Murdoch's Apologies Continue: Too Little Too Late

Tyler Durden's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
doomandbloom's picture

agree...there is a difference between 'holding others to account' and actively blackmailing them..

StychoKiller's picture

Persiflage!  (And hubris, loads 'o hubris!)

Al Gorerhythm's picture

This if far worse than Julian Assange's action of leaking unwashed information. This was criminal and those involved need to be charged by the Swedish Government on murder charges or some such thing.

Sorry! (we got caught).

ratso's picture

Who cares when the devil incarnate apologizes.

ratso's picture

Who cares when the devil incarnate apologizes.

SheepDog-One's picture

Couldnt happen to a nicer guy than Moloch.

doomandbloom's picture

Sharks with frickin laser beams attached to their heads...thats what I want

sabra1's picture

isn't this the same Murdoch that was on the A-Team?

i-dog's picture

Nope...like Alan Bond before him, he's finding out that renegade colonials never make it onto the A-team. Many 'big' Wall-Streeters will also find this out, soon enough.

Logans_Run's picture

Yup, ole Rupert is about to find out that he really isn't part of "the club." He was an invited guest as long as he observed the "club" rules and paid his bill promptly when due.

fuu's picture

Slime is as slime does.

snowball777's picture

May the vultures feast on your bloated corpse you fetid sack of shit.

Bananamerican's picture

well, monopoly does tend toward shitbaggery..."shitbaggery of the fittest"

who will be the last Douche standing when the cannibalism begins in earnest??

Blankfiend?

High Plains Drifter's picture

man what is the deal with this guy?   he has been riding the wave a long time. maybe he has outlived his usefulness like so many others. ever since his early days with De Beers, he was always the golden boy in many respects for the Rothschilds...Now this?  Strange, very strange......

karzai_luver's picture

You are on it....new front man needed, bhuy bhuy baby

bhuy bhuy.

 

High Plains Drifter's picture

this guy came from humble circumstances in England , then moved to Australia, etc. Somehow he acuired all of these news and media companies. someone of course was behind him. he was the front man. someone( haw haw haw) made the united states change the laws concerning ownership of media companies here in the states, and then he came in and bought fox. so now he was always the evil conservatives to the evil liberal CNN.  but both sides are controlled by the same people. like gadaffi, perhaps his days have come and gone now. when you get in this league, i call it the A league, the rules are different for these people. these people are not in the sheep category....when you see things like this happening to them, it is done for a reason, for a purpose. since all media is controlled, i assure you, that if he was still in good graces, such pitilful things like hacking would be swept under the proverbial rug, on this you can be sure....so now, they destroy what they have created. it is not the first time this has happened and will not be the last.........

Jack Burton's picture

 Indeed! This reminds one of a good Soviet Purge!

The fair Murdock has pissed someone off, or else a man who has exercised his teflon light saber for decades would not be going down. This whole thing came out of left field. Some phone hacking and the whole organization is going down?

It doesn't add up, this golden boy manipulates Americas political system, practically runs the UK and OZ, and nodoubt has made inroads in NZ.

Why is he being purged now? Even a show trial will not reveal the real reason. The great forces seem to be repositioning themsleves as global financial crisis grow and the threats of civil unrest spread. Wild times ahead.

BobPaulson's picture

Potentially risky to take him down if what you believe to be true is true. I don't deny it but I would think if I goes that high he's looking at a terrible accident alone in the stairs of his mansion or an unfortunate heart condition that suddenly surfaces while swimming alone in the pool some evening.

Alternatively, following your thesis, he's taking the hit intentionally, in which case he confesses to everything, jumps on the grenade, and passes the baton to another pawn.

High Plains Drifter's picture

well what happend to Madoff. he sits in federal lockup waiting around to die. so far, he has not said much. but he could. he could say plenty. but he keeps his mouth shut?  why did he take the ride on the titanic?  why?  well i think for one thing, his company was a clearing house for the russian (jewish) mafia.  These people are not somebody you want to mess with. If he talks, then he will die and his sons and his wife and anyone else they care to kill. So with Murdoch, they may deal with him differently. Not sure. We all will have to wait. But it is so obvious that this whole thing is a big show. The law is different for this calibre of persons than it is for the little people. On that you can be sure. Always was and always will be.

Jack Burton's picture

 True enough! If Madoff was in anyway connected to Russian mafia interests, then silence is manditory. Some experiences in post soviet Russa has convinced me of the absolute ruthlessness of mafia there. It is easy enough to find killers with good military skills and you can bet mafia has hired a boatload of former top flight special forces. The money is good and the workload is not to taxing.

i-dog's picture

Lots of inaccuracies there, HPD. He was born in Australia to a wealthy newspaper magnate (Sir Keith Murdoch). He never worked for deBeers or had Rothschild backing. He did work his way to the top internationally on his own, but came >that< close to falling flat until saved by bribing a mid-western bank to support him when way over-stretched in the mid-80s (from memory).

He built circulation of all his papers with lowest common denominator (ie. trash) journalism. This current scandal is typical of his methods. He won't be missed.

He was never on the inside with the ruling elites ... so this was bound to happen sooner or later. It's probably related to Beck's exposure on Fox of the Marxist clique in DC. He's the antithesis of a Marxist...which is the only good thing I can say about him.

High Plains Drifter's picture

well my bad. it is been a long time since i read anything about murdoch. but his father was a just a broke dick reporter until he met and married the lovely ms greene.  she was the one with the cash and the connections. i remember reading about the oppenheimers and they of course own de beers diamond mines in south africa. the oppenheimers are closely connected to the rothschild family. i am pretty sure i read something about how they were the ones that pushed him and helped him finance his acquisitions. his mother may have had money, but she did not have the kind of funds necessary to acquire massive media holdings worldwide.. so i am afraid i have to disagree. he was always on the inside and i shall now go and attempt to dig up some links on this. damn it, this stupid firefox lost my links the other day.

ok, here is something from the icke forum......

Originally Posted by eternal_spirit View Post
Who is rupert Murdoch
Murdoch's Father
Murdoch's father marries an attractive socialite, a Jewess named Elizabeth Greene. The father is a nothing reporter, and the girl is an heiress. It is assumed the father was of similar blood.

The Greene's Are Australian Socialites
His father, Keith,LINK although only a low paid reporter, made a fortuitous marriage to the daughter of a wealthy

Jewish family, Elisabeth Joy Greene.

Young Murdoch
Murdoch tried to push into Australia's old money, but was regulated to the realm of bat mitzvahs, and

the Jewish country club.

Lord Beaverbrook Is Murdoch's Mentor
Lord Beaverbrook, nee Maxie Aitkel, trained young Rupert in the newspaper business. Beaverbrook introduced Murdoch to Harry Oppenheimer, head of the deBeers diamond and gold cartel, and Edgar Bronfman. They were his financiers.

believe me, there is tons more stuff out there than this. this is just the tip of the iceberg.

i-dog's picture

Icke has it way wrong on this one!! I know both the Murdoch and Oppenheimer families quite well and would refute nearly all of Icke's cheap jew-hunting hatchet job on both Murdoch and his parents.

For a start, Murdoch's father had very powerful political and business connections decades before marrying Elisabeth Greene (who was young enough to be his daughter...and they honeymooned on his own estate). His mentor was Lord Northcliffe, not Lord Beaverbrook. Long before marrying, he was editor of a major daily newspaper before taking it over as managing director and embarking on an expansion. Hardly a hack reporter!!

Icke should stick to hunting lizards.........

High Plains Drifter's picture

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2011/03/murdoch-one-of-secret-rulers-of-wo...

since you insist, i shall insist...........

also

here is a little video about some of his little buddies.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym4TTmOJ4I8

frankly i don't know what is happening about this guy but it is obvious , due to the amount of discussion in media about it, that this is not happening by accident.

now then, i will say, that i do not have total recall like CS Lewis did, but i know i have read much about mr murdoch before and it is taken as a given that this guy is dirty and is in the mix for certain tribal members.......

Bananamerican's picture

occam's razor tells me that Brit pols (in particular) realized they'd created an overlord kingmaking monster and just wanted to get the guy off their backs...

High Plains Drifter's picture

the controllers of british media.........

http://radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/britain/media.htm

do we see a common thread appearing here? well sure we do.......

Fanakapan's picture

Maxie Aitkel ????  WTF !   Beavrbrook/Aitken's old man was a Scottish Presbyterian Minister, and whilst I cannot find gen on his mother, it seem's unlikely that she was Jewish ?   And whilst it is correct that Rupe's old fella married fortuitously, and that he may be eligable for an Israeli passport due to being brought up in a Jewish household, to imply the Joo Conspiracy here, to the extent that some do, only devalues the coin :)

 

If there is a conspiracy it's more likely to be why some American Faggots heve not moved on the Murdoch Empire in the USA ?  Clearly the shebang is on the ropes and some good combination work will put it out for the count :)

 

Above Everything else, lets take a moment to remember that Rupert was a pretty smart guy in his prime, and he literally Revolutionised the UK press singlehandedly :)  but thats yesterdays news, today he's toast. 

Lews Therin's picture

I thought along the same lines.  

I hope I'm not a nutjob but the thought of the TPTB tossing Murdoch aside did cross my mind.  Maybe TPTB wants to use Murdoch as a tool to increase... control of the media!  

monkeyshine's picture

Not to defend him, but he can be pilloried and they can take some of his key personnel off to prison but there are many layers - realistic layers - of deniability between his papers and him. He runs a big company and if paper X, Y, and Z did some illegal stuff there are editors, managing directors, and VPs to blame before he.  Also we live in societies where private property is protected. Whomever you think
"gave" these to him cannot take them away. They can try to disparage them in the eye of the public, and his media deserves to be pilloried, but at some point as you point out his empire is a counterbalance and therefore necessary. If the world is 30-40-30 then there will be 30 who will just see all this as an attack against their politics. The fight between the 30 and the 30 is always for 51% of the 40. 

Omen IV's picture
  http://www.baineswilson.co.uk/pdfs/Bribery
Act Memorandum.pdf

UK BRIBERY ACT 2010 – MEMORANDUM TO DIRECTORS

It creates a new strict liability
offence of failing to prevent bribery. An organisation<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

will only have a defence to this
offence if it can show it had "adequate procedures"

in place to prevent bribery.

1.3 Its scope is extensive – the
offences are very broadly defined and it has significant

extra-territorial reach.

1.4 The offences contained in the Act
carry criminal penalties for individuals and

organisations. For individuals, a
maximum prison sentence of ten years and/or an

unlimited fine can be imposed; for companies, an
unlimited fine can be imposed.


 

 

Omen IV's picture
  http://www.baineswilson.co.uk/pdfs/Bribery
Act Memorandum.pdf

UK BRIBERY ACT 2010 – MEMORANDUM TO DIRECTORS

It creates a new strict liability
offence of failing to prevent bribery. An organisation<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

will only have a defence to this
offence if it can show it had "adequate procedures"

in place to prevent bribery.

1.3 Its scope is extensive – the
offences are very broadly defined and it has significant

extra-territorial reach.

1.4 The offences contained in the Act
carry criminal penalties for individuals and

organisations. For individuals, a
maximum prison sentence of ten years and/or an

unlimited fine can be imposed; for companies, an
unlimited fine can be imposed.


 

 

Omen IV's picture
  http://www.baineswilson.co.uk/pdfs/Bribery
Act Memorandum.pdf

UK BRIBERY ACT 2010 – MEMORANDUM TO DIRECTORS

It creates a new strict liability
offence of failing to prevent bribery. An organisation<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

will only have a defence to this
offence if it can show it had "adequate procedures"

in place to prevent bribery.

1.3 Its scope is extensive – the
offences are very broadly defined and it has significant

extra-territorial reach.

1.4 The offences contained in the Act
carry criminal penalties for individuals and

organisations. For individuals, a
maximum prison sentence of ten years and/or an

unlimited fine can be imposed; for companies, an
unlimited fine can be imposed.


 

 

Omen IV's picture
  http://www.baineswilson.co.uk/pdfs/Bribery
Act Memorandum.pdf

UK BRIBERY ACT 2010 – MEMORANDUM TO DIRECTORS

It creates a new strict liability
offence of failing to prevent bribery. An organisation<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

will only have a defence to this
offence if it can show it had "adequate procedures"

in place to prevent bribery.

1.3 Its scope is extensive – the
offences are very broadly defined and it has significant

extra-territorial reach.

1.4 The offences contained in the Act
carry criminal penalties for individuals and

organisations. For individuals, a
maximum prison sentence of ten years and/or an

unlimited fine can be imposed; for companies, an
unlimited fine can be imposed.


 

 

Omen IV's picture
  http://www.baineswilson.co.uk/pdfs/Bribery
Act Memorandum.pdf

UK BRIBERY ACT 2010 – MEMORANDUM TO DIRECTORS

It creates a new strict liability
offence of failing to prevent bribery. An organisation<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

will only have a defence to this
offence if it can show it had "adequate procedures"

in place to prevent bribery.

1.3 Its scope is extensive – the
offences are very broadly defined and it has significant

extra-territorial reach.

1.4 The offences contained in the Act
carry criminal penalties for individuals and

organisations. For individuals, a
maximum prison sentence of ten years and/or an

unlimited fine can be imposed; for companies, an
unlimited fine can be imposed.


 

 

Omen IV's picture
  http://www.baineswilson.co.uk/pdfs/Bribery
Act Memorandum.pdf

UK BRIBERY ACT 2010 – MEMORANDUM TO DIRECTORS

It creates a new strict liability
offence of failing to prevent bribery. An organisation<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

will only have a defence to this
offence if it can show it had "adequate procedures"

in place to prevent bribery.

1.3 Its scope is extensive – the
offences are very broadly defined and it has significant

extra-territorial reach.

1.4 The offences contained in the Act
carry criminal penalties for individuals and

organisations. For individuals, a
maximum prison sentence of ten years and/or an

unlimited fine can be imposed; for companies, an
unlimited fine can be imposed.


 

 

Omen IV's picture
  http://www.baineswilson.co.uk/pdfs/Bribery
Act Memorandum.pdf

UK BRIBERY ACT 2010 – MEMORANDUM TO DIRECTORS

It creates a new strict liability
offence of failing to prevent bribery. An organisation<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

will only have a defence to this
offence if it can show it had "adequate procedures"

in place to prevent bribery.

1.3 Its scope is extensive – the
offences are very broadly defined and it has significant

extra-territorial reach.

1.4 The offences contained in the Act
carry criminal penalties for individuals and

organisations. For individuals, a
maximum prison sentence of ten years and/or an

unlimited fine can be imposed; for companies, an
unlimited fine can be imposed.


 

 

Omen IV's picture
  http://www.baineswilson.co.uk/pdfs/Bribery
Act Memorandum.pdf

UK BRIBERY ACT 2010 – MEMORANDUM TO DIRECTORS

It creates a new strict liability
offence of failing to prevent bribery. An organisation<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

will only have a defence to this
offence if it can show it had "adequate procedures"

in place to prevent bribery.

1.3 Its scope is extensive – the
offences are very broadly defined and it has significant

extra-territorial reach.

1.4 The offences contained in the Act
carry criminal penalties for individuals and

organisations. For individuals, a
maximum prison sentence of ten years and/or an

unlimited fine can be imposed; for companies, an
unlimited fine can be imposed.


 

 

bank guy in Brussels's picture

Quite right that something is 'wrong' here with this picture. Rupert Murdoch either stepped on the wrong toes, or this is part of a deeper scheme.

The UK Guardian that led the attacks on Murdoch, was in big financial trouble right before this anti-Murdoch campaign. The Guardian has been called 'the left wing of MI6', i.e., British intelligence, often printing cleverly-crafted nonsense on things for the smug set. Long ago it was a real leftist paper, the Manchester Guardian, now it is the left side of the establishment, like Obama in America.

The UK Guardian seems a lead place for the Powers That Be to plant things, oh-so 'intellectual' and 'respected' and 'literary'. The UK Guardian along with the New York Times - how establishment can you get? - led the way in the pro-Wikileaks ballyhoo, and then the quick turn-around to the Wikileaks and Julian Assange bashing and 'scandal' - turning quite on a dime, as if doing a ballet dance under orders, with the Guardian staffers now rubbishing Assange when they talk about him.

Something really stinks here ... Media leading attacks on other media (Wikileaks, tabloids) where, however trashy and mixed, there was at least a partial hope of carrying some anti-establishment stories.

CNN has carried lies helping kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in these wars, somehow that is no big deal compared to the phone hacking.

Rick64's picture

Remember Robert Maxwell? Maybe Murdoch will end up dead in an accidental drowning after falling off his yacht.

sgt_doom's picture

+1,000, High Plains Drifter

You nailed it, big guy!!!

In a corollary comment, please see below:

The High Court in London decided it would eventually render a legal opinion on the Wikileaks' Julian Assange extradition after several days of legal arguments were heard.
 
Lord Justice Thomas, the presiding British judge, asked a question in a very annoyed tone during the proceedings.
 
His logically obvious question was simply why didn't anyone from the Swedish prosecutor's office just hop on a flight to London and interview Assange there, instead of this costly and drawn-out process?
 
Lord Justice Thomas appeared peeved when no one representing the Swedish prosecutor in his court could give him a ready answer to his question.
 
There appears to be a number of interesting undercurrents, beyond the obvious political ones, more in the line with ongoing commercial media battles.
 
It is interesting to observe that it has been the Bonnier family media publications, beginning with their Swedish tabloid, Expressen, which has been going after Assange, just as in America, and throughout Europe, it has been Rupert Murdoch's Fox stations, and media companies, which have likewise been doggedly pursuing the Assange extradition on behalf of Sweden.
 
Originally, it was the Bonnier family tabloid, Expressen, which contacted Assange for exclusive publication rights to those Wikileaked documents.
 
It was a former employee of theirs, Anna Ardin, the older of the two women, who coaxed the younger one (Sofia Wilen) to accompany her to the police to see if they could press any type of charges against Assange.
 
After their case had been dropped, it was the law firm of Borgstrom and Bodstrom, which offered their services gratis to Anna Ardin to prosecute their baseless case (baseless as it had been originally dropped by the Swedish Prosecution Authority, only to be reopened from political pressure from the highest levels of the Swedish government).
 
Claes Borgstrom, the firm's senior partner, has two sisters working for Bonnier family businesses, and has enjoyed previous financial ties to that media family.
 
Thomas Bodstrom, the other partner, has his fiction published through a Bonnier family business.  Also, Bodstrom, in his previous position as the Swedish Justice Minister, was involved with the CIA's extreme rendition of several Swedes of Arab extraction -- these victims later exonerated and legally reimbursed money for their unlawful kidnapping, incarceration and injuries resulting from that event.
 
When the press started attempting to interview Ms. Ardin, she went off to Israel and Gaza, no doubt helped in her quick entrance there by Swedish Ambassador to Israel, Elisabet Bonnier, also a Bonnier family member.

Truly, the commercial media appears to have a serious grudge against Assange and Wikileaks foray into what they feel to be their private and personnel domain, actual and honest reporting --- for a change!!!

 

sgt_doom's picture

+1,000, High Plains Drifter

You nailed it, big guy!!!

In a corollary comment, please see below:

The High Court in London decided it would eventually render a legal opinion on the Wikileaks' Julian Assange extradition after several days of legal arguments were heard.
 
Lord Justice Thomas, the presiding British judge, asked a question in a very annoyed tone during the proceedings.
 
His logically obvious question was simply why didn't anyone from the Swedish prosecutor's office just hop on a flight to London and interview Assange there, instead of this costly and drawn-out process?
 
Lord Justice Thomas appeared peeved when no one representing the Swedish prosecutor in his court could give him a ready answer to his question.
 
There appears to be a number of interesting undercurrents, beyond the obvious political ones, more in the line with ongoing commercial media battles.
 
It is interesting to observe that it has been the Bonnier family media publications, beginning with their Swedish tabloid, Expressen, which has been going after Assange, just as in America, and throughout Europe, it has been Rupert Murdoch's Fox stations, and media companies, which have likewise been doggedly pursuing the Assange extradition on behalf of Sweden.
 
Originally, it was the Bonnier family tabloid, Expressen, which contacted Assange for exclusive publication rights to those Wikileaked documents.
 
It was a former employee of theirs, Anna Ardin, the older of the two women, who coaxed the younger one (Sofia Wilen) to accompany her to the police to see if they could press any type of charges against Assange.
 
After their case had been dropped, it was the law firm of Borgstrom and Bodstrom, which offered their services gratis to Anna Ardin to prosecute their baseless case (baseless as it had been originally dropped by the Swedish Prosecution Authority, only to be reopened from political pressure from the highest levels of the Swedish government).
 
Claes Borgstrom, the firm's senior partner, has two sisters working for Bonnier family businesses, and has enjoyed previous financial ties to that media family.
 
Thomas Bodstrom, the other partner, has his fiction published through a Bonnier family business.  Also, Bodstrom, in his previous position as the Swedish Justice Minister, was involved with the CIA's extreme rendition of several Swedes of Arab extraction -- these victims later exonerated and legally reimbursed money for their unlawful kidnapping, incarceration and injuries resulting from that event.
 
When the press started attempting to interview Ms. Ardin, she went off to Israel and Gaza, no doubt helped in her quick entrance there by Swedish Ambassador to Israel, Elisabet Bonnier, also a Bonnier family member.

Truly, the commercial media appears to have a serious grudge against Assange and Wikileaks foray into what they feel to be their private and personnel domain, actual and honest reporting --- for a change!!!

 

Flakmeister's picture

There is a place for people this evil....

But since that place doesn't exist, the end of a 6 foot rope with a 13 foot drop would suffice....

karzai_luver's picture

he is not evil ..  he played by the rules and now , well ...............

yabyum's picture

Lets see 13 feet - 6 feet = 7 feet ouch thats gonna leave a mark, sound like a ZH captcha. Could happen to a bigger douche.

theMAXILOPEZpsycho's picture

Look the guy's said he's sorry - can't we give an old timer a second chance?

Flakmeister's picture

Sure if the first drop doesn't work, how about 5 ft rope and a 13 foot drop...

sourgrapesson's picture

I'd like to respond to Rupert with THANK YOU & GOODBYE.

Trying to Understand's picture
YOU should know that obummer and soros are at minimum directly responsible for this attack... Many of you consider Murdoch's media outlets perhaps not "perfect", but at least the best thing mass media has to offer...

SO WHEN DO YOU GET ON YOUR VIRTUAL SOAP BOX AND START SUPPORTING MURDOCH - if you even remotely believe he, or his organizations, have done anything 'wrong', then please consider what your government does on a normal daily basis and tell me who should Stand and Remain, and who should be forced, by public opinion, to Go....? And those "caged sharks" -who are they??? Every person and organization even remotely associated with obummer (change.org, moveon.org, etc) and soros - remember Becks scroll of non profits.... all of them... and all of their associates/affiliates...

Flakmeister's picture

"The best thing mass media has to offer..."??

Now that was fucking hilarious.

Maybe noone was responsible for the attack and what really occured is that a crooked old bastard and his organization revealed its true colors...