Fox News Parent NewsCorp May Face Corruption Investigation 145
rtfa-troll writes "The Guardian reports that News Corporation may face FCPA investigations after an 'official of the British ministry of defence' was charged 'for allegedly receiving £100,000 from Murdoch's tabloid newspapers.' News Corporation, headed by Rupert Murdoch, is loved by most of the readers of Slashdot as the owner of Fox News and as the company which put the overly complicated paywall on the Wall Street Journal. The article states that the charges 'would be hard for the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to ignore and would warrant investigation under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act which could lead to risks for 27 TV licences within the Fox network.'"
Well one thing is certain... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know who is not going to be covering this story.
Re:Well one thing is certain... (Score:4, Funny)
You know who is not going to be covering this story.
I was hoping it was going to be /. but that bubble has already burst.
Re:Well one thing is certain... (Score:5, Funny)
Of course Fox News will cover the story!
But they will begin every sentence with, "The lib'rul biased media says that..."
Re: (Score:2)
So the same as all of their "news" then?
Re:Well one thing is certain... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know who is not going to be covering this story.
You know who is not going to be covering this story.
They will cover it, but put so much spin on it that it will make Murdoch look like the victim.
Re: (Score:1)
They will cover it, but put so much spin on it that it will make Murdoch look like the victim.
So you mean... just like every other story they cover?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well one thing is certain... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know you meant you comment as a jest but I don't want to skip an opportunity to point out that you are literally correct. A free market is a market with zero regulations - zero. In such a market you could buy or sell anything without limitation, certainly including political influence. That is one more illustration why markets are good, free markets are bad. Reasonable adults discuss which regulations are worth their cost and don't blather about how regulations are always bad, which is what it means to advocate for "free" markets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"the rules that govern a free market"
We aren't talking about the same thing. A free market is a market specifically without any regulations [wikipedia.org] (which is another word for "regulation").
The real problem is that MOST people think of "free market" as a "transparent, competitive" market, but those qualities aren't at all a part of a free market. In reality, it is (light, carefully considered) regulation which produces transparency and competition. So most people want transparent competitive markets but then vote fo
Re: (Score:2)
(I meant to say that rules is another word for regulations.)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than allowing for society to deal with bad actors you decide that regulations are better.
Regulation is "society dealing with bad actors", except we deal with it before (some of) the bad behavior has occurred, thus saving ourselves the attendant problems.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to follow you down that path, but I was blocked by logic and reason. A politician could still sell his war vote to an angry foreigner with a warmongering agenda, couldn't he? He could still sell his vote on nonmarket issues, right? Politicians do more than regulate commerce. In any governmental system with politicians, the politicians have prerogatives, and those prerogatives have value, so exercising the prerogatives could be sold for money. Here I'll offer some more examples that I came up with in
Re: (Score:2)
They will cover it, but put so much spin on it that it will make Murdoch look like the victim.
So you mean... just like every other story they cover?
Yep, pretty much.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, to a businessman, he *does* look like the victim. He's not, but he looks like it, because the FCPA basically makes the company responsible for every bribe one of their employees pays to get something done. This results in many companies greatly curtailing the business they do overseas, especially in countries where bribery is the rule rather than the exception. I'm sure it costs the US billions every year--effectively, a price of morality. As it turns out, most businesses are more concerned about
Re: (Score:2)
You mistakenly phrased your sentence in the future tense. You should have phrased it in past tense [youtube.com].
Re:Well one thing is certain... (Score:5, Funny)
You know who is not going to be covering this story.
Oh, Fox will cover it... Via The Simpsons. There is a provision in the contract that specifies the Fox network may not interfere with the show's content. And it results in awkward things being broadcast by Fox, like this (from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]):
The Simpsons also often includes self-referential humor. The most common form is jokes about Fox Broadcasting. For example, the episode "She Used to Be My Girl" included a scene in which a Fox News Channel van drove down the street while displaying a large "Bush Cheney 2004" banner and playing Queen's "We Are the Champions", in reference to the 2004 presidential election.
I'm sure many slashdotters could cite even more awkward examples of The Simpsons poking the Fox bear.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure many slashdotters could cite even more awkward examples of The Simpsons poking the Fox bear.
Fox turned into a hardcore sex channel so gradually I didn't even notice!
Re:Well one thing is certain... (Score:4, Informative)
I loved Futurama's return after being cancelled. They were quite blatant with the insults against Fox.
http://www.comedycentral.com/video-clips/mw3sok/futurama-back-in-action [comedycentral.com]
http://theinfosphere.org/Box_Network [theinfosphere.org]
Re: (Score:3)
You know who is not going to be covering this story.
