4 ms·
See this is why I hate the NY Times. I get the fact that they hate Rupert Murdoch. I don't much care for him either. But you can't skew your reporting based
by TomOfTTB 15y ago
See this is why I hate the NY Times.
I get the fact that they hate Rupert Murdoch. I don't much care for him either. But you can't skew your reporting based on that.
In this case Parliament was about to pass a law forbidding Murdoch from buying the stock out and the Prime Minister personally appealed to Murdoch to drop it. That fact deserved to by higher than paragraph 7 of the article since it was cited as the main reason News Corp withdrew its bid.
Murdoch isn't retreating he's being forced out by the UK's government and BSkyB shareholders are suffering because of it.
(For the record I do own BSkyB shares and am about to see them drop like a stone thanks to this so I'm a little biased myself)
- mooism2 15y agoThe UK Parliament was not about to pass a law against the takeover. It was about to vote on a motion opposing the takeover, but nothing that would have any formal consequences, even in the Government's handling of the takeover.
- TomOfTTB 15y agoI think it's semantics but I'll concede the point. Murdoch wouldn't have been outright forbidden by the law (or whatever you want to call it). But when the government of a nation expressly attacks a specific future action a company would have to be insane to then pursue that action. It isn't like the Congress censuring one of its members or the President because in that case it's two parties of equal power. In this case the Parliament has power over News Corp and is specifically saying "don't do this". So in my view it is effectively a law against the takeover
- gte910h 15y agoI get that this hurts your pocketbook, but having seen people in "industries" that were shut down by reforms, it's nothing like a law preventing the takeover.