Seeking Alpha

As the future of Rupert Murdoch's dynasty is thrown into doubt, News Corp.'s (NWS) line of...

As the future of Rupert Murdoch's dynasty is thrown into doubt, News Corp.'s (NWS) line of defense in the U.S. begins to take shape: Blame the liberal media. "We trust that readers can see through the commercial and ideological motives of our competitor-critics," a WSJ editorial says. "The Schadenfreude is so thick you can't cut it with a chainsaw."
From other sites
Comments (76)
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    Blame the liberal media. Isn't that about half the user comments on Seeking Alpha? LOL

     

    I keed, I keed ;-)
    18 Jul 2011, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    More like 99%. They always blame the liberal media. But nice thing about liberal media, they do not blame anybody.
    18 Jul 2011, 07:05 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    Uhm.. Tiger... no, they have never ever blamed Fox. The Left has entire websites devoted to taking down Fox, like Media Matters.
    18 Jul 2011, 07:36 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    If they have, I would love it. Fox should be taken down. It is not a news channel. Fox has only radical views.
    18 Jul 2011, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    Even O'Reilly admitted his show was more about entertainment.

     

    "F IT WE'LL DO IT LIVE" haha
    18 Jul 2011, 09:04 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    That's simply because FOX lies its ass off.

     

    When I run into a person or business that is disreputable, as an ethical person, I tell people to KEEP AWAY.
    18 Jul 2011, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Tigerscam,

     

    You really miss the Hate Free, Objective reporting of Keith Ollberman, I can tell.
    18 Jul 2011, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    " Fox should be taken down.."

     

    So you admit that you do not agree with the First Amendment, and that the government should be able to control what people watch.

     

    That is the typiical liberal viewpoint.
    18 Jul 2011, 11:14 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    Monngie, then I am curious.. what DO you watch? Apparently none of the current sources would meet your standards. It cannot be MSNBC, as they have fired more anchors than all other networks combined for ethical issues...
    18 Jul 2011, 11:17 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    He said Bloomberg below
    18 Jul 2011, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    Windsun33:

     

    Republican radicals do not know anything about first amendment. But do not worry ACLU will help NWS to protect First Amendment. Where as all radicals who watch FOX views will be hiding with their tells you know where.
    19 Jul 2011, 10:02 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "That's simply because FOX lies its ass off."

     

    Just one example please.
    19 Jul 2011, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    Just for fun I typed "lies by Fox News" into Google to see what would happen. There appear to be many websites entirely dedicated to covering what they characterize as "lies", "spin", "half truths" and the like. I'm sure you can find at least legitimate example of an outright "lie" with that exercise.

     

    I'm just answering your question, please don't taze me, bro ;-)
    19 Jul 2011, 11:59 AM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "There appear to be many websites entirely dedicated to covering what they characterize as "lies", "spin", "half truths" and the like. I'm sure you can find at least legitimate example of an outright "lie" with that exercise."

     

    Calling someone a lier and backing it up with facts are two completely different things. I can find many sites by searching that state "The world ends at 6 p.m. on May 21, 2011". Well guess what, it did not happen. Just because its on the web does not make it true.

     

    Now that you are shattered, please remember tomorrow will be a better day.

     

    But back to the question, name one thing you think is a legitimate lie. Just one.
    19 Jul 2011, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    Here are 5 worthy candidates. Although I admit it's unfair to include anything from Glenn Beck, because he just might be insane. (to be clear, I have no doubt that a similar exercise could readily turn up several lies on MSNBC -- like I said, I'm just attempting to answer your question).

     

    With about 5 minutes of effort, here are the candidates. They vary from Fox celebrities directly making the false statements on their own show (2 from Hannity, 1 from Beck below) to Fox celebrities making the false statements on someone else's show with full support from the host (Palin on Hannity's show) to known right wing hacks making the false statements on a celebrity's show with full backing from the host (Perrino). Enjoy!

     

    foxnewslies.net/?p=564

     

    foxnewslies.net/?p=579

     

    foxnewslies.net/?p=598

     

    foxnewslies.net/?p=495

     

    foxnewslies.net/?p=495
    19 Jul 2011, 12:35 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    Ugly Jalopy 1980:

     

    Who is Keith Ollberman?
    19 Jul 2011, 12:56 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "With about 5 minutes of effort, here are the candidates."

     

    What a load. If that is what you call critical thinking then we are in more trouble than I thought. These are all he said/she said minor statements without any attempt to fact find. The original quotes/facts are missing and/or taken out of context. They are all attack the messenger statements rather than factually attacking any of the policy.

     

    That site has about as much creditability as a thief caught in the act and being asked if they stole the merchandise.
    19 Jul 2011, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    You asked for an example of a lie. I gave you 5. I don't recall any parameters around how "large" you want it to be. The original quotes are in the clips. But here's yet another one, a clear lie, first stated by Jon Kyl (whose own team had to kinda/sorta backtrack with the now infamous "it wasn't meant as a factual statement") and then repeated by Fox News celebrity Michael Huckabee, it its full context within the clip.

     

    foxnewslies.net/?p=531

     

    You may not like that this site picks on your favorite news source, but at least they present the alleged lie / mischaracterization / what have you, present the alleged truth and their source for the truth.

     

    Just so you know I'm not being biased, I did a quick google on the terms "Lies by MSNBC". That looks pretty "target rich" too ;-)
    19 Jul 2011, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    Oh my, how did I overlook this one?

     

    On the July 13th, 2011 edition of Fox News’ The Five, Eric Bolling [who is a Fox News host] pointed out that, “I don’t remember any terrorist attacks on American soil between 2000 and 2008".

     

    Um, Eric. 9/11/01. Or do you consider that a "minor statement"? That's a frickin' whopper, as far as lies go. Especially in the context of his trying to play politics against the Obama administration re: terrorism policies". It is especially egregious that he did this 2 years after Perrino made such an ass of herself with the same lie (on the Fox shoe linked above, BTW) and was widely (justifiably) ridiculed for it.
    19 Jul 2011, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    Hannity and Beck are not news shows, any more than the Mr Ed show on MSNBC is (who has his own large share of lies).
    19 Jul 2011, 04:00 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    Hi Windsun. I do understand the point you are making. However, the question was whether "Fox News" (or "MSNBC", if you want to throw them in there) engage in lies. As an organization, both do. If you want to separate out the formal "news recitation show" from "other shows", I suppose that's another way to dissect the conversation. With both these organizations, the two sides seem quite joined at the hip, so I think the distinction is artificial.

     

    Also, I'm quite confident that a little digging would find both organizations' "news recitation shows" engaging in lies too. They're just more subtle ("[some wildly biased group] reports that..."). But I'm kind of tired of the topic now, so not going to dig myself.
    19 Jul 2011, 04:12 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    "However, the question was whether "Fox News" (or "MSNBC", if you want to throw them in there) engage in lies."

     

    The relevant issue should be about them engaging in systematic lying for their own agenda versus the stupid mistakes that have been pointed out. All I see is people pointing out stupid mistakes and trying to draw an incorrect conclusion for political gain. I am sorry, but thats no better.

     

    Anyone with an open mind will find that Fox News (not all of the personalities, but the news) gives more attention to both sides than any other news cast. And that is actually the real problem with them. Yes, I don't watch them because they, like others in the genre, publish liberal left press releases as news rather than calling it BS like they should.
    19 Jul 2011, 06:14 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    Hi Neil, the reason I don't draw a distinction between the "news show" and the "talk shows" is that Fox News leadership, up and down the line, is in lockstep for their political strategy. And that includes a great deal of deliberate misinformation.

     

    I will grant you that Dana Perino saying there no terrorist attacks on US soil under W, and Sarah Palin's initial idiotic account of Paul Revere's ride might be better classified as "bloopers". Bolling's repeat of Perino's blooper is deliberate misinformation. Hannity trying to help Palin justify her totally erroneous history of Revere's ride -- for the purposes of misusing American history to evangelize her political views re: 2nd amendment -- is deliberate misinformation.

     

    And the clearest example of deliberate misinformation that I provided above is Huckabee's repeat of Kyl's lie about Planned Parenthood. It was exposed as a lie, widely and publicly, in between Kyl saying it and Huckabee saying it. And Fox News, as an organization, is invested in Huckabee evangelizing his politics, even if it requires lies such as that one. Fox News the organization fully supports that. Just as they do with all their "personalities". And yes, MSNBC follows the same playbook.
    19 Jul 2011, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    Actually as far as Dana Perino goes, that was obviously an error, not intended as a lie. Joe Bidne said something very similar back a couple of years ago, and Obama has had a few similar gaffes also.

     

    Errors and deliberate lies are two very different things. Just for one example - it is very common to hear that Clinton "balanced the budget", when in fact that is nowhere near true. He had a budget surplus for a couple of years, but the budget was not balanced.
    19 Jul 2011, 11:04 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    You make it much too easy.