Sure they will. And they will "balance" it out with data and rationale completely in-line with their original defensive statement.
Very rarely have I seen the news "balanced" with something that completely disproves the topic being presented; it would make all news null. People still believe that there is such a thing and that it works, however.
Re: (Score:1)
Corruption?!? Corruption is government intrusion into market efficiencies in the form of regulation. That's Milton Friedman, and he got a goddamn Nobel prize...
-Syriana
Re: (Score:3)
Haven't read TFA yet - but it says "may face" corruption charges in the title. Meaning, if Rupert can apply enough pressure and cash at strategic points, the charges are going to disappear. That will probably take all of his pocket change though, and he may have to do without a few gourmet meals. It would sure be rough if he had to eat plain old filet mignon, like some commoner!
Oh, this is sweet!! (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-filings/entry/crew-petition-fcc-deny-renewal-news-corp-fox-broadcast-licenses-murdoch [citizensforethics.org]
Washington, D.C. – Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), asking the agency to deny renewal of three broadcast licenses held by Fox television stations. Because their licenses are set to expire in October, two Fox stations in Washington, D.C. and one in Baltimore – which are wholly owned subsidiaries of News Corp. – filed to renew the licenses this past June.
CREW is objecting to the renewals because under U.S. law, broadcast frequencies may be used only by people of good “character,” who will serve “the public interest,” and speak with “candor.” Significant character deficiencies may warrant disqualification from holding a license.
Re: (Score:2)
CREW is objecting to the renewals because under U.S. law, broadcast frequencies may be used only by people of good “character,” who will serve “the public interest,” and speak with “candor.” Significant character deficiencies may warrant disqualification from holding a license.
Now this is gold. Especially if they reference the lovely 'phone hacking' scandal in the UK as ammo of how shitty this corporation is....
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. No matter how you look at it, they are only vicariously connected which means the people in charge of the stations- even the parent corps can comply with those traits. That's the entire purpose of a corporation, to separate the acts from the owners who took no part in them.
Re: (Score:3)
See, here's the thing: if you're going to deny the existence of something, you're going to have to be more careful about choosing something that we can't just go look at with our own eyes.
And if you're going to pick global warming, you better hurry because that window's closing too.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:censorship trolls - /. is turning into digg (Score:5, Insightful)
"Don''t like" Fox Noise? Dude, it's not even news. It's nothing more than a propaganda channel, funneling the wishes and opinions of one of the richest and crookedest bastards in the world into American living rooms.
Have you noticed how divisive American politics has become? There is plenty of blame to lay at the feet of liberals and conservatives alike. Lots of blame for ALL of the big media channels. But Fox? Fox gets the lion's share of the blame for that. Those rotten bastards come into the living rooms of millions of Americans every day, to explain why Obummer is the Anti-Christ, and to explain for all the morons that America's end is nigh.
News? Fox is adamantly opposed to offering news. It's all propaganda noise.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
. No president in modern US history has taken this arrogant attitude toward people who disagree with him.
Except, of course, Herr Bush, with his infamous "Either you're with us, or you're against us", without so much as a possibility of an ignorant, uninformed middle ground where people needed to be persuaded.
Arrogance. That was George Dubyah, for certain.
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I don't like Obama very much. I've repeated that several times, in several places - I've probably said it here before. But, as big an ass as Obama is, he is far less revolting than Herr Bush was. Bush the Crusader. "I don't
Re: (Score:3)
And yet Bush had no trouble working with Dems when necessary (the last two years in office for example the Dems controlled both houses on congress). He even worked directly with Ted Kennedy in getting 'No Child Left Behind" passed (not that that was great legislation just pointing out that he had no problems working with people who were on the opposite side of the isle).
Obama on the other hand has pretty much no history of working with anyone of opposing views and for all the legislation that Bush signed
Re:More moronic anti-Fox ranting (Score:5, Informative)
"Dude", it's every-bit as much of a news outlet as ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC, the NYT
What if it's not?
You just don't like any news story that runs contrary to your beliefs
What if it has nothing to do with beliefs? What if they are just objectively bad, but you don't want to think so because your beliefs agree with those broadcast by Fox News. Personally, I'm mostly politically moderate. I don't agree with the Loony Left or the Rabid Right and Fox News (the channel) appears to be objectively one of the worst News channels out there because they mix propaganda in with real news. In their 24 hour days they have around 7 or 8 hours of real informational (only a little politically slanted) news, but that means they have 16-17 hours of "opinion" programming (political propaganda) each day. It's not just me, Fox news watchers have consistently scored poorly on knowledge tests about current events. In at least one such test they scored lower than people who actively read and watched no news content. That should be a troubling result.
Frankly, if you're going to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being biased, you'd better be doing a pretty good job of making sure you account for your own biases, which you haven't, because from your comments you appear to be rabidly right wing. You might want to consider whether some of the things you've "learned" from Fox News might be actually be distorted but you aren't seeing it because of your political leanings.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see them re-run that test, but just asking about Benghazi and how Obama left our ambassador to die.
Thank you for illustrating his point.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Rupert will ... (Score:2)
Re:Rupert will ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr Murdoch will be able to buy his way out of trouble...
If you mean pay huge fines that are still less than his yearly caviar tab, and then continue on "business as usual", then yes you are correct...
Re: (Score:1)
If you mean pay huge fines that are still less than his yearly caviar tab, and then continue on "business as usual", then yes you are correct...
No not really, more contributions and the like, he already has a track record of paying out to officials, why stop now?
Re: (Score:2)
Mr Murdoch will be able to buy his way out of trouble, if not, I'm sure he has something on anyone with something to lose.
How much do you think he'll pay Dice, uh I'm sorry, Slashdot, to make this story disappear?
Fox reports on itself? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, what he said....I don't watch Fox News, but it seems if they are as crooked as it has been reported, will they even report on this? And if they do, I wonder how they will spin it..."Liberal lefty media trying to discredit Fox again!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
My father. *hangs head in shame*
Needless to say, I avoid all political discussions with him lest it devolve into me trying (and failing) to convince him that Obama isn't an anti-semitic Muslim socialist who will destroy America with his horrible liberalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC has no control over fox news on sat / cabl (Score:2)
The FCC has no control over fox news on sat / cable.
Re: (Score:1)
Am I misreading something? Where was the FCC mentioned?
1) The FCC has no jurisdiction over what goes on in the UK
2) Fox doesn't JUST broadcast on cable and satellite. Fox has a number of affiliates, and they rebroadcast Fox news programs and contribute to local news programming.
Re:The FCC has no control over fox news on sat / c (Score:5, Informative)
yeah, you were misreading (or not reading) TFA:
The latest legal difficulties to hit News Corporation could also potentially have ramifications on its 27 TV licences within the Fox network â" the real financial heart of the operation. Three of the licences are up for renewal, and in August the ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew) filed a petition with the US broadcasting regulator, the Federal Communications Commission, that called for them to be denied on the grounds that the company did not have the requisite character to run a public service.
The FCC is being asked to deny renewal for 3 of the 27 Fox licences. Whatever regulates the sat/cable industry might be asked to consider if Fox is a reputable enough company to own a licence to broadcast - the UK has such requirements, and I can't really believe the US has a totally deregulated media industry (a corrupt one, maybe).
Anyway, keep your eyes open, this time next week the Leveson Inquiry publishes its report [telegraph.co.uk] into News Corp.
Re: (Score:1)
So an incident in a subsidiary branch 6000 miles away from the US should induce major headaches for a US-based organization at the hands of the US government.
Well, if it's good enough to tear down all of Acorn over one jackass office...
Alternatively...
Re:The FCC has no control over fox news on sat / c (Score:5, Informative)
So an incident in a subsidiary branch 6000 miles away from the US should induce major headaches for a US-based organization at the hands of the US government.
That's what often happens. For one, foriegn bribes are illegal in the US. That is to say, if a fooreign subsidiary uses bribery, it is a crime (under US law) that can be charged against the parent company. That's why one company I worked for with more than 30 foreign subsidiaries had very very liberal expense accounting. You were expected to pay for bribes yourself, then charge them back as "dinner" or such, no receipt needed, and unprosecutable as far as the feds are concerned.
It was a requirement of doing business, as some countries require bribes. One specific example would have a US analog of:
What would you do if the Elbonia TSA made you pay $5 to get your laptop bin back at the security check? They are government employees, so slipping them $5 for your laptop would be a federal crime in the USA.
So yeah, if he gets convicted of bribery in the UK, then his company is on the hook for breaking the foreign corrupt practices act, and should lose all US licenses.
Why do you want to reward people who break the rules, so long as they break them creatively enough to satisfy you?
You're off on a few regards. (Score:2)
One, your accounting gimmick doesn't shield you from prosecution. It MAY make prosecution more difficult, but the company - and you personally - are absolutely criminally liable for paying the bribe, no matter how you attempt to obfuscate it. All you need is affirmative knowledge of an intent to influence an official's duties with some sort of compensation.
