Let us agree then :
I think that we synchronise all the way, from premise to conclusion;
what separates us is perhaps a slight difference in our definition of
"higher management" by which I mean the super Ogas of the consortium,
the NOTW after all only has a staff of about 200 people whilst the
media Empire in question is much larger than that and no one in the
hierarchy of that organisation is to be found in NOWT.
To tell you the truth the NOTW has only slightly captivated my
interest exactly once and that was during the days of the Profumo
Scandal with those titillating, salacious pictorial details about
Christine Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies – at a time when, still in my
short trousers, I had long ago read Lady Chatterley's Lover and
Chapter 13 of Ulysses.... and so you see the NOTW has it's own special
function and speciality : exposés mostly of a scandalous sexual
nature, be it about the IMF boss or OJ Simpson & Mike Tyson, thanks to
the NOTW it becomes every nosy Parker's business and now the hungry
reading public is so used to being satisfied that they will sorely
miss the NOTW and this means that some other paper will have to
exploit the commercial potential of serving such special stories.
I'd like to get tomorrow's edition as a souvenir.
As Mark Steyn points out in that article, the tragedy is that this
journalistic espionage has now been extended - unethically - to "a
missing schoolgirl subsequently found dead, as well as those of family
members of the July 7 Tube bombing victims and of British servicemen
killed in Afghanistan." - and this is what has caused revulsion to
ripple through the same reading public that is titillated by the page
3 girl.....
The same kind of revulsion we all felt when Dele Giwa was blown up by
a letter bomb.......
Amicably yours,
Cornelius.
On Jul 9, 6:46 pm, "G. Ugo Nwokeji" <u...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Dear Cornelius,
>
> Though you seem to think otherwise, I too detest rehashing the obvious, but
> when the obvious is disregarded and even questioned, as you have done,
> leading to a conclusion antithetical to the one that should normally emanate
> from the facts, reiterating those facts become inevitable.
>
> Ugo
>
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oga Ugo,
>
> > What are we arguing about? Is there any disagreement between us? Not
> > that I'm aware of.
>
> > NOTW is not and has never been my cup of tea. Too low brow. Usually a
> > scandalous piece of trash. England's newspapers for me : The Times,
> > Telegraph, the Observer, the Independent, yes, the Guardian too –
> > for many decades now.
>
> > I was mostly in London during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and wiped
> > out by the high moral tone of the British Sunday papers which devoted
> > an average of about eight pages each per major paper, foaming at the
> > mouth, unctuous Archiepiscopal type of moral indignation - the
> > hypocrites, about the reprehensibility of what had allegedly been
> > goin' on in the White House Oval Office, but not at Oxford and
> > Cambridge.
>
> > One who knows pointed out what is not known by all: that about 300 of
> > the US's most influential papers are owned by GB people. ( GB= Great
> > Britain) My source even went as far as to say that the USA was
> > formally still a British colony, now providing the muscle whilst Great
> > Britain continues to remain the brain. I went home to a then famously
> > topical British Hacker( Brian x – a Jewish guy) and wasn't much
> > impressed, a flight of stairs up to his workroom and wires all over
> > the place connecting about three- four computers, almost tripped and
> > fell over one of his many cats meowing all over the place. No cat
> > piss. Otherwise clean, hygienic and the smell of hyacinths.
>
> > I might be an idiot just because you are not, OK?
>
> > So, you may have the last word on the matter, since you like pointing
> > out the obvious (and by the way Sky News of the UK is in no way like
> > Fox news of the USA – the Sky TV news coverage of Saddam's adventures
> > in Kuwait for example surpassed that of even the BBC and CNN, for all-
> > roundness and not just the old middle-of-the-road commentaries. I'm
> > referring to the Sky TV news era of people like John Suchet – and as
> > said previously we also now have people like Adam Boulton and Tim
> > Marshall …..
>
> > The media - the source of all your information - is full of the
> > sorry details at the centre of the storm and still swirling around
> > NOTW. I am fully aware of those details, so you are not saying
> > anything new - and please note that it's not my passion to be
> > flogging a dead horse.
>
> > President Rupert Murdoch is on his way to London, perhaps to take the
> > bull by its horns, in any case, to help sort things out.
>
> > Here's a some deliberation on the issue by one of my favourite
> > journalists. Mark Steyn:
>
> > http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/federal-307529-news-gun.html
>
> > and you must understand that apart from reading books I also go
> > through some of this:
>
> >http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
>
> > and Foreign Affairs, after which some of the opinions I am likely to
> > encounter here, hashed or rehashed about the ICC or about what
> > Gaddafi said in plain and not ritual Arabic may be either redundant,
> > irrelevant or an anticlimactic.
>
> > At this point I do not feel like adding anything to what I have said
> > previously. You may have the last word but the wheel's still in spin
> > or as Wole Soyinka quipped. " You are right, I am dead" and you
> > should not try to resurrect me , to respond to what more you may have
> > to say about NOTW
>
> > On Jul 9, 5:33 am, "G. Ugo Nwokeji" <u...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > > I hope that we are having a serious discussion. For some reason, you
> > chose
> > > to ignore the points I made and to divert attention to African leaders,
> > > perhaps forgetting that most of those African leaders have not -- to use
> > the
> > > same words you used in defense of the management of NOTW -- "been charged
> > > and found guilty" of whatever it is you are accusing them of! Why apply a
> > > different standard on them? Anyway, let us refrain from chasing shadows
> > and
> > > keep this conversation focused on the fraudulent behavior of the NOTW.
>
> > > Cornelius wrote:
>
> > > "... nor was I holding brief for the Murdoch Media Empire. But it is not
> > > likely nor have the
> > > bosses in higher management been charged and found guilty of the
> > duplicity
> > > or complicity that you accuse them of."
>
> > > It almost sounds that you are "holding brief for the Murdoch Media
> > Empire."
>
> > > These are among the established facts:
>
> > > 1. NOTW has bugged thousands of phone lines -- 7,000 according to
> > victims'
> > > lawyers.
>
> > > 2. The fraud was first uncovered problem uncovered in 2006.
>
> > > 3. The newspaper's editor Andy Coulson resigned and landed a job (image
> > > maker, no less!) with Murdoch protege then-British Opposition Leader and
> > > current Prime Minister David Cameron. Dude got a real soft-landing!
> > > Meanwhile, royal correspondent Clive Goodman pleaded guilty and was
> > jailed
> > > in 2007.
>
> > > We now know that the history of this criminal misconduct goes as far back
> > to
> > > 2002. We have also known since the beginning of this year that the
> > paper's
> > > private investigator Glenn Mulcaire told British investigators that the
> > > newspaper's leadership hired him to do just what he was doing, tapping
> > > phones. Was all this being paid for by the correspondents from their
> > private
> > > pockets or from company's payroll?
>
> > > For you now to say that there is no evidence that the management knew
> > until
> > > a few days ago about a practice that even the office cat is said to have
> > > known is disingenious. Even if you refuse to see acknowledge the evidence
> > > that does not warrant heaping praises on the newspaper's parent company
> > for
> > > closing it down.
>
> > > Ugo
>
> > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> > > corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Criminal investigative ethics is reprehensible on all counts, and I
> > > > certainly do not condone such journalistic ethics nor was I holding
> > > > brief for the Murdoch Media Empire. But it is not likely nor have the
> > > > bosses in higher management been charged and found guilty of the
> > > > duplicity or complicity that you accuse them of.
>
> > > > You say that, " If the management were not complicit, they would have
> > > > nipped the fraudulent
> > > > practice in the bud" without verifying that they actually had such
> > > > knowledge. Fortunately these odious malpractices have now been
> > > > uncovered not a minute too late and we may well wonder: How long has
> > > > this been going on ? And also wonder long your line in print along
> > > > which you exclaimed, "goodness knows what else they did with those
> > > > phones! "
>
> > > > Meanwhile in some parts of our Africa the struggle goes on for some
> > > > Freedom of Information Legislation, which will hopefully render phone
> > > > tapping etc, unnecessary.
>
> > > >http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=Freedom+of+Inform.
> > ..
>
> > > > On Jul 8, 7:33 pm, "G. Ugo Nwokeji" <u...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > > > > What really is your point, Cornelius -- that we should clap for the
> > NOTW
> > > > > management?
>
> > > > > There seems to be nothing altruistic in their action. Cover up is the
> > > > more
> > > > > likely motive.
>
> > > > > They were complicit in the outrageous fraud every step of the way.
> > The
> > > > fraud
> > > > > first came to light years ago, two of the accomplces were jailed,
> > police
> > > > > were reportedly bribed to suppress the case, and the fraud apparently
> > > > > continued unabated. By the time it came to a head, thousands of phone
> > > > lines
> > > > > had been bugged and people's private voice messages altered. Lord
> > knows
> > > > what
> > > > > else they did with those phones!
> > > > > If the management were not complicit, they would have nipped the
> > > > fraudulent
> > > > > practice in the bud. They took action VERY belatedly -- albeit a
> > decisive
> > > > > one -- and you are showering praises on them.
>
> > > > > Do you praise accessory or accomplice to serial murder for arresting
> > the
> > > > > serial murderer only after other people have unmasked the murderer?
>
> > > > > The management have administered medication only after the patient
> > has
> > > > been
> > > > > stone-cold. The fraudulent practise they condoned for too long, if
> > not
> > > > > encouraged, undermined people's basic privacy rights, destroyed
> > lives,
> > > > > marriages and careers, obstructed justice, gave the paper undue
> > advantage
> > > > > over the competition, and was instrumental to the profitability you
> > are
> > > > now
> > > > > praising its management for giving up in closing the paper.
> > > > > Ugo
>
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
>
> > > > > corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/History-Of-News-Of-The-World.
> > > > ..
>
> > > > > > In my view we should not lose sight of The News of The World's
> > self-
> > > > > > censorship and the management's unprecedented reaction resulting in
> > > > > > its self- termination. It was the paper's management that complied
> > > > > > with and facilitated the investigations. And it was the paper's
> > > > > > management that made the unprecedented decision to stop publishing/
> > > > > > printing after Sunday, bringing the paper's 168 years of existence
> > to
> > > > > > an end. They were not closed – they closed themselves. As someone
> > > > > > observed, from a business perspective it's unprecedented that a
> > good
> > > > > > business terminates a profitable brand name, let alone the News of
> > > > > > the World which since 1950 with a circulation of 8.5 million has
> > > > > > enjoyed being the most widely read newspaper
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment