Slashdot Mirror
Fox News Parent NewsCorp May Face Corruption Investigation
rtfa-troll writes "The Guardian reports that News Corporation may face FCPA investigations after an 'official of the British ministry of defence' was charged 'for allegedly receiving £100,000 from Murdoch's tabloid newspapers.' News Corporation, headed by Rupert Murdoch, is loved by most of the readers of Slashdot as the owner of Fox News and as the company which put the overly complicated paywall on the Wall Street Journal. The article states that the charges 'would be hard for the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to ignore and would warrant investigation under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which could lead to risks for 27 TV licences within the Fox network.'"
You know who is not going to be covering this story.
Mr Murdoch will be able to buy his way out of trouble, if not, I'm sure he has something on anyone with something to lose.
Yeah, what he said....I don't watch Fox News, but it seems if they are as crooked as it has been reported, will they even report on this? And if they do, I wonder how they will spin it..."Liberal lefty media trying to discredit Fox again!"
The FCC has no control over fox news on sat / cable.
If fox get's pulled what happens to the NFL games?
Will they have to open NFL Sunday ticket with no black outs and free for all? and get the out local feeds to cable as well.
Am I misreading something? Where was the FCC mentioned?
1) The FCC has no jurisdiction over what goes on in the UK
2) Fox doesn't JUST broadcast on cable and satellite. Fox has a number of affiliates, and they rebroadcast Fox news programs and contribute to local news programming.
For those of us who have played Illuminati, http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/28/illuminati-deluxe-edition what we are seeing here is a further attempt by certain powers to destroy the visible power group 'News Corp'. The attack has been declared; we're now seeing the money being spent before the dice is rolled. We've already seen one successful attack to destroy - the News of the World newspaper in the UK. Will this attack be successful - or it might merely be to neutralise, leaving News Corp in play to be taken over...
You're willing to pay for access so it is simple.
It's only complicated if you want "free" access.
I find it easier to just ignore the WSJ.
Why do you assume that complaining about a firewall is a liberal bias?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
"Only a hundred thousand? Come on, you can do better than that."
No, wait, I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Rupert Murdock, is loathed by most of the readers of Slashdot as the owner of Fox News and as the company which put the overly complicated paywall on the Wall Street Journal.
FTFY
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
yeah, you were misreading (or not reading) TFA:
The latest legal difficulties to hit News Corporation could also potentially have ramifications on its 27 TV licences within the Fox network â" the real financial heart of the operation. Three of the licences are up for renewal, and in August the ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) filed a petition with the US broadcasting regulator, the Federal Communications Commission, that called for them to be denied on the grounds that the company did not have the requisite character to run a public service.
The FCC is being asked to deny renewal for 3 of the 27 Fox licences. Whatever regulates the sat/cable industry might be asked to consider if Fox is a reputable enough company to own a licence to broadcast - the UK has such requirements, and I can't really believe the US has a totally deregulated media industry (a corrupt one, maybe).
Anyway, keep your eyes open, this time next week the Leveson Inquiry publishes its report into News Corp.
Why do you assume that complaining about a firewall is a liberal bias?
Because if you're conservative, everything that is true or even approaching the truth is "lib'rul bias."
You've lost me here. Maybe it's because I'm in the UK so I got actual news coverage, but pray tell, what "happened in Libya" that you're so bent out of shape over?
Their ratings are in the toilet.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's not your computer. Your internet connection isn't fast enough for all the javascripts.
Fox (Bill O'Reiley) has actually been covering this for several months now.
Looks like they didn't pay off the RIGHT officials in the US...
I can't figure out why anyone would pay for the WSJ any more? I felt like I was being robbed when I could read articles for free.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm sorry, I was too busy writing obscene posts about Apple and Microsoft to hear what you said.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
He's lost himself. What parent meant to say was "NBC didn't report my conspiracy theory about Benghazi.."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So an incident in a subsidiary branch 6000 miles away from the US should induce major headaches for a US-based organization at the hands of the US government.
Well, if it's good enough to tear down all of Acorn over one jackass office...
Alternatively...
