fox channels (including the Speed network -- gotta have my nearly-one-week-ex-post-facto WRC coverage, after all).

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[ChrisNowinski]

Bullshit. If Murdoch was really a profiteer, why does he continue to fund the money losing Weekly Standard, or any of the other money-hole conservative journals he runs?

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[jcam2]

How can a publicly funded broadcaster be independent of the goverment - haven't you ever heard the saying 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'?

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[kiwi-matgar]

Maybe you should actually have a look at the legislation used in Germany, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Ireland and so-forth on how a publicly funded media can be independent of the government.

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[kiwi-matgar]

What are you going on about? is the US the only country on planet earth with the "private owned only" fixation? Just look at the average yank and their understanding of world affairs. If the average yank saw that when they choose a president the rest of the world suffers as a result, maybe we wouldn't get half-witts like GWB being voted in, or better yet, we might actually have some Americans exercise their democratic right and vote instead of relying on 30% of the voting public to turn out and hopefully represent their views.

I'm happy to see this.

[IGnatius T Foobar]

As a DirecTV customer, I'm very happy to see this happening. Any media service owned by News Corp. is one not owned by Microsoft. This is not a troll/flamebait -- I was truly worried about someday having to either switch or cancel because a company I refuse to give my money to takes over a service I use. It would be better if there were room for lots of small players, but at least the big players keep each other in check. It's best when they hate each other, too -- when they don't, they start cooperating, and that tends to screw any small/free players that are still around.

Re:I'm happy to see this.

[BrerBear]

As a DirecTV customer, I'm very happy to see this happening. Any media service owned by News Corp. is one not owned by Microsoft.

Uhhh.. I hate to burst your bubble, but we aren't out of the woods yet. You see, the first time around when Murdoch made a bid for DirecTV, he brought Microsoft with him to the table. You can find a little more info on this here.
Microsoft really wants to get its software into all these set-top boxes, you see.

But what happened behind the scenes is more interesting. Microsoft was all poised to take over the software for DirecTV boxes in a deal with BSkyB, and they were pissed when Murdoch left the bargaining table, which meant they couldn't get exclusive rights to power the boxes. (This would have been bad for companies like Tivo, btw.) You can bet now that Murdoch is taking over Microsoft will be coming back to attempt it once again, if they haven't already...

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[amcguinn]

I don't know: I'm giving you the perspective from a country where "Murdoch" is virtually a synonym for "the media" in the popular mind.

At a guess, and it's no more than that, I'd say it's for the same reason that his Chinese media interests are so pro-government: You can't reach the kind of dominant position he has in Britain without earning the support of some group in the government.

If you wish to disagree further, do you think you could do it politely?

Re:Moving towards a unbalanced view of the news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get Dish Network and watch foreign news! atleast you will have more options to form an opinion, and a good chance to learn a foreign language.

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[Dunark]

The Iraq war coverage frequently mentioned that the U.S. military had been making efforts to take Iraq's state-run broadcasters off the air, and had found it difficult because there were so many backups (such as mobile transmitters). Clearly, both sides regard control of broadcast media to be an important asset. Yet, back home in the U.S. the government is giving that control to media mega-conglomerates. Why?

I think there's a lot of "quid pro quo" going on between the government and the media. Murdoch has repeatedly demonstrated that he will use his media outlets to support politicians that do his bidding and attack those that do not. The politicians don't seem to consider the long-term consequences: The bigger Murdoch gets, the more control he has over the politicians.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[Dunark]

AFAIK, Murdoch's Fox News is the only news outlet ever to win a lawsuit by insisting they are under no obligation to report truthfully. Try a Google search for "fox news lawsuit jane monsanto" for more info.

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[kiwi-matgar]

I agree, however, as so long as senators, parties and congress people keep receiving kick backs from large corporations who wish to pervert the course of democracy so the cycle of social engineering will continue. It is about time that US citizens finally got the bull by the horns and put a president and party in that has no connections to either the democrats or the republicans.

Here are the real stats

[Joe the Lesser]

Here's a unbiased report on the civilian casualties

More likely there are more deaths that can't be reported, and not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqis defending their homes with WWII style guns, but who cares about them right?

Saddam wasn't a mass murderer when it came to his own people excluding the Kurds after the first gulf war of course, but then you don't have the facts, and really, neither do I, on how bad he was.

Re:Here are the real stats

[calbanese]

Unbiased???? The Bios of the peoplw who run a site called iraqbodycount.org:
JOHN SLOBODA: He is a founder member of the Network of Activist Scholars of Politics and International Relations (Naspir), and a local delegate to the Stop the War Coalition.

TORBEN FRANCK (Webmaster) is a musician and peace activist.

MARC HEROLD (Research consultant) is an Associate Professor of ... Women's Studies. In December 2001 he released a widely cited study of the human costs of the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan

JOHN BUCCHERI (Assistant researcher) is co-founder of MOW (Musicians Opposing War) at the School of Music...and believes during these bad times, a PERSISTENT STRONG VOICE OF OPPOSITION must be heard.

ERIC CLARKE was an active member of Camden CND in the 1980s, and is a member of Amnesty International.

JORDANA LIPSCOMB ... is a... [s]upporting member and event coordinator of Musicians Opposing War (MOW).

SCOTT LIPSCOMB ... is a co-founder of Musicians Opposing War, who advocate seeking non-violent solutions to the world's problems through a consensus of peace-minded nations.

I could go on, but its pretty off-topic. But this is why conservatives laugh when liberals say there is no left-wing bias. This is who counts as "unbiased" for ceritan people.

For the record, I am pro-this-war. Not because I think Hussein is a threat to the US (Hhe isn't), or WMD (little evidence), but because it is the moral thing to do. As the state with the biggest and best military, I feel we have a responsibility to oppresed people. While I didn't like Clinton, (and I don't like GWB), I supported Kosovo and Somalia. I think we should have gone into Rwanda and even now (after the latest massacre in Uganda) it wouldn't be a bad idea to go. We should have supported Checkoslovakia in '68 and Hungary in '56.

Will civilians be killed? Yes, but so far, even if you use your "unbiased" numbers, that's still a quarter of what Hussein killed in Halabja in one attack on the Kurds (in '88). Oh, and I sure the dead Kurds appreciate you "excluding the Kurds, of course." Kind of like how Hitler didn't kill his own people. Except for the Jews. And Gypsies. And Homosexuals.

Re:Here are the real stats

[Anonymous Coward]

The web site is biased yes, but the numbers were pulled from various sources.

War is never the moral thing to do imo, so I have nothing more to say.

Re:Here are the real stats

[metachimp]

I'm as 'liberal' as they come, but I found that site to be completely biased, totally hyperbolic. I love that photoshopped picture of a B-2 dropping all those bombs, as though the things could actually carry that many bombs. That site is garbage.

ob simpsons quote

[MacOS_Rules]

Homer: ...and I bought a little something called NewsCorp.
Lisa: Dad! That's Fox!
Homer: Aagghh! Undo! Undo!

---
In other news, NWS (NewsCorp) is down about 5.5% on worries they will not meet forcasted earnings. I wonder how the DirectTV acquirement will affect the stock?

Fox News is channel 360 on DirecTV

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so you know.

Significant Majority?

[BugMaster ChuckyD]

Hardly a majority, let alone a significant one. The overwhelming majority are neither right nor left wing idealogues, liberals or conervatives. Fox News succeded becasue there was an untapped market of angry conservatives who like to be pandered to. And when it comes to pandering News Corp is the world wide expert. Look at the ratings many more people are watching Sponge Bob or WWE than are watching O'Reilly etc. On the radio Limabaugh is the number 1 show, the number 2 & 3 shows are NPR's Morning Edition and All Things Considered...

Re:Significant Majority?

[RobotRunAmok]

O'Reilly... Sponge Bob

I always get these two mixed up... who is the one who is always crying out "I HAVE ISSUES...?"

Re:Significant Majority?

[SN74S181]

The unspoken consensus is that all the people who flunked out of English Lit and had to go to J-school instead have issues.

Re:Significant Majority?

[SN74S181]

I would agree with you on one of your implied points.

All Things Considered, Morning Edition, and the Limbaugh show all are about as objective as one another.

Only one of them is honest enough to admit it, though.

Re:Significant Majority?

[Catbeller]

NPR is centrist, not "biased". Congress made their funding contingent on letting super-corporations advertise on the network, not to mention letting in a large number of right to far-right journalists.

What you hear on NPR is FACTS. Backed up by journalists with sources, just like the old days of the '90's.

Limbaugh has no research staff. His fact-checker reads comic books. Limbaugh makes stuff up on the cuff, crudged together from Republican National Committee blast-faxes. His show has no transcript available, so it is very hard to catch up with his volume of innuendo and character assassination, if you are trying to contest his lying.

NPR is news. Limbaugh is a radical right-wing liar in the direct mold of Father John Coughlin of Chicago radio in the 1930's. Like Coughlin, he panders to the basest prejudices of the most ignorant mobs, telling them that they are right to hate whom they hate.

I think that what Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest of the Know-Nothings really are about is hate . They fan it, they bathe in it.

Doubt me? Listen to him sometime.

And I doubt that Limbaugh "admits it".

Re:Significant Majority?

[cayenne8]

Hmm...I thought I heard the other day, that O'Reilly DID beat out SpongeBob in ratings....

Re:Significant Majority?

[SN74S181]

What you seen on PBS and hear on NPR are 'facts' as depicted by those who selectively point the camera/microphone in the direction they choose.

I personally do not like Rush Limbaugh's presentation. I think he dumbs down the info he presents far too much. But he freely admits that he is an entertainer, an editorialist.

The NPR/PBS folks insist, rather shrilly, that they are 'objective.'

Re:Significant Majority?

[RobotRunAmok]

What you hear on NPR is FACTS

Oh, stop! Puh-leeze...! You can't really believe that? Not sure if we're going to be able to have a meaningful exchange here if that's your premise, but let's give it a go...

I think that what Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest of the Know-Nothings really are about is hate . They fan it, they bathe in it

You, sir, illustrate the reason why there will never be a strong liberal counter to the Limbaugh and O'Reilly shows. You take the whole experience far, far too seriously. It's show biz, theatre, lipstick and mirrors! The hosts know it, and play it with the appropriate winks and nudges, and it's those very same winks and nudges which seem to upset their overly sensitive foils.

At the end of the day, the conservative talk show celebrities who are trying to influence public opinion are much more intellectually honest about what they are doing than the actor and musician celebrities (or NPR Assignment Editors) who attempt the same thing. But my opinion of the guy who votes some way because O'Reilly told him to is on par with my opinion of the guy who votes some way because his favorite actress or rock star told him to.

Doubt me? Listen to him sometime
I just turned him - Limbaugh -- on. He was going on about his bad self being "A Way of Life" and how he was doing the show with half his brain tied behind his back to make it fair. It made me chuckle. Which part was I supposed to take seriously?

If you don't get the joke, I guess you're the butt of it....

Re:Significant Majority?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever you call your party, it's still biased.

Your "Centrist" or is that "Centristocratic?" or just "rich & stupid?" party is not in the center of anything. The only "news" on NPR is cartalk.

Effects on DirecPC/DirecDuo Subscribers?

[crypton]

As someone who is a current subscriber to DirecPC, I have to wonder if this will mean that whole side of the business will get scrapped in favor of the media distribution side. None of the stories even mention it. The phone lines out my way only support 24k, there's no cable, and I'm definitely worried.

It's not exactly ownership...

[Shoten]

The total amount of Hughes Electronics (the company behind DirecTV) that News Corp. will own will only be 35%. The 51% needed for true ownership isn't here just yet, even though it's clear enough that it'll probably happen soon enough anyways.

it's already unbalanced!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to find out how well the US is doing in the war, you watch Fox News.

If you want to find out how badly the US is doing in the war, you watch CNN.

If you want to find out how evil the US is, you watch Al Jazeera.

By combining all 3, maybe the opposing waveforms cancel out leaving a small speck of truth. But in reality, I suppose you just have to be there.

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you conspiracy theorists please collectively kill yourselves? Honestly, if the world is such a corrupt tapestry of evil demons, why not just slit your wrists and leave the rest of us with actual functioning minds in peace.

If you can honestly compare a satellite TV deal to Saddam slaughtering over a million civilians, your mind has utterly failed to function. Suicide is the only possible contribution you can personally make to the betterment of the planet. Please. Kill yourself ASAP.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[Blue Stone]

"The Murdoch media are generally populist right-wing, but they pretty soon slotted in behind Blair when they saw which way the wind was blowing."

And Blair, is of course, champion of the Left!
Just look at all of Murdoch's rags; could you describe any of them as having even a center-left bias?

I would accept your argument if there was one instance of Murdoch slotting in behind some Left-wing regime/party, to advance his business interests, but for the life of me, I can't think of one single example.

Oh... The Chinese Communists... communism is left wing, that's right! ;o)

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the one issue that gets my goat, and the parent is (mostly) correct. More correct than the boneheaded replies.

Stock takeover love

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, controlling stock. Nothing can get people to do what YOU want to do other than having a sizeable vote.

If GM was involved, could this mean an expanded project betwix News Corp, DTV, and General Motors? Maybe get DTV in you car as an option in your next GM car? Fox shows playing in your car? Maybe go a little nutty, get local governments involved and have location specific traffic conditions broadcast through a DTV car special news station?

I know this makes JetBlue a bit more attractive air travel. (DTV for coach).

Re:Moving towards a unbalanced view of the news...

[Geekenstein]

These kinds of comments are beyond silly. Do you honestly believe that because News Corp. owns DTV that they could stop broadcasting the likes of CNN, MSNBC, or the BBC America networks?

Let's see. Joe Blow watches CNN. He doesn't like Fox News. Joe Blow subscribes to DirecTV. Now, Murdoch removes CNN.

Joe has two options:

1). Say "oh well" and watch Fox.
2). Say "screw DTV" and switch to cable.

Bottom line. The customers drive the content. You don't win more customers or keep them by reducing their choices, quite the opposite. As long as cable is an option, DTV can't afford to pull these kinds of tricks.

Oh, and last I checked, EchoStar was still on the air too.

hah nice stats

[asv108]

When 90% of journalists working for a 24 cable news channel voted liberal in the previous 3 elections

First of all, where did you get this BS stat from? Secondly, there is no "liberal" party? Third, the idea with journalism is that your views do not affect the delivery of news except for cheesy commentary shows like what you see on foxnews. Fourth, you will find that the more education a group of people are, the more likely they are to have tendebcy towards liberal views, this is true of many moderate republicans like myself. So in a profession that requires a college degree.

