Someone recently asked me -- not for any reason worth mentioning here -- about the politics of the New York Post. This someone was apparently under the impression I live closer to NYC than I do, or have some reason to follow its tabloids in particular.
I made to her the following observations:
I won't claim to know anything about the political complexion of the Post either. Maybe some New Yorker will (a) admit to reading it with some regularity and (b) clue us both in.
But since you brought it up ... further thoughts.
I do know that it is part of the Murdochian empire. News Corp. bought it in 1976, [the Post created the immortal headline "Headless Body in Topless Bar" in 1983], News Corp. sold it in 1988, acquired it again in 1993 (more on that in a sec), and has owned it since. I personally would not conclude that this makes the Post a "conservative" paper. After all, I don't believe Murdoch is ideologically driven. I think he is profit driven. (Which, I assure you, I also think of as a good trait.)
Fox News is, IMHO, rightward slanted, and in fact they more-or-less admit this, though they generally say that they are justifiably so given the contrary slant of their competitors. They see themselves more as a balancing factor than as in themselves balanced -- two different notions. Again -- no quarrel from me. I don't beleive in "balance" or in "objectivity" either except as widespread fictions. There is true, there is false. Within the realm of the truthful, all truth-telling is selective. Only God knows truth without partiality.
I am reminded of what a little girl wrote to the editor of another NY newspaper in the late 19th century. "Papa says, if you see it in the Sun it's so." Yes, Virginia, there is truth. There is that which simply "is so" as your father sensibly defines truth. But neither the Sun nor any other paper ever printed failed to select particular truths as more worthy of print than others for particular reasons. As indeed, their decision to put your letter on the front page one fateful day rather illustrates. Is there some sense in which that was an objective news-value-driven decision?
But I'll return to the 21st century now ... if I am right about Murdoch, we can't infer anything about the Post, the WSJ, etc., from Fox. All we know is that putting Roger Ailes in charge and letting him run Fox News has made Murdoch a lot of money, so Murdoch has left that goose alone to lay its golden eggs the way the goose thinks best. That doesn't imply any ideological passion in the head office of News Corp at all, and my guess is that the Post probably is largely autonomous in day-to-day terms too.
There is an interesting bit of history. As I mentioned, the first News Corp. era for the Post was 1976 - 1988. When they were putting together Fox News network, they wanted NYC's WNYW, but under cross-ownership rules then in place they couldn't have both WNYW and the Post. So they opted for the former, and sold the Post to Peter Kalikow.
Kalikow was wealthy from real estate wheelings and dealings, but knew zip abut the news business, and for several years the Post went steadily downhill. News Corp bought it again in 1993 -- at that time it was considered a rescue, so the cross-ownership rules were waived. Hmmm. Murdoch was given an either/or choice and ended up with both. A conspiracy theorist could go to town on that.
click
Bottom line, If you see it in Pragmatism Refreshed -- it's so. Otherwise. you're taking your chances.
Showing posts with label News Corp.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News Corp.. Show all posts
21 August 2011
22 July 2011
News Corp Empire
It all appears to be imploding. It begins to have the feel of Egypt in the final days of the Mubarak regime.
I'll just provide you with some links in case you, dear reader, aren't up on all this and want the materials for a quick catch-up.
On June 23, an Old Bailey jury found Levi Bellfield guilty of the murder of Milly Dowler nine years ago. Never mind about the particulars now -- the verdict re-opened old wounds at News Corp., wounds its rivals were in a position to exploit.
Here's what The Guardian had to say on July 4, about Milly Dowler, and the hacking of her voice mail: click.
Miss Dowler's disappearance goes back to 2002. For a bomb that went off after ticking quietly for nine years, this one made quite a mess.
Then on July 6, reports appeared that the particular Murdochian property involved in the Dowler matter, the News of the World, had also hacked the phones of thr families of victims of the July 7, 2005 London terrorist attacks.
For perspective, it has long been understood that the tabloid press in the UK will do anything for a scoop on the Royal family or wealthy celebrities. A lot that would have been winked at in such a context was exciting outrage now that ordinary folks were the victims.
