Carlos Slim! That's rich!

The left needs the press to continue its propaganda campaign. That's why it hates Fox News and the big boss, Murdoch, who insist on "fair and balanced". The NYT, by the way, has always been a leftist rag. In 1950, the NYT published (Sept. 14) a report that MacArthur was going to land troops on the coast of South Korea, behind enemy lines, flanking the NorKor Army (before MacArthur's troops landed the next day!) The NYT had no love for the USA, never has.

It seems the same Oligarchy owns mainstream media, whenever that same oligarchy is threatened or people get close to the truth a major diversion takes place like a little brat tipping over the chessboard mommy. I wonder if it has anything to do with Mr Murdoch & Fox wanting free speech for all including the Film Unlawful Killing ? MMm I Love the Constitution every tiny little part is as important as the rest, Treasure those tiny parts. Ps-Get the brit puppet Obama out.Install Glass -steagle NOW! Have a great day :)

"Faraway England"? Better get your telegraph repaired, R.

What's hard to believe is that conservatives, wedded as they are to freedoms and rights, would view News of the World and Rupert Murdoch in any sort of positive light for wantonly breaking laws and principles you supposedly value.

And you might want to familiarize yourself with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which has been law for decades and which certainly applies in this case, before you start your spouting.

I wonder what the right's response would be if MSNBC was the culprit here.

Oh well, nothing a little hypocrisy can't fix.

The column is quite simple minded. The New York Times reported the Wikileaks hacking scandal; they DID NOT, unlike Murdochs rag, do the hacking themselves. Big difference there.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant, is it not? Do you have so little faith in our system of jurisprudence, or are you afraid that something untoward will be discovered? The media has an inordinate amount of power to shape public opinion - are they to be allowed to pursue any and all means, legal and otherwise, to get their stories, or should there be accountability? You sound petrified at the prospect of Fox News being affected by this spreading criminal investigation.

R. Emmett Tyrrell. What does the R stand for, Retard?

Apparently in your mind it is OK for a major Media Conglomerate to pay police in order to obtain citizens private phone numbers and e-mail accounts so they can be spied upon by those Media Conglomerates.

Murdoch's British holdings have already admitted doing as much over 4,000 times. Information that has come out has suggested these same people (a company that owns the Wall Street Journal and Fox News) tried to do the same thing with 9/11 victims. And you feel this should not be investigated?

If it was the Democratic Party or any Democratic offical doing this you'd be demanding an investigation and their resignation. But for Murdoch it's OK? I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense.

So what you are trying to say is that if a former chief executive of a UK based news organisation owned and run by MSNBC has lied in 2006/7 and stated that the investigation that he had led showed that the illegal hacking of telephones was down to a private investigator and one "rogue" reporter both of whom were sent to prison, which was then found out to be false and the lead police investigator who also finds no evidence (even though he has in police possesion 11,000 documents containing 4,000 names of those hacked which included lawmakers, members of the public and famous names) after five dinner meetings with chief officals from the London based MSNBC papers of further wrong doing quits his job and signs up to write editorials for the UK based MSNBC paper you would consider that a non-story?

Lets advance this.

What if in 2009 another investigation is started but after only 8 hours the lead police investigator with no new legal advice states that there is nothing more to investigate only for a year later after pressure from another paper and one dogged MP we find out that the UK based MSNBC paper had been lying and the former editor who was in charge at the time but quit as it was his resposibility had now become Communication Director for the New British Prime Minister. He is then forced to quit that job in 2010 as reports show he was lying. Then we find out this year that under the leadership of the former MSNBC Uk newspaper editor the phone of a 13 year old girl was hacked and the messages listened to. Not only hacked and listened to but then deleted to make room for more to advance the story giving false hope to her family that she was alive and misleading the police who were looking for her. Would you still say that it was a non-story?

Lets advance again.

What if we had reports on your favourite channel Faux "News" that the MSNBC owned UK paper had also hacked the phones of the relatives of two dead pre-teen girls and soldiers who had died fighting in Afganistan and Iraq, something so vile that MSNBC decide to shut down the paper after it's 168 year history but keep in employment the main editor in chief wqhen most of the most disgusting events took place, would you still say it was a non-story?

Lets advance again.

What if we find out that the UK goverment on all sides right and left are to table a motion denying MSNBC the chance to buy the remaining 61% of the UK satellite company they are the major shareholders in because they are not deamed "fit and proper persons" to own it leading to a massive fall in the share price. We also have a report that the UK based MSNBC newspaper may have hacked into the phones of relatives of the 9/11 attacks, something that would have a New York based lawmaker like Peter King demanding an investigation would you consider that a non-story?

We also have reports that the son of the owner, a US citizen, may have been in violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as well as facing RICO warrants. MSNBC could be facing millions in fines and the son of the owner facing some jail time.

Would you consider that a non-story?

Bollocks.

You and the dregs that make up the Faux "News" lineup would have this plastered all over the airwaves for at least 20 hours a day piling in as much as possible demanding retribution for the victims. Sean Hannity would be so deliriously happy that they would find him in his office dressed as Judy Jetson masturbating into a desk tidy.

It's a very big story and everyone knows it, even Murdoch who now has reluctantly agreed to turn up and face the Media Culture and Sport Commitee next tuesday.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason Murdoch is being investigated is because his staff members, um, broke the law? His employees were arrested in the UK. Republican members of Congress have called for investigations into whether or not they tried to hack into 9-11 victim private phone accounts.

But to you cultists who watch his tabloid channel and believe it to be the truth, this is all some witch hunt from the far left.

You are a case study in paranoid projection.

What does the NYT have to do with this scandal at all? Absolutely nothing.

But like a child, you bring that to the table as if it's some kind of equivalence.

Pathetic, but not surprising.

You are dumb as a sack full of hammers.

Thank God that Mr Murdock was hacking into the phones of a murdered teen and the victims of September the 11th 2001. If not for the Glorious Mr. Murdock, perhaps the liberal (read: honest) media would not have anything to report on. Mr. Murdock and Fox news are in dire need of a jail sentence.

After eight years of illicit conduct by the Clinton Crime Family - including but in no means limmited to - theft, bribery & treason; and then the stinketh-to-high-hell fundraising of Barry the Bolshevik from off-shore people like "cvcvcvc" from "loving you"; not to mention all the uncounted back-door deals the Dems have cut in Congress, now - NOW!! the left discovers "law & order".

What a hoot!

And here we have why there is no reasoning with the left! See the above responses. All they have is lies, distortion and ad hominem attacks.

And no, they are not going to learn anything from reading PP. They are not capable of learning, their ideaology is blinding them.

My only hope is that if they keep reading it their heads will explode!

Of course, I meant "ideology"