Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: The Murdoch Factor

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post The Murdoch Factor

    The Murdoch Fact

    By PAUL KRUGMAN
    Published: June 29, 2007
    In October 2003, the nonpartisan Program on International Policy Attitudes published a study titled “Misperceptions, the media and the Iraq war.” It found that 60 percent of Americans believed at least one of the following: clear evidence had been found of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda; W.M.D. had been found in Iraq; world public opinion favored the U.S. going to war with Iraq.

    The prevalence of these misperceptions, however, depended crucially on where people got their news. Only 23 percent of those who got their information mainly from PBS or NPR believed any of these untrue things, but the number was 80 percent among those relying primarily on Fox News. In particular, two-thirds of Fox devotees believed that the U.S. had “found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization.”



    So, does anyone think it’s O.K. if Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox News, buys The Wall Street Journal?
    The problem with Mr. Murdoch isn’t that he’s a right-wing ideologue. If that were all he was, he’d be much less dangerous. What he is, rather, is an opportunist who exploits a rule-free media environment — one created, in part, by conservative political power — by slanting news coverage to favor whoever he thinks will serve his business interests.
    In the United States, that strategy has mainly meant blatant bias in favor of the Bush administration and the Republican Party — but last year Mr. Murdoch covered his bases by hosting a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton’s Senate re-election campaign.
    In Britain, Mr. Murdoch endorsed Tony Blair in 1997 and gave his government favorable coverage, “ensuring,” reports The New York Times, “that the new government would allow him to keep intact his British holdings.”
    And in China, Mr. Murdoch’s organizations have taken care not to offend the dictatorship.
    Now, Mr. Murdoch’s people rarely make flatly false claims. Instead, they usually convey misinformation through innuendo. During the early months of the Iraq occupation, for example, Fox gave breathless coverage to each report of possible W.M.D.’s, with little or no coverage of the subsequent discovery that it was a false alarm. No wonder, then, that many Fox viewers got the impression that W.M.D.’s had been found.
    When all else fails, Mr. Murdoch’s news organizations simply stop covering inconvenient subjects.
    Last year, Fox relentlessly pushed claims that the “liberal media” were failing to report the “good news” from Iraq. Once that line became untenable — well, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that in the first quarter of 2007 daytime programs on Fox News devoted only 6 percent of their time to the Iraq war, compared with 18 percent at MSNBC and 20 percent at CNN.
    What took Iraq’s place? Anna Nicole Smith, who received 17 percent of Fox’s daytime coverage.
    Defenders of Mr. Murdoch’s bid for The Journal say that we should judge him not by Fox News but by his stewardship of the venerable Times of London, which he acquired in 1981. Indeed, the political bias of The Times is much less blatant than that of Fox News. But a number of former Times employees have said that there was pressure to slant coverage — and everyone I’ve seen quoted defending Mr. Murdoch’s management is still on his payroll.
    In any case, do we want to see one of America’s two serious national newspapers in the hands of a man who has done so much to mislead so many? (The Washington Post, for all its influence, is basically a Beltway paper, not a national one. The McClatchy papers, though their Washington bureau’s reporting in the run-up to Iraq put more prestigious news organizations to shame, still don’t have The Journal’s ability to drive national discussion.)
    There doesn’t seem to be any legal obstacle to the News Corporation’s bid for The Journal: F.C.C. rules on media ownership are mainly designed to prevent monopoly in local markets, not to safeguard precious national informational assets. Still, public pressure could help avert a Murdoch takeover. Maybe Congress should hold hearings.
    If Mr. Murdoch does acquire The Journal, it will be a dark day for America’s news media — and American democracy. If there were any justice in the world, Mr. Murdoch, who did more than anyone in the news business to mislead this country into an unjustified, disastrous war, would be a discredited outcast. Instead, he’s expanding his empire.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    89

    Re: The Murdoch Factor

    I don't like it; won't like if it "foxes it up" or turns it more tabloid, but it's his now. Actually; I stopped reading the WSJ years ago. It was already foxing itself up. LOL

    The papers are, at this point, a faltering media form. Consolidation may be the only way that they can survive. And/or it may be the only way that they can afford research and development efforts into new delivery modes.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,781

    Re: The Murdoch Factor

    I wouldn't worry too much about papers...9 out of every 10 journalist donates nothing to the repub party and all of it to dems....

    by the way...connections to alquaida are well documented..just because one of the members didn't sit in sadaam's council does not mean there was no connection... I know there are religious differences that can never be discounted in that part of the world, but their common interests are monumental...hatred for the Saudi Royal family and Israel for one... that alone created VERY common interests.... OBL'S top man ended up in a bagdad hospital after being wounded in the afgan campaign for crying out loud... even that commission lists some meetings that took place...

    absence of evidence is not evidence of absence on the WOMD deal... everybody knows he had them... there are those who admit it, and those who would kill Bush and his family if given the opportunity after he "stole" the first election and all the other "take it to the streets and burn everything" crowd..who just want to rant on about liar, illegal war and all the other move on crowd does

    I don't like what's going on about the war....not because we started it, but because we have not executed the get out policy right... should have been over in 1 year....

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    89

    Post Re: The Murdoch Factor

    Quote Originally Posted by big easy View Post
    I wouldn't worry too much about papers...9 out of every 10 journalist donates nothing to the repub party and all of it to dems....
    ...
    Hi BE,
    I'm not getting how this reflects on newspapers as a business model. It sounds like some odd math to me -- else half of the NYT staff and all of the WSJ would be donating to "the enemy" -- but that aside, you're talking about the employees of the papers where I'm talking about the business and the owners &/or shareholders.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    27

    Post Re: The Murdoch Factor

    Quote Originally Posted by big easy View Post
    by the way...connections to alquaida are well documented...absence of evidence is not evidence of absence on the WOMD deal... everybody knows he had them...
    Ahhh, and now comes Ms. 23%!

    Either you are purposely trying to mislead, or you are truly ignorant of the facts. If the latter, I suggest you start reading and spend less time watching Faux news.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Post Re: The Murdoch Factor

    Quote Originally Posted by big easy View Post

    absence of evidence is not evidence of absence on the WOMD deal... everybody knows he had them...
    HAD being the operative and only important word here! He HAD them.........two decades ago. He DIDN'T have them when Bush decided he was going to attack Iraq so he could be a "war president"......and LOTS and LOTS of people (including the inspectors) did know that.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    9,507

    Re: The Murdoch Factor

    Did you know that Rupert Murdoch ONLY became an American citizen years ago so he could legally have a broadcasting license for the TV stations he bought?


    "On September 4, 1985, Murdoch became a naturalized citizen, to satisfy the legal requirement that only US citizens could own American television stations."

    apparently if you're a member of the BILLIONAIRES' CLUB citizenship is akin to those "flags of convenience" that allow american vessels to register as panamanian.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •