7/19/2011 1:25:43 PM
7/19/2011 1:28:27 PM
7/19/2011 1:30:37 PM
7/19/2011 1:30:41 PM
I suppose the question is whether it was on behalf of News Corporation or of one of several government agencies / political factions that may be exposed. Given that News Corporation is pretty much deep-sixed at this point, I would lean toward the latter.
7/19/2011 2:33:37 PM
7/21/2011 3:41:27 PM
http://www.murdochleaks.org/
7/25/2011 12:54:06 PM
Now is a good time to buy News Corp. stock. They'll do a little spring cleaning and be back on top in no time.
7/25/2011 5:30:50 PM
Erich Holder is going to be probing Rupert Murdoch.
8/25/2011 9:10:59 PM
You sound jealous.[Edited on August 25, 2011 at 9:13 PM. Reason : always the bridesmaid...]
8/25/2011 9:13:27 PM
9/1/2011 10:24:58 PM
^ where did you copy and paste that post from?because
9/1/2011 11:13:37 PM
^either there or freerepublic.com
9/2/2011 1:41:57 AM
Wikipedia, but good try.
9/2/2011 9:33:04 AM
9/5/2011 11:45:13 AM
bump
3/28/2012 9:28:08 AM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/murdochs-scandal/I'm not sure if there's anything here that we didn't already know, but Frontline is generally a pretty fair news source.Actually, I wasn't already familiar with Murdoch's plans with the Sky Satellite television.And, apparently, he's facing a scandal in Australia regarding satellite television as well?http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/murdoch-tv-hacking/
3/28/2012 6:05:58 PM
3/28/2012 6:41:47 PM
rule #3 of the left. if you have an opposing voice: shut it down.it's simple communism.
3/28/2012 7:24:24 PM
I think that may have been Murdoch's rule, as well.[Edited on March 28, 2012 at 7:29 PM. Reason : Except, replace "an opposing voice" with "a competitor".]
3/28/2012 7:28:16 PM
5/17/2012 12:07:11 PM