Investors Campaign To Oust Murdochs From News Corp

CALPERS by sycodon · 2011-10-18 07:23 · Score: 0, Troll

Largest pension fund...with all those state employees pulling down $100,000K retirement packages, no wonder they are the largest.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.

Re:CALPERS by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 07:29 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, CALPers seems to get into this "politics is more important than fiduciary responsibility to our members" mode these days.
The people they don't like, Murdoch, makes money to support their member's pension. The people they like, New York Times et. al., don't.
The problem is, and I have friends in CALPers (and CALStrs for teachers) and if it rolls over, it is so big, no one even the U.
S. Treasury could save it.
This is probably the most serious and ignored issue in the Country.
Re:CALPERS by oh_my_080980980 · 2011-10-18 07:32 · Score: 1

Yeah because engaging in illegal activities is just fine. Moron.
Re:CALPERS by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 07:35 · Score: 1

Politically motivated: outing the Murdochs is very likely to be value destructive.
CALPERS' fiduciary duty is to maximize the value of fund assets - not to take political postures.
A fairly major breach of ERISA regulations if they go ahead with this.
Re:CALPERS by SomeKDEUser · 2011-10-18 07:38 · Score: 2

Because supporting a media which itself funds a campaign against the retirement benefits which they are supposed to provide makes sense?
Re:CALPERS by OldeTimeGeek · 2011-10-18 07:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

They've been doing this for years. When it was fashionable to disinvest in South Africa, CalPers was there. There has been debate off and on about disinvesting in tobacco firms and other forms of social ills. What they're asking for here is new.
The structural problems have been ignored because, like the remainder California budget, nobody in the Legislature wants to take on a problem that can't easily be expressed in a sound bite. Every new year sees new smoke and mirror schemes pushing problems into the future in the vain hope the economy will get better. Then everybody can go back to ignoring deep structural problems in how pensions are funded in favor of short term things that will annoy no one and help them stay in office.
Re:CALPERS by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 07:50 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, CALPers seems to get into this "politics is more important than fiduciary responsibility to our members" mode these days.

The people they don't like, Murdoch, makes money to support their member's pension. The people they like, New York Times et. al., don't.
Well hey, smuggling drugs makes a lot of money, so is the responsible fiduciary measure to invest heavily in Mexican drug cartels?
Re:CALPERS by datavirtue · 2011-10-18 08:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

No, this is a good thing. Hopefully people wake up to this new form of democracy. Where if you don't act morally and for the benefit of employees, customers, and the earth then we pull our umpteen millions or billions out of your company now. Government has been dysfunctional for over thirty years in America. William Greider covered this in The Soul of Capitalism where he predicted this very thing. He said that people would start to act through their enormous pension funds to affect change in the world because government simply can't get it done, and it is easier to do this than to change government. Awesome. Get it done.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Re:CALPERS by Rockoon · 2011-10-18 08:19 · Score: 1

They are holding onto a large amount of the stock while simultaneously trying to undermine the leadership which made it blossom, and all-the-while their claim is not that new leadership would increase the value of the stock but instead that the current leadership is distasteful to their ideology.

You can try to spin this whatever way you want, but facts are facts. CALPers is trying to tank a stock it owns, to the financial detriment of the people CALPers represents.

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:CALPERS by mbkennel · 2011-10-18 08:30 · Score: 1

"No, this is a good thing. Hopefully people wake up to this new form of democracy."
It's not a "new form of democracy", it's a legal owner exerting its right to have a say in how its investment ought to be managed. Why are all the crazed shills against shareholder rights and shareholder value now?
If this owner believes that doing sleazy unethical things are bad for its investment or just because they're immoral, then so what? It's not "fox news", it's the phone hacking and the falsifying the european circulation with various schemes etc which give good cause to believe the current management is a danger to its long-term investment.
Re:CALPERS by jeffmeden · 2011-10-18 08:35 · Score: 1

You can try to spin this whatever way you want, but facts are facts. CALPers is trying to tank a stock it owns, to the financial detriment of the people CALPers represents.
Your argument is that the News Corp stock will go down if the Murdochs are ousted... Do you think the decline and scuttling of News of the World was good for the share price? The share price tends to disagree (it has been markedly below average recently).
Re:CALPERS by demonbug · 2011-10-18 08:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

You can try to spin this whatever way you want, but facts are facts. CALPers is trying to tank a stock it owns, to the financial detriment of the people CALPers represents.
Bullshit. They point out several major problems that have cropped up at News International recently. Illegal activity that appears to have been approved (or at least knowingly ignored) at the highest levels, selling access to supposed news columns, and little or no oversight from the board. These issues have the potential to very rapidly destroy the company; CalPERS, along with other institutional and private investors, are looking for a way to bring some oversight to the top-level executives, which happen to be Murdoch and family (among others). Yes, Rupert Murdoch has been very effective in building value over time - but recent events have shown that, whether through a failure to properly oversee operations or willing participation in these activities, they are taking much greater risks than some investors are comfortable with. It isn't the ideology espoused by the News Corp outlets that is at issue - that hasn't changed since CalPERS and the others invested, and frankly most of them probably don't care as long as the returns are good - it is the policies of the corporate leadership that they see as trending towards corruption.
That isn't to discount the fact that CalPERS members are likely to be largely opposed to the ideological viewpoint espoused by many of the News Corp properties. CalPERS has, in the past, moved out of industries it has ideological problems with (or specific companies) on numerous occassions. But to say that they would intentionally destroy the value in a stock they plan on (apparently) continuing to hold is just letting your own ideology color your view of events. News Corp seems to be out of control, from the perspective of some of the investors. They want more oversight of executive activities and decisions in order to reduce the risk of being blindsided by continued negligence (or criminal activity), which means removing or diluting the Murdochs' presence on the board.
But yeah, more fun just to yell and scream that the evil liberals are trying to silence the voice of conservatives.
Re:CALPERS by wisty · 2011-10-18 09:22 · Score: 1

A founder in charge is usually good for the company. Murdock might not be a nice guy, but he cares about the future of his empire. Closing News of the World made them lose a source of revenue, but he probably had a good reason - it lets every other journalist in his empire know that if they get caught making a scandal, they will lose their jobs, and so will all their co-workers. This will plug leaks (because if you leak, your whole paper will be nuked), and prevent unethical behavior.
I think it was Sun Zi who claimed he could make any squad of new recruits march in perfect formation - if anyone in the squad broke ranks he'd just order the whole squad put to death. In the short term, it's suicidal, but it might pay off in the long term.
Re:CALPERS by PoopCat · 2011-10-18 09:36 · Score: 1

In the short term, it's suicidal, but it might pay off in the long term.
You have that precisely backwards. Without short-term survival, long-term viability is significantly decreased.
Re:CALPERS by khallow · 2011-10-18 12:05 · Score: 1

Smuggling drugs makes a lot of money, but investing in people who smuggle drugs does not.
Re:CALPERS by SETIGuy · 2011-10-18 13:58 · Score: 2

Unfortunately, CALPers seems to get into this "politics is more important than fiduciary responsibility to our members" mode these days.
It's a good thing they don't put anonymous cowards in charge of large pension funds. You do realize that if Murdoch isn't managing News Corp properly and is encouraging nepotism and law breaking as corporate policy, then it is only right that they should push hard for a management change. This might not be as political as you think. Go to the CALPERS wikipedia page and read about the "focus list".
BTW, I seem to recall that divesting from South Africa was required by state law, and not volunteered by CALPERS. Wouldn't want reality to get in the way of a tea party legend.
If News Corp were to go bankrupt, CALPERS would not be badly affected. It's not like CALPERS has 90% of its $236 billion in assets in News Corp. It's also not like CALPERS goes around endangering its asset values just for the hell of it.

