Rupert Murdoch vs Dixie Chicks

puremagic · January 2007

Honestly, why was it ok to for Murdoch to go before Japanese reporters and minimize the death of American soldiers and receive a "no harm, no foul card"?
----

Murdoch says US death toll in Iraq 'minute'
November 8, 2006

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch says he has no regrets about supporting the US-led invasion of Iraq and argues the US death toll in the conflict is “minute” from a historical perspective.

The News Corporation chief was speaking on the eve of US mid-term elections where President George W Bush’s Republican Party is tipped to lose seats in part due to a backlash over the war.

“The death toll, certainly of Americans there, by the terms of any previous war are quite minute,” Mr. Murdoch told reporters at a conference in Tokyo.

He called their deaths 'minute' [as a time-saver] meaning

1. Exceptionally small; tiny.
2. Beneath notice; insignificant.

Here he is, in a foreign country, minimizing the death of American troops as small and insignificant, like a damn apologetic symbolic offering compared to Japan's losses.

No coverage? No outrage? No anti-American bashing? I guess the words a singing group are more important, more powerful and more deserving of media attention than the comments of the owner of Fox News.

ledvedderman · January 2007

Good find, please forward to CNN and MSNBC. Keith Olbermann would love this

ThumbingMyWay32 · January 2007

What word would you have preferred he use?

Would you have even noticed if he would have called the President an idiot? Would you have cared?

Is he not allowed the same free speech the Dixie Chicks are?

ledvedderman · January 2007

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

What word would you have preferred he use?

Would you have even noticed if he would have called the President an idiot? Would you have cared?

Is he not allowed the same free speech the Dixie Chicks are?

I don't believe the Dixie Chicks ever called the lives of our soldiers "minute". don't believe their families would feel too good about that.

ThumbingMyWay32 · January 2007

ledvedderman wrote:

I don't believe the Dixie Chicks ever called the lives of our soldiers "minute". don't believe their families would feel too good about that.

"The death toll, certainly of Americans there, by the terms of any previous war are quite minute,”

Does that say the death of American soldiers is meaningless? No... Let's review...

"The death toll, certainly of Americans there, by the terms of any previous war are quite minute,”

The death toll is minute compared to any previous war. Check.

While we're playing this game for dumbasses...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/30/104457.shtml

puremagic · January 2007

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

What word would you have preferred he use?

Would you have even noticed if he would have called the President an idiot? Would you have cared?

Is he not allowed the same free speech the Dixie Chicks are?

You seem to forget that Bush is a "politician" and can be called an idiot whenever, wherever, and by whomever, that's the nature of the political beast.

Instead of the old answer a question with a question? Try addressing the post as it relates to the whole "support the troop" matter.

Give me a second and I'll show you Mudoch view on freedom of speech.

ThumbingMyWay32 · January 2007

puremagic wrote:

You seem to forget that Bush is a "politician" and can be called an idiot whenever, wherever, and by whomever, that's the nature of the political beast.

Instead of the old answer a question with a question? Try addressing the post as it relates to the whole "support the troop" matter.

Give me a second and I'll show you Mudoch view on freedom of speech.

I already have. Your interpretive skills are meager. The topic of your original post isn't even relative to "supporting the troops." That's what you want to make it out to be. Who gives a shit what the Dixie Chicks or Murdoch say, besides you?

SweetHarmonics · January 2007

His head and face are fucking atrocious.

Scratchin a Letter · January 2007

1.Both are entitled to express their opinions, no matter how relevant or distasteful

2.Dixie Chicks, who have no political power or ambience, indirectly insulted somebody who, at best, is more unpopular globally than popular

3.Murdoch, who has the power to influence movements and voters, denied something very obvious was happening

..
In a nutshell, people were primarily pissed off with DC because in the eyes of their fans, they have no right to talk about politics, even in a foeign country where people agreed with what they were saying. Murdoch's words will go unnoticed and unremanded because he is seen by the readers of his (frankly, shite) publications as somebody who knows what he is talking about, and, by still supporting the motions of the administration, he has done nothing to anger these people.

It's all about consumer ideology. Those on either side of the debate will allow themselves to be enraged by one and turn a blind eye to the other.

ThumbingMyWay32 · January 2007

SweetHarmonics wrote:

His head and face are fucking atrocious.

See, to me, this post is more informative than someone crying because some people don't like what the Dixie Chicks said. I'm sure just as many, if not more, hate Murdoch.

Who gives a dilly shit?

Jeanwah · January 2007

Scratchin a Letter wrote:

..
In a nutshell, people were primarily pissed off with DC because in the eyes of their fans, they have no right to talk about politics, even in a foeign country where people agreed with what they were saying. Murdoch's words will go unnoticed and unremanded because he is seen by the readers of his (frankly, shite) publications as somebody who knows what he is talking about, and, by still supporting the motions of the administration, he has done nothing to anger these people.

It's all about consumer ideology. Those on either side of the debate will allow themselves to be enraged by one and turn a blind eye to the other.

The Power of Corporate Media at work.

puremagic · January 2007

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

"The death toll, certainly of Americans there, by the terms of any previous war are quite minute,”

Does that say the death of American soldiers is meaningless? No... Let's review...

"The death toll, certainly of Americans there, by the terms of any previous war are quite minute,”

The death toll is minute compared to any previous war. Check.

While we're playing this game for dumbasses...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/30/104457.shtml

Play the word game anyway you want. The fact is that you would not go to your local gathering hole and say what Murdoch said. Hell, you probably wouldn't say the same thing in front of friends or family. So don't try your little dumbass games with me, ok. If any Democratic or someone you thought was liberal had said the same thing, it would have been made into a movie of the week, then turned into a commercial and repeated every 30 seconds by Fox News telecaster readers.

