(V): We know all that. You've posted this before. Big woop. The bigger question is who was directly responsible for the phone hacking? That's an important fact. If Murdock knew of it and ok'd it, then you've got something. If not, then it's a local one time offense. And that article is from July and I don't see a big global thing here. It hasn't changed a thing. Fox is still number one.

Artful Dodger: The people being asked at various inquiries all say the Murdoch's knew about the phone hacking. I think the US law people are waiting for the results of our law system.

"Fox is still number one."

By the counting system I've heard that is aimed at advertising.. yes. In actual... no.
The system used for counting is a little strange.

(V): Murdock is responsible for his company and what it does. FOX will continue it's criminal activities until the American investigation is complete and then it will fade from history I hope. ABC is a FOX affiliate now and look at how the FOX supporters slam them. They are truly uninformed people.

Jack: That would be wrong. In the end the people that will suffer from Murdoch's games will be the staff. Just like with the NOTW paper.

Ok... like with the NOTW, there is a level at which those can be held complacent. Such as the editors.. but should the normal Joes who are just working be punished..... no.

Imho.

(V): I feel these people all knew what they were doing and shouldn't be shown any sympathy for hacking into peoples personal grieving. They also know what Murdock is and will always be when they hired on.

These people are the lowest life on the planet as far as I am concerned. In America they create great harm to our political system that goes beyond political leanings. The media has no right to produce false information just to support corporate profits for their boss.

Murdock should suffer the most but he will get away free because someone will be paid off to take his fall.

Jack: I cannot agree. When you get down to 'shop level' (such as the workers running the printing machines in the case of the NOTW paper) they were just doing a job.

When you get to the likes of Rebekah Brooks and the other reporters involved.. yes they should be banned from holding any journalistic positions, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Including the likes of Cheryl Carter who with others have been trying to destroy evidence regarding the phone hacking case.

"Murdock should suffer the most but he will get away free because someone will be paid off to take his fall."

He is as I said already suffering. His attempt to buy the rest of BSkyB has failed as a direct result of the phone hacking scandal.

(V):<b>(V)</b>:  so maybe the press room printers are not guilty of anything but how do you keep a business operating as crooked as Murdock is. Maybe force him out all together and allow a responsible media outlet to take over? Even then the criminals that steal other peoples lives through hacking need to be punished.

I guess we should just allow the justice departments of both countries to go ahead and finish their investigations to collect all the evidence they can. 

Jack: Trouble is many police were taking bribes off NI, and that is an established fact. That the phone hacking was known of for years and the police did a very poor job of looking into it initially. It has been established that about 4000 peoples phones were hacked!!

(V): I understand the police problem and shouldn't they be prosecuted as well.

We have a big problem with racist police and police that willingly take bribes here and the most punishment they receive is to be taken off the street and give a nice deck job or they are fired but never prosecuted.

This Murdock thing is going to have far reaching consequences and that's why I feel we need to give the investigation a chance to gather the evidence to put these criminal where they belong.

Jack: Some have already resigned, some through the investigations look stupid. Some look very suspicious that after leaving the police they find themselves in a nice job working for NI.

Of course the police are trying to cover their butts.

(V): Of course they are trying to cover their buts but shouldn't they be subject to the same laws as the citizens?

Jack: Yes.. but seeing as they often close ranks it's hard to prove.

It took the murder of Stephen Lawrence for it to become publicly acknowledge that the Metropolitan Police were institutionally racist.

To quote... "the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin", which "can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes, and behaviour, which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping, which disadvantages minority ethnic people"

(V): NOTHING will come of it. Fox will not only remain strong, they will continue to dominate. Too bad for the others.

(V): Sorry Jules but please provide some EVIDENCE that Fox isn't number one. The ratings are clear and precise. Fox pulls in millions. The others only thousands. Period. Suck it up.

Artful Dodger: Sorry Dan, but from what I've read about the system of collecting data in the USA regarding viewers.. it's a little vague.

Only 5000 TV sets in the USA are used to calculate the viewing statistics for the whole country, the system also can count a program as being watched even if it is only watched for ten minutes or less. It can also count two programs watched within an hour period as being watched based on that 'ten minute slot'.

It is calculated that there are 99,000,000 households in the US that have TV sets, going back to my days of studying statistics in college I feel the sample of only 5000 viewers too small to be " clear and precise".

Also, It seems from looking at the system of knowing who is watching is dependant on pressing a button, which is acknowledge as not being always done by the data collectors.

... Call me fickle, but to me this is not good realiable statistics. It may be good enough to calculate how much to charge for advertising, but overall I would not call the data collection system accurate or "clear and precise".

(V): Sure it's vague. And you're the expert. I should have known.

Artful Dodger: .. with a sample of only 5000 out of 99,000,000 ... that means the percentage sample is only 0.00005050505 of the total viewers.

"And you're the expert. I should known"

I studied statistics and maths at college, get over it

(V): I have studied both as well and the process that is used is very sound and accepted by top statisticians.

Artful Dodger: Top statisticians working for the advertisers.. hmmmmm

"I have studied both as well and the process that is used is very sound"

Show me in your own words why then.

(V): Jules. You just like to nitpic. The ratings system might not be perfect but it still gives an accurate picture of those programs that are the most popular (and which programs are dogs). In the case of this discussion, you just don't like the FACT that Fox has out performed all the others for the past TEN YEARS. Sorry if that disapponts your dislike of Fox but it's a reality. And the margin that Fox trounces its opponents is significant. When it comes to news, Fox wins hands down. And no amount of complaining on your part will change that fact.

Anyone can look at the ratings formulas and see that they fairly represent various demographics in their samplings. Just because you can cite a critic doesn't mean that the measurements used aren't reliable. One thing is very clear: Fox is CLEARLY number one with viewers. And the margin for error is insignificant when comparing the number one spot (Fox - of course) with number two on down.

Artful Dodger: Details are always important.

... Like that a similar UK system which uses 5,100 homes recording 30,000 devices, and also 53,000 questionnaires per year on a totally random basis. Yet they point out some items such as game consoles are not measured, which considering that you can just about watch anything now on them. Also the UK system gives a minute by minute account of what is watched

It again, is not "perfect", nice for you to stop saying "precise"

Btw.. it's not Fox, but the perversion of the company by Murdoch. We've seen these perversions of perfectly good media outlets just to make a buck. We've lost a paper with a long history thanks to him.

Another detail with your no. 1 theory.. If we say Fox is the only conservative outfit.. as you do say ... then if all the liberal networks are counted as one (seeing as that means there is more competition in the liberal news market) .. then the liberal news viewer figures are generally higher than the conservative viewer figures. Your mate Bill beats all the other networks in total btw (re Jan 30th data)

... yet for the average number of viewers ... CBS beats Fox by over 1.3 million (re Jan 29th data)

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/01/31/fox-tops-adults-18-49-ratings-cbs-leads-viewership-for-week-19-ending-january-29-2012/118068/

(V): Jules, you just have to get over your aversion to Fox. The numbers are clear. And the precise simply means that the margin for error is within acceptable percentage points. No one beats Fox overall. Period.

Artful Dodger: won't make an ounce of difference

Bernice: Most don't like the fact that Fox dominates the ratings. So since the left cant have the ratings, the settle for the ratings.

Artful Dodger: in "theory" nothing is perfect yet all things are possible.

Bwild:

Artful Dodger: Because of American Idol? A Syco production!!

Well that format is going to last

.. Yet overall the data as listed says Fox is no. 2 losing out to CBS by 1.3 million last week

(V):

The centre of <span>Rupert Murdoch's
British newspaper clean-up operation is an unimposing set of offices in
a corner of the company's campus in Wapping, east London.

It is here that the
scarred reputation and the future of Murdoch's UK newspaper titles may
be rescued or broken for good. The chairman and chief executive of <span>News Corp says he has entrusted the operation, known as the Management and Standards Committee (<span>MSC),
to investigate the details of phone-hacking and alleged police bribery
by his London tabloids and prevent such events from happening again.

http://news.yahoo.com/insight-inside-rupert-murdochs-uk-newspaper-clean-operation-095026925.html

Jack:

""The closure of a newspaper with a history of 160-some odd years history is something that is a grave thing and something that is a serious matter of regret for us, for the company. But much more serious than that is the seriousness of the violation of privacy, the hurt that certain individuals at the News of the World caused to the victims of illegal voicemail interceptions and their families. "

James Murdoch on the closing of the NOTW paper. His Dad states "It's just 1% of the NI empire", not institutional. But now the Sun, the Times, his use of papers as a system of controlling politicians.
... but the real reason for the closure was the advertisers deserting the paper like rats and a sinking ship. Like Glenn Beck it became toxic.

.. parad "If you are my friend, I will help you if you help me." .. thus the papers switched from supporting Labour and the Conservative party entirely based on what benefited Murdoch and his EmPiRe.

... though on a brighter note one tax cheat stated he did not intend to defraud the tax man... yet he had an offshore account in his dogs name, not his own.

.. The case is in court.

......Hislop is asked why Private Eye is not part of the Press Complaints Commission.

He says that ethics are "self-evident", adding: "contempt of court is illegal; phone tapping is illegal; police taking money is illegal … the fact these laws were not rigorously enforce is due the ... interaction of the police and News International."

.......Hislop is asked about the PCC.

He says the "Street of Shame" section is two pages criticising newspapers, so he doesn't have much confidence in a body on which a number of newspaper editors sit.

He admits it is "a bit embarrassing" that the only other major publisher who isn't in the PCC is Richard Desmond. Hislop also has an issue with the balance of editors on the PCC and "News International's influence" on the body.

.....Hislop says that the Murdoch family are "deeply embedded in our top class", a situation he says gave the News of the World "unbounded confidence to do as it liked".

If the prime minister appoints the former News of the World editor as his communications director, News International will think 'We are top of the pile, nothing can stop us.'

(V): I'm talking news. Fox cable doesn't run Idol. Two different Fox channels. And when you compare apples to apples, Fox wins. Deal with it.

Artful Dodger: Same company.

(V): Nice bait and switch. When you're losing an argument, it's only natural that you'd try to "fix" things. But in my original post I CLEARLY said cable news.

"Fox is the number one cable news program in the US for TEN years and it will only continue to climb. MSNBC is in the pits and CNN is second by way down on the list. I love that people whine about Fox but that FOX is the most popular cable network anywhere. Oh yeah, Bill O'Reilly smashes the competition in his time slot all the time. Most Fox programs dominate. Even the liberals love to watch Fox."

This is the fact you tried to dispute. Now you're changing things because you have no case.

Artful Dodger: You said Fox... you quoted a certain % of the population.

btw.. where was I baiting?

"FOX is the most popular cable network anywhere."

Fox news is just 3 million max at out 99 million viewers. So 96 million are watching other things.

It has created a niche as a conservative network per Murdoch's schemes.

(V): CBS isn't a cable network. And in my original post, I said "Fox is the number one cable news program in the US for TEN years"

When one refers to Fox cable they are talking news because that's all fox runs on that network. Fox cable differs from it's regular network.

(V): And CBS is DEAD LAST in news ratings. Fox is number one. Did I mention that it's been number one for TEN YEARS???