Whether the FCPA covers your example of paying to get your laptop back out of the bin is less clear. There's actually a case or two going through the
Re: (Score:2)
There's actually a case or two going through the system now that will define who, exactly, counts as a "foreign official", specifically, does every employee of a government count as a foreign official?
The current definition is that anyone paid by a foreign government or employed in a government facility or capacity is a foreign official.
What they need is an official US recognition that some governments *require* bribes for regular daily operation. For example, I worked somewhere that had equipment in a place with security guards that were off duty cops (government officials under the current definition) and they extracted extra money by refusing entry without a fee. You either pay it, or you don't wor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are forced to pay a bribe for turning the g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Um.... of course? If subsidiaries didn't count, they you could just spin off a subsidiary to do your bribes for you and you'd be safe. In fact, companies would go further and spin EVERYTHING off into subsidiaries and only keep the top execs in the main company, Then they could have their companies do anything and be isolated from legal responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
and to prove your point, just consider tax legislation, and how companies create subsidiaries to manage this.
Re: (Score:3)
Rupert Murdoch personally paid off celebs in the UK, for them to NOT bring charges against the companies he owned there. It's not an "incident in a subsidiary" company. Rupert was directly involved. Rupert made the decision that it was cheaper to pay people off, then to continue with "business as usual". Rupert did NOT direct his underlings and cronies to stop breaking the law - he paid off, and gave his tacit consent to keep on keeping on.
Not to mention that your geography isn't real good. 6000 miles?
Re: (Score:2)
I kinda think that you're the one who is missing something. The FCC does have authority over SOME of Fox's news outlets. Television stations, specifically. Shutting down some TV stations won't stop Fox spewing their poison over cable, or internet, but it will shut down those three television stations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you had even read the /. post you would have noticed that they're talking about the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [wikipedia.org] being involved. Nothing about the FCC.
If fox get's pulled what happens to the NFL games? (Score:2)
If fox get's pulled what happens to the NFL games?
Will they have to open NFL Sunday ticket with no black outs and free for all? and get the out local feeds to cable as well.
Re:If fox get's pulled what happens to the NFL gam (Score:4, Insightful)
There will be a bidding war.
Don't worry, you're not going to miss anything if Fox disappears, except perhaps the singular experience of seeing Karl Rove shit his pants on live TV when the network declared Barack Obama re-elected.
And if you think maybe I'm being hyperbolic with the "shit-his-pants" description, it means you missed what happened on Fox when the election was called for the President. You could smell the fear-sweat through the TV screen when he realized he was going to have to tell a bunch of sociopath billionaires that they bought exactly nothing for the shipping containers full of money they gave to Rove on the promise that they'd get their own white president to own.
It's an illuminati game play (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I enjoy Illuminati! and own the deluxe boxed set, but I think INWO is a better model. So the question is, who is attacking to destroy newscorp with the aid of the United States and Big Media?
Re: (Score:2)
I see the great Slashdot tradition of modding-down what you disagree with but can't form a consistent, cogent, and factual argument against is still strong. I'm sorry if documented facts & reality upset those incapable of independent critical thought, but I won't keep silent to appease the small minds of the Idiocracy. "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."...as you only reverse-validate my points by trying to silence those that disagree with your ideologica
Translation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Only a hundred thousand? Come on, you can do better than that."
Well, to be fair, that UK pounds, and a hundred thousand of those are worth about 42 billion US dollars now....
(Give or take.)
I'm speechless (Score:5, Funny)
Loved? (Score:2, Redundant)
Rupert Murdock, is loathed by most of the readers of Slashdot as the owner of Fox News and as the company which put the overly complicated paywall on the Wall Street Journal.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Or even just "Known"...
Love Fox News? I seriously hope you guys don't do that...
Re: (Score:2)
Rupert Murdock, is loathed by most.
FTFY
Now it's fixed.
"Less is more"
Re: (Score:2)
Rupert Murdock, is loathed by most of the readers of Slashdot as the one who canceled Firefly and Futurama.
FTFTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Woosh! Or is my sarcasm detector misfiring?
It's a sign! (Score:2)
Their ratings are in the toilet.
Fox News Coverage (Score:1)
Fox (Bill O'Reiley) has actually been covering this for several months now.
Corruption charges? (Score:2)
Looks like they didn't pay off the RIGHT officials in the US...
No meat to this article (Score:1)
After reading TFA, I see only two opinions being used for the basis of the article, and neither of them appear to have anything to do with the headline of the /. post.
"Mike Koehler, professor of law at Southern Illinois school of law and author of the blog fcaprofessor.com, said the charges "would be hard for the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to ignore. We have been hearing allegations for a year and a half now, now we clearly have charges against high ranking officials at
Re:No meat to this article (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact remains that if a US company is convicted of bribing officials in a foreign country, that company can be prosecuted under domestic law. Whether NewsCorp will be or not is another question, but there have been strong hints dropped since the case really exploded in Britain that US authorities are carefully watching what happens in Britain.
Re: (Score:1)
They don't need a foreign conviction to trigger an FCPA proceeding here. They can have a trial here independent of overseas proceedings, just like the Lacey Act.
Re: (Score:2)
"Melanie Sloan, Crew's director, said the charges of the four former News International employees played into its petition. 'News Corp argues that the conduct in Britain shouldn't matter here in the US, but the Atlantic ocean doesn't have cleansing properties – if Murdoch is seen to be unfit to run a global company in the UK, then he's unfit in this country, too.'"
Not to mention that acting illegally in foreign countries is often a US crime as well, even if you discount it as indicative of systemic lawlessness. See foreign corrupt practices act
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ms. Sloan's organization (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - CREW) tends to go after conservative politicians (are they more corrupt than liberal politicians? I think it's about equal...) and receives the majority of their funding from liberal sources.
(Wikpedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Responsibility_and_Ethics_in_Washington [wikipedia.org])
Regardless of where they get their funding, they are going after both Democrats and Republicans according to their corrupt practices.
PDF Of the FCC Petition (Score:3)
GOP won't let Fox be threatened (Score:3)
He must be worried (Score:2)
Alternate Titles (Score:2)
IGN Parent NewsCorp May Face Corruption Investigation.
Hulu co-owner NewsCorp...
WSJ Parent NewsCorp...
(Any of nearly 100 papers in Australia) Owner NewsCorp...
Dow Jones Parent NewsCorp...
Harper Collins Parent NewsCorp...
National Rugby League Owner NewsCorp...
I don't want to sound like I'm giving a pass to Fox News. But Fox News isn't bad because of what NewsCorp does, Fox News is bad because their content is shitty.
(This subtle distinction allows us to say, for example, that the WSJ, however shitty it is, is
Re: (Score:2)
You're willing to pay for access so it is simple.
It's only complicated if you want "free" access.
I find it easier to just ignore the WSJ.
Why do you assume that complaining about a firewall is a liberal bias?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume that complaining about a firewall is a liberal bias?
Because if you're conservative, everything that is true or even approaching the truth is "lib'rul bias."
Even the Wall Street Journal.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not your computer. Your internet connection isn't fast enough for all the javascripts.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't figure out why anyone would pay for the WSJ any more? I felt like I was being robbed when I could read articles for free.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
You've lost me here. Maybe it's because I'm in the UK so I got actual news coverage, but pray tell, what "happened in Libya" that you're so bent out of shape over?
Re: (Score:3)
He's lost himself. What parent meant to say was "NBC didn't report my conspiracy theory about Benghazi.."
Re: (Score:3)
He's lost himself. What parent meant to say was "NBC didn't report my conspiracy theory about Benghazi.."
I get the impression that for the past month or so FOX has given up on news-spin and just dispenses conspiracy theories now.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, I was too busy writing obscene posts about Apple and Microsoft to hear what you said.
Re:I wouldn't hold my breath. (Score:5, Informative)
Dear Slashdot,
You've heard of the phrase "Pot calling the Kettle Black", right? Slashdot has no standing to call anyone else "biased".
You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between having an opinion about something and just plain Making Shit Up.
When someone has an opinion, no matter how tenuous, they have at least implicitly accepted that there is such a thing as objective reality, which gives you something to argue about.
When someone simply invents their own reality, then there's no common ground for argument or understanding.
And Slashdot, contrary to your construction of it, is far more diverse in its opinions than you seem to think. But when a collective bias does show (e.g. in anti-Microsoft diatribes), it's generally[*] based on commonly-held opinions that are derived from experience. My anti-Microsoft bias comes from trying to write and support stable server-based applications on an MS platform in the late '90s. Security and stability were such shit at that time that I moved to Linux simply in order to maintain my sanity (and professional reputation).
So, there may actually be pots and kettles here, but not where you're looking for them; comparing Slashdot to Fox is apples to oranges.
----------
[*] Generally. Statistically, there is a small but vocal cadre of clueless idiots in every group of a sufficient size.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)