Re:hah nice stats

[RobotRunAmok]

Fourth, you will find that the more education a group of people are, the more likely they are to have tendebcy towards liberal views, this is true of many moderate republicans like myself. So in a profession that requires a college degree.

D00d, you want to provide a translation of that for the less-educated conservatives trying to follow along?

Re:Moving towards a unbalanced view of the news...

[Dalroth]

Views on the push by the US forces ranged from "Hurrah, the people are free", to "Look how the Americans allow people to loot" - with all the channels showing the same footage.

I want to make one thing clear, the Military is NOT trained as a police force. They are trained as a killing machine to go out there and DESTROY the enemy, not police it.

That doesn't mean they can't get the job done, but when they aren't even fully deployed in Baghdad or Basra and the chaos of war is still ensuing can you honestly expect them to be able to police an entire society that numbers in the millions?

I know you didn't originally state this, but for those out there who did, let's be reasonable here. The military will get things under control and remove the power vacuum, but like all other things in life it's not going to happen over night.

Bryan

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[kiwi-matgar]

I find you comment rather rich coming from a person who doesn't even have the balls to register for a slashdot account. When I see posts like yours it makes "in Soviet Russia..." posts actually humorous.

As for the US government, interesting that the US mentioned in the briefing Stalin, Lenin and so forth, yet, they never mention the dozen or so dictators that the US supported during the cold war. Pinoche would be the prime example. It seems that when it is covenient for the US, they'll slam the bible down and declare all outside the border to be corrupt and that GWB, the whiite night of US is going to slain the "evil dictators" of the world and save the people of the worl from themselves.

Just look at the childish language over the latest year by GWB, "Axis of Evil", "the game is up", "show your cards" and other diatripe. The lack of any intellectuals in the US administration makes me fairful that the most powerful nation of earth has fallen into the hands of a few rabbid right wing, christian fundamentalist nutcases who have a theocratic view of the world comparable to the Iranian regeme.

Maybe it is about time the US government went back and studied the core of Relpolitik and start using it once more then we'll see some real discussion and debate happen.

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[billnad]

how about listening to NPR or if you get it lowly CBC TV or radio

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[kiwi-matgar]

Well, I live in Australia and get not only NPR, but DW, Radio Netherlands, BBC and ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

NPR unfortunately is reliant on private donating, meaning, one can provide a substaintial donation for a certain "service" that NPR can provide via an "informative programme".

Who controls the media?

[hendridm]

It's old, but can be used for comparison.

Who Controls the Media?

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[geekopus]

One of my favorite definitions:

"Intellectual: A person who has been educated beyond his/her intelligence."

Fortunately, we don't seem to have to worry about that with you.

"rabbid" -5 spelling

"diatripe" -5 spelling

"regeme" -5 spelling

"going to slain" -5 grammar

And the last sentence is a run-on.

Have a good day, and try not to fuck any sheep on your way to the parking lot, kiwi.

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[bockman]

What the US needs first is a publicly funded broadcasting corporation that is at an arms length of government and receives no funding from the private sector.

Ugh! Don't, please. We (Italy) have it, and it's awful (although it served its purpose last century).
My take is that you can't get 'unbiased news' from a government controlled TV : the most you can get is two sets of opposite very biased news (both with very little informative content).

I believe the money spent on government TV would be better spent by funding (either directly or by tax-reduction) no-profit TV, so that most modest-sized organisation can be on the air on his own. Sort of.

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[jafuser]

is the US the only country on planet earth with the "private owned only" fixation?

You can thank the strong anti-socialisim meme for that.

Somewhere along the way, we've been taught that it's weak to take a "moderate" stance on an issue, so everyone wants to be an extremist. We've also been taught that democracy is the ultimate social construct (which is ironic since we do not live in a democracy).

Therefore the opposite extreme, socialism, is the ultimate evil. Anything even remotely resembling sociaism (such as national healthcare) gets shot down with out even being attempted. Meanwhile, other socialistic programs such as public education and social security are done poorly -- we only invest the minimum necessary to keep them alive, and we only do that because of their social inertia. If someone brought these social programs to the legislature today, they would never pass due to the anti-socialism meme.

Of course I'll agree that government programs are not the solution to everything, but at least they are held more accountable to the public for what they do than private corporations are.

ONeBig Corp, coming soon!

[EvilStein]

News, Corp buys DirectTV..
Clear Channel buys News, Corp..
Microsoft buys Clear Channel..

Oh no.. the Umbrella Corporation, coming soon!

Scary

[charstar]

This scares me!
The channel which serves the media is now being controlled by the media. Just as bad as what some of the ISPs are doing these days. The free flow of information is dissapearing all around us, being capped off to increase profits.

I think it's fairly safe to say

[TheAncientHacker]

that this is a little "thank you" present from FCC Chairman Michael Powell (Colin Powell's son) to Fox for supporting his dad's foreign policy. "Liberal Media", my ass...

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"What the US needs first is a publicly funded broadcasting corporation that is at an arms length of government"

It's called PBS and NPR.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[Zigg]

The hits I got talk about a local Fox affiliate, not the Fox News Channel organization. While it would be silly to say there are no ties between the two, it would be much more silly to try to say FNC is somehow responsible for it.

