Private sector takes responsibility, government takes more money
Posted by aogThursday, 14 July 2011 at 20:39
TrackBack Ping URL
Mark Steyn get this exactly correct — the recent flap over New of the World demonstrates once again the clear superiority in terms of morals and accountability of the corporate world over the political one. The entire news organization was disbanded. When, ever, has a government agency suffered that fate? Does anyone think any public employee involved in this will suffer any negative effects? Almost certainly not. Yet it is such unaccountable, detached people who should run our society?
Monday, 18 July 2011 at 12:47|
No doubt Murdoch would have liked to have kept NOTW, but the advertisers baled out on him, so his cost in closing it was minimal.
If I implied that News Corp. has taken responsibility for anything, I misspoke.
Even the apology ads are negated by Murdoch’s campaign against his own apology in the WSJ, the only publication he owns with any residual respectability, which he has decided to throw out. For obvious reasons, too. He has US television licenses that are in some danger. (Probably safe based on what’s known to us now, but Murdoch may know more than we do. He also has the new UK Bribery Act to worry about.)
Perhaps, as some newspaper commenters have said, he is just an old, confused man who has lost the thread. I don’t read him that way myself. He never showed any integrity before, why should we expect any now?
He apparently did not learn anything from BP, or he wouldn’t have told even a tame interviewer that he was “annoyed,” although that might have been his only honest statement in that interview. If he were getting good damage control advice, he wouldn’t have used the WSJ yesterday to attack the Guardian on the grounds of commercial advantage. That’s a non-starter, since the Guardian pursued the story for four years when it was only commercial disadvantage to them.
As I have often said, management of big corporations tends heavily toward incompetence. No ability to deal with anything outside routine. Certainly the case for News Corp.
And you can keep hammering the errors of government all you want, but it doesn’t make your case, because your case is that a business is taking responsibility when it isn’t.
Dean Starkman at Columbia Journalism Review sez today: ‘Behold, editors and reporters at The Wall Street Journal, the Times of London, Fox News, and, for that matter, the Sunday Tasmanian, and every other News Corp. journalism property around the world: The NotW debacle show what happens when you do what your bosses are paying you to do. You get thrown overboard, is what happens, while those same news leaders express surprise and regret that you acted according to incentives they created, in a system of their making, in which they themselves took part.’
|Annoying Old Guy
Sunday, 31 July 2011 at 11:18|
I didn’t see anything happen to Joe.
It was widely reported (such as here) and his personal life splashed all over Old Media for daring to ask a question that candidate Obama gaffed so that he could serve as an example of what happens to people who get in the way, but I am confident that you were able to remain unaware.
Do you still think, now that more evidence is in, that News Corp. or any of its responsible executives took responsibility?
Yes, much more so than the public sector. Let me know when the Department of Education is shut down due to insider trading scandals. Or the ATFE for selling guns to Mexican drug cartels.
Let me now demonstrate how to respond directly to someone’s main points, rather than throwing up minor points as a distraction. You continue to harp on the NBPP, thus demonstrating which one of us is really “het up” about that issue. I would be fine with you responding to my main points, although I am gratified to have my prediction validate.
If they had not been so poorly armed, they could be heroes of the Right, which, after all, demands the right to and praises the wisdom of bringing infantry weapons to church services, kindergarten classes, baseball games and political rallies.
You’re starting with a false premise here. Conservatives praise being able to defend one’s self threw being armed. This can involve do the things you mention but those things are not of themselves praiseworthy. You also use the loaded and vague term “infantry weapons”. Would that include knives, as almost all infantry is so armed? That would make “bringing an infantry weapon to a gun fight” an amusing interpretation.
There is also the difference between being a group and being an individual, the personal demeanor of the armed individual, and the ideology and political history thereof. I would say that everything that was said against the NBPP could continue to be said, if not more so.
That maybe buckra thought they were there to intimidate, but that tells more about buckra than about black people in Philadelphia.
Yes, quite likely. Therefore …?