     

    Go to Politifact and read!!!!

     

    Oh they aren't credible because they don't support you perverse view of the universe.

     

    Beck : "In the health care bill, we're now offering insurance for dogs." Ruling: Pants on Fire!

     

    This is a prime example of how seemingly innocuous language in health care reform bills kicking around Congress this year was distorted and presented as outrage. The kernel of truth in this ridiculous claim is that the House bill includes scholarship and loan assistance money for health care workers, including veterinarians, who work in public health practice. These are the people who deal with disease outbreak, things like mad cow disease, swine flu and other animal-borne diseases. In other words, not the local vet who gives your dog heartworm pills. And certainly not health insurance of any kind for dogs.
    20 Jul 2011, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • youngman442002
    , contributor
    Comments (5131) | Send Message
     
    I was listening to Bloomberg..and they are on a full court press....
    18 Jul 2011, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, Bloomberg has gone a bit overboard with this whole thing. I actually turned to CNBC today to get away from it and actually see some market news.

     

    As bad as Fox and CNN/HLN with the stupid Anthony stuff.
    18 Jul 2011, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    You know Bloomberg is said to be Republican. I'm a fiscally conservative, socially liberal democrat, and I find Bloomberg to be most reputable and accurate. If anyone had a chance to turn me into a Republican, it would be Bloomberg.

     

    Fox is so disreputable and pumps out so much crap, if I could purge every aspect of it from my life, I would. I don't turn it on. And if its on a TV in a public area, I turn the channel.
    18 Jul 2011, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Bloomberg can't go overboard with this. It's going to get much bigger. And it couldn't happen to a better guy and a more disreputable company.
    18 Jul 2011, 09:51 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    "You know Bloomberg is said to be Republican. I'm a fiscally conservative, socially liberal democrat, and I find Bloomberg to be most reputable and accurate. If anyone had a chance to turn me into a Republican, it would be Bloomberg."

     

    Ditto. Bloomberg has good stuff.
    18 Jul 2011, 10:11 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    No, it will not get much bigger, it replaces Casey Anthony, and that was just about as overblown as you can get.
    18 Jul 2011, 11:18 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    Monngie:

     

    I also prefer Bloomberg over CNBC even it is owned by Republican. FOX channel has only radical views.
    19 Jul 2011, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • Neil459
    , contributor
    Comments (2644) | Send Message
     
    I am sorry, but corruption is corruption. It has nothing, so far, to do with Fox or WSJ. But in the UK he deserves whatever he gets. The only problem in the US may be weak leadership that prefers to fold rather than fight.
    18 Jul 2011, 06:52 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    Why would they go after FOX it's almost run out of the RNC.
    18 Jul 2011, 09:53 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    There is probably some truth in the extended liberal attack scenario, but it is not like both sides have not been using that tactic for years.

     

    I don't really expect this to have much effect in the US, but it will probably destroy a lot of the British tabloids, including a lot that are not owned by Murdoch. They have all been guilty of doing that for quite some time. And it was surprisingly easy, apparently about 90% of the time all you had to do was spoof the phone number and hit *9 or something like that, because nobody ever changed their password from the default.
    18 Jul 2011, 07:41 PM Reply Like
  • Duude
    , contributor
    Comments (3395) | Send Message
     
    The WSJ does make some pretty good points. While phone hacking is deplorable, the very popular British tabloids have used legal checkbook journalism for years and years and if anything the greater fault lies with Scotland yard who failed to stop the phone hacking years before. As for the US, the liberal press have used checkbook journalism for years and years. To cry foul about anyone else paying for info is ludicrous. If any politician even suggested a law against it, journalists would scream as they'd lose one of their most frequently used tools. How will that play with Media Matters who not only pays for info but receives tax deductible contributions to pursue partisan attacks on Fox news?
    18 Jul 2011, 07:51 PM Reply Like
  • zhellc
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    This country may be better off without Fox News.
    18 Jul 2011, 08:30 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    Fox does have any news. Only radical views.
    18 Jul 2011, 08:32 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    may??????????
    18 Jul 2011, 09:55 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    And it would be better off without a lot of channels and people. So I suggest you adopt the Hugo Chavez Doctrine and stifle anyone that disagrees with you.
    18 Jul 2011, 11:21 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    OKAY.

     

    You guys are otta here:-)
    20 Jul 2011, 01:10 PM Reply Like
  • kata
    , contributor
    Comments (687) | Send Message
     
    Sorry to be cynical about this whole matter, but dont they ALL do it? Its just like any competitors to howl loud and long so nobody starts asking questions about them.
    18 Jul 2011, 09:26 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    In the UK, yes they all do - in fact there was an article on a British website about how they even had "pools" from different papers and papparazi monitoring different phones etc.
    18 Jul 2011, 11:22 PM Reply Like
  • Hendershott
    , contributor
    Comments (1609) | Send Message
     
    Well,Rupert has made a lot of enemies in the UK. That's his own fault. The hacking, payments and coverup give his enemies lots of firepower. The big question is did Fox engage in similar behavior? Rupert has a lot of enemies here as well. So does Roger Ailes. "The light of the law shines into the darkest corners",at least when someone wants it to.
    18 Jul 2011, 10:46 PM Reply Like
  • Tom B
    , contributor
    Comments (3624) | Send Message
     
    Fox has almost certainly done things that are beyond unethical all the way to illegal. Certainly, running defamatory videos about public figures that were later found to be completely fabricated, as they have on several occasions, is awfully close to that line. The genuinely criminal behavior of Murdoch in the UK allows the Democrats in the US an opportunity to investigate the news empire with very good cover from those who would regard such an exercise as partisan.
    18 Jul 2011, 11:08 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    How about an example - something a little more concrete than "almost certainly"?
    18 Jul 2011, 11:24 PM Reply Like
  • Tom B
    , contributor
    Comments (3624) | Send Message
     
    I expect we'll be seeing specifics soon.
    19 Jul 2011, 06:53 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    In other words, you don't know of any, so you are just hoping and speculating that there will be.
    19 Jul 2011, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    How about:

     

    Fox has almost certainly done things that are beyond KINDA unethical all the way to KINDA illegal.
    20 Jul 2011, 03:33 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    The news media has always been political and was extremely venomous 200 + years ago when Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton traded opposing viewpoints in various articles. I believe TJ wrote his under another name. But people were passionate about viewpoints and emotions ran high. Words stirred emotions to the point Hamilton and Burr squared off in a duel.

     

    What we have all been sold by the media in school is that they were objective so the reality frustrates the public. They have never been objective and it is the biggest lie from the media that they are objective. There are claims that Fox makes things up but a larger point is that most media makes up a false reality by only providing part of the news rather than all the news.

     

    The fact that they are mostly for profit leads to another issue which is that they need a consistent audience to help them pay for their payroll and profits. So they pay celebrity anchors tons of money to bring in an audience and/or take a slant on the news that brings an audience that agrees with those views. In addition journalists want to be celebrities, bask in the limelight of being associated with power and make lots of money off books so they do the things necessary to reach these goals.

     

    Politically news organizations have leaned left over the past decades and this has created an opening for anyone with conservative views to grab an audience which offends the media and politicians on the left. Fox walked through that door and has done very well which infuriates left wingers of all types. If news was reported more objectively this opportunity would have never existed at least to the extent it did.

     

    This is why I spend most of my time with Bloomberg (love Tom Keene), CNBC and the WSJ. Much more focus on numbers and analysis of every side of an arguement.
    19 Jul 2011, 05:19 AM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    Tomas - very true. In fact back in the early days duels were fought over newspaper articles (maybe we should bring that back...).

     

    I doubt that there has ever been a totally objective newspaper or media source, but the ones on the fringe seem more common now - I guess with the internet it is a lot easier.

     

    A couple of interesting tidbits I came across yesterday is that at one time Rupert Murdoch was a flaming liberal, and belonged to some communist organization. And Arianna Huffington was a flaming conservative capitalist before she saw an opening in starting a liberal blog.
    19 Jul 2011, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    I recall Huggington on TV years back and she came off as a real conservative. Then I blinked and she was a left winger.

     

    Our news media and our politicians are cut from the same cloth. Many of them will do a 180 degree flip if they believe it advantages them and makes them rich and powerful. It gave Huff a big payday didn't it? But that is how undedicated to the truth they are.

     

    I cannot think of one journalist or politician that I really admire.
    19 Jul 2011, 01:33 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    WSJ was fine until the News Corp buyout, and then you could tell where the bias was going
    19 Jul 2011, 01:56 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I can only attribute this to brain tumors or concussions.
    20 Jul 2011, 03:34 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    This story is already starting to lose it's legs in the US it seems as more people figure that this is more of a UK tabloid problem than anything else. Even Media Matters, which is about as anti-Fox as you can get, has failed to come up with any evidence at all that the Murdoch US enterprises were engaged in any of this.

     

    Google trends show it dropping from 2nd place to 6th place just in 24 hours. In fact as of 2300 EST it is not even in the top 20 anymore.
    www.google.com/trends
    19 Jul 2011, 11:11 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    Sounds about right. You don't see the same kinds of stories and behavior in their US properties as what they did in the UK. Looks to be limited to their UK tabloids.
    19 Jul 2011, 11:24 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    Maybe, but on the other hand, I believe in top down leadership influence, in the same way some believe in trickle-down economics. If the people at the top are setting a certain tone and a certain way of being, people below them will naturally follow.

     

    Some would say this is a systematic problem not isolated to UK tabloids, but a cultural problem within News Corp itself.
    19 Jul 2011, 11:27 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    Light, up to a point yes, but there is simply no way that someone at the top could know every little thing that goes on 8 levels below in any but the smallest company. Murdoch and his direct 2nd's probably should have watched a little closer, but in giant corps it is quite common for the left hand to not even know that there is a right hand.
    20 Jul 2011, 12:31 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    strikes me that if we hold the top guy responsible for all behavior and mistakes then our politicians should step up to the same standard and we should rewrite our history books. We would turn over our President likely every year and congress at the same rate.

     

    I am here in England and the press here is a bit obsessed about it especially on the left. Murdoch testified yesterday and the biggest news was that some guy tried to throw a pie in his face and Rupert's young Asian wife jumped to his defense and threw a roundhouse right at the guy. Now they are investigating the lack of security.

     

    It is concerning in that people had phones hacked but they have a lot of reporters employed trying to dig up news and crossing the line is probably pretty tempting. Does not appear that the Murdoch's knew anything about it.
    20 Jul 2011, 04:46 AM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    I just think that it's common sense Tomas. When Bush was in office he went out of his way to have his legal team draft documentation that basically gave a green light to torture.

     

    The actions at Abu Ghraib are a direct result of that.

     

    Now with Obama we have all these bailouts, (which was also started under Bush) and everyone expects someone else to step in and make things go their way when they don't. I believe in a helping hand when people are down, but some of this has gone too far.

     

    Whitney Tilson just published a letter from a hedge fund that is basically asking for Microsoft to go into debt to buy back shares. The hedge fund manager argued (whined) that he has held his Microsoft shares for so long and they haven't moved, so now he expects a version of QE from Microsoft to move his shares for him.

     

    He's a damn hedge fund manager, the trade hasn't gone his way so now he is advocating for a bailout to move them for him, instead of doing his job the old fashioned way.

     

    Leadership sets the tone and boundaries and I think you two are underestimating that tremendously, I thought you were both managers so might have understood that.
    20 Jul 2011, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Being a manager I know how didfficult it is to control every aspect of behavior and there is a line where you are not sure when you are encroaching on personal space and rights. People are responsible for their own behavior and should ask if they have questions.

     

    If you hold top managers responsible then by that measure Clinton should have resigned for screwing up the Somalia mission and not authorizing heavy armor which ended up with us having dead soldiers. No excuse for it as the military asked for the heavy armor. FDR got us bombed at Pearl Harbor because his chain of command was not on their toes.

     

    I can take every leader and walk down through a list of mistakes which somebody could stand up and claim they were harmed and then we can impeach all of them until we realize that there is no way to control every person in an organization.
    20 Jul 2011, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    I think where you have to make the differentiation is, is this a single mistake? Or is it a systematic pattern of mistakes that is set by poor decision making and lack of integrity? In Murdoch's case, I would say the latter.

     

    In FDR's case, the Pearl Harbor "sleeping on the job", was a massive blunder, however, his wartime leadership was absolutely brilliant.

     

    Not sure how it works at your organization, but we are judged by what our teams do and are directly responsible for it.
    20 Jul 2011, 12:55 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    FDR saved the world.
    20 Jul 2011, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    Obama saved US after big mess from previous regime.
    20 Jul 2011, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Winston Churchill saved the world long before FDR got off the couch. He was battling unbelievable odds and motivating his people to not quit. If he would have surrendered then you would be speaking German. And the common US military man really saved the world through great sacrifice which FDR never did see completely as he died before the end of the war.
    20 Jul 2011, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Obama has created a new mess. But he might pull a Clinton and mend his ways. We will see if Obama's opportunistic personality overcomes his philosophical views.
    20 Jul 2011, 02:28 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    TP:
    We do not care about Churchill. He is from UK. FDR saved the world.
    20 Jul 2011, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • tigersam
    , contributor
    Comments (1711) | Send Message
     
    TP:

     

    And what mess he created? Just name one.
    20 Jul 2011, 03:09 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    I am NOT going to devalue Winston, but, FDR was sending Winston a lot of stuff to wage his war, long before we entered the war.

     

    Absolutely correct about the common military man, that turned out to be not so common.
    20 Jul 2011, 03:39 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Tigger

     

    Let's close GITMO. No let's not close GITMO. Let's get out of Iraq and kick butt in Afghanistan. No let's stay in Iraq and downsize of Afghanistan. Let's stimulate the economy through a Obama/Pelosi poltical payoff bill and rack up our Federal debt faster than anyone in the history of the country. Extend UE thereby taking away one reason for many to go back to work. Let's talk like we are going to bring down Libya but back off and hide behind NATO. Failure to pass a budget. Failure to have any concrete plan to address unemployment. Goes after health care as # 1 priority and increases structural obligations of government going forward when real issue was UE.

     

    Good talker and throws people under the bus well but not a leader. And has one of the weakest cabinets ever by any President.
    20 Jul 2011, 04:25 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    I still like and support Obama overall. He has certainly made his share of mistakes. Not closing Gitmo after promising was disappointing. Starting another war in Libya was also questionable. Not standing up to the bankers and holding them accountable has been disappointing as well.

     

    But things could have gotten much worse financially. He killed Osama. We're finally getting out of Iraq. Hillary has done a straight A+ job under his watch. Though I'd like to see more done on the jobs front.
    20 Jul 2011, 05:25 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Job problems have been killing us for 3 years and there is still no visible plan. It is still the number 1 problem.

     

    Obama is likable but that is why he got to be President. Does not mean he is any good at it. He only promised to close Gitmo because it got him votes or he did not know what he was really talking about. Either choice is not a good reflection on him.

     

    Hillary is a high light and OBL is another highlight. Other than that it has been painful.
    20 Jul 2011, 06:07 PM Reply Like
  • Windsun33
    , contributor
    Comments (4280) | Send Message
     
    Despite the common story, Obama did not kill Osama - a bunch of SEALS did. He had little or nothing to do with it aside from authorizing the final attack.

     

    But that is a side issue. I fault him most for getting his priorities all wrong and fixing something that was only partly broken while letting something that was a disaster hide under the table.
    20 Jul 2011, 09:19 PM Reply Like
  • Derek A. Barrett
    , contributor
    Comments (3534) | Send Message
     
    Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the last guy in charge had 8 years to do it and failed. Like I said leadership starts from the top and I believe he had much more to do with it than you want to give credit for.

     

    As a leader you can enable your people, set them up for success, or put them in a position to fail. In business, a golden rule is to always get senior management to support your efforts or project, or it is doomed to fail from the start.
    20 Jul 2011, 09:24 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Light

     

    Another way to look at it is that he ran on the promise of doing better and fixing all these problems just like every other potential president runs. The last guy was a moron campaign and we fall for it every time. And Obama also threw in the amorphous "change" promise as well.

     

    3 years in he definitely owns it. Nobody gets to waltz through a whole term and say "this is hard" like Will Farrell on SNL imitating Bush.
    21 Jul 2011, 06:55 PM Reply Like
  • Monngie
    , contributor
    Comments (928) | Send Message
     
    GITMO
    No mess there. Who gives a S#!+?

     

    Let's get out of Iraq and kick butt in Afghanistan. No let's stay in Iraq and downsize of Afghanistan.

     

    No mess there. What do you want CUT AND RUN? Then your not a Republican.

     

    Let's stimulate the economy through a Obama/Pelosi poltical payoff bill and rack up our Federal debt faster than anyone in the history of the country.

     

    He had to rack up debt to stop the fall after Bush ran us off the cliff.

     

    Extend UE thereby taking away one reason for many to go back to work.

     

    And where were they going back to work??

     

    Let's talk like we are going to bring down Libya but back off and hide behind NATO.

     

    I guess we should have waded into Libya so the Republicans could start impeachment hearings for President Obama. Give me a freakin' break.

     

    Failure to pass a budget. Failure to have any concrete plan to address unemployment. Goes after health care as # 1 priority and increases structural obligations of government going forward when real issue was UE.

     

    Some validity here. He should have focused on UE and the economy. The Republicans are no better. They should be focusing on UE now and they're working feverishly on a non-existent debt crisis.
    26 Jul 2011, 02:17 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs