Davos Forum Hails Elitism Over Public Input; Murdoch Admits He 'Tried to Influence on Iraq': VIDEO

The 2007 Davos World Economic Forum on shaping agenda showed its elitist teeth after panelists lamented the rising power of the Internet and expanded possibilities for public input.

It was during this forum that News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch admitted that he tried to shape public opinion on the Iraq War, which was reported a few weeks ago.

Rupert Murdoch admits he tried to shape public opinion on the Iraq War; Also defends the right of 'leadership' decisions and hopes public opinion will come around

It was also during this meeting that Israeli Vice Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Tzipi Livni suggested that it is wrong to make decisions on the basis of public demand:

"I just try to emphasize that there are some dangers in this world of answering to the public opinion. I truly agree that there are times for leadership, but sometimes you see the decision being based on public demand—which is something-- not the right thing to do."

Other panelists, including Rupert Murdoch agreed. "We shouldn’t all just lay down and say, ‘Look, here’s the Internet. We’ve just got to poll the Internet,’ he stated.

Murdoch also admitted that he attempted to shape public opinion on the Iraq War-- disappointed that it didn't work. He claims that the role of 'leadership' might outweigh public opinion-- though the latter may come around well after public outcry over controversial decisions.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown-- whom host Charlie Rose introduced as 'expected to be the next Prime Minister'-- chimed in with similar thoughts.

"Politics, surely, is not walking into the room, gauging what people think, and then telling them back what they actually think and saying that’s now your committed view."

He argues that while leaders ought to argue for their position, currently government and business lack the 'vehicle' to put forward their issues and debate. He remarks on the failure of 'big issue' agenda in the public eye:

'So why are we so much on the defensive on globalization, why have we failed to get a trade agreement, why can’t we persuade people about the wisdom of what is being done in Iraq?'

These comments belie a ruling elite out of touch-- these leaders are piqued over public outcry during an unprecedented time of universal deceit and complete defiance of the public's perception of what the agenda ought to be-- which they seem to think is fine.

This might be a defensible position in the realm of national government where elected representatives theoretically carry out the debate, but this discussion-- as Gordon Brown and others made clear-- is now to be a global one wherein there is no real democratic representation.

It has been made perfectly clear that while great public expression may exist on the Internet-- that cumulative voice will not be heeded and decisions in both private and public entities will be made by the rationale of those in the much lauded 'leadership.'

How, then, can there be such whining about outcry over 'insecurities' on the part of globalizations losers?

______________________________________________

Murdoch Confesses To Propaganda On Iraq

News Corpse | February 5, 2007

Last Friday, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Rupert Murdoch sat on a panel where he lamented what he described as a “loss of power” due to the ascension of the Internet and other new media. The notion that this captain of one of the most dominant media conglomerates in the world is trembling in the shadow of bloggers is simply absurd. Especially when you consider the fact that his company is also a dominant player on the Internet with an aggressive acquisitiveness that includes MySpace, the world’s largest online social networking site.

But there was a more shocking exchange that took place that ought to have caused more of a stir amongst professional journalists and all freedom loving people. It was an exchange that revealed something that most conscious beings knew, but which I have never seen explicitly articulated.

Murdoch was asked if News Corp. had managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. His answer?

“No, I don’t think so. We tried.” Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: “We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution.”

Let me repeat this: “We Tried!”

Setting aside the nonsense that they had ever been critical of Bush’s adventures in Baghdad, having confessed to being deliberatly deceitful raises some questions. For instance, how can anyone ever again take seriously Fox News or any of Murdoch’s other instruments of bias? How can News Corp. continue to pretend that they are “fair and balanced?” How can any other media company exhibit the slightest expression of respect or patronization?

And speaking of other media companies, where are they now? The Chairman and CEO of a media empire that includes the number one rated cable news network, and numerous newspapers around the world, has just admitted that he tried to use that empire to “shape the agenda” in support of a partisan political goal with consequences of life, death, and global destabilization. Why has the media, who you might think would have some interest in this subject, virtually ignored these remarks? We know they were there because, on the very same day, there was a media tempest over remarks by John Kerry on whether Bush had turned the U. S. into an international pariah. That trumped up commotion was led, of course, by Fox News. Even the Hollywood Reporter downplayed the most startling portion of Murdoch’s presentation by headlining their story: “Big media has less sway on Internet.” They apparently felt that that was a more weighty revelation than the attempted thought-control exposed by Murdoch.

Where is the outrage? Where are the calls to disband this mammoth and unlawful propaganda machine? Murdoch, who was made an American citizen by an act of Congress because, otherwise, he could not own an American television network, should have his citizenship revoked and be deported back to Australia. Think of the precedent this sets for any other wealthy and ambitious ideologue that seeks to manipulate public opinion. There are plenty of wealthy and ambitious ideologues in the Middle East and elsewhere who may view Murdoch as a role model.

At the very least, it needs to be broadcast far and wide that News Corp. and Fox News are nothing but a tool of the neo-con operatives in government. You might say we already knew that, but this is different. We are not merely accusing them of this stance, they have now admitted it. And it can not be tolerated! Not by any standard of journalistic ethics. Not by a nation that values a free press so much that it incorporated that freedom into its Constitution.

---------------

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT:

Murdoch: I just—I think we shouldn’t be overwhelmed by this or believe that all politicians and international salesman have to look at the internet and see what is the most popular thing and how important that is—of course public opinion is important, but there are times for leadership and doing things which at the time seem very unpopular.

I mean, it was several years ago now when Israel went and took out Saddam Hussein’s nuclear facilities. It cause a huge outcry around the world, but within a year or two, everyone said, ‘Thank God they did it.’ Um…people…you know, there still has to be leadership.

We see in many countries when people—leaders believe in something and are very sure of it, and do it and are condemned for it. And then public opinion comes around later.

Tpizi: (Laughs) I fully agree.

Murdoch: So, we shouldn’t all just lay down and say, ‘Look, here’s the Internet. We’ve just got to poll the Internet.’

Tpizi: No, I fully agree. I just try to emphasize that there are some dangers in this world of answering to the public opinion. I truly agree that there are times for leadership, but sometimes you see the decision being based on public demand—which is something, uh, not the right thing to do.

Gordon Brown: I agree with that. Politics, surely, is not walking into the room, gauging what people think, and then telling them back what they actually think and saying that’s now your committed view. But it’s actually recognizing what the problems are and then going out and trying to persuade people based on understanding what the problems are.

And I think the big issues are not being properly addressed at the moment. I don’t think we’ve found a vehicle for business and government to actually put the views on the big issues. I think, as I say, we’re very behind the curve in relation to how the general decision making system reacts to this new power.

We’ve got many, many ways were people can get their opinions across—they can say what they want, when they want as they want it—and that’s absolutely great. And that’s a total transformation in the way things are going to be in the future, but we have got to respond, and we’ve got to be able to debate the big issues and lead and say, ‘This is where I stand on globalization, or al Qaida, or on Iraq, or on Afghanistan and this is where I stand.’ But you’ve got to have the debate to win people to your point of view—you cannot avoid the debate anymore; you can’t just announce a decision top-down, ‘We’re pulling the levers, we’re telling you what to do. You’ve got to say, ‘This is what I believe and I’m not coming out to persuade you.

ROSE: I don’t understand what stops you from having the debate on any particular issue. I mean, why you can’t—from the leadership position in government—if it’s about the economy, if it’s about the war, or you can’t engage with the bully pulpit you have and media is by definition going to be responsive to the agenda that you want to talk about.

Gordon Brown: And that is how politics is changing now. I think politics in the future will be about big issues and not the small issues. I think it will be about debating at a global level and not just a national level where we go. But I think we’ve got to recognize that on all the big issues we’re facing at the moment, we haven’t had these big public debates successfully the way they could be conducted in the future.

So why are we so much on the defensive on globalization, we have we failed to get a trade agreement, why can’t we persuade people about the wisdom of what is being done in Iraq, why can’t we get the moderates separated from the extremists in the Muslim world—because we haven’t gone out and had that debate.

ROSE: But isn’t that just leadership which Rupert was talking about?

Gordon Brown: And that’s why I say that’s going to happen if that’s what’s going to happen in the future.

CLICK ON THE BANNER TO BUY TERRORSTORM IN HARD COPY