The New York Times' Murdoch Story: Very thorough, but he’s still the bad guy

New York Times has done one of the most indepth stories ever on the history of Rupert Murdoch, linking it, naturally, to his current takeover offer for Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal.

For those looking for a synopsis of Murdoch’s history in the United States, this is about as good as you can get without writing a book. The long and generally bruising campaigns in newspapers and TV are explained. The battles with Congress, FCC regulations, and Senator Ted Kennedy make for very interesting reading, notably the lobbying mechanisms in play and the many shifting political positions, both Murdoch’s and the politicians themselves. This must have involved some pretty painstaking research. NYT has stuck to the rules, and hasn’t done a lot of spinning. It’s interesting, historically, that the US media is so anti-Murdoch, given its own history. The US print media has spawned, and it’s not too inappropriate a term, Henry Luce, William Randolph Hearst, and an actual culture of editorial tyranny in folklore. The Chicago Tribune and LA Times are currently being depicted as under the thumbs of pure media pragmatists with the souls of carrots. Luce was at one time a serial influence on US government, from FDR through to the 60s, from memory. He never received any criticism, was never described as an ogre, and it was mainly because everybody was too scared of him. Hearst, aka Grandaddy Tabloid, was all market, was reviled by the purists, and the market welcomed him with open check books. Editorial style? What editorial style? Nobody really cared, and not much was done to curb the yellow press. The critique of Murdoch is based on fear, and it’s actually as much based on media self interest as much as on worries about content. News Corp is one of the biggest media organizations on Earth, and it was grown from a local paper. Murdoch is no neophyte to the news media, and News Corp isn’t a holiday camp for those in it. Murdoch’s own politics are those of someone who can walk the walk. Like his editorial position or not, a couple of questions: 1. Are we saying “disenfranchise all conservatives”? That’d be a healthy democracy. 2. Why is R. Murdoch the only CEO in media on Earth who isn’t allowed to have an opinion of his own? Even hick town newspapers have editorial prerogatives. 3. Murdoch does play rough. So does everyone else. It would be naïve in the extreme to believe anyone could operate mass media outlets in the US without some pretty heavy moments and some real clashes with other interests. There are no pure parties in the industries, and it’s pretty bloody bizarre that anyone’s pretending to hold the moral heights. I generally disagree with all the conservative editorial positions, and I don’t have a lot of time for the loudmouth rednecks in neo-con Nirvana. I despise sycophants, as a species, particularly in media, and have to take antihistamines to read or listen some of that stuff. However, I don’t see Murdoch as the cause, or necessarily the supporter of anything he doesn’t feel like doing. News Corp is mainstream, and they have an interest in keeping the nutcases out of their own media. One thing I would mention: When the leader of One Nation, a racist party in Australia, made a speech defaming just about every ethnicity in Australia, News Corp was the only one that published a refutation of the statements. They did it in point form, and it took a quarter of a page to do it. The liberal press just did its normal “Isn’t it all terrible” act, and didn’t do much more than a few limp-wristed commentaries. Go looking for dirt, and you’ll find it. NYT deserves some credit for working on a balance in this article, given the pervasive preference for anti-Murdoch content. Others might like to do the same. This isn’t the whole story, but it’s definitely the bit that’s relevant at the moment.