--
Support SETI@home
Re:CALPERS by SETIGuy · 2011-10-18 14:07 · Score: 1

Divesting from South Africa was required by state law. I believe that tobacco company divestiture was also required by state law. But Tea Party gots ta think anything dats da state govmint is da Pinko. Frankly I'd rather have CALPERS managing my money than Lehman Brothers. Just imagine who the Tea Party would turn that $236 billion over to, at a cool 2% a year management fee no less.
What they're doing here is not different from standard practice. Every year they make a "focus list" of companies that are in danger of becoming bad investments and they decide whether to seek management changes or divest. This year, News Corp would be on that list for obvious reasons: nepotism and violations of the law combined with an incomprehensible business model. Would you prefer the just sold their shares rather than trying to make management changes?
BTW, News Corp won't be the only company on that list.

--
Support SETI@home
Re:CALPERS by dbIII · 2011-10-18 15:39 · Score: 1

He owns the board (look up the list of members, it's interesting) so in the short term a complete shareholder revolt will do nothing. An example of how ineffective the shareholders actually are without board support is when the shareholders of Australia's Telstra voted against a huge payout to the damaging and not merely useless CEO that was being removed (Sol Trujillo) and the results of the vote were ignored.
In the long term if they are shown to be a bunch on gangsters they will slowly lose influence and eventually somehting positive may happen.
Murdoch has been a master at dominating companies that he has a relatively small ownership of, and then over time aquiring more until his dominance can not be questioned. I was once part of a company that Murdoch aquired 5% of - in under a week after that 3/4 of the staff including the CEO were sacked.
Re:CALPERS by tehcyder · 2011-10-18 22:19 · Score: 1

Smuggling drugs makes a lot of money, but investing in people who smuggle drugs does not.
That doesn't make any sense. Drugs don't autonomously smuggle themselves, so some people are making money out of it.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:CALPERS by tehcyder · 2011-10-18 22:25 · Score: 1

Politically motivated: outing the Murdochs is very likely to be value destructive.
If the Murdochs keep on running News Corp like fucking gangsters, they're going to destroy its value all by themselves.

The whole point is that if you have criminals running companies, eventually they will be found out and the corporation will become worthless. Look at Enron.

So it is financially prudent for pension funds to consider the strategic risk of investing in stocks with potentially zero value. This is quite separate from any moral or political issues.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:CALPERS by tehcyder · 2011-10-18 22:29 · Score: 1

A founder in charge is usually good for the company.
Not if he's a fucking crook.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:CALPERS by tehcyder · 2011-10-18 22:30 · Score: 1

But yeah, more fun just to yell and scream that the evil liberals are trying to silence the voice of conservatives.
They're not? What world do you live in?
The real world, I would imagine, unlike you.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:CALPERS by tehcyder · 2011-10-18 22:36 · Score: 1

No, this is a good thing. Hopefully people wake up to this new form of democracy. Where if you don't act morally and for the benefit of employees, customers, and the earth then we pull our umpteen millions or billions out of your company now. Government has been dysfunctional for over thirty years in America. William Greider covered this in The Soul of Capitalism where he predicted this very thing. He said that people would start to act through their enormous pension funds to affect change in the world because government simply can't get it done, and it is easier to do this than to change government. Awesome. Get it done.
I can't vote to decide who runs a pension fund, and it is absurd to believe that most of them are interested in morality, employee/customer rights or the fucking environment, unless it earns them a higher rate of return.

Obviously there are exceptions, but in general it is simply untrue that pension funds are run by people I politically agree with.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:CALPERS by khallow · 2011-10-19 06:22 · Score: 1

Drugs don't autonomously smuggle themselves, so some people are making money out of it.
And how do you turn that into an investment? There are several problems you don't recognize here. Let's suppose CALPERS put a billion dollar investment into cocaine smuggling from Columbia. The first problem is getting the smugglers to honor your stake. There are no laws to enforce the normal rules of business for a black market. The second problem is the high risk of asset seizure and imprisonment. If one of many governments catches you, then your assets are gone and somebody, perhaps you, is in jail.

The third problem is simply the short life expectancy of anyone who stays in the drug trade for any length of time.

Oh I understand their business plan by SlippyToad · 2011-10-18 07:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

'But adult supervision most certainly is in order, because News Corp. seems to be operating with only the sketchiest of business plans and no effective executive oversight of his many far-flung initiatives

It's to terrorize a modern democracy into giving over control of our every institution to unelected morons with a bare-knuckled agenda of self-enrichment.

Fuck Fox News. Fuck Everyone Who Listens To Fox News. Fuck Everyone Who Opens Their Dumb Fuck Mouth On Fox News. Fox News Should Be Pulled Apart By Wild Weasels.

I've about had it with these vandals. Fucking freaks!

--
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on

Re:Oh I understand their business plan by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 07:29 · Score: 0

Tell us how you really feel, deep down inside.
Re:Oh I understand their business plan by Sunshinerat · 2011-10-18 08:14 · Score: 1

Thank you,
Now you got me wondering on who will win... the Fox or the Weasel...

--
Load New Commander (Y/N)?
Re:Oh I understand their business plan by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 08:17 · Score: 0

How often is your ass occupied?
Not as often as I'd like.

You enjoy it, don't you?
Yup. Getting laid is fun, you should try it.
Seriously, is insinuating that someone partakes of anal sex really the most insulting retort you could think of? Now, stop feeding the trolls you ignorant, festering little blob of sputum.
Re:Oh I understand their business plan by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 08:22 · Score: 0

Fox News would win. The weasels wouldn't attack out of profession courtesy to the weasels at Fox News.
Re:Oh I understand their business plan by Nidi62 · 2011-10-18 08:25 · Score: 2

Fuck Everyone Who Opens Their Dumb Fuck Mouth On Fox News.
One of the professors in my graduate department, who is highly liberal, was invited and paid to appear on Fox news because her research found a liberal bias in state bar (law, not booze) organizations (which was not at all what she expected to find). So not everyone who appears on Fox News is an idiot who wants to turn the US into the Fascist States of Christ, as you seem to believe.
Ironically enough, she was subsequently attacked by many liberals for having a conservative bias and agenda due to the findings of her research.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Re:Oh I understand their business plan by Nimey · 2011-10-18 08:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

However, the organization is intended as such.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:Oh I understand their business plan by publiclurker · 2011-10-18 08:44 · Score: 1

The fact that she agreed to go onto a biased site like fox shows that she is an idiot, however. I hope here research wasn't as flawed as her personal decisions appear to be.
Re:Oh I understand their business plan by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 08:46 · Score: 0

My thoughts exactly. Also, knowing that the Murdochs are jewish, why is it that all or most top jobs (management and presenters) at Newscorp & subsidiaries go to jewish people too?
Re:Oh I understand their business plan by theshowmecanuck · 2011-10-18 08:49 · Score: 1

Speaking of which:

"The company appears to have devolved into a free-wheeling, cut-throat and paranoid culture that reached its logical conclusion in the phone-hacking scandal at The News of the World,"
FTFY: "The company appears to have devolved into a free-wheeling, cut-throat and paranoid culture that reached its logical conclusion as The Fox News Network,"

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Re:Oh I understand their business plan by fdawg · 2011-10-18 09:04 · Score: 1

It's ok to be frustrated. I know, I am. But muting people who have a different ideology from your own doesn't solve anything. In fact, the reverse happens- the people you disagree with become as frustrated as you.
The harder problem is getting them to, if not agree with, tolerate your ideology. What we've lost in this country is honest, unadulterated, innocent, discourse. We stopped having conversations where a different point of view doesn't dominate another. Too much of what is being said is predicated by various single-issue objectives and amplified by a blow horn of party loyalists.
Fox news is a blow horn. Would be interesting to see what will happen if the family behind the mouthpiece is ousted. For all anyone knows it may move even further away from the center.
Re:Oh I understand their business plan by PCM2 · 2011-10-18 09:33 · Score: 2

One of the professors in my graduate department, who is highly liberal, was invited and paid to appear on Fox news because her research found a liberal bias in state bar (law, not booze) organizations (which was not at all what she expected to find).
So what if she's "highly liberal"? The only reason she was invited to appear is because she published research that could be spun to support a standard Republican talking point, which is that the Democratic Party is bought and paid for by trial lawyers. She should have realized this, but she took the money and appeared on the show anyway, because she decided that her own selfish interests outweighed her principles -- in other words, she acted exactly like any other corrupt right-wing stooge that appears on Fox News. (Incidentally, real news organizations don't pay sources, so the fact that she was offered money should have been a tip-off that she was being asked to appear in support of an editorial agenda.)

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:Oh I understand their business plan by Kittenman · 2011-10-18 10:35 · Score: 1

Agree. I read a Michael Shermer book once where he agreed to go on a Jerry Springer show to argue for skepticism. What on earth was he (Shermer) thinking?

--
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Re:Oh I understand their business plan by innerweb · 2011-10-18 12:01 · Score: 1

Another way to see this is that unlike "any other corrupt right-wing stooge that appears on Fox News", she showed integrity and reported what she found without falsifying the data or running multiple studies looking for the one that backed her beliefs. Who knows?
Or, maybe what you are really seeing is that Fox News picks their own stories and thus draws upon stories of a certain bent (market share/shill) without regards to the source. That I find very plausible.

--
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
Re:Oh I understand their business plan by PCM2 · 2011-10-18 12:25 · Score: 1

Or, maybe what you are really seeing is that Fox News picks their own stories and thus draws upon stories of a certain bent (market share/shill) without regards to the source. That I find very plausible.
That's pretty much what I said. She got invited by Fox and they paid her for the appearance. That shows they aren't reporting news, they're doing an entertainment/opinion show. News-gathering organizations do not pay for interviews with newsmakers. But despite being "highly liberal," she did it anyway, because she wanted to promote her research to further her own career. So rather than being an outlier case of Fox News allowing "equal access" to people who are "highly liberal" (as the GGP seems to suggest), I'd say this is entirely typical of how Fox News operates. Also pretty typical of cable news talking heads -- most seem to be motivated by self-promotion or other personal gain, or mere attention-seeking, rather than any legitimate desire to educate people. They'll bend what they say to fit whatever gives the network the best soundbite, because they want to be invited back or to do more interviews on other TV shows.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:Oh I understand their business plan by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 17:32 · Score: 0

[Fox News's Agenda is]... to terrorize a modern democracy into giving over control of our every institution to unelected morons with a bare-knuckled agenda of self-enrichment.
So you must support strict constructionist supreme court justices (so congress can no longer delegate it's power and only elected morons get to destroy our lives). No? I didn't think so. That would be rational, reasoned.
Fuck Fox News. Fuck Everyone Who Listens To Fox News. Fuck Everyone Who Opens Their Dumb Fuck Mouth On Fox News. Fox News Should Be Pulled Apart By Wild Weasels.
Shouldn't you be occupying a park somewhere, shitting on the ground and agitating for an end to capitalism? I notice we have destroyed a shocking amount of wealth under that idiot Bush and that much larger idiot Obama. I'm sure those on the lowest economic rung who are really struggling now appreciate that you are going after the real villain, a center right sensationalist news organization.
Re:Oh I understand their business plan by tehcyder · 2011-10-18 22:44 · Score: 1

She should just have let Fox News spin her research how they wanted without getting involved herself. There is no law that says you have to accept Fox's blood money and appear on their crappy TV shows.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

oxycontin by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 07:27 · Score: 0, Informative

Rush Limpdick is a fucking druggy.

Would It Change? by Greyfox · 2011-10-18 07:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Fox and its affiliates got where they are by selling an elaborate and real-seeming fictional world, catering to people who could be convinced to wear Tinfoil hats if enough of the people on the network repeated that it was a good idea. I don't think it would be as profitable if people who believe everything they hear were to become better informed. What if those people started to think for themselves? They might start listening to other news sources! Perhaps even NPR! Then Fox would actually HAVE to be a legitimate news organization, or their core audience might realize how full of shit they are, come out of their bunkers, sell off their gold and start living less fearful lives! That would be devastating to Newscorp's bottom line!

Which is why I'm voting my 11% shares to keep Murdoch. Sorry guys!

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Re:Would It Change? by swan5566 · 2011-10-18 07:36 · Score: 2, Informative

NPR has its own skeletons in the closet. Look up Juan Williams. I think it's better to just assume that every news source has its junk, whether its well-known or not, and to just read any news source with a grain of salt, and then cross-reference it with other news sources. I think this is more realistic than to assume X is biased, and Y is not.

--
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
Re:Would It Change? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 07:38 · Score: 0

California public employees are going to be the adult supervision ? Wow, that like saying NPR is going to do in depth unbiases news. Only in an alternate reality.
Re:Would It Change? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 07:41 · Score: 0

The same Juan Williams who was a fox news contributor before ever being on npr? Why would that be an npr skeleton?
Re:Would It Change? by swan5566 · 2011-10-18 07:48 · Score: 1, Flamebait

It was after he was unceremoniously fired from NPR, and the reasons for it, that makes it a skeleton.

