Just an interesting comment regarding NewsCorp

This was a comment left on Digg regarding this story about NewsCorp...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/n...

I thought some may enjoy the discourse. That is all. :-) Congrats to Pennsylvania!

----------comment taken from digg story - http://digg.com/tech_news...
That doesn't invalidate using the press or internet to create a buzz on your story though.

You could just be trying to create disinformation or water down the facts by involving the public.

Justice isn't always the simple procedure of law. It comes down to a game psychology in the purest form. So, you cannot deny psychology can effect the outcome of the case and that there is more than the black and white understanding of pure guilt or pure innocence.

Law is not required to be so naive, that's why we have jury cases. Their opinion is dynamic and impressionable for better or worse, that means justice isn't a one sided view. It's more like an average of peer morality upon the sum of your actions.

That being the case, justice if not always just therefore abusing it is also not always just, but therein lies the exception. Sometimes the abuse of the justice system is, in fact, more just the legal procedure itself.

Such as bring a case that has little merit to win, but plenty of bad press potential.

What can News corp do? Sue Echostar for liable ? Will the average opinion of the people who read this article be for or again News corp, regardless of the facts of the case.

I think it will be against News Corp, even if the case has no evidentiary merit. But, more meaningful for you to accept is that justice may or may not always be the sum of evidence.

It's is up to the people to device with or without evidence what the wealthy do behind their backs because we must assume their wealthy increases their privacy and that as we all know crimes behind closed door rarely go punished.

Only a population of fools would allow themselves to think that wealthy people don't casually get away with untold amounts of these white collar crimes, espionage, embezzlement, destruction of evidence and endless other obstruction of justice charges

We the people, know that the majority of these crimes go unreported and unpunished. Even our simple common sense tell us that. We know the wealthy are getting away with crimes, but for the most part we don't care unless they effect us directly.

However, this does not in any way change the fact that getting your story public hurts the companies image. The FACT they News corp cannot openly deny the rumors without also validating the claim to some level remains a sociological obstacle that few business or media evangelists can overcome.

There will be unless... amounts of people asking. BUT Why then are their not accusation of this nature against EVERY corporation if only for the use of generating bad press for your opponent.
Well perhaps some stories just stick and some don't... but MORE likely is the merit of the claim and the knowledge of the times the average human brain is likely to belief one side of the story and not the other to a greater statistical degree based partly on what they know about each company.

Character witness is what they call it I think. We the consumers, through our relationship with the media sources of the nation, judge the character of these people.. News Corp and EchoStar.
Upon that character judgment one side usually has to win, rarely will the average person call a draw... on anything.

So you say... disregard the average person... law is that of procedural elitism.

This is the fancy speak of the old guard, the fallen nobility which blindly continues to try to build a framework of justice just beyond the heads of the common people... AND THEN .. charges them
$300 an hour to interpret freedom for them.

The courts are MADE specifically to bend dynamically with the people's will not stand as the divine code of decades ago from our wise forefathers. Times can change too fast for tradition to keep up. The highly educated and wealthy founding fathers knew all this. They allowed for dynamics that the average person might never understand and that the wealthy classes would never fully agree with. That in itself is the compromise. Elites asking for power to the people as a long term solution to stop what they saw as the inevitable civil unrest caused by centuries of nation building and wealth hording. Centuries of favoritism and prejudice don't add up to democracy without the power of a dynamic justice system.

That's what makes Digg and other user driven sites powerful. They are mostly common people without massive corporate interest involved in skewing the results. However, how hard is it for wealth to find ways to ruin something like Digg. Not hard at all, and that's why we need a dynamic system that isn't as simple as the black and white or testify or go to prison. It's not even as simple as no evidence = no case. How hard is it really to commit a crime and leave no evidence ?
Should we really sit back and say.. oh okay.. procedure says so. No... judges and juries need to apply more dynamics to the reality of crime management through negative stimulus.

If we can't find them guilt, we can still note the piles of contradicting logic the defenses may use to 'prove' innocence in the face of many 'convenient' facts. That's just lawyer speak trying to create doubt where little doubt exists. Sure, that's their job. Just like it's the CIA job to make favorable news reports and feed them to CNN. Just like that's the FBI's job to roll back Valarie Plume's undercover status for the best interest of the nation aka to protect their criminal President.

I suggest, you don't be so naive. News corp is OPENLY pushing the ethical envelope with their political propaganda network of news, books and production studio level slander ads. I think only an idiot would give News Corp the benefit of the doubt that they are the poor snowflake of media outlets being targeted by mean old Echostar. Well.. an idiot or a neo-con.. or a Fox employee.
They are all roughly the same thing in my opinion.

Corporation are people.. under the law. If you neighbor had some witness corroborating a story that you conspired to rip him off. AT THE VERY LEAST you would expect everyone else in the neighborhood to hear about that shit and be talking behind your back like made.

The result, your character is now highly questionable.

However, people have a hard time putting the same level of character judgment they would a person into a business, especially many businesses with many different names all owned by one parent corporation.

In my opinion incorporation was NEVER meant to work like this. The legal loopholes and protection of corporations are some of the most insane thing's I've ever heard muttered under the guise of freedom or law. We need DEMOCRATIC control over corporate operations. The shareholders alone shouldn't be trusted with the majority equality of the nation. More accountability and stricter guidelines on being able to call yourself News (which people have always expected is based on fact) or opinions such as Barack Obama is only a big deal because he is black.

I'm sorry but there needs to be a limit of what kind of TOTAL BS you can say and still call yourself a News station. Boycotting is a wealth based protest so it's not truly a democratic means of protest. If you have more money than me, then your boycotts will be more effective.

The people have no way to stop these headless, moral less, profit machines from rolling over everything sacred and meaningful to our culture for the sake of ratings and profit. From News to the very democratic elections that grant us freedom, we are bombarded with bullshit.

Sadly people truly only have one group to blame for ALL this.... themselves for letting it happen.

Obviously Echostar is the underdog here, they will pull public sentiment and News corp is not below espionage or propaganda. When you build a name for yourself like that, you must expect to lose in court more often based on your perceived character.

When in doubt, rule against the known criminal. You are not innocent merely because their is no proof. The Jury and Judge have the full say, not he procedure itself. This way the jury and judge can dynamically represent the people and not a government which may be controlled by wealthy elites or a government so far gone it's legislation has lost meaning. There are limitless scenario's why procedural law alone simply cannot stand the test of time. Language, understanding and interpretation itself changes over time. Just as the internet has confused law, new infrastructure and languages bring about concepts and crimes not yet in the justice departments playbook.
The changing economics also create opportunities that aren't criminal merely because they haven't been profitable.. up until a point. Such as trying to put your competition out of business by dumping a product below it's cost and leveraging your businesses greater wealth or diversity of markets.

You have to have a dynamic system and that also breeds multi front defenses such as attacking the facts, appealing to the masses, practicing your emotions. and OH yea presenting evidence also.

I think the way lawyer compete has become a severe problem in the justice system. That and the fact your buy a team of lawyers to outpace those with less money is a major problem. The average man can't just sue on a whim like a corporation can. Yet corporations want all the same freedoms the average man has. We've effectively granted them full freedom as though they were individuals, but individuals wielding hundreds of billions of dollars and with reduced liability.

Well what hope do you, the little guy have in court against something like that. Chances are they even own a media station or 500.

These days even some of the laws are designed to make it impossible to convict certain people of certain crimes. Such as CEOs, police... Presidents. A lot of it is that people can't see beyond the procedure and remember WE THE PEOPLE have the power above and beyond all law. .

If we need a law revoked... we can protest until it's done. Any Congress with sense would hold an emergency meeting if enough people protested. Sadly, protesting, once again, takes money. Money to drive there, money for parking, money to afford overpriced food and drink.

The representatives for the most part are all out of touch with the public and their judicial appointments show that very tellingly. So, it's up the jury to do WHATS RIGHT above and beyond what fits in the procedure. That's why we use a jury because we KNOW they will to some degree make up their own minds, but it's still a very flawed system where jurors pressure each other and have obligations they want to get back to.

I disagere that Echostar would due News corp for non related business in other fields. That makes very VERY little sense.

Basically, if you want to make money suing people, you must take into account more than these simple factors of who will win and who will lose. You must have a solid enough case to scare the company into out of court settlement or be able to win. This case has few of the, I'm suing to get you back signs. It seems like a hard case to win and that Echostar is taking a long shot because they either want to make News Corp look bad or they really think they have a case because of the hacker witrness.

Perhaps a third party is paying the witness to lie, but it makes no real sense that Echostar would pay him to make up such a lie without planting more evidence and such.

It sounds more legit than that to me. You have a hacker working on technology that could be used against Echostar. You have Echostar that's been through card hacking before and hated it, but has had it under control for years now.

Why would Echostar bring into the spotlight this hacker and his program that might be used to hack their network. Wouldn't Echostar try to do ANYTHING but bring this program into light ?

Either it's a masterful conspiracy or Echostar really thinks they have a case.

Now Echostar may have a motive more than News Corp, but personally I don't know their relations with each other. Echostar however is likely losing money and going out of business. The SAT TV industry is likely to lose more and more customers as Verizon can provide TV on your phone lines.

Since Verizon can do that they have many times more incentive to install more fiber to more places. Plus SAT internet sucks and sats are less reliable than terrestrial. So Echostar's long term profitability may be in question.

I'd say News Corps is not. Even if they lost Fox News and the political propaganda branch, they still produce TONS of movies and still has some of the more favorite shows. ... I guess The Simpsons signed for life.

So maybe Echostar is that desperate, but I doubt it and MOST people will take this as YET ANOTHER reason to change the channel any time they hear FOX anything. It probably more effective though to mail complaints to Fox sponsor threatening to boycott. Of course, you actually have to boycott since they won't care unless their bottom line actually goes down. Not a democratic solution, but it's one of the few things we have beside full scale protests.