Comments by "Neil Forbes" (@neilforbes416) on "Rupert" video.

  1.  @kellygoodine9944  We could certainly use some Canadian and Scottish courage here in Australia to get rid of Murdoch, as could Britain and America, and anywhere else wor that matter, where their press, TV and radio services are contaminated by the putrid Murdoch influence(cancer).
    28
  2. The phrase Scotland The Brave has just taken on a more intense level of truth! Way to go, Scotland!
    25
  3. Remember Millie Dowler? Yes, enough said! CLOSE MURDOCH DOWN....... EVERYWHERE!
    15
  4.  @johnleone6787  Propaganda network! If only Australia could use the ruling to get rid of Sky or at least reduce them back to broadcasting only horse and greyhound dog racing to pubs and clubs, as they were originally set up to do.
    10
  5.  @catherinelewis1951  It(Murdoch) may no longer infest Australia but its grubby paws are all over our media, still.
    8
  6.  @karwalker7791  Canada and Scotland deserve high praise indeed for stopping this putrid piece of pestilence from contaminating their countries' media.
    6
  7.  @last12know30  But that's exactly what Murdoch is trying to do. And that's why it (Murdoch) is so toxic.
    5
  8.  @lynnenglish8548  They don't buy out channels, they buy out the stations that transmit on those channels. Stations make the shows. Channels are nothing more than chunks of spectrum space.
    4
  9. Store owners should refuse to stock product from companies that advertise on Fox. Property owners where Fox leases space for its studios should EVICT Fox from their buildings.
    3
  10.  @McRocket  Fox does not have a RIGHT to operate, it has a LICENCE which can be REVOKED if the network or any of its stations contravene laws governing broadcasting, particularly news. Fox has knowingly, and blatantly VIOLATED the FCC's laws, as it has in Britain and Australia, thus its licences should of course be revoked. A Licence is the same as a "privilege" and has to be earned. Murdoch's Fox has abused its privilege so that privilege MUST BE REVOKED!
    3
  11.  @lynnenglish8548  Not necessarily. I once visited our local TV station, NBN-Newcastle back in 1974 during a Telethon broadcast. It was some months ahead of the launch of test broadcasts in colour(which began at the end of October that year). The building which housed NBN was located down behind where I used to attend high school, Newcastle Junior Boys' High. you could go down to the back fence which was just waist-high, made of bricks, and from there you could see NBN. It had been added to over the years since I was in school(I left in 1970). Back then, NBN transmitted on VHF Ch.3(85-92Mhz), sharing the channel with ABC-Canberra(national network) and Station WIN-Wollongong's translator, ironically feeding to Wollongong itself as the parent station transmitted on VHF Ch.4(94-101Mhz) and its signal was blocked by topograhic obstacles from reaching the target audience. That's why I said TV stations don't own the channels on which they transmit. There was always another station elsewhere that transmitted on the same frequency range(channel).
    3
  12.  @lynnenglish8548  I'm hardly in a position to dethrone Murdoch or any other megalomaniacal media mogul. What's needed here are STRONG AND BRAVE regulatory authorities. What we have instead are weak and incompetent thumb-sucking, pants-shitting cowards in our media regulation authorities.
    3
  13.  @lynnenglish8548  A "channel" is not a station! A station is a massive building in the heart of a city, or located in one of that city's suburbs, or it could be a smaller building located in a regional centre. The building will contain offices for General Manager, Programme Manager, Sales Representative, etc. The building will have large areas set aside as studio space, possibly with seating for a studio audience for live-to-air shows. The building will have all the necessary space to contain sound and vision mixing booths complete with monitoring equipment, voice-over announcers, rooms for VTR and Telecine equipment plus much more. A channel has absolutely no physical presence whatsoever! A channel is a six-, seven- or eight-megahertz-wide chunk of VHF or UHF spectrum space over which the station transmits its signal. The station DOES NOT own that channel and can be moved, if required, to a different channel, such as what happened to Station ATV-Melbourne in Australia back in 1980. ATV was transmitting on a channel at the very bottom of Australia's 13-channel VHF allocations(Ch.0 - 45-52Mhz) but that channel was needed for the introduction of SBS Multicultural TV to provide a VHF channel for those whose sets did not yet have UHF tuners(from 1975 a lot of early Australian colour sets did not include UHF tuners but some did). The SBS servise would, for its first few years, simulcast on UHF Ch.28, then on UHF only. ATV was moved from 45-52Mhz up to 208-215Mhz (VHF Ch.10) where it stayed until the end of analogue broadcasting in 2012. There you have it.
    2
  14.  @lynnenglish8548  That's why we need strong reguatory authorities to control broadcast and print media.
    2
  15. America, remember that you DO HAVE A RELIABLE ALTERNATIVE in the PBS(Public Broadcasting System) Network for TV and NPR(National Public Radio) on FM and AM bands. They are similar in their way to our Australian ABC network.
    2
  16. Murdoch can only be defeated by a STRONG and DETERMINED federal broadcasting regulatory body. Trouble is, America's FCC(Federal Communications Commission), Australia's ACMA(Australian Communications & Media Authorit......er.........apologists) and Britain's OffCom(Office of Communications) are, let's face the facts here, weak, cowardly and gutless in the face of Murdoch or any other media mogul. Such as Murdoch need only look sideways at either of these regulatory bodies and they scurry behind the nearest wall or rock, sucking their thumbs and shitting their pants!
    1
  17.  @rainydays999  And I applaud Canada for taking that stance!
    1