![]() |
![]() |
||
|
Beware Murdoch’s ‘Necessary Promises’Posted on May 16, 2007By Joe Conason While Rupert Murdoch is as conscious of his image as any other legendary villain, he also seems to possess a sense of humor—or at least somebody around him does. Early in his ongoing bid to take over Dow Jones Publishing and The Wall Street Journal, a Murdoch spokesman said that the media mogul would reassure those who may fear for the paper’s independence and integrity with all of the “necessary promises.” “Necessary promises” is a phrase that Murdoch could utter, at this late date, only with a leering wink. To read that marvelous euphemism was to laugh, horrifying as the prospect of a Murdoch Journal undoubtedly is. After decades of observing the old buccaneer we know—and, of course, he knows we know—that “necessary promises” are not the kind that will be honored. They merely serve as a temporary gloss covering a journalistic sellout to Mammon, the company also known as News Corp. What Murdoch usually guarantees, before sacking and burning an institution like Dow Jones, is editorial independence and freedom from political or commercial manipulation. Such promises are—as Murdoch reportedly told an editor at The Times of London, who had heard similar assurances from him—“not worth the paper they are printed on.” That unhappy episode occurred more than 25 years ago, according to the great newspaperman Harold Evans, who recounted his losing duel with Murdoch in his memoir “Good Times, Bad Times.” But as Evans must have noticed since then, financial success and simple longevity have made his old nemesis almost respectable. More than one lickspittle analyst is eager to praise the emperor of News Corp. as a “visionary” because he founded Fox News Channel and bought MySpace. Certainly nobody can quarrel with Murdoch’s business acumen. His daring is as admirable as his character and philosophy are awful. He would proudly reply that he has no illusions. And certainly we should have none about him. The usual Murdoch promises of editorial independence are not believable because he has misused his executive authority throughout his career—and because he has repeatedly sworn that he would not do those things again, just before he does them again. This pattern has persisted for three decades.One of the most amusing examples was his brief political romance with Jimmy Carter during the spring of 1980, when the struggling president needed Murdoch’s help in the New York primary against the insurgent candidacy of Sen. Edward Kennedy. What Murdoch needed was a low-interest, government-backed loan to buy Boeing jets for an Australian airline he then owned. Three days after they met at the White House, the New York Post published a front-page editorial endorsing President Carter—and the following week, Murdoch’s airline received a $300-million corporate-welfare check from the U.S. Export-Import Bank. In the congressional investigation that ensued, Murdoch promised never again to do anything that could be so easily “misconstrued.” Yet from London to New York to Washington to Beijing, his companies have consistently coddled politicians with admiring coverage and generous book advances, which have been reciprocated with regulatory and tax favors. The beneficiaries have spanned the ideological spectrum, from the right-wing Margaret Thatcher to the Marxist-Leninist daughter of Deng Xiaoping. All they had in common was their capacity to advance the interests of News Corp. Meanwhile, the Murdoch media continually reaffirm their commitment to sensationalism, political bias and protection of the boss. As one of his employees explained in an unwitting moment on videotape, Murdoch journalism can be “a little bit like the Mafia.” (The employee was terminated with extreme prejudice after those remarks were made public.) What makes The Wall Street Journal so valuable to its readers and to American culture is the excellence of its news columns—and their unpredictability. The Journal’s news bureaus are strictly separated from the editorial section, whose medieval outlook is nearly identical to that of the would-be owner. Very often, straight reporting in the news section briskly disproves the fantasies of the editorial pages. Under Murdoch, that legacy of superb reporting and editorial separation would die. As Andrew Neil, a former editor of the London Sunday Times, recently explained in the Journal’s own pages: “I think he would want the news to be informed by the editorial agenda.” So let’s hope the Bancroft family, whose preferred Dow Jones stock makes them the trustees of the Journal’s integrity, resists the temptation to cash out. Or if they succumb, let them not pretend that “necessary promises” mean anything beyond $60 a share. Joe Conason writes for The New York Observer. © 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc. Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By joey, June 23, 2007 at 12:25 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Fair and Balanced Talk radio
How to balance talk radio. Sometimes the best ideas come from the strangest places..
Report thisListen to the offer to purchase agreement offered by the Rupert Murdoch (owner of FOX TV)
to the Bancroft family for the purchase of The Wall St Journal.
Rupert proposed having a fairness panel to oversee the editorial section of the paper.
If Rupert himself knows that fair and balanced isn’t fair and balanced maybe we should
use his idea to bring back the fairness doctrine with fairness panels.
Why not balance talk radio with such a panel. Or re balance Fox TV.
By Nitro, May 20, 2007 at 6:20 pm #
Murdoch’s saying “Necessary Promises” reminds me of about everything Pres. Bush has said. Do these people really learn this in our colleges?
I’d venture to say his learning of these “Necessary Promises” came while he was under the President’s desk.
Report thisBy richard locicero, May 18, 2007 at 4:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Should Murdoch succeed in buying the WSJ champaigne corks will be popping at the FINANCIAL TIMES. The business and financial community will simply not put up with the “Fox Newsification” of their primary source of business news and that would make the “Pink Times” a big winner.
Report thisBy Jonas South, May 18, 2007 at 2:58 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
When the history of our era is written, let us hope that Murdock does not get to dictate his own whitewash via his iron grip on public discourse, at least among the ill informed majority. This man bought himself a US citizenship, short-circuiting the usual five-year waiting period, in order to own Fox news, and then promptly used that to help put Bush in the White House. If history speaks clearly, Murdock would be fingered as one of the worst anti-democratic villains of our times, and there are so many!
Report thisBy shakingfist, May 18, 2007 at 2:32 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
My hunch is that Murdoch is, if not directly working for, working closely with British intelligence among others. Basically that would make him the head of their ministry of information. Perhaps we Americans can’t imagine such a scenario because we have a hard time seeing past the Citizen Kane architype as media mogul. Why would a modern intelligence network only concern itself with observing and gathering information when it could be so much more productive as a distributor mis-information as well? It seems like the only rule these days is that there are no rules.
Report thisBy DennisD, May 17, 2007 at 11:09 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I thought Murdoch was the reason we have anti-trust laws in this country. Or used to since we don’t apply it anymore for fear of offending those elite big campaign contributors. Forget Iraq - we need to instill democracy all over again in the USofA. It’s been on life support for decades and the flat line is starting to form.
Report thisBy Louise, May 17, 2007 at 7:47 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“Under Murdoch, that legacy of superb reporting and editorial separation would die. As Andrew Neil, a former editor of the London Sunday Times, recently explained in the Journals own pages: I think he would want the news to be informed by the editorial agenda.
The day the National Enquirer became recognized as a permanent “expert” source on national cable news, I knew the United States, as I had come to believe it was, probably wasn’t.
When the ridiculous comes to be viewed as being a viable source of critically important news, obviously the readers and viewers have been dumbed down to the point where everything of value is being thrown in the trash.
But then, people like trash. Visit our landfills.
People like gossip and lying. The nastier the better. [Have you watched prime-time TV lately?]
People prefer idiocy over fact if it satisfies the need to “bare false witness” and justifies not loving their neighbors as themselves.
And people love to pretend they are rich.
I chuckle when I hear the Wall Street Journal is the number one selling news paper in the country. Must be a great Bird-cage liner. I smile when I hear people knowingly speak of the numbers at the days closing of the DOW. Because I seriously doubt they are all members of the sacred 8% club that actually understands the Stock Market.
But hey ... who am I to burst the wobbly bubble of the great pretenders?
Murdock’s acquiring of the Wall Street Journal will give us all another very good reason to support Independent Media.
Report thisHave you made your donation yet?
By republicanSScareme, May 17, 2007 at 6:53 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
America is in deep do-do today because of immoral shit-bags like Rupert Murdoch. He is the closet thing to a pure Nazi since Hitler.
Hopefully, one day, Americans will come together and keep rich thugs like Murdoch from infecting our dear country with their neo-Nazi philosophy.
Murdoch’s past crimes already qualify him for the gallows.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, May 17, 2007 at 5:34 pm #
#70596 by James Yell on 5/17 at 9:41 am: “...he did doctor the news and focus on the invented “news” of Bush/Cheney. So I don’t think my point was extreme or stretched. Do you…?”
Oh, I agree, James, but he seems to have turned over a new leaf in a number of ways recently. Granted, though, that he might only be following the crowd in dumping Bush + Cheney now as much as supporting them in the past.
At least he is capable of change, belated and profit-motivated as that may be. Bush and Cheney are not - they are the past and at least those like Murdoch are willing to cut and leave them behind. Even Condy would dump them if she had a chance!
Report thisBy Dale Headley, May 17, 2007 at 1:41 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Fox News is not enough for Rupert Murdoch. He seeks to ultimately turn all media into a mouthpiece for his political and financial agenda. The only thing that will prevent him from eventually becoming the most powerful entity in the world is that he’s a very old man and is running out of time. I suspect that he equates power with immortality.
Report thisBy James Yell, May 17, 2007 at 1:41 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The point was the infinate greed, arrogance of Rupert and Cheney. The manipulation of truth of Rupert and Cheney and the pernicous effect it has on our political system. So I really don’t understand what the point is of the response. I never said Rupert shot anybody, or postured on the deck of an aircraft carrier, but he did doctor the news and focus on the invented “news” of Bush/Cheney. So I don’t think my point was extreme or stretched. Do you?
Report thisBy QuyTran, May 17, 2007 at 1:18 pm #
Will this beatiful nation become one Australian state in the near future ? Why should we let this damned guy act freely while he’s only a boarder ?
Report thisBy Forkboy, May 17, 2007 at 12:46 pm #
I receive a handful of e-newsletters that involve themselves with politics, etc. On a handful of occasions I have found myself directed to articles (excuse me, opinions) posted at the Wall Street Journal; not exactly a left-leaning publication. On those occasions where I felt strongly compelled I have posted a comment to the relevant article and waited for it to be published. The WSJ states that it doesn’t post every comment, etc., but I have yet to have any of my comments posted. Oddly enough though, all the comments that have subsequently been posted to the article are ones that whole-heartedly agree with the right-leaning article.
On every occasion not one comment was posted that took a differing viewpoint from that of the original article. I find this very disturbing. I could understand the non-posting of my comments if they were laced with profanity or simply attacked the integrity of the article’s author (what I perceive to be a common tactic of right-leaning commentators on left-leaning blogs), but in every case my comment was tendered as a repudiation of fact or simply the statement of a contrasting opinion - always offered and written respectfully.
This said, I’m not really certain that ownership of the WSJ by Murdoch would really be that much different. Certainly not in the opinions section, but the author of this article is careful to diferintiate between the two portions of the paper.
Report thisBy rage, May 17, 2007 at 12:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
This media pimp owns enough whore media outlets that he has ridiculously ruined. We’re sick of his extra conservative right-wing propaganda canonizing colonial imperialism as revisionist history. I hope Murdock dies before the Bancrofts relent. I hope all concerned join forces to string this evil rat out forever. There needs to be a stop put to this guy after what he did to FOX. The National Enquirer has greater credibility than FOX news, all thanks to Rupert Murdock. We can’t have that terrible predicament befall the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones. Murdock’s atrocious spin-heathens and his monstrous public misinformation machine have done enough harm. Stop that fool NOW!
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, May 17, 2007 at 10:24 am #
#70543 by James Yell on 5/17 at 5:33 am: “...I usually like Australians, but Rupert is just Cheney with an accent….”
One could hardly accuse Murdoch of shooting and injuring his friends during some hunting party .....nor of sounding off on the deck of some nuclear aircraft carrier about which country will be invaded next - or even nuked! http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx051407
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, May 17, 2007 at 10:23 am #
#70543 by James Yell on 5/17 at 5:33 am: “...I usually like Australians, but Rupert is just Cheney with an accent….”
One could hardly accuse Murdoch of shooting and injuring his friends during some hunting party .....nor of sounding off on the deck of some nuclear aircraft carrier about which country will be invaded next - or even nuked!
Report thisBy James Yell, May 17, 2007 at 9:33 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I usually like Australians, but Rupert is just Cheney with an accent. Our news media should be required to be owned by native born Americans and the conglomerate news ownership should be disolved. This monopoly by right wing nut cases and greedy SOBs is corrupting our already too corrupt political process. Rupert is the poster child, Left Leaning news media, don’t make me laugh.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, May 17, 2007 at 8:55 am #
Interesting statement by Newscorp’s Rupert Murdoch about committing his empire to being “carbon neutral” by 2010 as well as promoting clean and green technology and a sustainable lifestyle around the world - http://media.theaustralian.news.com.au/20070510-global_launch.wmv
It was also interesting to note that that Rupert Murdoch had received a congratulatory message on this initiative from Britain’s PM Blair. It was unlikely that he would have the same encouragement from George Bush and, in fact, Murdoch has already consigned him to being yesterday’s man in a previous statement in the last few weeks.
Reading between the lines then, it could also be assumed that he believes that the illusory “global war on terror” no longer exists as any kind of alternative in the future. In other words, not only is Bush no longer being supported by FoxNews or CNN in the USA but his Republican administration’s influence is now considered to be approaching zero.
As you might know, Murdoch’s second wife is Chinese and they now already have two children. His outlook is much more accepting of Asia generally than most American or Australian businessmen. It is significant then that he has gone out of his way to promote a different more sustainable lifestyle for all for the future.
Report this