I didn’t know that NoTW was unregulated. Why? Because it’s a private company? (in the States, the FCC makes no such distinction, right?)

I guess because it’s a private corporation it’s not regulated (by Ofcom). This is similar to the banks trafficking in unregulated derivatives. Where there is room for abuse, private co.’s will drive a truck through.

. . . I would say – after thinking about this for five minutes – and picking up on the reg/nonreg of broadcast v. print – that a balance needs to be struck between press regulation and corporate media concentration. A self regulating press can only work if there is a strong underlying dynamic of competition. In the UK, pre-Murdoch, this was present. Post-Murdoch it’s become absent as Murdoch has used the size and monopoly position of his empire to throw elections and drown public debate with the fire hose of a monopoly distribution model that marginalizes all dissent in the US and much of the dissent in the UK. Tying regulations to size and influence peddling would be an absolute minimum in my view. In the case of Murdoch’s press, given the size and corruption of the social contract, all his papers – both in the UK and the US should come with a warning label: Views and opinions dictated by corporate interests for profit.

Net, net, the government – doing something that gov’ts do well – should promote competition by breaking up any media; broadcast, newspaper that gets bigger than 10% of the market. The moguls will say they can’t compete, yet, look at the web – there are thousands of blogs competing – each with less than 2% of the market. Don’t listen to moguls. Don’t let moguls write the laws. Unfortunately, in the US, moguls in various industries write the laws governing those industries and the result is that the US has lost all competitiveness.

19 comments on “I didn’t know that NoTW was unregulated. Why? Because it’s a private company? (in the States, the FCC makes no such distinction, right?)
  1. kwazimota says:

    Hugh flew in before murdock . needed to take charge of the outraged emotionaly charged illelecteric keep mobs moving spinning in circles tire them . Why are they pandering for laughs .

  2. Al Kyder says:

    Once upon a time, when there were laws regarding media ownership, Banks took risks and markets sometimes panicked “Gee Gramps, was it really like that Naw!!

    “both in the UK and the US should come with a warning label: Views and opinions dictated by corporate interests for profit.”

    This is called “Disclosure” Once upon a time (again) there was a push for disclosures in the media. Sadly, it did not catch on. I am sure you can guess why.

    What Murdoch really did was to invent the insert. Instead of ever increasing advertisements in the paper, make them pay for an insert, ie that glossy magazine in the paper. So the cost of the paper is covered by the insert.

    The end result is plain to see. Glossy mags in respectable rags, masquerading as real news. I have seen payed scientist schills telling me that GMO Tomatoes are good for me, complete with Monsanto data. No disclosure about that though, tucked in between an article on how General Electric is working tirelessly to make my life better. You can print almost anything you like in these inserts.

  3. ageofreisling says:

    Laugh the chunky motor jawed dude “keep it in your pants”
    high pitched voice probably cant find his. He used the term
    public “domain” not “interest” because whom Hugh is
    sleeping with has nothing to do with public interest.
    Just encouraging the dumb public to think they have the
    right to be busy bodies. In proverbs I believe the term
    was the “beware the Babble of whores” Mr beard would
    know the correct quote.

  4. jischinger says:

    how about several private regulators, no media affiliation, consumer watchdogs, that can go to a federal governing board?

  5. Jayme says:

    Notice how they all praised BBC? It’s impolite to insult your host but is BBC all sunshine and roses? That’s why you need a diverse press. Murdoch’s papers may have published some good articles but it is also what is left out that is as important as the what is covered. No single voice speaks for all voices.

    Any corporate news agency forms a corporate culture that inherently biases the way news is reported. There should be disclosure so that one can understand how the news is being presented. Perhaps there should be methods taught in the education of children that teaches critical thinking about assessing their daily news which allows better analysis of the information content and more time off for parents to teach and discuss these issues with their children. Two working parents destroy the ability to teach critical thinking (if the parents even know how themselves). Without independent primary sources and ability to conduct one’s own critical assessment, news stories quickly become nothing more than gossip or diversions from real public issues. Even the debate in this BBC video is rather watered down and practically without substance.

    As Hugh pointed out, where was the government with Murdoch? More government regulation will mean the smaller companies will suffer the most and the larger companies will form armies of lawyers and paper pushers just to appease the onslaught of more bureaucracy. Government should bust up the too bigs. And, though I don’t think it’s the governments responsibility to teach children critical thinking (no more brainwashing and propaganda), it is our responsibility to ensure our schools teach how to think critically. If the media’s “market” can’t make intelligent decisions that take effective action on the news coming out, there is no way “self regulation” will work since those doing the self regulating will run over

    The model of corporate efficiency for profit and consolidation of wealth is sociopathic and would destroy any dissenting opinion by its nature. Getting rid of Murdoch won’t solve the problem.

    Network
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI

  6. Jayme says:

    If the media’s “market” can’t make intelligent decisions that take effective action on the news coming out, there is no way “self regulation” will work since those doing the self regulating will run over …or push ideas that are without basis.

  7. Flopot says:

    Max speaks the truth.

  8. Bob says:

    Government itself is the problem. Creating more laws which favor the large corporations. Problem (phone hacking) – reaction (oh no! more laws to protect us please) – solution (monopoly reinforced). Murdoch himself will have a hand in writing any new laws – who do you think swings the elections? The commentator in the video is right. We already have laws in place – slander, libel, rights to privacy, etc. These need to be enforced. PUT MURDOCH IN JAIL!

  9. Even scum like Murdock is protected from scum like Grant.
    US Constitution First Amendment:
    “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of . . . the press . . .”
    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers”

  10. observer says:

    I’ve heard a lot of mention of Murdocks media empire doing some good investigative journalism, could someone list them, instead of implying it. I cant think of any, but then again I tend to not watch his corps output.

  11. ZORRO LONDON says:

    Note the unanimous applause by the audience at the end for Hugh.

    Politicians with their fraud, overt theiving from the public purse and lies, have as much credibility as a very poor second hand car salesman.

    Dame whatever, is about as in touch with your needs and emotional well being, as an ant eater with its prey.

    The sheeple may just be starting to wise up??……but still a long way to go in the UK.

    They are just not hungry enough yet to depose these Elitist SOBs and their spokesman like Mr.Fatty Rottweiler.

    Have no fear, wait till hyperinflation kicks in.

    Of course they will use divide and rule and fear by focusing on minorities, as last ditch scape goats as they always do.

    Now what did Mr.Hitler do?……………………………..Z

  12. southsea13 says:

    This Jon Gaunt character really is a muppet. He`s usually on Sky News around 7.30a.m giving his worthless opinion for the day (which is normally of the flog `em, hang `em school of thought; he really does sound like The Voice of the Daily Mail (although he is not)). I really hope he`s made to do a `boot camp` for fat bastard Jeremy Kyle wannabes who need to lose weight.

  13. MrJones says:

    I agree Max. Break up the monopolies and restore some competitiveness.

  14. jimmy chen says:

    HUGH (HUGE) GRANT FOR PRIME MINISTER!!!

  15. swell says:

    Hugh Grant categorically missed the opportunity to parry and riposte at Murdoch’s myriad crimes of moral turpitude and that it wasn’t so much “free Speech” at issue, but monopoly — sort of like using (U.S.S.C.) Kelo, to condemn the entire public square, civilization’s common domain of the marketplace of ideas, in order to privatize it all into a select members only club.

  16. Citizen119 says:

    John Gaunt’s opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the
    saner electorate. Probably only those of the Daily Mail readers.

    Grant seems to be complaining that you can’t even pay for a quick
    blow job without some hack writing about it.

    I mean, what sort of world do we live in?:

  17. bammbamm says:

    I don’t see anyone articulating this properly. There are Constitutional issues, (with exaggerated interpretations), the need to divide civil from criminal actions, and the need to address the lack of law enforcement against the (super) rich and feyemous. Whenever you hear the term “more regulation” think “black hole”.

  18. ageofreisling says:

    @Bob
    The best post and truest. If antitrust legislation worked. Bill Gates, RM. Who
    ever the people behind any of the big websites are. All and sundry straight
    to jail. The general publics sycophantic voyeuristic worship of people whom
    have nothing to offer accept greed and envy. They suck the life and creativity
    out of the human consciousness.

  19. ageofreisling says:

    on a lighter note…..JackieO…Silverfuturist? Church bells? SLA Oligarchs?
    great combo must say!!!! Mr & Mrs Futurist? Jacky will be cleaning out
    those 70′s Rush albums…suggested replacements.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5xOMTR-TDY&feature=related

Access The Max Keiser Podcast
Weekly Downloads, live Q & A Session and exclusive video posts from Max and Stacy

Subscribe Learn More
Buy Gold Online
Buy Gold Online
Watch the latest Keiser Reports:

Watch our Google Hangouts: