

Firefox Add-on Warns When You Visit a Murdoch Owned Website - d0ne
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/07/21/new-firefox-add-on-warns-you-about-the-dangers-of-the-murdoch-propaganda-machine/

======
sandycheeks
Deciding where we spend money is a power we all possess and should use to
avoid supporting people and institutions that we do not wish to give our power
to.

Self censoring our exposure to views and arguments that we think might be
opposed to our own views and beliefs because we don't want to give them a
pageview will always be used to manipulate us.

Boycott goods, not ideas.

------
Andrenid
It'd be really cool if this add-on + the Murdoch Block extension on Chrome
actually redirected you to a Google News search using the title of the page
you were trying to visit, so you could find an alternate source for the news
item you were trying to visit. (Of course you'd need to add the block list to
Google News, which is thankfully possible too).

------
pseudonimble
An alternative approach would be an add-on that blocks companies that
advertise in/on Murdoch owned media.

------
CWuestefeld
One might as well create a blocker for all media outlets. All of them, more or
less, have had serious ethical lapses.

~~~
nolok
Since I both agree and disagree with you (what you say is true, but at the
same time a few outlets tend to be very high quality even if it disagree with
their traditionnal ideas while some try to impose their views no matter what),
I would say that the best solution would be an extension telling you which way
the paper tends to defends, "this webpage is mostly pushing for right-
wing/free market view" or something like that. Know what and who you are
reading, then get informed by both side on the subject at hand.

Then is no right and wrong sides, only opinions (at least that's how I view
it).

~~~
CWuestefeld
_this webpage is mostly pushing for right-wing/free market view_

I'm digressing badly, but it's a character flaw of mine that I can't let this
statement go.

The right-wing treatment of the market (i.e., the set of policies pursued by
GWB and his ilk) is anything _but_ "free market". The predominant Conservative
policies are better described as "corporatist" in that they explicitly support
corporate interests.

In some ways, a free market resembles this, because they both demand that
consumer interests practice "caveat emptor", because there are fewer
regulations that constrain what businesses can do.

But contrast to this, a free market system would also refuse to tilt the
playing field in favor of the corporations, against the consumer or broader
public interests [1]. So rent-seeking policies that institutionalize certain
business interests would be avoided, for example. The "too-big-to-fail" idea
would certainly gain no traction in a free market.

[1] While the Conservatives are usually the ones stereotyped as being
corporatist, the Liberals are every bit as guilty. Consider such "left-wing"
policies as ethanol subsidies, or the recent bailout, fostered by Democrats,
of GM and Chrysler.

~~~
nolok
Just FYI, I'm french and here right wing means a whole different thing so I
just took I wild guess at what that would mean for the average reader here.
Thanks for the additional information though.

~~~
CWuestefeld
Sorry, nothing personal. Your statement was an accurate characterization of
the prevailing public thought (i.e., that's what most people seem to believe),
and that's why I reacted to it that way.

------
zipdog
nationalgeographic.com is included because the Nat Geo tv channel is 2/3 owned
by News, but otherwise the list looked about right (media outlets controlled
by Murdoch companies).

~~~
dpritchett
2/3 is 2/3, I don't see why you'd expect it to be left off of the list.

~~~
zipdog
But the website is for the magazine, which is independently controlled by the
NGS. The page does include a section for the tv channel, so I can see the
logic, it just struck me as an anomoly.

~~~
dpritchett
Thanks for the clarification. In that case I agree with you. Moving from
"owned by News" to "partners with News in a related venture" is a huge scope
creep for the extension.

------
aj700
Which would be very useful if he was the puppetmaster of the universe that
leftists believe him to be. Be he isn't. Goldman fucking Sachs. Bailouts
produce conspiracy theorists, and tea parties, Mr President. If nobody had
received one, passing there wouldn't have been a backlash against big
government, and passing the budget would be a piece of cake.

------
obtino
Here is an equivalent extension in Chrome:
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/moepiacmhnmbiilhpo...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/moepiacmhnmbiilhpojodnaopndhddpg)