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Hey! I owned a 386SX...and it was awesome! (for 1990).
After reading TFA, I see only two opinions being used for the basis of the article, and neither of them appear to have anything to do with the headline of the /. post.
"Mike Koehler, professor of law at Southern Illinois school of law and author of the blog fcaprofessor.com, said the charges "would be hard for the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to ignore. We have been hearing allegations for a year and a half now, now we clearly have charges against high ranking officials at a foreign subsidiary," he said."
Professor Koehler makes his living speaking and writing about these types of cases.
"Melanie Sloan, Crew's director, said the charges of the four former News International employees played into its petition. 'News Corp argues that the conduct in Britain shouldn't matter here in the US, but the Atlantic ocean doesn't have cleansing properties – if Murdoch is seen to be unfit to run a global company in the UK, then he's unfit in this country, too.'"
Ms. Sloan's organization (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - CREW) tends to go after conservative politicians (are they more corrupt than liberal politicians? I think it's about equal...) and receives the majority of their funding from liberal sources.
(Wikpedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Responsibility_and_Ethics_in_Washington)
So, what we have is an article published by a newspaper that has a financial interest in denigrating a competing news organization, and the two folks quoted in the article gain fame and fortune from these types of cases.
You'll also notice that the Fox News cable channel is not mentioned in TFA at all...The Fox Network was mentioned twice and the Fox Channel once.
Fair and Balanced? You decide... ;-)
Here's the PDF of the petition to deny News Corp's renewal of TV broadcasting licenses in the DC and Baltimore markets, based on its behavior in the UK.
So an incident in a subsidiary branch 6000 miles away from the US should induce major headaches for a US-based organization at the hands of the US government.
That's what often happens. For one, foriegn bribes are illegal in the US. That is to say, if a fooreign subsidiary uses bribery, it is a crime (under US law) that can be charged against the parent company. That's why one company I worked for with more than 30 foreign subsidiaries had very very liberal expense accounting. You were expected to pay for bribes yourself, then charge them back as "dinner" or such, no receipt needed, and unprosecutable as far as the feds are concerned.
It was a requirement of doing business, as some countries require bribes. One specific example would have a US analog of:
What would you do if the Elbonia TSA made you pay $5 to get your laptop bin back at the security check? They are government employees, so slipping them $5 for your laptop would be a federal crime in the USA.
So yeah, if he gets convicted of bribery in the UK, then his company is on the hook for breaking the foreign corrupt practices act, and should lose all US licenses.
Why do you want to reward people who break the rules, so long as they break them creatively enough to satisfy you?
Learn to love Alaska
baby don't hurt me no more
Dear Slashdot,
You've heard of the phrase "Pot calling the Kettle Black", right? Slashdot has no standing to call anyone else "biased".
You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between having an opinion about something and just plain Making Shit Up.
When someone has an opinion, no matter how tenuous, they have at least implicitly accepted that there is such a thing as objective reality, which gives you something to argue about.
When someone simply invents their own reality, then there's no common ground for argument or understanding.
And Slashdot, contrary to your construction of it, is far more diverse in its opinions than you seem to think. But when a collective bias does show (e.g. in anti-Microsoft diatribes), it's generally[*] based on commonly-held opinions that are derived from experience. My anti-Microsoft bias comes from trying to write and support stable server-based applications on an MS platform in the late '90s. Security and stability were such shit at that time that I moved to Linux simply in order to maintain my sanity (and professional reputation).
So, there may actually be pots and kettles here, but not where you're looking for them; comparing Slashdot to Fox is apples to oranges.
----------
[*] Generally. Statistically, there is a small but vocal cadre of clueless idiots in every group of a sufficient size.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Bribery and corruption are the norm in other countries like Mexico. All they are doing is making it impossible for US businesses to do anything overseas.
He's lost himself. What parent meant to say was "NBC didn't report my conspiracy theory about Benghazi.."
I get the impression that for the past month or so FOX has given up on news-spin and just dispenses conspiracy theories now.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Why do you assume that complaining about a firewall is a liberal bias?
Because if you're conservative, everything that is true or even approaching the truth is "lib'rul bias."
Even the Wall Street Journal.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Nobody called anyone else biased. How bad is it that you hear "Fox News" and the first word to pop into your head is "biased"?
Learn to love Alaska
But that's no problem here in the US since the Supreme ruled that money is equivalent to free speech; effectively negating anti-bribery laws here
"get's"? Really?
If they pull the NFL games from TV, base intelligence and spelling skills may exceed their current levels just a hair. Perhaps enough to make thing's better.
:-)
There will be a bidding war.
Don't worry, you're not going to miss anything if Fox disappears, except perhaps the singular experience of seeing Karl Rove shit his pants on live TV when the network declared Barack Obama re-elected.
And if you think maybe I'm being hyperbolic with the "shit-his-pants" description, it means you missed what happened on Fox when the election was called for the President. You could smell the fear-sweat through the TV screen when he realized he was going to have to tell a bunch of sociopath billionaires that they bought exactly nothing for the shipping containers full of money they gave to Rove on the promise that they'd get their own white president to own.
You are welcome on my lawn.
One, your accounting gimmick doesn't shield you from prosecution. It MAY make prosecution more difficult, but the company - and you personally - are absolutely criminally liable for paying the bribe, no matter how you attempt to obfuscate it. All you need is affirmative knowledge of an intent to influence an official's duties with some sort of compensation.
Whether the FCPA covers your example of paying to get your laptop back out of the bin is less clear. There's actually a case or two going through the system now that will define who, exactly, counts as a "foreign official", specifically, does every employee of a government count as a foreign official?
It's unlikely that a conviction for paying a bribe to get your laptop back would survive an appeal, as the payment didn't secure your business an advantage, it just got your property back.
paintball
Um.... of course? If subsidiaries didn't count, they you could just spin off a subsidiary to do your bribes for you and you'd be safe. In fact, companies would go further and spin EVERYTHING off into subsidiaries and only keep the top execs in the main company, Then they could have their companies do anything and be isolated from legal responsibility.
Look at that walker! Better hide into an open prison.
If you had even read the /. post you would have noticed that they're talking about the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act being involved. Nothing about the FCC.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-filings/entry/crew-petition-fcc-deny-renewal-news-corp-fox-broadcast-licenses-murdoch
Washington, D.C. – Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), asking the agency to deny renewal of three broadcast licenses held by Fox television stations. Because their licenses are set to expire in October, two Fox stations in Washington, D.C. and one in Baltimore – which are wholly owned subsidiaries of News Corp. – filed to renew the licenses this past June.
CREW is objecting to the renewals because under U.S. law, broadcast frequencies may be used only by people of good “character,” who will serve “the public interest,” and speak with “candor.” Significant character deficiencies may warrant disqualification from holding a license.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
"Don''t like" Fox Noise? Dude, it's not even news. It's nothing more than a propaganda channel, funneling the wishes and opinions of one of the richest and crookedest bastards in the world into American living rooms.
Have you noticed how divisive American politics has become? There is plenty of blame to lay at the feet of liberals and conservatives alike. Lots of blame for ALL of the big media channels. But Fox? Fox gets the lion's share of the blame for that. Those rotten bastards come into the living rooms of millions of Americans every day, to explain why Obummer is the Anti-Christ, and to explain for all the morons that America's end is nigh.
News? Fox is adamantly opposed to offering news. It's all propaganda noise.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I kinda think that you're the one who is missing something. The FCC does have authority over SOME of Fox's news outlets. Television stations, specifically. Shutting down some TV stations won't stop Fox spewing their poison over cable, or internet, but it will shut down those three television stations.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I'm no fan of Fox, but this channel runs @ my place of employment all day --
This controversy is a direct result of investigations into the News of the World cell-phone cracking scandal, and Fox has actually covered this in a factual and dispassionate manor since the original story broke (always caveated with "News-corp is the parent company of Fox News, etc."). The current corruption investigation has received coverage on Bill O'Reilly's show on at least three separate occasions since early October.
The (+5, Insightful) stuff at the top of the comments based on an assumed Fox cover-up is just bunk. I think Fox has been the *only* major US television media outlet to report on this scandal.
Rupert Murdoch personally paid off celebs in the UK, for them to NOT bring charges against the companies he owned there. It's not an "incident in a subsidiary" company. Rupert was directly involved. Rupert made the decision that it was cheaper to pay people off, then to continue with "business as usual". Rupert did NOT direct his underlings and cronies to stop breaking the law - he paid off, and gave his tacit consent to keep on keeping on.
Not to mention that your geography isn't real good. 6000 miles? It's less than 6000 miles from Los Angeles to London.
http://www.freemaptools.com/how-far-is-it-between-london_-uk-and-los-angeles-california_-usa.htm
Hmmmmm - the same page also says that Anchorage and Honolulu are both less than 6000 miles. Honolulu? Hmmm . . . Whatever - your geography sucks.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Fox owns the House, which is controlled by the GOP, so don't expect a full investigation stateside.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
He's just sold a big tranche of shares in News International
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
and is therefore above the law. A lowly serf within the corporation may be sacrificed to sate the public demand for retribution, but that will be all.
. No president in modern US history has taken this arrogant attitude toward people who disagree with him.
Except, of course, Herr Bush, with his infamous "Either you're with us, or you're against us", without so much as a possibility of an ignorant, uninformed middle ground where people needed to be persuaded.
Arrogance. That was George Dubyah, for certain.
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I don't like Obama very much. I've repeated that several times, in several places - I've probably said it here before. But, as big an ass as Obama is, he is far less revolting than Herr Bush was. Bush the Crusader. "I don't understand, why do those Ay-rabs hate me for calling for a crusade?"
That was one IGNORANT and arrogant jackass!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
They also paid Rebekah Brooks 7 Million Hush Money.
Yep, you're missing pretty much everything.
- A US company is not allowed to bribe foreign officials as a matter of US criminal law.
- News Corporation's British "news" papers, The Sun and The News of the World, bribed UK policemen, violating that US law
- The FCC doesn't allow entities that violate the law criminally to own TV broadcast networks. Hence the purpose of this story.
- Fox News, which is what the GP was talking about, is not a TV broadcast network. So no, it's not at issue here, like the GP said.
- The Fox network (The Simpsons, Family Guy, etc) is a TV broadcast network. This is what, in theory, Rupert Murdoch may be required to give up.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
and to prove your point, just consider tax legislation, and how companies create subsidiaries to manage this.
"Dude", it's every-bit as much of a news outlet as ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC, the NYT
What if it's not?
You just don't like any news story that runs contrary to your beliefs
What if it has nothing to do with beliefs? What if they are just objectively bad, but you don't want to think so because your beliefs agree with those broadcast by Fox News. Personally, I'm mostly politically moderate. I don't agree with the Loony Left or the Rabid Right and Fox News (the channel) appears to be objectively one of the worst News channels out there because they mix propaganda in with real news. In their 24 hour days they have around 7 or 8 hours of real informational (only a little politically slanted) news, but that means they have 16-17 hours of "opinion" programming (political propaganda) each day. It's not just me, Fox news watchers have consistently scored poorly on knowledge tests about current events. In at least one such test they scored lower than people who actively read and watched no news content. That should be a troubling result.
Frankly, if you're going to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being biased, you'd better be doing a pretty good job of making sure you account for your own biases, which you haven't, because from your comments you appear to be rabidly right wing. You might want to consider whether some of the things you've "learned" from Fox News might be actually be distorted but you aren't seeing it because of your political leanings.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
It's not just me, Fox news watchers have consistently scored poorly on knowledge tests about current events.
I'd love to see them re-run that test, but just asking about Benghazi and how Obama left our ambassador to die. I wonder how Fox News viewers would compare against MSM viewers?
Probably poorly, because whoever ran the poll would be politically biased, and probably rate anyone pointing out Obama's many failures in relation to Benghazi as "poorly informed."
Which is the problem with those polls. They don't demonstrate ignorance, just people who aren't liberal enough to satisfy the pollsters' definition of "informed."
"You don't believe in the same things I do? Clearly disagreement is impossible, you must simply be uninformed."
IGN Parent NewsCorp May Face Corruption Investigation.
Hulu co-owner NewsCorp...
WSJ Parent NewsCorp...
(Any of nearly 100 papers in Australia) Owner NewsCorp...
Dow Jones Parent NewsCorp...
Harper Collins Parent NewsCorp...
National Rugby League Owner NewsCorp...
I don't want to sound like I'm giving a pass to Fox News. But Fox News isn't bad because of what NewsCorp does, Fox News is bad because their content is shitty.
(This subtle distinction allows us to say, for example, that the WSJ, however shitty it is, is LESS shitty than Fox News.)
Also, if you start thinking of NewsCorp as just "that Fox owner," then you're obscuring the terrifying and nigh unfathomable scale of the organization. NewsCorp is like Cthulhu, tentacles in everything, while Fox News is just one homicidal cultist.
Because for some silly reason, people tend to trust the news and the MSM is what controls what people think about certain topics. In other words, the reason why we always have to choose between two turd sammiches is because the majority of Americans are stupid/gullible and the news agencies tend to not report news but rather favor certain people.
I'd love to see them re-run that test, but just asking about Benghazi and how Obama left our ambassador to die.
Thank you for illustrating his point.
And here in itself is the problem; facts themselves should not be under debate.
The Attorney General is guilty of LYING to Congress. He was cold busted. There is no disputing it.
The President and the State Department colluded to hide the fact that known terrorists were behind Benghazi.
The FBI, who is under the direction of the Attorney General, either failed to report to the President that, since March, they had been investigating whether of not the Director the CIA had compromised his security clearance or that they were lying when they said that they first notified the President the day after the election.
I know that you people are not fans of Fox News, but here are three things that the other media WOULD NOT BE TALKING ABOUT if it weren't for Fox News. There are lots of stories out there that the other media would be thrilled to just sweep under the rug were it not for Fox News and believe it or not they do affect you.
So is it your opinion that the only conservative network should be taken off of the air so that conservatives could only get their news from people that YOU think are right? Did it ever occur to you that conservatives aren't adopting Fox's point of view but that Fox is adopting the conservatives point of view and that what you are really talking about is suppressing the point of view of a large chunk of America?
It is easy to be dismissive and just call Fox News a propaganda channel for the right, but it is just as fair to call MSNBC a propaganda channel for the left. Why aren't we calling for the heads of MSNBC. The truth is that one mans propaganda is another man's fact.
If Fox News gets something wrong, we have a million other channels to set the record straight and if they were doing a better job at setting Fox straight, then Fox wouldn't be number one in all the cable news time slots.
This is how we get things done in America. We loudly and clearly express our point of view and let the chips fall where they may. You don't hear conservative calling to have MSNBC taken off the air. We just do the rational American thing. We turn the channel.
Slashdot's content is in many ways created by those that use the site. So it's a case of groupthink and an indication of bias of those who come here. While the motto may be "news for nerds", it's not a news company but more of a forum.
Fox is a news company. News is generally represented as accurate information presented by professionals to the general public.
There are plenty of people who will take things said on Fox as gospel truth. Not so much on slashdot, although posts with strong supporting evidence obviously have some weight.
And yet Bush had no trouble working with Dems when necessary (the last two years in office for example the Dems controlled both houses on congress). He even worked directly with Ted Kennedy in getting 'No Child Left Behind" passed (not that that was great legislation just pointing out that he had no problems working with people who were on the opposite side of the isle).
Obama on the other hand has pretty much no history of working with anyone of opposing views and for all the legislation that Bush signed or powers he tried to pull into the office of the Presidency, Obama has kept all of the bad ones (doubling down on most) and tried to centralize even more power into the WH, openly talking about going around congress if they wouldn't do what he wanted and creating czar position for everything under the sun.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
MSNBC is just as biased as FOX just the other way. This was keenly obvious after the debates, where MSNBC would show as many negative things of Romney as possible and fox would show as many negative things they could find on Obama.