Short ‘n’ Stubby: “A fantastic day for Britain”

I was just reading a whole bunch of stuff about the News of the World phone-hack scandal when a certain stumpy-tailed cat started meowing at me. That can only mean one thing: Ms. Manx has some goodies for us! Lead on, MacStump…

First off, Ms. Manx thinks that the Nation asks some damn good questions about the larger implications of this tabloid scandal in which the conduct of the tabloid, not the content, IS the scandal. Privacy invasion and press dishonesty are two of the major issues at play. Ms. Manx wishes to express her shock and disgust that even families of the victims of the London subway bombers were subjected to these dirty hacks. Is nobody’s privacy sacred? Quite possibly, no…unless better phone-security measures are put in place, and stricter anti-privacy-invasion crackdowns back them up. But what are the odds? Especially in the ultra-capitalist US, where Murdoch’s own FUX Snooze is the crapaganda pace-setter for the media? The fact that Rupert Murdoch clammed up when asked if FUX is also hacking phones on this side of the Big Pond speaks volumes, saith the Manx…

Meanwhile, the UK Telegraph reports that the tabloid has also hacked the phones of families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. This may explain why veterans’ groups were among the most prominent supporters of the paper to pull their ads. It also makes Ms. Manx queasy to think of the necrophilia of it all.

Oh, and here’s something interesting from Marxist.com: Andy Coulson, the editor under whom the hacking took place, resigned just before the shit hit the fan and became the UK Tories’ mouthpiece! Ms. Manx doubts that his resignation will do anything to get the stench off the party, though; after all, they all benefited, however indirectly, from Rupee Murdoch’s graft and self-righteous sleaze.

Don’t miss Nick Davies’s excellent analysis, which reveals that the police themselves may have been compromised by a fear of Murdoch & Co. That is, by definition, blackmail, is it not?

And finally, singer George Michael’s tweets pretty much sum the whole thing up. Ms. Manx takes it that Mr. Michael used to be a major whipping-post for the scandal-sheet, and wishes him well (and good gloating, sir).

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Crapagandarati, Filthy Stinking Rich, Isn't That Illegal?, Karma 1, Dogma 0, Schadenfreude, Short 'n' Stubby. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Short ‘n’ Stubby: “A fantastic day for Britain”

  1. rerewo says:

    Thank you Ms. Manx for your meows and you too, Ms. Becker, for your take on things. Thanks also for those informative links. It’s helpful and appreciated.

    Just want to touch on something from the Murdoch link.

    Something about the so-called balanced approach in journalism. I don’t like how it can distort and lend weight to a position that is otherwise not credible or is in the process of losing its credibility — simply by the act of balancing.

    There’s a fear of the appearance of bias with many liberal journalists. Mainly because it might alienate viewers and in turn, advertisers.

    The sneaky conservative press, which is basically big business with a press pass, has no reason to have any illusions about it and are taking full advantage.

    I think Ms. Manx is very right. Better phone-security measures should be put in place, and stricter anti-privacy-invasion crackdowns should back them up. Of course, law enforcement may employ the same hacks. Ultimately it’s a personal responsibility.

    • Sabina Becker says:

      Absolutely right on the false balance part! “Fair and Balanced” is Froth and Bullshit. You can’t “balance” the truth with a lie, yet that’s what the major media are trying to do, TV in particular, but others too, to a lesser degree. They’re so indoctrinated with the myth that you have to give “both sides of the story”, that they no longer seem to care which is true and which is false. I do notice, however, that the false version is MUCH more heavily weighted, especially by FUX Snooze, where it is often the whole of the story, and no counterbalancing truth, not even a little of it, exists.

      And yes, hearty agreement that the “conservative media” are nothing more than mouthpieces for Big Bidness. Subscribers and viewers aren’t supporting them; advertisers are. So naturally, whatever suits the advertisers’ agenda is going to go on TV or the newspaper’s pages. And if what suits their agenda is absolute bullhockey, well, bullhockey it is, then.

      Reason enough, for me, to stay away from conventional media as much as possible (and conservative media altogether, except to make merciless fun of them), and also not own a cellphone, and not subscribe to voicemail. My phone’s a landline; I get by just fine with it. Maybe one of these days I’ll buy an answering machine. I’ve never heard of anybody hacking one of those!

      • rerewo says:

        FUX Snooze is an interesting kind of homophone, if that’s what you’d call it. Like you, never really watch that network, or wouldn’t actually. Well, I don’t have cable, let alone a television.

        I would like to get one though. Probably one with passive 3D.

        Anyway, I love PBS and TVO and that kind of television. Of course, nowadays with a computer you can watch much of it. TVO has a great archive of videos, for instance. The Newshour, as you’re probably well aware, has a sort of satellite site at Youtube, where you can watch or download high-definition Newshour reports all the way up to 1080p. It’s actually a bit of an archive of reports in high-definition format. You can see the difference from 720p to 1080p. For watching online, however, 720p has far less, if any, interruptions in the stream — well, for my bandwidth anyhow.

        Like you, I just have a land line too. Like the TV, I’d also like to get one someday. Maybe I’ll get one with the TV in a bundle and save some cash. I have no particular need for it except that all cell phones without a contract of any sort must still, by law, allow you to call 911 — and that could be handy.

        You know something, Sabina, many answering machines only have a two digit password, if you can believe that. Eventually, I imagine some very clever hacker will will figure out a way around that. If there’s a need, they’re good filters even when you’re home because you can hear the call come in.

Comments are closed.