--
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
Re:Would It Change? by h4rr4r · 2011-10-18 08:12 · Score: 1

So now NPR is now required to employ racists?
If you made those sorts of comments where I work you would be fired too.
Re:Would It Change? by swan5566 · 2011-10-18 08:24 · Score: 1

That in no way was being racist. That was admitting an honest and understandable feeling at the expense of being politically correct. And if I worked at such a place I would quit.

--
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
Re:Would It Change? by h4rr4r · 2011-10-18 08:26 · Score: 1

I bet your employee handbook has a similar section about not saying racist stuff at work. It is not understandable to be uncomfortable around people of a different faith or race, that is just racism. I am more nervous on the drive to the airport than on the plane, I realize I am far more likely to die in my car.
Re:Would It Change? by Hatta · 2011-10-18 08:29 · Score: 2

This is modded flamebait, but it's pretty close to the truth. Investors in Fox have to know that they're not investing in a journalistic enterprise. They're investing in propaganda for profit. If they replace Murdoch (big if), expect someone just even worse to replace him.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Would It Change? by swan5566 · 2011-10-18 08:42 · Score: 1

So are you racist against cars then? Not wanting to get blown up in a plane is not racism. Neither is refusing to ignore why 9/11 and the like took place simply because it doesn't it doesn't fancy the politically-correct idealists. Being racist would be being uncomfortable around them for their own sake, and he clearly was not saying that at all.

--
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
Re:Would It Change? by jeffmeden · 2011-10-18 09:01 · Score: 2

NPR has its own skeletons in the closet. Look up Juan Williams. I think it's better to just assume that every news source has its junk, whether its well-known or not, and to just read any news source with a grain of salt, and then cross-reference it with other news sources. I think this is more realistic than to assume X is biased, and Y is not.
The thing that makes Fox extra fun is that they admittedly spend only about 6 hours a day being a "news source" (and it's not in the timeslots you think it is)... Guess which category Juan's little crymeafuckin river rant was aired in? Tune out 100% of the prime time talking heads and their anything-for-ratings antics and you MIGHT get enough information from Fox to make it worthwhile, but you won't see Juan or any of the other "familiar faces" on during those hours.
Re:Would It Change? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 09:07 · Score: 0

NPR has its own skeletons in the closet. Look up Juan Williams. I think it's better to just assume that every news source has its junk, whether its well-known or not, and to just read any news source with a grain of salt, and then cross-reference it with other news sources. I think this is more realistic than to assume X is biased, and Y is not.
Well, I don't know about you, but when I find a black guy sitting next to me on a plane, I get nervous. He might be a junkie. Or want to have sex with white women. Or, y'know something else un-American.
Re:Would It Change? by swan5566 · 2011-10-18 09:08 · Score: 1

I never meant to say that Fox doesn't have it's biases, I'm only saying that they're not alone.

--
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
Re:Would It Change? by NeutronCowboy · 2011-10-18 09:16 · Score: 2

Really? You're comparing the sale of news articles and circulation fraud with firing a news analyst for making an utterly moronic statement while representing NPR?
I agree that every news source has issues, that all stories should be cross-checked for accuracy. But there is getting some things wrong on occasion, and having a corporate policy to flat-out lie for profit and propaganda purposes.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Would It Change? by Dare+nMc · 2011-10-18 09:27 · Score: 2

FYI, Racism is the belief that another race is inferior, to another.
1) Muslim isn't a race
2) Fearful that someone could be succeeded at a difficult task is not indicating a belief of inferiority (at least not in my book.)
We were all told by the Al Quida, that it is a muslims job to kill Americans, most understand that listing to Al Quida is a mistake, and you can call Juan stupid for listing to them, but the Al Quida are the ones to blame the most.
As a counter example, Do you believe if a black man was scared of 2 white people wearing KKK uniforms that the black guy is thus a racist? He believes what he has been told that people wearing those outfits want to hurt black people, and is thus afraid of them. The people wearing the outfits may have another belief causing them to wear the outfit, or the may indeed hate black people. But it isn't the black man's racism causing the fear, it is the reputation of the KKK.
Re:Would It Change? by swan5566 · 2011-10-18 09:36 · Score: 1

I believe he was stating his personal feelings, not trying represent NPR in that moment. Saying it is moronic to make a candid though politically-incorrect observation about politically-charged issue... well I guess it was if you want to keep working for NPR, but it only exposes what they consider is "journalistic objectivity". Btw, Murchoch et al. I agree is getting what's coming to them.

--
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
Re:Would It Change? by h4rr4r · 2011-10-18 09:41 · Score: 1

9/11 happened because of our policies in the middle east. We backed the Saudis and the nuts against the Soviets.
Re:Would It Change? by NeutronCowboy · 2011-10-18 10:10 · Score: 1

The problem was that he was on air as an NPR news analyst, being asked for an analysis of the situation. At that point, he was on the job, representing NPR. That is not the time to put out personal opinions that are politically incorrect and wrong. If he does, he is a lousy news analyst, and deserves the firing for that reason alone. The fact that he was essentially promoting racism as a valid approach to dealing with people while representing NPR was just icing on the cake.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Would It Change? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 10:15 · Score: 0

How is wanting to have sex with white women un-American?
Re:Would It Change? by Required+Snark · 2011-10-18 11:14 · Score: 1

Your response is intrinsically stupid. What you are saying is that "two wrongs make a right."
In the first place, NPR is not the anti-Fox. It is just another news outlet. How does a failure at NPR relate in any way to bad behavior at Fox? Your argument implies complete contempt for the concept of "fair and balanced" and assumes that all news is propaganda and intentionally biased.
In the second place, you are saying that as long as the "opposition" does something wrong, it justifies bad behavior on your side. That's a completely immoral position. Yet here you are, defending Fox by pointing the finger at someone else. As far as I know no religion condones this kind of response. It's like two kids fighting, and each saying the other person is to blame. Where is the adult behavior? Your argument is empty of both logic and morality.
I don't know how you were raised, but in my family I would have never been allowed to say this sort of thing. You need to grow up and start behaving as a reasonable adult, not like a grotesquely self centered child. I hope that you don't apply the same "logic" in the rest of your life, because if you do you are a danger to yourself and others.

--
Why is Snark Required?
Re:Would It Change? by Greyfox · 2011-10-18 12:39 · Score: 1

Truth often is flamebait.
The America that Fox represents as real does not actually exist. It is an America full of people terrified of the boogey man. Whoever the boogey man of the month happens to be. They are not a news organization, they are a fiction organization.
So what is reality? Go figure that out for yourself. Everyone has their own axe to grind. Compare several views of the world for a while and it gets to be pretty easy to spot what each individual organization's axe is. NPR's seems to be "Evil humans destroying the Earth" and "Give us Money." Fox's is "You should be afraid of scarey non-us people!" By the way, Glenn Beck is also a Mormon, so for you Mitt Romney "Ooh they're a cult" guys, you got some splaining to do. Al Jazeera doesn't make the headlines in my neck of the woods, but it seemed to be "Scarey not-us people are being mean to us since 9/11". They're also farther right than Fox. The God-Feern' "Rapture is Coming Any Second" crowd would probably get on very well with the Taliban once they settled their argument over the name of their imaginary friend.
Then go forth into the world and actually meet some people, and you'll find that most folks are quite reasonable and only want to live their lives without too much interference from the government. Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, they're all just people, trying to get by and hopefully not have their children blown up by the 10% or so of the people who are complete assholes. And the people who profit from keeping you afraid of the scarey not-us people are among the assholes. Maybe you should stop giving them your money and attention.
Oh and to be honest I don't really have a 11% share in Fox. It's not like I'm a Saudi Prince or something! *snort*

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:Would It Change? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 17:32 · Score: 0

my girlfriend likes and watches fox news. thats why i broke up with her. stupid bitch
Re:Would It Change? by tehcyder · 2011-10-18 23:05 · Score: 2

That in no way was being racist. That was admitting an honest and understandable feeling at the expense of being politically correct. And if I worked at such a place I would quit.
I looked this up because I'd never heard of the man (I'm not American). What he said was "When I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Technically, it's not racist as "Muslim" isn't a race.

But it is paranoid illogical xenophobic garbage, which anyone with half a brain should be embarrassed to let vomit out of their mouths.

Logic 101. Even if all terrorists are Muslim, it does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Would It Change? by tehcyder · 2011-10-18 23:12 · Score: 1

So are you racist against cars then? Not wanting to get blown up in a plane is not racism. Neither is refusing to ignore why 9/11 and the like took place simply because it doesn't it doesn't fancy the politically-correct idealists. Being racist would be being uncomfortable around them for their own sake, and he clearly was not saying that at all.
Ok then, my understanding is that a lot of terrorism on US soil has been carried out by people with white skin and Christian beliefs (Timothy McVeigh, various anti-abortionists). Therefore, if I am on holiday in the US, should I be suspicious of and act nervously around any white Christian people I meet, perhaps refuse to make eye contact or talk to them, as they may be terrorists?

Put the shoe on the other foot and see how it feels.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Would It Change? by tehcyder · 2011-10-18 23:28 · Score: 1

Yes, but being afraid of all Muslims because some nutjobs in Al Qaeda want to kill Americans would be like a black man being afraid of all white men because a few racist murderers are in the KKK, or a white man being afraid of all Asians because some of them are in the Triads or Yakuza.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Would It Change? by tehcyder · 2011-10-18 23:34 · Score: 1

The America that Fox represents as real does not actually exist. It is an America full of people terrified of the boogey man. Whoever the boogey man of the month happens to be. They are not a news organization, they are a fiction organization.
Trying to fit this into a UK context, Fox News sounds like The Daily Mail. 'Nuff said.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Would It Change? by rtb61 · 2011-10-19 00:32 · Score: 2

Fox not-News(I refuse to repeat a lie), is basically a news organisation target at two groups, psychopaths and narcissists. Not surprising as it is run by psychopaths and staffed by narcissists. They are the greed and ego network, they run adds by the greedy to sell products to the greedy and truth, well, truth is just to darn unprofitable.
It is "Insanity TV" and the only real saving grace is, it is pretty much a bug loser on the internet and is dying a slow but sure inevitable death. In the meantime do the right thing https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/user/5827264/?src=api.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Would It Change? by jeffmeden · 2011-10-19 01:32 · Score: 1

I never meant to say that Fox doesn't have it's biases, I'm only saying that they're not alone.
Pithy comments like "oh well Fox is biased like every other news outlet" are so far off the mark you might as well get your news from papyrus rolls. Its amazingly disingenuous to merely say that "Fox has it's biases" when 75% of its "news" content is actually opinion/editorial and only slants one direction... Thinking that if you spend 50% of your news-gathering with Fox and 50% with say CNN will get you anywhere close to middle ground is total nonsense. Watch Fox if you are a conservative who wants to be shown/told what to think about what is happening in the world; there is nothing wrong with that as long as you are comfortable admitting it. Turn it off if you aren't.
Re:Would It Change? by swan5566 · 2011-10-19 02:30 · Score: 1

Never said NPR was anti-fox, and I never defended Fox. I think the Murdochs are getting what's coming to them. Also never said that all news is intentionally biased. I am saying that it sometimes is, and it sometimes is unintentionally so. You really need to read things more carefully and not read things into stuff. And usually when people resort to ad hominem, it's because they can't find anything else more objective to support their argument.

--
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
Re:Would It Change? by Dare+nMc · 2011-10-19 02:42 · Score: 1

Which has nothing to do with the statement by Juan, he never said he was afraid of all Muslims.
Re:Would It Change? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-19 20:26 · Score: 0

"Blocks websites owned by Newscorp"
Just... wow. Don't the Church of Scientology have something like that to prevent their faithful being corrupted by outsiders? For them (and for you) it says more about their (your) own insecurities than it does about the world.

What happens to subsidiaries by overshoot · 2011-10-18 07:32 · Score: 0, Troll

Most significantly, the United States Republican Party?

--
Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."

Tech news? by grimmjeeper · 2011-10-18 07:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

I know stories like this generate a lot of traffic but what does this have to do with tech news?

Re:Tech news? by Moheeheeko · 2011-10-18 07:37 · Score: 1

My guess? they did said protesting from thier iPhones? I really dont know.
Re:Tech news? by CohibaVancouver · 2011-10-18 07:38 · Score: 2

It's "News for nerds, stuff that matters" not "tech news."
Re:Tech news? by lavagolemking · 2011-10-18 07:49 · Score: 1

Enough of us here complain about News Corp, Murdoch, Fox, etc. that it's probably relevant enough for our purposes. If this goes anywhere, it's really big news and it does matter. Besides, it's not like this was news-for-nerds(TM) either.
Re:Tech news? by Frenzied+Apathy · 2011-10-18 07:50 · Score: 2

stuff that matters
"stuff that matters"

'Nuff said...

--
The cake is a lie.
Re:Tech news? by LWATCDR · 2011-10-18 07:55 · Score: 2

And this matters? No it is News for Nerds this is News for bankers and stock brokers.
Heck it is even tagged Business!
Slashdot is dead.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Tech news? by The+Dawn+Of+Time · 2011-10-18 07:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's a Slashdotter masturbation frenzy. Everyone will get in with a comment about how they're so smart for not believe anything on Fox news, and they'll try to top each other in contests of cleverness by substituting "Faux" for "Fox" because nothing impresses the ladies like snide misspellings.
Re:Tech news? by esme · 2011-10-18 08:07 · Score: 2

And this matters? No it is News for Nerds this is News for bankers and stock brokers.
Heck it is even tagged Business!
yes, a possible change in the leadership of a company that is very influential in politics, news and entertainment matters -- at least to me, and probably most nerds who care about government or entertainment, which is probably ~100%.

Slashdot is dead.
/me checks poster's id
cry me a river, kid. people have been complaining about /. going downhill since forever. if you don't like it, quit bitching and read something else.
-esme
Re:Tech news? by lysdexia · 2011-10-18 09:23 · Score: 1

I find that a 11 week-old German Shepherd puppy works much better than snide misspellings.
Re:Tech news? by doclight · 2011-10-18 09:51 · Score: 1

Also, commenting about how smart you are that you don't follow the cliche of being anti-fox. That attracts the ladies like moths to a flame.
Re:Tech news? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 13:01 · Score: 0

Slashdot is dead.
Then go away. Please. You will not be missed.
Re:Tech news? by scot4875 · 2011-10-18 13:02 · Score: 1

The irony is strong with this one.
--Jeremy

--
Jesus was a liberal
Re:Tech news? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2011-10-18 15:51 · Score: 1

It is news for people for whom "technology" might mean something a bit more than "gadgets".
If you really dislike the site that much, WTF are you doing here? There's the door. Try not to trip too badly over your own smug anti-intellectualism as you exit.
(Protip: You seem to think that mocking others to compensate for your own wilful ignorance makes you look clever. It does not.)

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Tech news? by sjames · 2011-10-18 21:00 · Score: 1

You've never heard of News nerds/geeks?
Re:Tech news? by pev · 2011-10-18 23:05 · Score: 1

The Only Constant Is Change.
Re:Tech news? by tehcyder · 2011-10-18 23:39 · Score: 1

I know stories like this generate a lot of traffic but what does this have to do with tech news?
News foir Nerds. Stuff that Matters.

The tagline is not "tech news only with no reference to the real world".

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Tech news? by LWATCDR · 2011-10-19 05:18 · Score: 1

Yea really. Sorry but no. I would have no problem with this on MSNBC, BBC, or even NPR. I didn't say this wasn't news I said it wasn't news for nerds.
This is an example of mainstreaming, manipulation, and and frankly the politics of Slashdot.
I would complain if it was on Scientific American, MotorTrend, Sports Aviation, or Sky and Telescope.
And exactly how is who runs News Corp in anyway technology? I would even give it to you if was about their pay walls.
"Try not to trip too badly over your own smug anti-intellectualism as you exit."
Really? What a freaking ego.
Let me explain it to you in really simple terms. This story has nothing to do with technology, science, or even science fiction.
This is what is commonly called click bait. The people that run Slashdot know that Fox new is hated. I frankly am not sure why it is worthy of such venom but to be honest I don't watch it. That hate will cause people to come and click and see their ads and make them money. In other words it is a fine example of emotional manipulation for profit, just like Fox news does.
Much like a lot of the summaries that are boarding on Midnight Sun level of journalism.
I am so not anti-intelectual that it isn't funny. I am anti-manipulation even if I agree with the way that they are trying to force people! I am pro-thought. Just because you like this story doesn't mean that it should be on Slashdot. I love westerns but I do not think that that a story about Gene Autry's autobiography should be on Slashdot! The complaint is this is not the right venue for it and at best it should have been shoved in the dustbin that is politics on Slashdot.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Tech news? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-19 19:31 · Score: 0

I am so not anti-intelectual that it isn't funny.
It just doesn't get any better than this. :D

I know Murdoch is crooked... by rolfwind · 2011-10-18 07:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

But CA Public Employees Retirement System sounds left wing already, and if I were a worker, I'd be pissed that they're using my pension $ to play politics instead of simply focusing on good companies and divesting themselves of bad ones.

Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by digistil · 2011-10-18 07:40 · Score: 1

Isn't the electing of the board part of being an investor? If my pension can't be bothered to act on my investments through them, why would I stick with them?
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 07:40 · Score: 0

Robert Maxwell also decided peoples' pension funds were his to play with. He's now living in hiding, or fell off a boat, which ever you choose to believe.
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by SomeKDEUser · 2011-10-18 07:41 · Score: 2

Uhhh, see, it is clearly bad for the long-term benefits of their members that fox continues to exert any influence at all on American politics. So their move is in fact good economic policy.
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by truthsearch · 2011-10-18 07:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Better policy would be to not invest in News Corp at all.

News Corp. seems to be operating with only the sketchiest of business plans and no effective executive oversight of his many far-flung initiatives
Then why are they, or anyone else seeking a successful investment, owing part of the company? If no one wanted the stock it would devalue itself and the rest of the owners, including the Murdochs, would lose money.

--
Developers: We can use your help.
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by trims · 2011-10-18 07:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Please. Public Pension systems are one of the last bastions of Good left in this country. And, I'm not talking about the pension system itself, I'm talking about some very, very responsible fund managers who run them (not just CALPers, but most state's public pension systems). These folks are paid significantly less than equivalent ones on Wall Street, and they put in a huge effort to get good returns for their funds. Part of that effort is to be more pro-active than a typical Wall Streeter, and not just game the system, but FIX the system.
So, you're strategy is "cut and run"? Where? Oh, to another company where the culture sucks so bad because the stockholders are sheep. The pension funds are right - they have to fight, since there's no where to move their money that isn't in some way corrupted by the current international "corporate culture standard".
There have been some major efforts by public pension systems (just in the past year, I can remember efforts from Louisiana, Wisconsin, New York, and even South Carolina) to reform the way companies are run. This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with maximizing the pension's ROI - after all, that $100 million the board just paid the CEO comes right out of stockholder's pockets. Public pension systems are at the forefront of the reform movement, and it's all in very much self interest.
In the Murdoch's case, fighting to oust them can only HELP the ROI - NewsCorp is incurring massive losses (legal, circulation, etc.) directly due to the Murdoch-installed culture. Replace that culture with a more sane one, and the ROI goes back up.
It's not politics, folks, it's money. Pure self-interest, just it happens to be wielded for Good this time.
-Erik

--
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by lavagolemking · 2011-10-18 07:57 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Think bigger -- Fox News, being so radically right wing as it is, represents a huge threat to public workers, safety nets, and generally anything that doesn't immediately benefit the elite class. Even if this ends up hurting News Corp's viewer base (the delusional), it will mean less of this blockading politics in the name of tax cuts for wealthy, less wars of conquest, and less of this anti-union vendetta being pushed on public employees. If they're as leftist as you say, then their workers would probably also like it if the propaganda machine were to die down.
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 08:05 · Score: 0

Sure, and if pensions were actually funded today, out of the actual contract money handed over to union members, I'd be cheering for them with you. Since pensions are funded by "someone else in the future" - i.e., the taxpayer of tomorrow - I'll continue to vote against them.
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by operagost · 2011-10-18 08:09 · Score: 1

Uhhh, see, it is clearly bad for the long-term benefits of their members that any media outlet continues to exert any influence at all on American politics.