At least stand by your damn convictions.

trappedinmyradio · January 2007

this is the most ridiculous thread i have ever seen. he even qualified his statement. go looking for something meaningful.

puremagic wrote:

Honestly, why was it ok to for Murdoch to go before Japanese reporters and minimize the death of American soldiers and receive a "no harm, no foul card"?
----

Murdoch says US death toll in Iraq 'minute'
November 8, 2006

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch says he has no regrets about supporting the US-led invasion of Iraq and argues the US death toll in the conflict is “minute” from a historical perspective.

The News Corporation chief was speaking on the eve of US mid-term elections where President George W Bush’s Republican Party is tipped to lose seats in part due to a backlash over the war.

“The death toll, certainly of Americans there, by the terms of any previous war are quite minute,” Mr. Murdoch told reporters at a conference in Tokyo.

He called their deaths 'minute' [as a time-saver] meaning

1. Exceptionally small; tiny.
2. Beneath notice; insignificant.

Here he is, in a foreign country, minimizing the death of American troops as small and insignificant, like a damn apologetic symbolic offering compared to Japan's losses.

No coverage? No outrage? No anti-American bashing? I guess the words a singing group are more important, more powerful and more deserving of media attention than the comments of the owner of Fox News.

Solat13 · January 2007

Not to minimize the value of the lives of our soldiers but Murdoch does have a point if you look at the casualty totals of Iraq vs. all of the other major wars and conflicts America has been involved with.

The US has lost approximately 3,100 soldiers since Iraq started which is:

12.4% of the 25,000 soldiers who died during the American Revolution
15.5% of the 20,000 soldiers who died during the war of 1812
.5% of the 625,000 soldiers who died during the Civil War
2.7% of the 116,516 soldiers who died during WWI
.8% of the 405,399 soldiers who died during WW2
9.2% of the 33,746 soldiers who died during the Korean War
6.5% of the 47,355 soldiers who died during the Vietnam War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war

Now I really disagree with making that statement in public like Murdoch did and especially the phrasing he used but you can see why he has that perspective.

puremagic · January 2007

Solat13 wrote:

Now I really disagree with making that statement in public like Murdoch did and especially the phrasing he used but you can see why he has that perspective.

You can see this and I can see this. Yet, you're looking to "understand" the meaning and why Murdoch said what he said. Others aren't given that opportunity, they are immediately labelled and judged.

If one is to stand by their actions and convictions, then Murdoch should be judged accordingly.

puremagic · January 2007

trappedinmyradio wrote:

this is the most ridiculous thread i have ever seen. he even qualified his statement. go looking for something meaningful.

That would surprise even me.

Rushlimbo · January 2007

puremagic wrote:

Play the word game anyway you want. The fact is that you would not go to your local gathering hole and say what Murdoch said. Hell, you probably wouldn't say the same thing in front of friends or family. So don't try your little dumbass games with me, ok. If any Democratic or someone you thought was liberal had said the same thing, it would have been made into a movie of the week, then turned into a commercial and repeated every 30 seconds by Fox News telecaster readers.

At least stand by your damn convictions.

Bravo !! Well said !

jlew24asu · January 2007

puremagic wrote:

You can see this and I can see this. Yet, you're looking to "understand" the meaning and why Murdoch said what he said. Others aren't given that opportunity, they are immediately labelled and judged.

If one is to stand by their actions and convictions, then Murdoch should be judged accordingly.

Murdoch is correct in the context of his statement but he should never say things like this.

norm · January 2007

puremagic wrote:

Honestly, why was it ok to for Murdoch to go before Japanese reporters and minimize the death of American soldiers and receive a "no harm, no foul card"?
----

Murdoch says US death toll in Iraq 'minute'
November 8, 2006

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch says he has no regrets about supporting the US-led invasion of Iraq and argues the US death toll in the conflict is “minute” from a historical perspective.

The News Corporation chief was speaking on the eve of US mid-term elections where President George W Bush’s Republican Party is tipped to lose seats in part due to a backlash over the war.

“The death toll, certainly of Americans there, by the terms of any previous war are quite minute,” Mr. Murdoch told reporters at a conference in Tokyo.

He called their deaths 'minute' [as a time-saver] meaning

1. Exceptionally small; tiny.
2. Beneath notice; insignificant.

Here he is, in a foreign country, minimizing the death of American troops as small and insignificant, like a damn apologetic symbolic offering compared to Japan's losses.

No coverage? No outrage? No anti-American bashing? I guess the words a singing group are more important, more powerful and more deserving of media attention than the comments of the owner of Fox News.

Since we haven't had the same number of deaths as other wars/conflict does that mean the lives lost aren't important? This is what I take from Murdoch's comments. When, Rupert, should we begin to care about human life? 10,000 deaths? 50,000? Give us a number that will satisfy your quota to make it important you black-hearted bastard!:mad:

miller8966 · January 2007

puremagic wrote:

You can see this and I can see this. Yet, you're looking to "understand" the meaning and why Murdoch said what he said. Others aren't given that opportunity, they are immediately labelled and judged.

If one is to stand by their actions and convictions, then Murdoch should be judged accordingly.

he didnt do anything wrong. Your looking farther into this than needs to be

puremagic · January 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

Murdoch is correct in the context of his statement but he should never say things like this.

He is only correct in context as it related to the numbers. Yet, we are not asking the families or the country to look at the numbers, are we. No! In fact, we shield the returning caskets from public view and do not release the details of the wounded.

We are asking the families and the country to continue to make sacrifice, so what is an acceptable number? At what number is the lost of a soldier's life not considered 'minute'.

There's nothing right about the statement.

Rupert Murdoch vs Dixie Chicks

Comments

Categories