DNS NEWS: Murdoch Seeks EchoStar Injunction
- Thread starter nitstalker
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 80
- Views 9K
The guy has his feet on both sides of the fence. He supports both parties, and contributes to both on a regular basis. He normally will support an incumbent, but sometimes supports the person he thinks can win. Heck in May of 2006 he held a fundraiser for Senator Hillary Clinton. Even his New York Post newspaper opposed her run. This guy does whatever he thinks will be better for him. Not that that is a bad thing, after all this is America. What comes around goes around, I hope this bites him in the butt, and this thread went way off topic.juan said:
I was referring to the fact that we got into his politics. Which really has nothing to do with the thread topic.juan said:
nitstalker said:
Well, this has just made my decision very easy.
As much as I really want locals, I will go without them before I will give Direct TV a dime. They play to dirty for my liking, so I will stay with Dish.
ThomasRz said:
Thomas,
Murdoch pledged to NOT use his Quasi-legal Media empire to force another provider or content owners into agreements they wouldn't normally accept.
It's quite obvious he is using his empire to try to damage Dish Networks' business especially since, the NAB, and Three networks signed off on this deal. This ploy could very well hurt Murdoch as he promised NOT to use his empire to put any undue pressure on other businesses. This was a promise that was REQUIRED to get approval for his aquisition of DirecTV in the first place.
John
Some people think the MSM are liberal.
I find them to be too conservative.
Rupert caters to both. At a recent News Corp Executive Retreat held in Rupert's massive complex near Pebble Beach, he paid speaking fees to bring in both Bill Clinton and Al Gore to speak to his top corporate executives.
I see Rupert as being apolitical. He is after power and money and will cater to whichever party or person he needs to achieve those goals. The ultra-conservative Fox News does not represent his own views, it is simply a case of him seeing a market he could exploit and going after it.
Now he is attempting to wield some of that political power to cripple one of his competitors. This is what Murdoch is all about.
He will not back off until a court forces him to.
I find them to be too conservative.
Rupert caters to both. At a recent News Corp Executive Retreat held in Rupert's massive complex near Pebble Beach, he paid speaking fees to bring in both Bill Clinton and Al Gore to speak to his top corporate executives.
I see Rupert as being apolitical. He is after power and money and will cater to whichever party or person he needs to achieve those goals. The ultra-conservative Fox News does not represent his own views, it is simply a case of him seeing a market he could exploit and going after it.
Now he is attempting to wield some of that political power to cripple one of his competitors. This is what Murdoch is all about.
He will not back off until a court forces him to.
Tom Bombadil said:
I agree. The MSM is very right leaning, Faux News far right. There was a great show about this on Free Speec TV, "The Myth of the Liberal Media". Just look at the war coverage.
But back on topic, Dish should remove all of Fox's channels from their line up and we should see a decline in ratings from all of their shows. Then we shall see whos grabbing who by the huevos.
This is the difference between Fox and the rest of the MSM. Most MSM outlets do what is good for their corporate owners. That is their bias. Within that framework, the journalists and editors try to be fair.
FoxNews also has its corporate master to please, but within those rules, they make an outright effort to help the GOP. And it is because they try to help a political oparty rather than inform their viewers that studies show that FoxNews viewers end up being theleast informed citizens in the nation. On simple yes/no questions, they fair worse than one would just by flipping a coin.
Consider this. One study found that after our weapons inspectors proved conclusively that Hussein had no WMDs or WMD programs for more than a decade, and had indeed destroyed all of his stockpiles, more than half of Americans still believed Hussein had them. Just as they believed Hussein was responsible for 9/11. The vast majority of these people claimed FoxNews as their primary source of news.
FoxNews also has its corporate master to please, but within those rules, they make an outright effort to help the GOP. And it is because they try to help a political oparty rather than inform their viewers that studies show that FoxNews viewers end up being theleast informed citizens in the nation. On simple yes/no questions, they fair worse than one would just by flipping a coin.
Consider this. One study found that after our weapons inspectors proved conclusively that Hussein had no WMDs or WMD programs for more than a decade, and had indeed destroyed all of his stockpiles, more than half of Americans still believed Hussein had them. Just as they believed Hussein was responsible for 9/11. The vast majority of these people claimed FoxNews as their primary source of news.
Deregulation works..The last thing the country needs is overbearing govt regulations....r_childress said:
Murdoch will come around or it will cost his company ratings....
Besides, this snit Murdoch is in effects very few potential viewers..
Quite frankly I really don't care...People that live that far out in the sticks don't watch a heckofa lot of tv..
If I had my way we should be able to watch local channnels form any city we wish..As long as we are willing to pay for it..
Let's not make this into a political thread and let's keep on topic and not derail the Murdoch Train... sorry I hope he gets derailed.
sorry I hope he gets derailed.
When you talk about Murdoch, you have to interject some politics. That is the game that he plays. And one of the reasons why he is making this particular powerplay is due to how many politicians owe him.
And particularly how many Republicans owe him due to the right wing biased reporting rendered by Fox News. As I stated above, this is not because Murdoch is a right-winger, but it is because he saw that he could make hundreds of millions of dollars and gain political clout if he created a right-wing biased news channel. So he did it.
These are important matters to keep in mind as he goes after E*. He is ruthless and he is capable of doing almost anything for personal gain, even if it runs against his own beliefs.
He is also quite good at assessing his position and knowing what he can get away with. His team of lawyers is much better than Charlie's team. Not that he always wins.
So I consider this a very serious threat to E*.
Just a little more commentary about the media. The MSM coverage from 9/11/01 until around 1/1/05 was quite conservative. This is not just my opinion, but is shared by millions of others. It is interesting that some are so insulated from this perspective that they are surprised by it when they hear it.
Consider these takes:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004016.php
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606090005
I pretty much quit watching CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS because they were reporting the news from such a conservative perspective that it was making me angry to hear it. The widespread belief by the American people that the MSM is extremely liberal is one of the great deceptions of our day, IMHO. And Rupert is a primary contributor to this deception - because it helps him to get people to watch Fox News.
So that is my rant on the news, I'll stick to the Murdock vs E* topic now.
And particularly how many Republicans owe him due to the right wing biased reporting rendered by Fox News. As I stated above, this is not because Murdoch is a right-winger, but it is because he saw that he could make hundreds of millions of dollars and gain political clout if he created a right-wing biased news channel. So he did it.
These are important matters to keep in mind as he goes after E*. He is ruthless and he is capable of doing almost anything for personal gain, even if it runs against his own beliefs.
He is also quite good at assessing his position and knowing what he can get away with. His team of lawyers is much better than Charlie's team. Not that he always wins.
So I consider this a very serious threat to E*.
Just a little more commentary about the media. The MSM coverage from 9/11/01 until around 1/1/05 was quite conservative. This is not just my opinion, but is shared by millions of others. It is interesting that some are so insulated from this perspective that they are surprised by it when they hear it.
Consider these takes:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004016.php
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606090005
I pretty much quit watching CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS because they were reporting the news from such a conservative perspective that it was making me angry to hear it. The widespread belief by the American people that the MSM is extremely liberal is one of the great deceptions of our day, IMHO. And Rupert is a primary contributor to this deception - because it helps him to get people to watch Fox News.
So that is my rant on the news, I'll stick to the Murdock vs E* topic now.
Tom Bombadil said:
Sorry ,you odn't get of the hook that easily..
First..Where are the millions of others who share your opinion?....can you produce, say ten of them?..
You'll have to do a little better than posting links to liberal blogs to prove your point.. All you have done is add more conjecture and speculation to this issue...
Also, can you provide data that supports your assertion that D*'s law team is "better" (whateverthat means) then E*'s....Any case history you can enlighten us with ?
you write that you quit watching network news because you believ it ot be too cononservative...However you complain the FOX news is biased as well...Based on that statement you are looking for news that is liberallly biased..How can you in good conscious sit there at your keyboard and claim you are in favor of balance when you seek bias?
Tom Bombadil said:
Tom:
You hit the nail on the head regarding all the relevant issues with that rational, common sense post.
Wanna run for office or run Dish? I'd vote for you!