Re:Moving towards a unbalanced view of the news...

[SN74S181]

You only have to look at the past few months, with camera men being sacked for editing photos for publication in major news papers

Yeah. That's why the camera men were sacked. The fact that they were caught and ostracised doesn't show anything good at all, eh?

They're already cooperating

[Anonymous Coward]

www.skysports.com

(Sky being Murdoch's equivalent of Fox in the UK and Australia).

Re:They're already cooperating

[class_A]

Sky != Fox in the UK

Sky is both a platform provider in the form of the direct to home Sky Digital satellite service and a content provider with channels such as Sky News and Sky Sports which it both carries and resells to cable and digital terrerstrial services also operating here.

Sky in the UK also has it's own PVR developed by Pace called Sky+ which is much more restrictive than TiVo and more tightly integrated into it's own proprietary EPG and conditional access system. It will be interesting to see if a Sky+ type service (DirecTV+) replaces the DirecTiVo currently sold in the US.

Mod this up

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this up

Will we finally get an All-Simpsons channel??!!!??

[asscroft]

I'd love to turn to channel 412 and have nothing but Simpsons, 24-7, all day all night. I'd even pay 5-10 bucks a month for such a channel. I'm tired of traditional TV. I want the on-demand convenience of the internet, with the quality and speed of TV. I think the Simpsons is a good place to start.

Imagine if you had to wait until 7:00 Sunday night to read slashdot, and could only see "older stuff" at 6 and 10 on UPN? It's high time we got show based channels. Isn't that what ESPN News and CNN Headline News is. Same show every half hour. I'd like to see more of that.

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[JHMirage]

I'm sorry... I never got past your subject line.

My exact reaction was, "Huh? What people are saying that?!?"

Fox: News with a dash of T& A

[LibertineR]

Fox News wins because in addition to being more entertaining, and not automatically taking the liberal position, but because they show more cleavage and legs among their anchor women.

None of them are serious babes, but compared to the homely ogres on CNN, they look great. Some of them overdose on lipstick and gloss, but to a person, each of them has a nice rack, and the skirts keep getting shorter and shorter over there. MSNBC has a couple of babes, but not 24 hours of nipples in your face, like Fox.

Re:Fox: News with a dash of T& A

[metachimp]

Hey, don't say bad things about Judy 'Lizard neck' Woodruff...

Re:Fox: News with a dash of T& A

[Anonymous Coward]

none of them show more leg than perky Katie Courick, who has had more plastic surgery than Michael Jackson to maintain her "perkiness", but she seems not to remember that the nickname didn't come from her smile.

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it rich (and pathetic) you think registering for a /. account has anything remotely to do with balls. You wouldn't know balls if a C-130 loaded with them dumped them on your head. So posting under the name "kiwi-matger" is somehow braver? Braver than what? Taking point on an incursion into Baghdad? Braver than petting a kitten? Get over yourself, now, before this crap leaks over into your real non-anonymous life and you get anihilated by the first troglodyte who isn't in the mood for taking any crap from a puffed up computer nerd.

When did the geek world become so hyper-left? When I was growing up, it was pretty moderate, and many of the ubergeeks wanted to start businesses of their own. Now it's all mucked up with head-in-ass conspiracy laden ideology no better than that of UFO nuts.

And I love this "past sins of America" bullshit. It's a prime behavior of the Common Ideologue - no conception that time passes. An entirely different Administration did something questionable, so the current Administration has to sit still and do nothing in penance. Or something. It's difficult to fathom what the hate-filled ideologues want, actually. They have no point other than to bash people now with things other people did in the past.

The lack of any intellectuals in the US administration makes me fairful that the most powerful nation of earth has fallen into the hands of a few rabbid right wing, christian fundamentalist nutcases who have a theocratic view of the world comparable to the Iranian regeme.

This is about the most pig ignorant statement I have seen on /. in, oh, nearly a day.

Seriously, pal, you are living in a parallel universe utterly divorced from anything resembling reality. My original advice stands. If you cared even one whit about the world, you'd take your own life as soon as you could. You're really that useless and stupid.

I wished Echostar would've won...

[The Lynxpro]

I found it laughable that the FCC and other government agencies were so against the Echostar/DirecTV "merger" because it would've made a monopoly out of the sat tv business. Why didn't they view it as a cable competitor? The major concern was that Charles Ergen would squeeze local markets with his created monopoly yet he went on the record for suggesting a nationwide rate...has DirecTV done this with their own service? Have any of the cable companies offered a national plan? These same government agencies made far too many restrictions on the AOL Time Warner merger, but then did essentially nothing to Comcast when they bought AT&T Broadband. Comcast is THE WORST cable company there is, period. I won't even bring up the wrist slapping the DOJ gave to Microsoft. However, my BIG BEEF with Charles Ergen and Echostar is their marketing of the inferior Dish Player PVR. Get with it man, and offer a real TiVo service. TiVo needs to be made the de-facto PVR standard to prevent Microsoft from jumping back into the market. Now if only the big whigs at AOL Time Warner would force Time Warner Cable to axe the "Mystro" system and offer TiVo digital cable set-top boxes...you'd think they would since they own a 13% stake in TiVo... What a shame... how is Fox News covering the merger??? And as for Murdoch, I'm surprised nobody in MI5 or MI6 hasn't taken him out. His tabloids have gone out of their way to destroy the Monarchy... oh wait, James Bond already killed his alter-ego in "Tomorrow Never Dies"...

Re:I wished Echostar would've won...

[The Wicked Priest]

AFAIK, DirecTV has always had a nationwide rate -- with the exception of those areas that are served through Pegasus, or whatever it's called.

Re:I wished Echostar would've won...

[Anonymous Coward]

Satellite TV is not a competitor with cable in large rural areas of the USA where cable TV service is not available. In such areas, Satellite TV has no competition. Hence, better to have two Satellite TV companies, than one.

Re:Will we finally get an All-Simpsons channel??!!

[Anonymous Coward]

>Yawn<

uh oh!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what will happen to the HU cards now?
Shit, we ain't even kraked the new P4 card good yet!
Maybe they'll bring back the H card so we can emulate again!!

Hehehehehe!!!

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[Combuchan]

Most countries have a publicly funded television network that allows a voice of opinion to be broadcasted that isn't always "politically acceptable".

I've seen some pretty rambunctious stuff on PBS and NPR in my day ... that pesky one- or two-digit channel number makes PBS easier to miss all the time!

Everyone knows it's Rupert!

[molrak]

"I'm Rupert Murdoch, the billionare tyrant, and this is my skybox."

Come on people, anyone who has been on the Simpsons (and yes, that was Rupert's voice in the superbowl episode) can't be all that bad.

As for all the raging conspiracies about 'liberal bias' or 'right-wing media' is just crap, at least in the context of the article at the top of this discussion. Granted, Ted Turner (primary owner in AOL-Time Warner, who own CNN) and Rupert Murdoch (primary owner of News Corp) both have political leanings, Ted's to the left and Rupert's to the right. If you think this has the slightest influence on these networks, however, you are dead wrong. Both men are primarily about making a dollar any way they can, and they don't care if that dollar is American, Canadian, Australian, or even a Euro. (Note: MSNBC is a non-factor, and NBC moved Brian Williams off of it onto CNBC for when they decide to sell MSNBC off. I also don't know what the ownership levels are for MSNBC either.)

Fox News set itself up as an alternative voice, presenting the news with a PT Barnum style of showmanship. The strong personalities of Fox, both liberal and conservative, are what has led the network to the top (if you put credence into Nielson ratings). Liberals on Fox? Alan Colmes and Greta van Susteren are half of Fox's primetime line-up. Fox's radio wing is setting up their first radio program, with Alan Colmes as host. As with all of Rupert's franchises, they are there to make money and to do it any way possible.

Now, the problem with all of that, is that it has very little to do with Rupert buying a stake in DirectTV. Does anyone honestly think he'd pull the plug on news channels, of all things, if this sale goes through? It's absurd. Look at the satellite providers in the UK. Has anyone complained about the channel selection they have there on this board? The answer is no, or if they have, it hasn't been moderated up. Rupert's ultimate goal is extending his media empire, and doing something like removing channels from a satellite system would only cause a company to lose money.

In short, get over it folks. Money is the primary motivator for most business moguls. Politics are just a way to make more money.

Re:Yay! Finally a great deal for everyone!

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahahahaha you kill me.

DirecTiVo with Home Media Options

[Anonymous Coward]

but how will this help us get DirecTV to add Home Media Option support to their DirecTiVo units?!?

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[zonker]

unless you know something nobody else knows, the regulators haven't 'suddenly' allowed a buy out. the regulators haven't given a go ahead yet at all. they could still say no, though it is doubtful they will.

here's why: the echostar/directv deal would have created a monopoly, not gonna happen. the sbc/directv deal would have created a monopoly, not gonna happen. the newscorp/directv deal on the other hand doesn't create a monopoly. newscorp owns tv and cable channels and newspapers. they are content creators. unlike the other deals, they do not have distribution means by themselves, which is the reason why it will likely go through the regulators and the sbc and echostar deals went to regulator hell.

interestingly, the aol/time/warner deal created a huge monopoly and they let that one through. we've all seen what a great idea that one was.

and to parrot what others have said in this thread have said, NPR and PBS are publicly funded (though not by very much any more thanks to the wholesale cuts on arts funding).

News Corp. and Bush Administration

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it interesting that the FCC turned down EchoStar and established rules that essentially made News Corp. the only viable bidder for DirecTV at the very time that Fox News and Murdoch's U.S., Australian and British papers are among the leading media supporters of the war. Could it be just a coincidence?

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[DarkDigger]

This is about the most pig ignorant statement I have seen on /. in, oh, nearly a day.

Yeah, and your so eloquently stated, fact based rebuttal completely makes up for any of the shortcomings of the previous post. Maybe instead of going off on idealogical rants...

When I was growing up, it was pretty moderate, and many of the ubergeeks wanted to start businesses of their own. Now it's all mucked up with head-in-ass conspiracy laden ideology no better than that of UFO nuts.

...perpetuating the fallacies you found in the first post...

So posting under the name "kiwi-matger" is somehow braver? Braver than what? Taking point on an incursion into Baghdad? Braver than petting a kitten?

...and then advocating someone take their own life because you, in all your infinite wisdom, don't see them fit for living, should consider thinking next time before you type.

Jon Stewart

[DarkDigger]

The Daily Show rules! TV's boldest news show

Appealing to the lowest common denominator...

[aquarian]

...is what Fox News is all about. It is *not* the "mainstreaming" of news, or anything like that. It's more like slasher films, where we all go to see how bad they are, or to laugh "at" them. When Bill O'Reilly shoots his mouth off, a few people may like him, but the real reason for his ratings is everyone tuning in to see what that crazy clown is saying this time. This isn't about conservative vs. liberal politics, bad vs. good journalism, or anything of that nature. It has more in common with a children's game of "haha, made you look" -- which is the very nature of the business of television. Say something outrageous, show a car chase or a shooting, flash some T&A -- that's what gets ratings.

It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. What does take genius is offering something above the lowest comon denominator, while still making money. And schlock-monger Murdoch is too greedy and cynical to try.

Pacifica Radio!

[aquarian]

What the US needs first is a publicly funded broadcasting corporation that is at an arms length of government and receives no funding from the private sector. This is the only way to ensure media independence as the number of "media outlets" strink.

How aboutPacifica Radio! Not funded by government or corporate sponsors, just listeners. So they can (and do) say what they want. They have a few shows that are real gems, like Digital Village, and The Car Show right afterward. There's a lot of crap too, but it's great to have these voices represented somewhere. One of the most amusing was an organic gardening call-in show, which always turned into a discussion about how to grow pot. Damn hippies!

Pacifica/KPFK has a sister station in the Bay Area (KPFA), and I think one in Washington DC as well.

Silly puppy

[jmorris42]

You silly pup. "The Liberal Media" was being lambasted in National Review before Rush picked up his first microphone. You are either too young to know better or are a aging hippy who carefully managed to avoid all opposing views until Rush & Fox got in your face, as conservatives learned ways to compete by ceasing to try for a fair hearing in a hopelessly biased set of media outlets and instead built their own.

Re:Silly puppy

[metachimp]

How come William Kristol said the the 'liberal media' was basically a lie? I quote: "The whole idea of the 'liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

Bad puppy.

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't forget:

fairful -5 spelling. (I think you mean 'fearful'??)

Hmmm... -25 points off for the 'Intellectual'.
I guess 'being in the know' means you don't have to know how to spell. Try 'Hooked on Phonics' and Enjoy the sheep, kiwi.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[Anonymous Coward]

Murdoch papers backed the Gough Whitlam Labor government in Australia in the 1970's. Murdoch isnt a conservative per-se he is a businessman who recognizes a business oppurtunity. If it was more profitable to be communist he would be. He changed his nationality to make more money and own more stuff.

omico--

Bush Family SOP

[JimmytheGeek]

It has always been sound business practice to help the Bushes politically. Donate to Jeb - first in line as a contractor when the Florida State gov't starts unwisely privatizing services. (More money spent, less service given = unwise in my book) Donate to W., you get to manage the University of Texas (they had a university? who knew?) investment portfolio for your own benefit. Churn and burn, in total secrecy. Rather a contrast to the well-managed, successful and open process that was in place before W's executive order. If Clinton had 1% the corruption of the Bushes, he'd have been drawn and quartered. If Bill had deserted, like W, he'd have done prison time.

Republicans get a free pass. Dems get no credit. That's why a draft dodging chickenhawk like Delay can criticize Kerry's patriotism, and a draft-dodging chickenhawk like Saxby can criticize Cleland (decorated, horribly injured war vet) for opposing Bush on the Homeland Security Dept, which Bush himself opposed until he read a poll and which remains a fucked up idea.

Re:What does decimate mean?

[japhmi]

while the American "Conservative" is closer to the classical definition of "Liberal."

Ahhh, I get it. So, the classical definition of Liberal means to be against women's rights, to be for slavery, to be against desegregation, to hold greediness as the highest value, to be in favor of war, to be in favor of any religion as long as it's Christianity, to be concerned about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

You seem to have a distorted view of the normal American conservative. You seem to take some ultra-ultra-right wing ideas and make them normative. What even somewhat mainstream conservative is for slavery, against woman's rights or any of the other things that you talk about? There are conservatives who are against the current war. There are non-Christian conservatives (after all, the so-called 'neo conservative' movement is often accused by some liberals (or, actually, leftists) to be run by Jewish people).

