Talk:News Corporation/Archive 1

Please go to

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In the Republic of Ireland, News Corp owns The Irish Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_%28newspaper%29#Related_newspapers) and The Irish edition of The Sunday Times (UK) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Times_%28UK%29#Irish_Edition). I didn't put this information on the article. Bokononist 10:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I added The Irish Sun to the list of UK newspapers, and renamed it 'UK and Ireland newspapers'. In future, when you see information missing from an article, feel free to

be bold and add it yourself! Terraxos

14:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference here is business. Entertainment programming is all about ratings (i.e., advertising dollars); FOX is not above pandering. But the "news channel" is a right wing propaganda machine, not an objective news outlet. Everyone knows that. It's obvious. Have you ever watched it? Even if you agree with the politics, it's completely politicized, completely partisan. Which, for a so-called, supposed "news organization" means it's corrupt. (It would be corrupt if it were leftist, because it's supposed to be a journalistic operation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.52 (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why there are two ticker symbols for news corp? NWS and NWS.A is one preferred and one common?

nws.a are non-voting shares although there has been a little talk of merging the 2. Perry mason 19:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"[nws] is the world's third largest media conglomerate company, the first two being Time Warner and Disney."

i think this is inaccurate but dont want to change it as i could be wrong. based on market cap, newscorp is the largest but it may be measured in other ways and thats why they are classed as third here.

anyway here is some proof that they are the largest: [1] [2] [3]

if it is measured by market cap, the intro bit on the main nws page will need to be changed.

Perry mason (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

 I have changed the text on the article to reflect that News Corp is the largest media conglomerate. Market Cap is the industry
 way to measure companies so I believe this should be the way we measure this. Feel free to discuss further if you think it should
 be changed back.

Kyle Sut 22 December 2007

I have noticed that the supposed revenue of News Corp. is listed as $67.8bn in the infobox, when this is actually the market cap [4] - someone has got confused along the line, and also did not read the actual article where the revenue is listed in the intro. Time Warner seems to be the same! Please be cautious and mindful about these sorts of things people - they are vastly different values with different meanings. Orbitalwow (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

MySpace records is listed as an asset of the news corporation but also as an asset of Interscope and therfore Universal music, and thus Vivendi SA. Obviously there is a conflict unless they each own shares. does anybody know whats going on here?--Matt D (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind... I figured it out.--Matt D (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay so this article says that movielink's ownership is split 5 ways between Fox, Viacom, Sony, MGM, and Disney. But I can't find a single other site that says that Fox or Disney have now or ever had ownership of any part of it. All the other sources including the wikipedia article on Movielink say it is split between MGM, Paramount, Sony, Universal, and Warner Bros. Of course all of this is completely meaningless because blockbuster bought movielink. So I'll just go ahead and remove mention of this. --Matt D (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm nearly 100% positive News Corp does not own Disney. I cannot find a connection between the two companies elsewhere. Can anyone confirm this is indeed false and remove the item? I am not in a position of comprehensive knowledge on the subject so will not do so myself.

No they have no relation at all. The only area where they have any significant dealings together are under the 'ESPN STAR Sports' cable channels throughout Asia which is a 50/50 joint venture.

The above is quite correct. Sorry, dunno how to start new bit - this not related to Disney - but STAR is getting out of JV with KG (CNS CATV operation in Taiwan). Not sure if completed yet. Vr2bg 04:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)vr2bg

and diney is owned by steve jobs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.78.102 (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but News Corp is apart of Disney. In my country News Corp is responsible for printing over 500 pages a month of junk mail to every Australian mail box with logos from Apple to Disney. News Corp is resposible for lobbiests that then aquire laws from fake recycling without audits to actual tax payer funding which is stolden from Australian Department service provision, under the terms of every department needs a booklet - even the Australian PM pays bribes with the publication of booklets marking his 100 days in office. Less than 1% of context provided in publications by News Ltd is the interest of the public. The mafia group influences debaits by removing public comments in place of commercial propaganda that only benfits major share holders from News Corp to Apple, and even Sony while the actual body of share holders are taken for a ride.

Businesses which do not have the Murdocks, Packers, Gates, or Jobs as share holders are targeted for non-positive stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.191.86 (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Kylejsut deleted my photo and replaced it with an inferior photo shot from a terrible angle on an overcast day which was immediately deleted because Kylejsut did not submit proper provenance information to ensure compliance with copyright law. I am putting my far superior photo, shot on a sunny day from a distance with proper color balancing (which I have properly licensed under the GFDL) back in the article. If this keeps happening, the article may need to be semi-protected.--Coolcaesar (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say far superior photo mate. I will take the proper compliance with the copyright law that you say I didn't do with the "inferior photo". Yours isn't great mate, it's just showing the tower - not the entrance. Why would the article need to be semi-protected? Just because someone doesn't like your photo? Grow up. --Kylejsut (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that something should be added about the issues and some of the controversies surrounding News Corp. For example, the media laws in Australia and claims of bias and sensationalised news. Possibly also mention the film "Out Foxed: Rupert Murdoch's War On Journalism" (and even "Farenheight 9/11") as they discuss these issues.

Outfoxed and Fahrenheit911 both have had innaccurate information using clips to mislead watchers. For example, Carl Cameron in Outfoxed was portrayed as someone advocating Bush policies on air when in reality he was quoting a Republican politician and said so in the unedited segment. Fahrenheit911 has been discredited by the documentaries Celsius911 and FahrenHYPE911.

Bull.

Are you serious? F911 has not been "discredited" by those lame, low-budget, right-wing reactionary straight-to-video productions. ANN COULTER is one of the "experts" in FHYPE for God's Sake!

I agree that the statement that Fox News in particular "is widely derided as a right-wing propaganda machine, and not a proper news outlet at all, for it's heavily slanted, Republican bias" is factual, if controversial. Fox News is widely derided. I have added that sentence twice, but it has twice been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.51 (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know... most News Corp controlled media is right wing leaning and as such may be considered impartial.

Removal of controversies

Hello! I spent time looking over the history of revisions to the News Corporation page and noticed that the section titled "Controversies" has been removed, including all mention of allegations of News Corps' conservative bias. I'm wondering if this removal was intentionally made, and if not, would it be approrpriate to include a nuetral/non-partisan reference to the bias allegations launched against the corporation? thanks! --Djrun (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

could you add a link to whatever revision shows it removed please as i would be interested in seeing what it contains. In my opinion, I dont think there is a need for a News Corp. controversies section. News Corp. itself seems pretty free from controversy, some of the companies assets come under fire e.g. some people allege there is a bias of FNC, NGN and the whole 'Fortress Wapping' debate but these issues have their own pages. a few 'controversies' about Rupert Murdoch are on his page so i dont know what can be included here. you claim that News Corp has a political bias but i think that would be very hard to justify fairly - around the world, they have many different types of assets with many differing opinions and content. Perry mason (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings again! I've gone back and found the revision that removed the controversy section from the News Corp page. Here is the link: "Revision as of 01:55, 22 October 2007" After going back and thinking it over it does appear that the "Controversies/Criticisms" of News Corp can also fit in other pages (ie: FNC or R. Murdoch). However I think one should also consider the criticism of media consolidation as a legitimate section to be included in the News Corporation page since it is a national issue that has widely appeared in the press. I'd be interested to hear what you and others have to say. Thanks! --Djrun (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why the article states 'News Corporation was created in 1980 by Rupert Murdoch...' but then goes on to say that 'News Corp made its first acquisition in the United States in 1973...'. How can they make an acquisition if they haven't been created yet?

They used to be a news paper company back then that got their first assets the artical is badly worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epg (talk • contribs)

The company actually started back in 1952 (see

The company was known as News Limited, until it was changed to the 'News Corporation Limited' (reflecting that it was Austrialan based as all Aus public company's end with Limited or Ltd). This was when Rupert started acquiring more bigger assets overseas . This was until it was legally rebased to the US in '04 when it changed to the News Corporation. Kylejsut —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

The History section begins with:

   News Corp was founded in 1980 ...

But the first sentence of "Moving to the United States" (two paragraphs later) says

   News Corp made its first acquisition
   in the United States in 1973 ...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.103.199 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC) 

After:

• (cur) (prev) 21:05, 9 June 2009 Perry mason (talk | contribs) m (36,415 bytes) (revert - who calls it that?) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 18:45, 9 June 2009 Caceo (talk | contribs) (36,465 bytes) (also called Murdoch group) (undo)
• Request: to User:Perry mason: Do not undo my work without motivation ! - This is my Motivation

Why also called "Murdoch group"

"News Corporation" is internationally also called Murdoch Group. Refer to news search for "Murdoch group" - also italian "Gruppo Murdoch", spanish "Grupo Murdoch" and french "group Murdoch"

Why Publicly-traded company

I have made another change canceled by User:Perry mason Undo. Please keep correction I have made: News Corporation as "publicly-traded company" instead of "Public company". --Caceo (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

reply to Caceo - if you wish to make a claim like that, please source it. i have never seen News Corp. called "Murdoch group" in any print article, book, on tv, well anywhere at all actually. a google search for it in different languages also brought up nothing relating to News Corp. Internationally (in both media coverage and official financial paperwork) it is called News Corp. (or if referring to its subsidiaries in their local areas - News International (UK) or News Limited (Aus)). also the 'publicly-traded company'/'public company' wiki link went to the same page, i have cleaned up the wiki link if it bothered you.

Wikipedia:Tutorial out? Perry mason (talk

) 00:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Pleasy try to not change questions. If you want to make comments to

Wikipedia:Tutorial . --Caceo (talk

) 05:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Second request. Above I have put a first request with 2 questions.

• The seconde one (Why Publicly-traded company instead of Public company) is solved because my change has not beeen undo.
• The first one is unsolved because my change has beeen undo.

Why also called "Murdoch group" (first question) again

... MOTIVATION IN ORDER THAT User:Perry mason COULD BE CONVINCED:

• It's known that among 600 million neo-latin (romance languages) speakers the majority of them do not know english language, so an english company name such "News Company" has been unintelligible, unpronounceable and difficult to remember for many latins. This is why spanish and italian mass media adress the public using the translated term of "Murdock group": they needed a generally understood and easy to remember term, this has been the translation: Murdock group = gruppo Murdoch = grupo Murdoch. PROOFS: One proof is it:Letizia_Moratti#Gruppo_Murdoch. Another proof are results examples of this google search with "it" and "es" language tags:
• IT: http://www.google.com/search?&lr=lang_it&q=Gruppo+Murdoch - results:
  • Berlusconi: Gruppo Murdoch è concorrente di Mediaset
  • Letizia Moratti presiederà una società del gruppo Murdock
• ES: http://www.google.com/search?&lr=lang_es&q=Grupo+Murdoch - results:
  • Aznar ficha a sueldo del grupo Murdoch: Por un puñado de dólares
  • El grupo de Murdoch intenta hacerse con Dow Jones
• What doubts now User:Perry mason have ? do you still doubt that latin speakers refer "Murdock group" to "News Corporation" ? In that case what you imagine they are referring to ? --Caceo (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

