This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"Many alledge that the outlets that the News Corporation owns are designed to control free speech (See Wapping dispute) and freedom of the press through the purchase and acquisition of otherwise independent commercial broadcasting stations and Internet Sites so they can subvert them for political means or just to restrict community outlets of expression in General, (See Fox News controversies and allegations of bias, Internet MySpace Criticisms as well as the large acquisition of media outlets acquired -- visible below)"
Reasons:
Why no mention of the S14 or 3N?-- Hamedog Talk| @ 08:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
why have the UK and Ireland SKy Channels been ignored? Pratj 23:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Removed template of corporate assets, at the bottom of the article, as there was no direct source supporting it. Please see history and re-read Wiki policies. 162.84.159.253 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Could whoever added the UK magazine "Danii" to News Corp's holdings please provide detail of their source for this entry, as I have searched exstensively and can find no reference to it anywhere. Does it exist yet, or is it a planned title? Platz01 07:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC) I am going to delete Danii Magazine from News Corp's assets as I can find no proof of it's existence - planned or otherwise. Platz01 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The Controversies section in particular has a number of typos and incomplete sentences added in the last revision or two which need attention.
Image:News Corp.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
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)
Removed, from the first paragraph "News Corporation is one of the world's largest RIGHT WING media conglomerates." I'm not sure that anyone outside of leftist camps refers to News Corp as "Right Wing". I feel labeling News Corp a "Right Wing" media conglomeration is out of place here.
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] 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)
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.
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)
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 News Limited) when Sir Keith Murdoch died of a sudden heart attack. His son - Rupert Murdoch - took over one of the last remaining assets of the family - The News, a newspaper in Adelaide, South Australia after finishing his last year of University. The company has existed since then in one form or another, the current listed entity known as "News Corporation" I believe was formed in 1979. This was the holding company, the businesses existed and was listed prior to this. Platz01 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
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:
"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"
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)
Second request. Above I have put a first request with 2 questions.
... MOTIVATION IN ORDER THAT User:Perry mason COULD BE CONVINCED:
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)
This is a resume of discussion above titled Talk:News_Corporation#Caceo_request_to_User:Perry_mason_-_second.
I invite users User:Perry mason and DMacks to resume discussiuon here. -- Caceo ( talk) 23:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate links of DMacks. I go to request-for-comments. -- Caceo ( talk) 01:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
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. Wikipediarul e s 2221 08:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Just an FYI that there is a debate currently going on in the Fox News Controversies discussion page regarding this donation. Most people opposed to including it there seem to suggest that this page would be the right place for it to be mentioned.
Talk:Fox_News_Channel_controversies#.241_Million_GOP_Donation
&
Talk:Fox_News_Channel_controversies#RFC:_.241_Million_GOP_Donation Zuchinni one ( talk) 19:51, 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)
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
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Amplify Education, which I am guessing belongs under the proposed Fox Group. Would appreciate help developing the article about this new product, and also integrating this into this article about the parent org, with relation to how this fits into the proposed split of News Corp. John Vandenberg ( chat) 23:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
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 News Corporation (2013) would be moved in to take its place. We'd need a new navbox for 21st Century Fox, but the current News Corp. navbox can easily be edited to reflect the post-split holdings.
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 Al-Waleed bin Talal, of the Saudi Royal Family. I have added the evidence to the page. DeistCosmos ( talk) 22:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"Many alledge that the outlets that the News Corporation owns are designed to control free speech (See Wapping dispute) and freedom of the press through the purchase and acquisition of otherwise independent commercial broadcasting stations and Internet Sites so they can subvert them for political means or just to restrict community outlets of expression in General, (See Fox News controversies and allegations of bias, Internet MySpace Criticisms as well as the large acquisition of media outlets acquired -- visible below)"
Reasons:
Why no mention of the S14 or 3N?-- Hamedog Talk| @ 08:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
why have the UK and Ireland SKy Channels been ignored? Pratj 23:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Removed template of corporate assets, at the bottom of the article, as there was no direct source supporting it. Please see history and re-read Wiki policies. 162.84.159.253 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Could whoever added the UK magazine "Danii" to News Corp's holdings please provide detail of their source for this entry, as I have searched exstensively and can find no reference to it anywhere. Does it exist yet, or is it a planned title? Platz01 07:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC) I am going to delete Danii Magazine from News Corp's assets as I can find no proof of it's existence - planned or otherwise. Platz01 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The Controversies section in particular has a number of typos and incomplete sentences added in the last revision or two which need attention.
Image:News Corp.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
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)
Removed, from the first paragraph "News Corporation is one of the world's largest RIGHT WING media conglomerates." I'm not sure that anyone outside of leftist camps refers to News Corp as "Right Wing". I feel labeling News Corp a "Right Wing" media conglomeration is out of place here.
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] 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)
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.
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)
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 News Limited) when Sir Keith Murdoch died of a sudden heart attack. His son - Rupert Murdoch - took over one of the last remaining assets of the family - The News, a newspaper in Adelaide, South Australia after finishing his last year of University. The company has existed since then in one form or another, the current listed entity known as "News Corporation" I believe was formed in 1979. This was the holding company, the businesses existed and was listed prior to this. Platz01 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
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:
"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"
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)
Second request. Above I have put a first request with 2 questions.
... MOTIVATION IN ORDER THAT User:Perry mason COULD BE CONVINCED:
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)
This is a resume of discussion above titled Talk:News_Corporation#Caceo_request_to_User:Perry_mason_-_second.
I invite users User:Perry mason and DMacks to resume discussiuon here. -- Caceo ( talk) 23:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate links of DMacks. I go to request-for-comments. -- Caceo ( talk) 01:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
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. Wikipediarul e s 2221 08:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Just an FYI that there is a debate currently going on in the Fox News Controversies discussion page regarding this donation. Most people opposed to including it there seem to suggest that this page would be the right place for it to be mentioned.
Talk:Fox_News_Channel_controversies#.241_Million_GOP_Donation
&
Talk:Fox_News_Channel_controversies#RFC:_.241_Million_GOP_Donation Zuchinni one ( talk) 19:51, 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)
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
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Amplify Education, which I am guessing belongs under the proposed Fox Group. Would appreciate help developing the article about this new product, and also integrating this into this article about the parent org, with relation to how this fits into the proposed split of News Corp. John Vandenberg ( chat) 23:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
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 News Corporation (2013) would be moved in to take its place. We'd need a new navbox for 21st Century Fox, but the current News Corp. navbox can easily be edited to reflect the post-split holdings.
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 Al-Waleed bin Talal, of the Saudi Royal Family. I have added the evidence to the page. DeistCosmos ( talk) 22:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)