Newscorp Blockers
July 27, 2011 10:41 PM   Subscribe

MurdochAlert warns you whenever you visit one of the 100+ Murdoch Family-controlled websites. If you're not ready to block them all, MurdochAlert can warn you instead. Also it's handy for identifying news sources controlled by the Murdoch Family. Users of Chrome might try Murdoch Block.
posted by Ahab (25 comments total) 16 users marked this as a favorite
 
For those who like a little irony in their posts, both add-ons are currently being promoted by Gawker.

(Also, note that the reviews suggest both of these might have a little way to go in recognising some sites.)
posted by Ahab at 10:41 PM on July 27, 2011


Why isn't this called Murbloch?
posted by spicynuts at 10:53 PM on July 27, 2011 [8 favorites]




I love how in jeffburdges link it takes about 6 comments before the 9/11 conspiracy theory nutter comes out.
posted by spicynuts at 11:28 PM on July 27, 2011


From the MurdochAlert link:

Updated July 21, 2011

"Please add http://www.themercury.com.au/ and all other Australian News Ltd publications." - July 26, 2011

"did not detect foxnews as a murdoch site. Needs work." - July 25, 2011


Sounds about as useful as a chocolate spanner…
posted by Pinback at 11:30 PM on July 27, 2011 [3 favorites]


Someone needs to make a program that lets you use your smart phone to take a picture of the front page of a newspaper and then tell you whether it's Murdoch-owned or not. Maybe non-Murdoch owned papers could advertise with a little sticker, "Not Owned by Rupert Murdoch!".
posted by kithrater at 11:34 PM on July 27, 2011 [2 favorites]


You should never read the comments on slashdot, spicynuts. Apologies for my dereferencing failure.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:35 PM on July 27, 2011


Sounds about as useful as a chocolate spanner…

I'm still trying it out. It's not getting foxnews.com, but it is picking up most of Newscorp's English and many of their Australian and US papers. Some of the US papers it's failing with are Dow Jones properties and some are very small, so I'd guess they've yet to work all the way through the ownership structures.

Interestingly, it is picking up MarketWatch, but they've got a little bar at the bottom that pops up over the warning, nearly obscuring it. I kind of wonder whether they're already working on ways to defeat it.
posted by Ahab at 12:00 AM on July 28, 2011




You should never read the comments on slashdot, spicynuts. Apologies for my dereferencing failure.


No apology necessary. Lesson learned.
posted by spicynuts at 12:47 AM on July 28, 2011


Someone needs to make a program that lets you use your smart phone to take a picture of the front page of a newspaper and then tell you whether it's Murdoch-owned or not.

Effectively, they do. The iOS Google app includes Google Goggles, which can take a picture, scan it for words, OCR it into readable text, and do a Google search on it. Do this on a newspaper banner and you'll invariably get the Wikipedia page in the first few hits, if not the very first. That will usually tell you of Murdoch owns it.
posted by JHarris at 12:52 AM on July 28, 2011


Sounds about as useful as a chocolate spanner

I do, in fact, have a use for a chocolate spanner right now. I will use it to fix my mouth.
posted by louche mustachio at 1:24 AM on July 28, 2011 [3 favorites]


That's all very good but I wouldn't give up my Times Literary Supplement even if it was owned by the Nazis. *guilty pleasure*

I have answered their customer surveys and invariably ask for an employee buyout on the "What can we do to make the TLS better for you?" or otherwise I state my hope that their finances are in the red, sucking money from the empire of evil.
posted by lucia__is__dada at 3:26 AM on July 28, 2011


How about an addon that zaps you whenever you think of the Simpsons or Star Wars?
posted by unigolyn at 4:20 AM on July 28, 2011


Does Murdoch own all of the what used to be 20th Century Fox?
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 4:41 AM on July 28, 2011


It's said that Ferdinand Mount, on being appointed editor of the TLS, was summoned to a high-level conference with Murdoch and the other News International editors. Murdoch went round the table and interrogated each editor, in detail, about what he or she was doing to increase circulation. When it came to Mount's turn, he is said to have replied: 'Well, frankly, I don't see why the TLS needs more readers. I think we have enough already.' The assembled suits were aghast, but Murdoch was so amused at the idea of an editor not wanting to increase circulation that he kept Mount in post for the next ten years and gave him a free hand to do whatever he wanted with the paper.

This is the only story I have ever heard that shows Murdoch in an attractive light. I do worry a bit about what might happen to the TLS if Murdoch's empire gets broken up.
posted by verstegan at 4:42 AM on July 28, 2011 [5 favorites]


Next up: a killfile for your brain. Tea Party? What Tea Party?
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:58 AM on July 28, 2011


That list ain't too accurate. TVGuide was sold by News Corp to Macrovision in 2008.
posted by fet at 5:08 AM on July 28, 2011


I don't get it. The evil parts of the empire are independently profitable. Fox News isn't an ideological charity case; their aggressively manipulative stupid is a pretty effective business.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 5:34 AM on July 28, 2011


This is OK, but to stop Rupert Murdoch, it really must be done on hallowed ground - a church. His blood must be spilled on the altar of God. Take the seven website-blockers that work in Google Chrome: the first is most important, it extinguishes physical life and forms the center of the cross. The subsequent placings extinguish spiritual life and should radiate outward. This is not a human Chairman and major shareholder of an international media corporation - make no mistake. There is proof, of course: his URL bears a mark, a sequence of sixes. So, says the Bible, do all the websites of the apostles of Satan.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 5:49 AM on July 28, 2011 [3 favorites]


And...so what? If The Times runs a great story, as it often does, are we supposed to write it off because it's part of the Murdoch empire? (Yes, I know its website is behind a paywall, but you get my point.) There's a big difference being wise to media ownership and cutting off your nose to spite your face.
posted by garlicsmack at 6:02 AM on July 28, 2011


I block all sites. Even metafilter.

You can't see this.
posted by clvrmnky at 6:22 AM on July 28, 2011


In a similar vein, you can get Kitten Block, which replaces links to the Daily Mail with soothing pictures of tea and kittens.

Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with Kitten Block, but I do live in the same neighborhood as its creator.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 6:30 AM on July 28, 2011 [1 favorite]


If The Times runs a great story, as it often does, are we supposed to write it off because it's part of the Murdoch empire?
If you're not ready to block them all, MurdochAlert can warn you instead.
I for one like to know who paid for the story I read - various sources have various biases.
posted by hat_eater at 6:44 AM on July 28, 2011


Interesting! Thanks, Ahab.
posted by harriet vane at 6:54 AM on July 28, 2011


Murdoch Family-controlled websites

Actually, no, it's a list of Murdoch-partially-owned websites as well.

For example, it lists Hulu, which is part-owned by Fox. But Murdoch definitely does not "control" Hulu.

It also still lists Myspace even though Murdoch only retains 5% ownership.

And so on.

(and of course if you actually didnt want to use anything partially owned by Murdoch, you'd have to know all his personal investments as well. Which we don't. Who knows what he actually owns?)
posted by wildcrdj at 2:47 PM on July 28, 2011


« Older "We will kill, burn, and destroy all Buddhists"   |   Angry Jane Doe Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments