5 posts tagged “rupert murdoch”

I will have mentioned that my father is a news junkie and goes to more news websites than most people I know. Including Fox News. You won’t get a more “fair and balanced” surfer when it comes to news.
   For the last wee while he has found it impossible to read the comments people have left on that site. If you click on ‘Comments’ on any story, you’ll just be taken back to the story. It doesn’t happen to all of them, only some.
   Yet obviously some people have been able to leave comments without any problems, which got me thinking: has the Murdoch Press blocked access to comments on its Fox News site to non-Americans? I mean, we always see messages on Hulu, YouTube and other places that prevent us from seeing TV programmes and clips.
   I know Dad has left the browser on Fox News’s site and walked away, and viruses have attempted to come in via fake ads. These are not the Murdoch Press’s fault, but it highlights how some ad networks in the US that send viruses out to people. (The Fox News page refreshes, as it has been programmed to, but eventually, it hits an ad that contains a virus, usually in the form of a fake “virus scan” message with a warning that one has been infected.)
   No online publisher who deals with US companies is immune from this (which is a terrible reflection of what passes as modern commerce these days), and we have had to alert our networks from time to time. (I should note the companies that send the viruses are not necessarily American, but they pretend to be.) The difference is we nip these attacks in the bud very early, and as far as we know, no machines have been affected. We swap out the entire ad network’s code until they tell us it has been remedied. Sadly, we have had these attacks fairly regularly via Fox News, so Dad now makes sure he leaves the browser on one of my sites (which is nice, since he has little interest in fashion publications).
   While I tell Dad that I think the Fox News site is one of the worst designed (it makes you wonder, since the same company’s Times website is rather pleasant), it really seems that the folks there don’t do much checking. No one seems to surf their own site to see if things work.
   If you head to an article referred by another one, there is no ready way to view the comments of everyday Americans. If you are a septagenarian like my Dad, you probably aren’t in to hacking. And I doubt the chairman of the company, four years my father’s senior, is in to hacking, either.
   A code, such as ?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r1:c0.095404:b26734424:z0, is appended to the end of the article URL, which essentially prevents anyone seeing the comments.

Above: A Fox News article, with URL at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/26/palins-resigns-amid-unclear-future/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r5:c0.078270:b26734424:z0.

   You can try it with this article, on Gov. Palin stepping down (it’s the most recent one with a huge amount of comments!). Then click the comments’ link. Here’s what you see:

Above: Exactly the same as before, so the site does not behave as expected. URL is now http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/26/palins-resigns-amid-unclear-future/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r5:c0.078270:b26734424:z0comments.

   The remedy is to delete the extra code, so that the URL ends at the proper place, then click on the link:

Above: At last. But you need to be aware of how the URL coding is behaving to arrive here, which your average 73-year-old web surfer is not. URL is http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/26/palins-resigns-amid-unclear-future/comments/.

   So, it is accessible to non-Americans after all. But for anyone who doesn’t have a bit of experience with web design or publishing, this can prove difficult.
   I have checked this with an American proxy server, to find that the same behaviour occurs Stateside. For all those having difficulties with the Fox News site, and if you must browse the comments, then make sure the URL ends at the logical place, and delete the Loomia code.

PS.: Loomia turns out to be a real company, and Tweeted me today to say that they are investigating this issue. It has been around for a wee while, so I hope it’s fixed soon.

I have wanted to do this for a week but I have only just found the clips on YouTube. One scene from Life on Mars (original and remake), as Sam Tyler arrives at the nick and meets Gene Hunt. Seeing it here it’s obvious the American version has had a lot more money thrown at it. And that Harvey Keitel is the best choice of American actor for the Gene Hunt role, who doesn’t need to copy Philip Glenister as he was one of the original 1970s tough guys.
   The dynamic is different: Sam and Gene in the original are two sides of the one coin; in the US version, Gene Hunt is more the superior officer and there is less of a buddy, Regan-and-Carter connection between him and Sam.
   There is an interesting connection via the Murdoch family: News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch controls 20th Century–Fox, which makes the US Life on Mars; daughter Elisabeth bought Kudos, which made the original.

I say that my work at JY&A Consulting is developing plain-English strategies for our clients. So, I thought I’d give the Iraq war a shot and write my recollections in summary form. The Saddam Hussein voice should be read in a South Park style. Steve Bridges plays George W. Bush, with Rory Bremner as Tony Blair. Special guest appearance by Rupert Murdoch.

Saddam Hussein: I gotta gas those Kurds. Let’s let off some WMDs. Where did I put that invitation to those terrorists?
Saddam’s sons-in-law: Saddam has WMDs. A lot of them.
UN: Under the ceasefire, you can’t have them. We’re sending inspectors in.
Inspectors: We found some but there’s more based on what he had before, and we can’t figure out where they are.
UN: Say, Saddam, you need to tell us where some of this stuff has gone to.
Saddam Hussein: Here’s a big-ass report. Chew on that.
UN: Dude, this isn’t complete. In fact, it looks like you have pulled it out of your ass.

Security Council president: Let’s have a vote on a resolution. Who says that we should punish Saddam Hussein if he doesn’t front up on info about his potential for WMDs, where he’s disposed of some of the ones the inspectors can’t find any more, and sort out the money he owes Kuwait?
Security Council members: Yes, we should!
Security Council president: Cool, 15 to 0. Wow, that’s better than that time Saddam invaded Kuwait.

UN: Well, Saddam, here’s resolution 1441. You’ll be in serious trouble if you don’t comply.
Saddam Hussein: Hey, don’t worry about it.

Iraqi ambassador to UN: Here’s the new report.
UN: This is just as stupid as the earlier stuff you handed in. Didn’t you read the questions?
Iraqi ambassador to UN: Yeah, but what are you going to do? Dumbasses.

USA: Right, that means we have to punish this guy under resolution 1441.
France: You need to get one more resolution for military action before you do that.
USA: And if we do, what will do you?
France: We’d veto it.
USA: Basically you are saying that no matter what resolution the international community has voted on, you don’t think we should enforce it?
France: In a word, no. But it’s because of the UN Charter that we have to all agree on military action before we do anything.
USA: Screw you, peacenik.
France: Screw you, warmonger.

George W. Bush: Tony, the French are being assholes. If we don’t enforce this, we’ll look dumb, the UN will look impotent, and Saddam Hussein could continue building up an arsenal. Whatever the case, we don’t know what that smug sonofabitch is doing.
Tony Blair: I agree, George. We either enforce the law, or we say that laws don’t matter. I couldn’t run a country like that.
Gordon Brown: I don’t know if he can run a country. I would do a better job and I have the same initials as the American guy.
John Howard: Count me in.
Jacques Chirac: I hate Americans. But I did meet that Saddam in 1975. Nice guy. We had dinner together.
Jiang Zemin: I like Americans. When they are at war, their economy will be in trouble and they will have to buy more stuff from us!

George W. Bush: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Congress, we have to go to war to enforce international law. Who’s with me?
Majority of Congress: We are.
Minority of Congress: We like French food.

Saddam Hussein: Looks like I’m f***ed. Get me Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, the Information Minister!
France: Told you so, the Americans are warmongers.
Liberal media: Don’t worry, we’ll do what we can with slanted reporting to make the troops feel bad. And we’ll give that Information Minister dude a lot of air time.
Rupert Murdoch: Not on my watch. I can set Bill O’Reilly on you.

   Now, I know I have missed out some facts to get it into summary format, and the Commander-in-Chief has been edited for fluency, but consider how long the last post was!

I spotted the below on Ninemsn today and thought, ‘Poor Brian.’

   I clicked on the first link and found quite the opposite:    It’s not as embarrassing as the network, and the Murdoch Press, reporting on the Miranda Kerr incident two years late and getting the venue wrong, but it’s still an about-face.
   Netizens will be able to work out that the first link came about because the Ninemsn website reported that Delta Goodrem turned down boyfriend Brian McFadden’s marriage proposal. Then, the site’s staff found out more and had to instantly change the piece, but due to caching or the way the Ninemsn site is structured, the headline link on another page had not changed.
   This is not abnormal and at least the link goes to an accurate item of news.
   And Ninemsn was not alone, as Murdochs did the same thing:
   It all makes me wonder about the wisdom of such immediacy when it comes to the gossip press. Usually, the items are of little significance. They are disposable news, so what harm is there with a brief delay to get the facts right? The contrary argument is that since these items are inconsequential, then why should the facts need to be dead right?
   I realize that’s not the way celeb-based factoid-reporting works, and on the web, even more rules get chucked out in the quest to be the first on to Google News with the headline.
   But we are representatives of the media. We are, supposedly, journalists and editors and publishers. And as the fourth estate, we have a duty to the public.
   Call me a traditionalist, but I would prefer to get everything straight before committing to press in any medium, even if it means a delay.
   After the Miranda Kerr embarrassment, propagated by Sky, news.com.au and The Daily Telegraph (Australia) newspaper, I have had to conclude that I can’t trust Murdoch Press items at all. Before this week I took only The Sun and News of the World items with a grain of salt (remember all the speculation about who the next James Bond would be?), but am saddened to have to apply the same doubts across more of the Murdoch Press. Especially since the chief himself, Mr Keith Rupert Murdoch, has (thank goodness) vowed to up the journalistic standards at papers such as The Wall Street Journal.
   Maybe I should not lecture since I have never been on dailies, but my feeling is that the damage to goodwill across a group is too great when this sort of misreporting starts happening regularly.