As far as satellite TV goes, hopefully the courts will see Murdoch's move as nothing more than a blatant attempt to cripple a competitor and blow him off.
This is simply an abuse of power. The court does not have to issue the injunction. They have a variety of options.
First, they could issue the blanket injunction.
Second, they could issue an injunction just for the Fox Network.
Third, they could force Murdoch to settle like the others.
Fourth, the FTC/Attorney General/Other Politician could step in and say WTF This is anti-competitive behavior and give Murdoch his own problems.
This could also drag out more number of years or it could be over quickly.
Murdoch before said that he would never settle with Dish Network. He wants nothing except the injunction. He will play that card untill he has to give it up.
Now whereas I personally feel that I should be able to watch whatever channel I want, I agree with the side of the local networks that were in the suit that E* has cost them revenue by allowing Distant Networks to be viewed over top of them.
However, Fox Network National has nothing but to gain to have Distant Networks legally or illegally. I dont know the numbers, but lets say half a million people subscribe to Fox Distants. Those people are paying for that network specially to watch it, so those are guaranteed viewers. That adds to their national ratings, which brings in more ad dollars. By cutting these people off, they are hurting their own ratings, cutting their own ad dollars.
Rupert is out for one thing, to hurt E* at any cost to himself.
First, they could issue the blanket injunction.
Second, they could issue an injunction just for the Fox Network.
Third, they could force Murdoch to settle like the others.
Fourth, the FTC/Attorney General/Other Politician could step in and say WTF This is anti-competitive behavior and give Murdoch his own problems.
This could also drag out more number of years or it could be over quickly.
Murdoch before said that he would never settle with Dish Network. He wants nothing except the injunction. He will play that card untill he has to give it up.
Now whereas I personally feel that I should be able to watch whatever channel I want, I agree with the side of the local networks that were in the suit that E* has cost them revenue by allowing Distant Networks to be viewed over top of them.
However, Fox Network National has nothing but to gain to have Distant Networks legally or illegally. I dont know the numbers, but lets say half a million people subscribe to Fox Distants. Those people are paying for that network specially to watch it, so those are guaranteed viewers. That adds to their national ratings, which brings in more ad dollars. By cutting these people off, they are hurting their own ratings, cutting their own ad dollars.
Rupert is out for one thing, to hurt E* at any cost to himself.
Another point:
My boss had DirecTV. He called in the other day to get his distants.
They told him that based on his address he could only get FOX. He asked about NBC (Which he should have been able to get -- the closest NBC is like 100 miles away)
He told them that he should be able to get NBC, and that his employee has E* and I can get NBC, and told them that there is no NBC stations in our DMA or vicinity.
The person told him, that E* has been breaking the law by giving stations away, and that soon E* customers would not be recieving any channels, and that they were enforcing the laws so that the broadcasters would not be hurt any more.
Wasnt that nice.
Here's the kicker... They gave him FOXHD distant.... Two weeks ago FOXHD went live here (new station, replaced UPN affiliate) Isnt that illegal?????
My boss had DirecTV. He called in the other day to get his distants.
They told him that based on his address he could only get FOX. He asked about NBC (Which he should have been able to get -- the closest NBC is like 100 miles away)
He told them that he should be able to get NBC, and that his employee has E* and I can get NBC, and told them that there is no NBC stations in our DMA or vicinity.
The person told him, that E* has been breaking the law by giving stations away, and that soon E* customers would not be recieving any channels, and that they were enforcing the laws so that the broadcasters would not be hurt any more.
Wasnt that nice.
Here's the kicker... They gave him FOXHD distant.... Two weeks ago FOXHD went live here (new station, replaced UPN affiliate) Isnt that illegal?????
Yes, the court does have to issue the injunction. It is part of the law.nitstalker said:
No, this cannot drag out much longer.nitstalker said:
First, the law states the only option is for a permanent injunction to be issued.nitstalker said:
Second, a settlement does not supercede nor replace the injunction which must be issued.
Third, who can possibly force Fox to settle?
Fourth, it is not anti-competitive behavior when a defendant is found guilty in a court of law and the only legal remedy the judge has it to issue an injunction.