Yes, some people in the south have cultural ideas about when you can sell whiskey - but in liberal Oregon all of our liquor stores are owned by the state.

It sounds like you need to re-examine your prejudices.

Re:What does decimate mean?

[PD]

You seem to have a distorted view of the normal American conservative.

You have a distorted view of the normal American liberal.

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you mean likePBS?

Re:What does decimate mean?

[Centinel]

There are non-Christian conservatives (after all, the so-called 'neo conservative' movement is often accused by some liberals (or, actually, leftists) to be run by Jewish people).

That's because the neocon ranks *are* heavily populated by Likudniks, Christian Zionists, and former Trotskyites. The paleo right has known this all along, and the left is catching on.

Joseph Sobran: Defining Conservatism Downward

Justin Raimondo: Israel's Amen Corner

Pat Buchanan: Whose War?

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[Alien Being]

Support NPR

buy out

[kpeerless]

It certainly looks like being this administration's mouthpiece is paying off for Murdoch

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight. All of you people who post on slashdot 90% of whom seem to have LIBERAL views actually think you are conservative?

That explains how we keep getting these idiots elected.

Eric

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[MrWa]

and who would have guessed it, regulators "suddenly" allow the buy out with no questions asked.

What are you complaining about? The Echostar deal was not approved, which would have merged the only two satellite TV companies worth mentioning. Murdoch was beat out on that deal years ago and is now coming back to buy DirectTV. There isn't a conspiracy here. Calm down.

Besides, Fox is probably the last media company NOT to have their own distribution source, be it cable or satellite.

RANT ALERT!!

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend, you have got your head up your ass. What does regulating dildoes have to do with disease? Hell, if someone is using a dildo at home (as I'm sure they are used privately the majority of the time) they are certainly not engaged in unprotected sex.
Dildoes, whisky, pot, and abortion... are those the things you value most?

It's not whether he values them most, it's that someone else has decided that you shouldn't be able to use, buy or own them because if offends them or goes against their religious "values". Fuck them! Why can't I fuck myself with a dildo, while smoking pot and drinking a tall lynchberg lemonade in my own house?

Why are the same people who want to keep me from buying a six pack of beer, the same ones who generally think it's ok to have a couple of guns at home? Have some logic with that rationale, would ya!

Lastly, "you want to bring everybody else down with you, and have them pay for you to do it at the same time"? Who the hell asked anyone to pay for my depravity? I bet I make more money that at least 80% of the posters on /. I don't need anyone to pay for my beer. Just because a few of your tax dollars go to some people who drink too much, I'm supposed to be inconvenienced?

Once again, you shit-head conservative, fuck you. (And you can use my dildo to do it too. As long as you put a condom on it first.)

It's not like this is the first time

[chickenboy2064]

After all, many people get their cable from Time/Warner Cable, which is owned by AOL Time Warner, which also owns CNN.

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[kiwi-matgar]

Well funny people call it socialism. When I was growing up in New Zealand, before the economic reforms of the 1980's, it was labelled as investing into human capital so that in the future they have the ability to earn the money and repay the investment that the public as a whole made.

It seems that everytime someone even mentions "public ownership", there are a band of merry men/women, screaming to the top of the lungs that the "market will provide". I'm sorry, but I don't think that the private sector is going to give two hoots about an old lady who may require a hip operation or a person who requires 24hour nursing.

Yes, the extreme of Socialism results in dependency, however, the complete opposite is a dog eat dog, law of the juggle situation.

Re:And people say the US government isn't corrupt.

[kiwi-matgar]

Or you have the opposite extreme like in Italy where by 80% of the media is owned by the Prime Minister. How is that any different to a public owned television station? A publicly owned television station is accountable to the people where as the private sector is answerable to the shareholders and "political alliances" they may have.

Re:Murdoch-ing the world

[Auriam]

90% of Slashdot is LIBERTARIAN, not LIBERAL, from what I've seen. They both start with LIBER, but it's the SUFFIX that's important.

yes sir!

[tom enterprise]

those terribble people of the masses! the lowest common denominator!. good thing we are the elites ,aye?

You're wrong about Sky News

[WIAKywbfatw]

Thing is, many of NewsCorp's news channels on Sky and the like lean left-- Rupert Murdoch isn't interested in brainwashing you to think like he does. He's interested in your money.#

Just this weekend, I read about how Murdoch wasn't happy with the slant of Sky News, calling it "BBC News lite", a reference to how much to the left of where he wants the station to be it currently sits. There were even some references to making it more like Fox News. From everything I've heard, Fox News is currently so gung-ho about the war in Iraq that renaming it Pentagon News wouldn't be entirely inappropriate.

"CNN leans to the left"? Sheesh. I've watched CNN on and off for the last 14 years and if that's an example of a station leaning to the left then that really says something about the state of broadcast journalism in the US. And what it says isn't good.

Last Post!

[alpg]

The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use a given
tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for computing than
it is for other tools (e.g. automobiles, airplanes, guns, power saws).
-- Doug Gwyn

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...