But it was a joke in a programme made over twenty years ago and who's to say either Fry or Laurie wrote it. People change, plus, given the right amount of pay, many people will go against what they supposedly believe in.
Funny tempest in a teapot (or short skirt) - Daily Mail criticism
- Thread starter 23skidoo
- Start date
But it was a joke in a programme made over twenty years ago and who's to say either Fry or Laurie wrote it. People change, plus, given the right amount of pay, many people will go against what they supposedly believe in.
which I believe is the point I made.
You actually had a point?
just that the sketch seems a bit hollow considering both of them have now worked for Murdoch.
People are hypocrites, this isn't news. Besides that, it is meant to be comedy.
The sketch is right on the money though - Murdoch and his ilk are scum and the world would be a better place without them.
So Laurie and to some extent Fry have recieved money from companies owned by Murdoch since. Big deal.
Shows like Family Guy or The Simpsonsregularly hang shit on Fox's subsiduraries, yet gladly receive their paycheque. It's just business.
Business is business. Murdoch is scum. Nuff said. Move on.
So Laurie and to some extent Fry have recieved money from companies owned by Murdoch since. Big deal.
Shows like Family Guy or The Simpsonsregularly hang shit on Fox's subsiduraries, yet gladly receive their paycheque. It's just business.
Business is business. Murdoch is scum. Nuff said. Move on.
So bloody what, seriously, that's your issue with the man? He has some money! Is that it? Not that he swung an election in favour of the Tories in 1992 or any number of things, no, the great Wamdue just does not like him because he has some money!!!!!
and how did he throw this election, with pixie dust?
I dont care one jot for his views, what I do care about is how he is able to use money, and his media empire to promote people who share his views.
His views would be nothing without the media empire, the media empire that Hugh Laurie is now part of, despite in the past stating that he does not like Murdochs media power & his politics.
Murdochs is a prime example of money talks, without money Murdoch would be nothing.
House makes money for Murdoch, so we can conclude that Hugh Lauire is in a small way is help Murdoch build his power base,
So excuse me if I say I think the sketch posted feels hollow now.
:|
So, um... check out this great song about the Daily Mail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
And... what was the topic of this thread? Oh yeah, short skirts. I say, if you got it, flaunt it. Karen's definitely got the bod, and it ain't like aren't any girls out there wearing the exact same fashions she's wearing as Amy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
And... what was the topic of this thread? Oh yeah, short skirts. I say, if you got it, flaunt it. Karen's definitely got the bod, and it ain't like aren't any girls out there wearing the exact same fashions she's wearing as Amy.
Right, because the man can't be a part of the creation of a good and valid work of art if a bad person in any way profits from it.
Rupert Murdoch is an awful man, and I'll be the first to agree that his media empire -- with its ability to sway elections in several different countries -- is far too large. I would in fact argue that such media empires are inherently threats to the basic idea of democracy because of the sheer aount of power they give to their heads.
But I'll also be the first to say that a man has a right to make legitimate money from the creation of works of art, and that House, M.D. is a quality program. And I don't think that making House for NewsCorp -- amongst other corporations; bear in mind that it's Universal that retains ownership of House, and it only airs on the Fox Network -- renders hypocritical the belief that Murdoch has too much power. The idea is that Murdoch is too powerful, not that he shouldn't be allowed to have any money whatsoever.
I am not saying he cant have money, its how he uses the money & the power from his media empire that is wrong, and yes House MD is a good show no question, but you cant deny that some profits from it (its true that it would be alot more if it produced by a FOX rather than Universal) go towards the Murdoch empire.
I just think the anti Murdoch sketch is comprised by the fact that both actors involved have since worked for Murdoch in some form, generating profit for him, and helping build (or at the very least sustain) his media empire.
It would be like me having a show on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire, and one day saying that I think commercial radio is poor, and people are best served by BBC radio, but then the next week, switching to Heart after they have given me a rather large pay cheque, how can I expect my listeners to take what I say seriously?
I just think the anti Murdoch sketch is comprised by the fact that both actors involved have since worked for Murdoch in some form, generating profit for him, and helping build (or at the very least sustain) his media empire.
It would be like me having a show on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire, and one day saying that I think commercial radio is poor, and people are best served by BBC radio, but then the next week, switching to Heart after they have given me a rather large pay cheque, how can I expect my listeners to take what I say seriously?
It'd be pretty fucking hard to be in the business they're in and not have dealings with NewsCorp. at some point, especially if they want to make anything in America. I mean FOX, FX, 20th Century Fax, Seachlight, and various other studios and arms of Fox do all sorts of things, from small indie films to cable shows to massive blockbusters.
Besides your example is silly, they weren't saying commercial media was poor and BBC was the best. They were saying Murdoch in general does lowest common denominator shit and is all about making money with no regard for the consequences... and come on it's not like it's the next week it's something like 15 frigging years ago. Doesn't change the message, all it does is mean they took jobs and I won't hold it against them.
Pretty much, if you can call The Sun, which was at the time the most popular newspaper, pixie dust then yes, pixie dust was used. I'm sure someone else can explain better than me as I was only eight at the time and I've had this related to me after the fact in a politics lectures on how the forth estate see which way the wind is blowing and take their side. After thirteen years of Tory rule, eleven under Thatcher and then two under Major, it really did look like Labour was going to win, but leading up to election day they ran with several headlines including this one of the day itself:
And then two days later, they ran with this headline, claiming that it was the Sun who won the election for the Conservative Party:
And after backing Labour in 1997, 2001 and 2005, The Sun, Times and the rest of Murdochs media juggernaut is backing David Cameron and The Conservative Party again.
I think what Wamdue means is even if we found Murdoch's political views questionable we wouldn't care if he didn't have any power to influence people, and since he's bought the power he has it's the money we should hate him for, not the political views that we would otherwise overlook.
well thank god, someone is finally starting to cotton on to my way of thinking.
I dont know if you agree with my thinking or not Bob the Skutter but you at least seem to follow the logic im using.
Honestly I had pretty much given up on this thread.