reply to Caceo - ah ok i see what you are getting at now. for what you are discussing, you have the News Corp. page in Spanish[5] and Italian[6] where you can make your edits. this page is the English version and in the English speaking world, News Corp. is obviously written (and spoken) as News Corp. hope this clears it up for you. Perry mason (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I will made a mediation editing because WP is an internationale encyclopedy. --Caceo (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Caceo, the page you are on right now is for the English Wikipedia. The "Murdoch Group" name should be placed on the News Corporation page on the Italian- & European-based websites for Wikipedia, not here, so I will make a mediation editing b/c, again, this is the English Wikipedia. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia in its written form, but it isn't specifically anglocentric in content or for use only by people interested in the english perspective. If the company actually has a different name in other places (rather than just a translation of the words into native language) that's on-topic encyclopediac content. Is "Murdock group" really its name or formal corporate identity, or just a plain-language description? DMacks (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting to know if this is a consensus question or a technical question (how make decision) --Caceo (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have a suggestion for a solution. How about this:we put the issue up for a vote. The 2 choices to vote on are siding with Caceo or siding with Perry Mason & myself. If Caceo's side wins, then his "informal" information gets placed back in the article. If Perry & my side wins, then Caceo's information stays out of the article. So, how about it? 24.12.89.226 (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please tell us 'Is "Murdock group" really its name or formal corporate identity, or just a plain-language description?'. DMacks (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well apparently, "Murdock group" is how the Spanish & Italian media refers to News Corporation. So, apparently, "Murdock group" is just a Spanish & Italian reference name for News Corp. It how their media references News Corporation. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I oppose inclusion. There are other groups that are actually called "Murdock Group" (though none have en.WP articles at this time), but if this is just a generic appelation, I don't think it adds encyclopediac/factual value here. Lots of groups have media-created nicknames, I haven't seen any precedent for including them in general. On the contrary, "Murdock group" isn't what News Corp is called, it's a translation of what they call it, so at best you might have a case for "Latin media usually refer to this company as whatever", but there's no evidence presented here that "Murdock group" (english phrase) is used at all. As a descriptive phrase, "[business person]'s [collective term]" seems both non-notable and self-evident/easy-to-decipher. DMacks (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, as it now stands, there is 1 vote (Caceo) for putting Caceo's informal info back into the article and 3 votes (Perry Mason, myself, & DMacks) for leaving Caceo's informal information out. How long should we have this "poll" go for before a final decision is made? 24.12.89.226 (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What the intelligible object of this "poll" ? --Caceo (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC).

I resume object because the second object of disputed editing has not bees separated by the first one: - First one: News Corporation is internationally also called "Murdoch Group"): this was my error, I apologize. - Second one: News Corporation is also called "Murdoch group" in

neolatin languages: this a different question to resume below. Please update argumentation below. I close here discussion with User:Perry mason --Caceo (talk

) 23:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a resume of discussion above titled Talk:News_Corporation#Caceo_request_to_User:Perry_mason_-_second.

• QUESTION: shall be allowed this editing: News Corporation... also called "Murdoch group" in
  neolatin languages
  ....
• --Caceo (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I invite users User:Perry mason and DMacks to resume discussiuon here. --Caceo (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments in favor

• This editing shall be allowed, considering this syllogism of WP rules:

1. WP is an international encyclopedia.
2. The object of editing is an element of knowledge.
3. the element is true: italian and spanish mass media and speakers generally refer to "News Corporation" calling it Gruppo Murdoch (it google query) and Grupo Murdoch (es google query).

• result: allowed (via syllogism). Tanks. --Caceo (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

defence of arguments in favor

• REJECTION OF NATIONALISTIC CONCEPT OF ENGLISH WP:
  I reject arguments of IP Special:Contributions/24.12.89.226 because this is a wrong nationalistic attack against the internationality rule of WP. It advance the inconsistent idea that language wikipedias means national wikipedias and that national wikipedias are allowed to make some discrimination of web contents based on nationality of readers (allow elements only originated and regarding directly national readers). Everyone can observe that spanish, italian and French wikipedias, for example, are full of elements of knowledge having origin in english-speaking population. The rule of internationality is significant, reciprocal and unavoidable. --Caceo (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments in disfavor

1. We aren't talking about Wikipedia as a whole here. We're talking about the English-language version of WP, so the international factor doesn't apply, voiding your 1st point.
2. However, I do agree that the object of editing is an element of knowledge. But, that argument can be used for both sides with ANY issue, so that voids your 2nd point.
3. This is the ENGLISH Wikipedia, not the Italian or Spanish Wikipedia. Only English references to companies go here. The reference to Murdock Group/Gruppo Murdock isn't an English reference, but an Italian & Spanish reference. Italian & Spanish references would be placed on the News Corp articles for the Italian & Spanish versions of Wikipedia. Plus, Murdock Group/Gruppo Murdock isn't the legal name for the company. So, all that voids your argument for the English-language WP. Plain & simple:your information is NOT needed or required, nor would it belong here in the first place.

• So, the final result:not allowed. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

defence of arguments in disfavor

• Caceo, you wouldn't dare put English language-based information into an article on the Spanish or Italian WP projects, so why would you do the opposite & place Italian or Spanish language-based inforation on the English WP project? To put it this way, I'm NOT attacking ANY country or nation, so I don't know where you're getting that idea from. The way it seems is that you're trying to put words in my mouth and I don't appreciate it. Again, WE AREN'T TALKING ABOUT WIKIPEDIA AS A WHOLE! Can't you get that through your thick skull? WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WIKIPEDIA! We are talking about en.wikipedia.org, not es.wikipedia.org or it.wikipedia.org. We are talking about adding information to the ENGLISH language-based Wikipedia. Apparently, you're the only one not seeing this correctly or clearly. Again, restating a concept that I've stated before, you wouldn't dare put English language-based information into an article on the Spanish or Italian language-based WP, so why would you do the exact opposite & place Italian or Spanish language-based inforation on the English language-based WP?

• So, could someone from the WP administration please start a poll asking whose side is right? Either that, or you're gonna have to ban caceo to prevent him from placing information on the English language-based WP that simply put, DOESN'T BELONG HERE! 24.12.89.226 (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Anyone can either start an informal straw poll or open a more formal
    WP:CONSENSUS of other editors. DMacks (talk
    ) 05:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • just adding my agreement on the reasons why it shouldnt be included. i agree with everything that 24.12.89.226 has said - the content just doesnt belong on this page Perry mason (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, as it stands right now, the apparent clear consensus of the majority is that Caceo's information should not be included. So, it's up to him how this will proceed. In other words:Caceo, the ball's in your court. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I strongly concur with the cogent arguments posed against inclusion of this irrelevant information and oppose Caceo's position. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
          • UPDATE:Well, it now stands 4:1 for exclusion. However, gotta wait to see how the RfC ends up. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for dispute resolution

I appreciate links of DMacks. I go to

disputed editing: "... News Corporation... also called Murdoch group in neolatin languages .... ". In my opinion the object is serious: "internationality rule of Wikipedia" here at risk. Caceo (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the RfC expired with no comments. So, therefore, Caceo's information will remain withheld from the article. 67.173.117.222 (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

News Corp and other enormous media conglomerates are often criticized for the sheer volume of media outlets they control and whether this is in the public's best interest or not. It should also be noted that many have criticized News Corp and others like it for seeming to care more about ratings and profits than the actual content of what is reported. A simple Google search will turn up a number of sources on this.

It is already on this page in the 2010 election section. Arzel (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is up with the top of the article? Why doesn't the text just run to the side of the infobox and image instead of down below it. Does anybody know how to fix this, or should I find someone that does?
See the title of this section, it makes no sense, kind of like the top of this article.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Im confused lol, it looks normal to me. Did it get fixed? BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

??????!!!!????? Looks normal? Certainly we are not looking at the same thing. Maybe it's my computer, I will try looking at this page on another but right now it looks far from normal to me.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe i am looking in the wrong place lol. I see text to the side of the infobox, and the picture underneath it. And text straight after the contents. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you are looking in the right place. I however see the text appearing after the info box and picture, not to the side of them as in every other article. I went into the source for the page but found no difference between this page and others. I am using a Mac OSX and a Firefox browser, but I have no idea why I am seeing it this way. It seems though that others are not, so I don't think it's a problem we need to worry about.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

the website only has one main contact location that's in the USA, the Australian head office is in a list that includes other head office I think the UK is there too. In Forbes recent list News Corp is only considered American. There are other companies like Rio Tinto that are called both Australian and British but News Corp. doesn't have that.Grmike (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)grmike

News Corp like many big aussie comapanies has a world headquarters in more than one country typically UK, but the one in Sydney is one of its two world headquarters the other in NY (For legal reasons i think) but the NY one is its main one and should be on the top or mentioned before the Sydney one, the website thing might have just been your IP or something (tuned for american readers)and News Corp is listed as an aussie company as well as american —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gargabook (talk • contribs) 01:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're definitely wrong on this one. If you look at page 115 of the News Corp. 2009 annual report, the corporation has one head office at the 1211 Ave. of the Americas address. Then it has two "registered office" addresses, one in Wilmington, Delaware, and the other in Surry Hills, NSW. But under Australian law, a "registered office" is merely the location registered with the Australian government. In other words, it's a location for service of process, NOT where the head office is.--Coolcaesar (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fox News, a huge part of News Corp., is by far the most controversial 'news' organization in the United States. Their disregard for industry standards regarding factual accuracy is well documented, as well as their efforts to allude to falsities. This entry, like many on Wikipedia, has been hi-jacked by the American political right wing, and the editors are centrists, too frightened of being labeled leftist to stand up for objectivity. The science articles put the rest of Wikipedia to shame. The 'controversies' section needs to be reinstated, sans conspiracy theories and personal attacks on Murdoch.

I agree, it is quite strange that this page among so many other does not have a controversy section at the bottom. Can someone explain why this is? If no one can very soon than the controversy section will be reinstated. 68.126.28.189 (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

New Topic of "Allegations" Needs To Be Addressed

New topic regarding major events in the company as allegations of hacking of the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, as well as past Prime Minister Tony Blair; following the shut down of NewsCorps Sunday News Paper "The News of the World," a 168 year old paper. The Sun and Sunday Times of London have just been shut down for “repeatedly targeted the former prime minister Gordon Brown, attempting to access his voice mail and obtaining information from his bank account, his legal file as well as his family’s medical records. There is also evidence that a private investigator used a serving police officer to trawl the police national computer for information about him.” Allegations that the Queen of England in the past has had issues with informants paid off by the paper for private information on the royals have resurfaced.

Impact is reaching SkyNews acquisition now in doubt and the stock has fallen 7% on July 11th. The US is launching investigations into possible violation of bribery laws.

Developing News Links: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/11/uk.phone.hacking.scandal/

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/three-murdoch-papers-reportedly-targeted-gordon-brown/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-12/news-corp-s-lost-7-billion-shows-investor-concern-over-hacking-fallout.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.152.58 (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is a sham. There are widespread allegations of conservative bias and there is barely a mention of them. The "political donations" section is buried under irrelevant "Holdings" section...RobertHannah89 (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If they have enough money to spend tens of millions on elections every year, you bet they'd have the money to pay for the services of one of those "Wikipedia PR" companies.

talk

) 13:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The photo shown to the right has just been removed from the phone hacking section by User:Batjik Syutfu. I am puzzled as to why, as it is a perfectly reasonable illustration of a key aspect of the allegations, and similar photos have been used in third party coverage e.g. [7]. I strongly feel that this image should not be censored from this article. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what does that image have to do with the scandal? It appears to be little more than sensationalism, furthermore this article is about News Corp not NoW. Arzel (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much what Arzel said here. I can see the connection, but it seemed really far-fetched to me: 9/11 -> 9/11 victims -> some 9/11 victims phone being hacked -> News of the World alleged to be responsible -> News of the World a part of News International -> News International a part of News Corp.

The fact that it is used in the news does not mean it ought to be in an encyclopaedic article. This isn't even the main article for the allegations. I've seen a bunch of photos about the Murdoch family and Fox News and so on, but all of those would be inappropriate as the main photo of a section in this article.

talk

) 13:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The allegations concerning the hacking of victims of the September 11 attacks have already led to the FBI launching a major investigation. The results of that investigation will have a potentially dramatic effect on the future of the whole of News Corporation (News International is wholly owned by News Corporation - the fact that it is a small part in terms of revenue is irrelevant, its activities have had and are having a dramatic impact on the holding company). An image illustrating the September 11 attacks is perfectly reasonable. Have you got any other ideas for another image for this section?Rangoon11 (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The question is, what value does the 9/11 photo add to the section? I'm sure most readers are already familiar with the attacks, and if they aren't, they'd be more interested in reading the article on them, which are linked. I don't think any particular reader would come to the section without knowing about the 9/11 attacks, see the photo and the captions, and think: "Oh, so that's what the News Corp scandal is about!" It just doesn't fit.

Most sections on Wikipedia do not have individual photos. Photos are necessary only if they serve to illustrate the topic at hand by providing extra knowledge. So I'm not sure if any image is needed for this section. But the few currently at

talk

) 14:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not relevant whether or not readers are familiar with the attacks, illustrations for articles are not chosen on that basis. The photo illustates the attacks, which are pivotal to the FBI inquiry, which is pivotal to the future of the subject of this article. The FBI inquiry is actually of far more potential impact to the future of News Corporation than the scandals in the UK. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a photo of a huge explosion. That does not illustrate anything about the specifics of this case. It illustrates something that led to this case, but the details of which are completely irrelevant to what goes on here. Does the size of the explosion tell us anything about News Corp's potential demise? No. Sensationalism, pure and simple.

talk

) 14:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It demonstates the scale of the events of September 11 - although only in part, in fact they were far larger than this photo alone suggests - which does help to give readers an impression as to why this FBI inquiry could lead to catastophic results for the whole of News Corporation. It is equally as relevant as photos of specific victims. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, this photo does not convey any specific knowledge about the scandal. There are a hundred details I can think of that are more important than what this photo shows, which is a huge explosion. I'm not sure why you think it shows that a FBI inquiry could be catastrophic for News Corp. An FBI inquiry did not cause the plane to crash into the WTC, neither did News Corp. The amount of relevance in this photo is zero.

talk

) 14:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The relevance is high, hence why very similar pictures have been used to illustrate this topic in the mainstream media. But I ask again, please give an example of a photo that would better illustrate this very important section of the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not mainstream media. We're not obliged to engage in the sensationalist tactics of some particular publications. Also, it is not Wikipedia policy at all to put a photo in every section. If there is no suitable photo, none should be used. I did however suggest several photos above. Read what I said.

talk

) 14:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Who said that Wikipedia is mainstream media? My point was that reliable third-party sources have clearly stated that in their view very similar images are directly relevant to this topic. Wikipedia of course has its own image policy, which is more than met in this case. Re the photos in the main article, one is of the 7/7 attacks, one of Milly Dowler (although that is not in commons) and the others are of a minor UK politican and an ex-Sky presenter, neither of whom are central to the scandal. Would you support the inclusion of the 7/7 photo (shown right)?Rangoon11 (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

How mainstream media choose to write their articles has absolutely zero relevance to what should be on Wikipedia. We're not news, and we're not for-profit. News articles tend to be much more specific in their topic; and they often requires photos for illustration. That is why I suspect some have used the 9/11 photos, although I find that unprofessional.

I'm not sure how you determined that your photo meets the

WP:IMAGE

criteria. Here's the main criterion: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate." This is exactly what I am disputing here. A photo of an explosion or a man in panic does not illustrate the current event; they completely lack context.

Anyway, this discussion is pointless. During the last hour, four users voiced their strong opposition to your inclusion of those photos. I think that is a significant consensus. Unless some other users think it is relevant, I think I will leave the discussion here.

talk

) 15:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, its of neglible importance. I think I can end it thus-

• The 7/7 image shows a person at the 7/7 attack, who, if he survived and if he had a mobile phone, could have been hacked- thus is on topic. The 9/11 photo shows a destroyed WTC office block- thus off topic (Rupert Merdoch did not cause 9/11 and the WTC building did not have its mobile phone hacked). Shimpels!86.24.14.164 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: Rangoon11 launched a concurrent discussion

talk

) 14:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree 9/11 is out. The 7/7 image is a much better image for illustrating the scandal since it looks "mobile-phone"ish and also "scoop"ish. But based on sheer notability to the scandal, I think Milly Dowler has to win as the image that best illustrates the scandal-- that was the part of the scandal that really ignited things. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Murdochs Are Re-Elected Amid Protest October 22, 2011 by Russell Adams And Andrew Morse
• Murdoch Sons Drew Opposition in Votes October 25, 2011 by Russell Adams
• Hinton Stands By Phone-Hacking Testimony October 25, 2011 by Cassell Bryan-Low

97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that an article on Paul V. Carlucci is desirable: [8]. (Can't do it myself this week, too much going on at work...) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, or even a section in this page would work well.Meatsgains (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

In Phone Hacking Inquiry, a Renewed Focus on Executives by Ravi Somaiya, published October 24, 2011 in The New York Times. 99.112.215.159 (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

See Cyber spying 99.190.85.15 (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This might be better in News International phone hacking scandal. 99.35.15.107 (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is something related from

NYT November 2, 2011 News Corp. Lawyer Noted Hacking 'Culture' in 2008

See also

Hacker (programmer subculture) for comparison. 97.87.29.188 (talk

) 23:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Is that really relevant enough to be mentioned in the second sentence of this article? Also, "World's largest broadcaster" is a somewhat vague phrase, that seems poorly sourced. All three references simply state "the BBC is the world's largest broadcaster" without anything to back it up or explain what that means. It appears the statement refers to the fact that the BBC is has more employees than any other broadcaster. If it should remain, I suggest we change it to "although the BBC has more employees than any other broadcaster" and find a proper source for that. Väsk (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this actually a real place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.13.18 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

why this is included in the "WikiProject Australia"? I know the company was founded in Australia, but since 2005 is in the U.S., and is now under the laws of America, not Australia greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by MervinVillarreal (talk • contribs) 18:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I believe they still have a large presence in Australia. Trivialist (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

when it was in Australia 186.95.9.247 (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

now the company don't have headquarters in Australia, and the wikiproject: australia is for things from Australia MervinVillarreal (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

News Corporation is from Australia, even if it's no longer headquartered there. The company was founded there, a significant portion of its history is there, so there are reasonable ties to Australia to keep it in the project. —C.Fred (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

exactly, was from Australia WikiProject Australia; "is a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Improving Wikipedia's topics related to Australia."

"Our goals To Provide guidelines and recommendations for articles That describes all aspects of Australia...."

"Project Scope

The project Generally considers any article related to Australia to be a valid topic ... "

The Wikiproject: Australia, is based on things that pertain to australia, things of australia, News Corporation is now america has nothing to do with Australia. MervinVillarreal (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It was founded by an Aussie and has its early origins there. To say it has nothing to do with Australia is an outright lie. GRAPPLE X 20:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

the Wikiproject AUSTRALIA is about from things OF australia, you know? things of ... not about things that was in australia.MervinVillarreal (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• As per
  WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN: A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project, which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article. Betty Logan (talk
  ) 09:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed the lines relating to the Russian radio stations: http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_448.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.1.157 (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why Isn't News Corporations acquisition of Myspace covered in this article. It is more that relevant and necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.9.129.73 (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

'...On 26 April 2012, A PureCell fuel cell system at the News Corporation headquarters in New York City now provides hot water and a significant portion of electricity needs for TV studios, while reducing the building’s carbon emissions....' . This entry under 'developments since 2000' is pretty silly to mention. If someone else agrees please remove it.

BGRIFFIN 70.185.109.98 (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

News Corp has launched an education focused tablet under division

I'm planning on seeing this handled like how Wikipedia handled the Viacom/CBS Corporation split. Both of the resulting companies have their own articles; despite being a legal successor to News Corp., 21st Century Fox has its own page just because its pretty much a "new" company, and it would be cleaner to just treat it as such.

After the split is final and the dust settles, this article will most likely be re-named "News Corporation (1979-2013)" or something to that effect, and

Any questions? ViperSnake151  Talk  19:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

AFAICT Zondervan is a subsidiary of HarperCollins, this isn't made clear in the /wiki/News_Corporation#Final_holdings section. Also I feel it would be worth noting that Zondervan, hence News Corp, own the copyright to the NIV - which appears to be the most used English translation of The Bible. Pbhj (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This company, i.e. News Corporation was the holding co. for News Limited (a.k.a. News Corp Australia). It appears that there is substantial duplication of content between that article and this one, and probably inconsistencies too. I would suggest that News Corp (Aust) be redirected to a section on that subject in this article and the contents reconciled, but I have neither the authority or the time to do this. Chrismorey (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Another major stakeholder has been

Why is the article in the Category:Ansett Australia? I can see that Ansett was owned for a time by News Corp but I would have thought the category relationship was the other way around? Kerry (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You are right it doesn't quite belong in this day in age. I shall remove the category. Sinbad Barron (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The current lead could see some overhaul, it doesn't even clearly state Murdoch as CEO and founder. Instead it gives Aznar as a board member.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

BH Media Corporation was Finally Changed to Family Public Telepictures in October 20, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6EF1:57D0:7DE2:BE35:47F5:1051 (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:News Corp (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed Universal Channel and Universal HD from the asset list because they are part of Comcast, not News Corporation. ClickClack2021isthebetterthan2020 (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what happened with my edit but Wikipedia won't allow me to revert it due to blacklisted links InsertMDhere (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)