Murdoch’s News Corp. Fails a Public Interest Test
“Allowing media power to be concentrated in the hands of a few multibillionaires will impoverish society,” says Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, who offers a seven-question test for whether a media organization is a potential menace to the public.
“Allowing media power to be concentrated in the hands of a few multibillionaires will impoverish society,” says Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, who offers a seven-question test for whether a media organization is a potential menace to the public.
Rusbridger points out that the inquiry into the News of the World phone hacking scandal has so far produced no legislation limiting the concentration of media ownership in the U.K. Society’s primary means of understanding itself — the press — remains vulnerable to monopolies that have no interest in the public welfare.
— Posted by Alexander Reed Kelly
WAIT, BEFORE YOU GO…Alan Rusbridger in The Guardian:
In the UK, there is currently more choice, but the economics of news are undergoing a fundamental revolution, so nothing should be taken for granted. There are other powerful media organisations in the UK, including the BBC. In order to gauge the potential threat, try asking seven critical questions:
a) Does it have strong internal governance? b) Is it effectively externally regulated? c) Is it subject to, and does it comply with, the law? d) Is it subjected to normal scrutiny by press and parliament? e) Does it overtly try to exert public political influence? f) Does it privately lobby over regulation or competition issues? g) Does it actively work to expose the private lives of politicians or other public figures?
On such a scorecard, the BBC would score one out of seven – in the sense that only one of the issues, f), is engaged. [Rupert Murdoch’s] News Corp would score seven.
If you're reading this, you probably already know that non-profit, independent journalism is under threat worldwide. Independent news sites are overshadowed by larger heavily funded mainstream media that inundate us with hype and noise that barely scratch the surface. We believe that our readers deserve to know the full story. Truthdig writers bravely dig beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that tells you what’s really happening and who’s rolling up their sleeves to do something about it.
Like you, we believe a well-informed public that doesn’t have blind faith in the status quo can help change the world. Your contribution of as little as $5 monthly or $35 annually will make you a groundbreaking member and lays the foundation of our work.
The persecution of Julian Assange is about to flare again as it enters a dangerous stage. On Aug. 20, three-quarters of the Swedish prosecutor’s case against Assange regarding sexual misconduct in 2010 will disappear as the statute of limitations expires. Meanwhile, Washington’s obsession with Assange and WikiLeaks has intensified. Indeed, it is vindictive American power that offers the greatest threat -- as Chelsea Manning and those still held in Guantanamo can attest.
In an essay in The New York Review of Books, Alan Rusbridger takes a long view of the efforts of government security apparatuses to bug our daily existences, including subverting online security, to make us safer. So, do you feel any safer?
In an age of unprecedented antagonism toward the press, one newspaper headquartered in the heart of a former empire is making a spirited thrashing of the image and ambitions of some of the world's proudest elites.One newspaper headquartered in the heart of a former empire is making a spirited thrashing of the image and ambitions of some of the world's proudest elites.
Three-and-a-half months after NSA leaker Edward Snowden brought the U.S. government’s massive spying operations to the public, "Democracy Now!" spends an hour Monday with Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of The Guardian, the British newspaper that first reported the leaked documents.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.