Murdoch decided he had to throw someone or something under the proverbial bus. It was the "News of the World" (NotW hereafter) itself -- he closed that paper, one which had been around since 1843, on July 10 of this year, assigning 200 working people to unemployment.
But who had been the relevant underling? Rebekah Brooks was the editor of NotW from 2000 to 2003, the perod of Milly Dowler's death. She had since become a crucial lieutenant to Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch initially gave every indication that he would stand staunchly by his woman.
But the heat became too much for him. On July 14th, a large investor in News Corp., Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, demanded her resignation, and on the 15th, she complied. Things have gotten even worse for our Ms Brooks. She was thereafter arrested.
Further, this has also become a scandal about corruption at Scotland Yard. Years ago, Brooks admited to parliament that under her leadership, the NotW paid police officers for information -- an admission causing consequences both for her organization and for theirs just now.
And there is a mysterious death to throw into the mix. The sort of death that may have absolutely nothing to do with the rest of this, but that will keep conspiracy theorists intrigued.
For another spiking of the weirdness factor, there was the attempt to push a "pie" into Murdoch's face while he testified before Parliament, an attempt warded off by Murdoch's Chinese tigress of a wife, Wendi. Look at the YouTube. Wendi is sitting behind her husband. She's wearing the salmon-colored jacket. She's a former volleyball player, and she certainly appears to be spiking the attacker's head.
The above links will give you, roughly speaking, this story thus far. Perhaps with the addition of one or two points from here.
Conclusion: the vollyball move won't save the empire, which is troubled by internal rot, not just external idiots with pseudo-pies.
I'll just provide you with some links in case you, dear reader, aren't up on all this and want the materials for a quick catch-up.
On June 23, an Old Bailey jury found Levi Bellfield guilty of the murder of Milly Dowler nine years ago. Never mind about the particulars now -- the verdict re-opened old wounds at News Corp., wounds its rivals were in a position to exploit.
Here's what The Guardian had to say on July 4, about Milly Dowler, and the hacking of her voice mail: click.
Miss Dowler's disappearance goes back to 2002. For a bomb that went off after ticking quietly for nine years, this one made quite a mess.
Then on July 6, reports appeared that the particular Murdochian property involved in the Dowler matter, the News of the World, had also hacked the phones of thr families of victims of the July 7, 2005 London terrorist attacks.
For perspective, it has long been understood that the tabloid press in the UK will do anything for a scoop on the Royal family or wealthy celebrities. A lot that would have been winked at in such a context was exciting outrage now that ordinary folks were the victims.
Murdoch decided he had to throw someone or something under the proverbial bus. It was the "News of the World" (NotW hereafter) itself -- he closed that paper, one which had been around since 1843, on July 10 of this year, assigning 200 working people to unemployment.
But who had been the relevant underling? Rebekah Brooks was the editor of NotW from 2000 to 2003, the perod of Milly Dowler's death. She had since become a crucial lieutenant to Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch initially gave every indication that he would stand staunchly by his woman.
But the heat became too much for him. On July 14th, a large investor in News Corp., Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, demanded her resignation, and on the 15th, she complied. Things have gotten even worse for our Ms Brooks. She was thereafter arrested.
Further, this has also become a scandal about corruption at Scotland Yard. Years ago, Brooks admited to parliament that under her leadership, the NotW paid police officers for information -- an admission causing consequences both for her organization and for theirs just now.
And there is a mysterious death to throw into the mix. The sort of death that may have absolutely nothing to do with the rest of this, but that will keep conspiracy theorists intrigued.
For another spiking of the weirdness factor, there was the attempt to push a "pie" into Murdoch's face while he testified before Parliament, an attempt warded off by Murdoch's Chinese tigress of a wife, Wendi. Look at the YouTube. Wendi is sitting behind her husband. She's wearing the salmon-colored jacket. She's a former volleyball player, and she certainly appears to be spiking the attacker's head.
The above links will give you, roughly speaking, this story thus far. Perhaps with the addition of one or two points from here.
Conclusion: the vollyball move won't save the empire, which is troubled by internal rot, not just external idiots with pseudo-pies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
