Slashdot Mirror
Rupert Murdoch Plans a Digital Newspaper For the US
Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that Rupert Murdoch plans to launch a digital newspaper in the US geared specifically to younger readers and to digital outlets such as the iPad and mobile phones. The paper, as yet unnamed, will pool the huge editorial muscle of Murdoch's combined holdings within News Corporation, which include the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and the financial wire service Dow Jones, as well as his newspapers in the UK and Australia. Earlier this month, Murdoch said of the iPad: 'It's a real game-changer in the presentation of news,' adding 'We'll have young people reading newspapers.'"
Professional journalism costs money. News at 11.
Does Fox News, BTW, ever cover the fact that Murdoch is married to a former member of the Chinese Communist Party?
Probably not. When you grow up you'll discover two things: First, it's not a good idea to crumb on the boss's wife. Second, you don't have to agree with someone's political stances in order to love/marry them. It's even easier when you attach "former" to those political stances.
I think you're missing the point - that's exactly the kind of sensationalizing the far right has been so good at doing in recent years. Has everyone already forgotten the fuss about Obama's schooling in Indonesia?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Why is it that you assume only FOX News spews propaganda?
Although the AC answered, for the record I am well aware that the research demonstrates that Murdoch's channels (much more than Fox, WSJ, Sky etc) are certainly not the only active and passive participants in blatant propaganda. Not to mention the echo chamber amplification of such rhetoric.
You read it here first folks. Rupert Murdoch: World Class Pedophile.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
As far as Cronkite goes- in the end we lost didn't we? Military victories were all pointless since we did nothing to reform/repair the broken political system in Vietnam. He didn't say we couldn't win battles, we couldn't win the war. Are you in the revisionist camp that thinks if only it weren't for the bad publicity we would have won? We didn't lose because we "quit" too soon- we would never have won since our basic strategy was flawed and it wasn't about to change no matter how many more body bags we thew on the pile.
It's kind of funny how "Conservatives" like to preach that "Liberals" don't understand Economics 101, yet in their supposed worship of the (theoretical) free market they're quite happy to ignore instances of market failure, such as natural monopolies, externalities and the like.
Walter Cronkite reported that America couldn't win in Vietnam on the eve was what was the biggest military victory for the US in the war.
We didn't win in Vietnam.