FTFY

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by operagost · 2011-10-18 08:12 · Score: 1

Your post after removing irrelevant and biased content:

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 08:12 · Score: 0

Unfortunately, you then vote against them in ignorance. Not every pension fund works that way.
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by ThatsMyNick · 2011-10-18 08:20 · Score: 2

You are thinking of social security (State Pensions, which is mandatory and managed by the feds (SSA)), the parent is taking about Employment-based pensions (or retirement plans) managed by various private and public entities.
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by UnknowingFool · 2011-10-18 08:23 · Score: 2

Um if you bothered to read the summary above, it seems that the pension is troubled by Murdochs' apparent lack of ethics or the underlying lack of control. Either Murdoch and his sons had no clue what his editors were doing or they knew but did nothing about it. Both are bad signs for a company's management.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by Colin+Douglas+Howell · 2011-10-18 09:06 · Score: 1

Robert Maxwell also decided peoples' pension funds were his to play with. He's now living in hiding, or fell off a boat, which ever you choose to believe.
Considering his body was found by a fishing boat on the same day he went missing, and that he would now be 88 if he were still alive, the "living in hiding" supposition seems rather far fetched. :)
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by PCM2 · 2011-10-18 09:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

But CA Public Employees Retirement System sounds left wing already, and if I were a worker, I'd be pissed that they're using my pension $ to play politics instead of simply focusing on good companies and divesting themselves of bad ones.
If large, institutional investors don't take an active hand in steering public corporations, who will? Do you honestly think that if we posted about it to Facebook enough, all the individual investors would take time to fill out their shareholder ballots and vote the Murdochs off the board? If CalPERS was responsible for my retirement security, I not only would expect it to wield as much influence as it could over its holdings to secure long-term growth, but I would also expect it to steer those organizations in a direction that does not send them down the path of graft, corruption, and criminal misconduct. You seem to advocate CalPERS taking its ball and going home. I say it's far better for American workers and the U.S. economy for CalPERS to help keep corporations like News Corp accountable, responsible, forthright, upstanding, and most of all legal.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 10:37 · Score: 0

As a CALPERs member your right on, our retirement throws alot of money around so as any investor it has the right to speak up and tell the ones in charge to cut the crap out and do whats best for the business, or face the risk of deinvestment (which in this case is probably alot of money), can't say I agree with everything my retirement does but we did vote for the board members that run the retirement that do make those calls.
If the board starts making political calls instead of financial ones then there are steps to remove people from the board.
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by rahvin112 · 2011-10-18 11:31 · Score: 1

The biggest problem with American capitalism right now and the single biggest reason CEO salaries are going up at 100% per year is exactly because investors have abrogated their responsibility to the company they are owners of. This is the reason the boards of most companies are comprised of friendly CEO's from other companies and no one running the company actually owns any significant stock. If you need an example look at HP, other than the Hewlett and Packard relatives with minority ownership there isn't a single major shareholder on the board.
In a functional capitalism and publicly traded system investors take active interest in and responsibility to ensure the company has proper management. Without this oversight you essentially have the fox watching the hen house. What we have right now in America is a system where 95% of investors do so through pension and 401k plans tied to mutual funds. Those mutual funds in the interest of keeping expenses down take no involvement in the businesses they own significant percentages in. In most fortune 500 companies the institutional investors comprise upwards of 70% of the voting shares and often are not even peripherally involved.
In most cases the funds do exactly what you suggest, they simply sell the stock and buy another. The problem is that creates the dysfunctional capital system we have right now. CEO's are only interested in short term returns not long term gains. Corporations acting against the interests of the investors and the country as a whole. The system could be easily fixed, by the actual investors taking interest in the companies they own. Every investor could make more money and the companies would do better if the investors took more involvement in these companies with dysfunctional management systems.
News corp is in fact a prime example a corporation without real oversight. You have a single man in control who's aged to the point where I question his ability to make rational decisions, he allowing cronies and relatives to treat the company as their own private play toys in opposition to the majority of shareholders. CalPers decision to take a stand against the lack of management oversight and attempting to fix that is EXACTLY what this country needs to fix many of it's problems. It's a perfect example of an owner of the company taking an active interest in it's management and profitability. There should be no question that news corp has made some very bad decisions in the past few years and that's adverse to the future profitability of news corp in general. As a major stockholder CalPers should be actively concerned about that.
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 13:15 · Score: 0

Fuck CALPERS.
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by tehcyder · 2011-10-18 23:52 · Score: 1

But CA Public Employees Retirement System sounds left wing already, and if I were a worker, I'd be pissed that they're using my pension $ to play politics instead of simply focusing on good companies and divesting themselves of bad ones.
Maybe if you were a worker you'd be left wing yourself.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-19 01:41 · Score: 0

As if there were any disconnect between the corruption that buying off politicians to deregulate the business environment breeds and the availability of good companies to invest in in the first place.
If the business environment is corrupt, if the only way to compete as a business is to break the law and/or lobby for the legalization of accounting tricks which create ephemeral "wealth" ala Enron and Global Crossing and AIG , then there will be no "good companies" to invest in, only companies with whose sky high stock prices are a bubble due to burst in a few years, leaving everyone whose long-term financial wellbeing the managers at CALPERS have a fiduciary obligation to safeguard high destitute and hopeless.
There is no separation between sound regulation and "good companies" and I'm sick of hearing FOXNEWS and the WSJ pretend otherwise.

Undeserved hostility by overshoot · 2011-10-18 07:34 · Score: 4, Funny

Fox News Should Be Pulled Apart By Wild Weasels.

What did wild weasels ever do to you?

--
Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."

Re:Undeserved hostility by Colin+Douglas+Howell · 2011-10-18 08:45 · Score: 1

Fox News Should Be Pulled Apart By Wild Weasels.
What did wild weasels ever do to you?
Probably blew up all his SAM batteries.
Re:Undeserved hostility by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 08:48 · Score: 0

What did wild weasels ever do to you?
Ripped my flesh.
Re:Undeserved hostility by garrobon · 2011-10-18 09:03 · Score: 2

Fox News Should Be Pulled Apart By Wild Weasels.
What did wild weasels ever do to you?
Ripped his flesh?

Not Far Enough by CanHasDIY · 2011-10-18 07:34 · Score: 1

Good, I hope they do oust the evil old bastard.

Then maybe we can get rid of FOXs other owner, the known terrorist bankroller Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Fraud. by Alex+Belits · 2011-10-18 07:38 · Score: 2

And why, exactly, don't they just ask police in all involved countries to investigate the papers and board for fraud? 40% means jack shit if RICO and similar laws are applied to the board.

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.

Re:Fraud. by UnknowingFool · 2011-10-18 08:27 · Score: 1

Because those kinda of moves would lower the value of the stock which they own a significant number of shares. They want Murdoch gone and new leadership which helps their investments for their members.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Fraud. by Alex+Belits · 2011-10-18 08:45 · Score: 1

But they can't get Murdoch and his cronies out any other way, so there isn't really a choice.

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.

Why is this "Hacking" so frowned upon? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 07:45 · Score: 0

Anon and luzsec and hell even wikileaks don't get this kind of condemnation as this instance of organized hacking has received in the media and on the forums. What's going on guys? Liberal can hack, but conservatives can't?

Re:Why is this "Hacking" so frowned upon? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 08:34 · Score: 0

Anon and luzsec and hell even wikileaks don't get this kind of condemnation as this instance of organized hacking has received in the media and on the forums. What's going on guys? Liberal can hack, but conservatives can't?
Anonymous and Lulzsec are despicable and do get massive condemnation. WikiLeaks doesn't do any hacking, yet is still massively despised in the media.
In short, what the hell are you talking about?
Re:Why is this "Hacking" so frowned upon? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2011-10-18 16:17 · Score: 1

Anon and luzsec and hell even wikileaks don't get this kind of condemnation as this instance of organized hacking has received in the media and on the forums. What's going on guys? Liberal can hack, but conservatives can't?
If you're referring to the phone-hacking scandal...
Anonymous and Lulzsec don't pretend to be news organisations. WikiLeaks doesn't do any hacking.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Why is this "Hacking" so frowned upon? by tehcyder · 2011-10-19 00:15 · Score: 1

Anon and lulzsec (no idea why wikileaks is in there) don't target, for example, the phone of a murdered schoolgirl or the families of people killed in terrorist attacks.

No one really cared about the NOTW hacking celebrities' phones, but they crossed a line of vileness.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

I'm a little confused here by willoughby · 2011-10-18 07:47 · Score: 2

I thought Rupert's website paywalls were going to fix all their problems.

Re:I'm a little confused here by MLCT · 2011-10-18 08:27 · Score: 1

They don't paywall newspapers these days, they shutter them.

The complex web of the phone hacking scandal has many threads to yet unwind. James - Herr Flick - Murdoch was the heir apparent. But when the complete truth is ironed out and he is found to have lied to the UK parliament select committee on what he knew then his corporate career is over. Where that leaves the "empire" given the age of it's king, is anyone's guess - but a family dynasty to control all far into the future is looking increasingly unlikely.

ARE THEY NUTS?!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 07:47 · Score: 0

Rupert Murdoch is the most important part of the Fox brand, and the quality of its product. Cutting the power of Rupert Murdoch is like firing Steve Jobs from Apple. Without Rupert Murdoch, the ideals Fox stand for will wither away, and Fox will become a bland, undifferentiated product. That will destroy shareholder value.

Tar and Feather the Fucker by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 07:51 · Score: 0

They should've done the same to Hearst...though he did build a kick ass castle...

Another slow news day.... by dthanna · 2011-10-18 07:52 · Score: 2

Hurm... how many want to bet that absolutely none of this will make Fox News at 11 tonight?

ALERT: If you are conservative... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 07:59 · Score: 0

you need to remember this is Slashdot so, to see any conservative views, you need to make it a point to read all of the posts that have been scored -1.

NOTE: This alert should be posted on all politically sensitive topics!!!

Re:ALERT: If you are conservative... by spidercoz · 2011-10-18 08:12 · Score: 0, Flamebait

p.s., you should take that as a hint that your views are outdated rubbish and have no place in a modern, civilized society

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire

Re:ALERT: If you are conservative... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 08:19 · Score: 0

You dumb ass... You only proved the point.

When doing science, one needs to keep an open mind... Not seek validation of their beliefs. Whenever decenting views are posted and they are modded down... It simply indicates that most of the people on Slashdot are just a technically dumb as the average Obama voter...

The Other Vader by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 08:35 · Score: 1

If Dick Cheyney is the Darth Vader of government, then certainly Rupert Murdoch is the Darth Vader of Industry. I hope he gets spanked hard!

Who cares by publiclurker · 2011-10-18 08:42 · Score: 1

what an ignorant, corporate whoring bagger like you has to say?

Let me explain by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 08:42 · Score: 0

This is news for nerds as it is about getting back at Rupert Murdoch, the man leading Fox who cancelled Firefly.

So if you are honest about being a racist by publiclurker · 2011-10-18 08:45 · Score: 1

that makes it OK in your warped little world?

Re:So if you are honest about being a racist by swan5566 · 2011-10-18 08:52 · Score: 1

No, but what is true in my world is that Ad hominem means admitting defeat.

--
In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.

Re:ALERT: If you are conservative... by spidercoz · 2011-10-18 08:54 · Score: 0

don't mod me insightful dipshits, I'm not on your side either

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire

Re:CALPERS - Modded Troll by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 09:36 · Score: 0

I swear, this place is turning into another Huffington Post. Filled with limp dicked liberals who can't take any criticism.

No, that's their point. by sethstorm · 2011-10-18 11:02 · Score: 2

Murdoch is becoming a liability, not a core asset to the company.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.

Good luck with that by plopez · 2011-10-18 13:15 · Score: 1

Stock holder revolts rarely work. Stockholders are second class citizens (maybe even 3rd or 4th). If it looks like it might have a chance the board will amend the charter making it even more difficult to revolt. If sued, they will use the assets of the company, in other words the stockholders, to fend the stockholders off.

Scumbags.

--
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+

Fascist nutjobs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-18 13:44 · Score: 0

First of all, wtf does this have to do with tech news? Secondly, why post stories that attract the frothing fascist cunts who hate and advocate violence against anyone or any organization that contradicts their own peculiar and hateful viewpoints. Fuck Fox News, slippytoad? No, Fuck You!

Re:CALPERS - Modded Troll by tehcyder · 2011-10-18 22:32 · Score: 1

I swear, this place is turning into another Huffington Post. Filled with limp dicked liberals who can't take any criticism.

Always good to hear from the huge swinging dick ACs.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:ALERT: If you are conservative... by tehcyder · 2011-10-19 00:35 · Score: 1

you need to remember this is Slashdot so, to see any conservative views, you need to make it a point to read all of the posts that have been scored -1.

NOTE: This alert should be posted on all politically sensitive topics!!!

Yes, because there are no conservatives on slashdot. This site is a teeming hotbed of GODLESS COMMUNISM and MUSLIM TERRORISM.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Two things... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-19 01:51 · Score: 0

1. "seems to be operating with only the sketchiest of business plans"

Same could be said for CALPERS, I suppose which has promised to pay for more in retirement benefits than it actually has or is likely to have.

2. Fox News is no more biased or inaccurate than any other news source. It's just biased and inaccurate in a different way. A way that, apparently, drives some people bats.

Slashdot Mirror

Investors Campaign To Oust Murdochs From News Corp

150 comments