The Murdoch 'morans'

Murdoch, Murdoch everywhere... and not a drop (of truth) to drink.

In October 2003, the non-partisan Program on International Policy Attitudes published a study titled "Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War."(PDF) It found 60 percent of Americans believed at least one of the following: Clear evidence had been found of links between Iraq and Al-Qaida; weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq; world public opinion favored the United States 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 the United States had "found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al-Qaida terrorist organization."

Everyone who laments the death of true journalism in America (and around the world) understands who the primary attacker is: Rupert Murdoch. The man can't seem to keep his hands off reputable news outfits; seemingly never satisfied until they has remade them into carbon copies of those trashy gossip rags you find near the checkout counters in the grocery store.

Yes, this is Murdoch's dream for America: that we all become uninformed serfs and therefore subject to whatever propaganda he might decide was best fit for our consumption. After all, a man with his evident wealth can much better pick and choose our 'news' for us than, say, some brainy, liberal journalist... right?

I think there is a good reason why the propaganda system works that way. It recognizes that the public will not support the actual policies. Therefore it is important to prevent any knowledge or understanding of them. - Noam Chomsky

Alas for my unused journalism degree, I fear that diploma will remain in a drawer collecting dust for the remainder of my life. Blogging is my only outlet, and soon they will undoubtedly come for this media as well. Perhaps then we will all resort to carving strange characters on trees like our ancestors, the Celts. This might be a good time to start learning the Ogham.

The problem with 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, Murdoch covered his bases by hosting a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate re-election campaign.

And now I'm supposed to disconnect the logical centers of my brain and trust her with my Net Neutrality? I still haven't forgiven Bill for allowing these corporations to build these vast, media empires in the first place (that 1996 Communications Bill.)

Now that Murdoch is in Hillary's camp, exactly why would I trust her with anything related to 'truth' and 'honesty', not to mention democracy itself? Because Murdoch and democracy are at cross purposes.

In Britain, 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, Murdoch's organizations have taken care not to offend the dictatorship.

Now, 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 weapons of mass destruction, 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 WMDs had been found.

This is why it is now impossible to talk to my Republican friends. We're simply all getting different news feeds.

I smelled a rat with Fox immediately (journalism training no doubt,) and fled to the internet. When all else fails, I can find international coverage of national news on the web.

But for those who turn to Fox for baseball or football (Fox has a monopoly on sports as well,) there was no warning label attached to the evening news: that the news wasn't really 'news' at all, but partisan propaganda.

And thus commenced the duping of America.

Our citizenry is totally clueless now... and that is very dangerous for our democracy. When I was growing up - most especially during Watergate and the Vietnam war - we had intelligent and credible news anchors and news departments that gave it to us straight.

Because so many of us grew up trusting the venerable television anchors like Walter Cronkite, Roger Mudd and Dan Rather, many people haven't realized that everything has changed... and our current 'actor' newscasters are now slanting the facts, or simply not reporting them (to the advantage of the big money corporations and the White House.)

Average Americans no longer have any clue what is going on in Washington (they aren't digging for news out here unless they somehow figure out what they are being lied to - and most of them can't really tell.) Thus many don't even know that they want Cheney impeached, and why; and thus aren't screaming. And because they aren't screaming, of course the pundits - who never gave them the facts - assure the politicians that the people 'don't really care,' when in reality, they don't KNOW.

There are so many issues that I have been following via excellent journalism 'hubs' here on the web; issues that are never even mentioned by mainstream, network news. Its outrageous... and very scary. It worries me greatly, because I learned early (in journalism school,) that one of the best safeguards of our democracy is an informed citizenry:

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts. - Abraham Lincoln

Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson

So what the heck is Murdoch doing... and why are we letting him gobble up our news at this rate? You'd think someone within government would call foul. Then again...

When all else fails, 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.

And so, now we await the fate of the hapless news department at the Wall Street Journal.

These veteran journalists know the writing is on the wall. What has surprised me is that there isn't more of an outcry from others in journalistic circles, or from those with backgrounds in journalism -- because surely we know what may soon be lost to us forever, if this great and honorable news department is allowed to be corrupted by the 'Murdoch moran' news funk.

If Murdoch does acquire the Journal, it will be a dark day for America's news media - and American democracy.

WSJ reporters staged protest against Murdoch

We were catching up on Bill Moyers tonight (we taped him while we were out of town last week) and I have to say, I loved his take-down of Rupert Murdoch. It also reminded me that I once subscribed to the WSJ when I was a college student, simply because their news writing was exemplary.

As journalism major, I respected their news department, and I appreciated their excellent writing (much better than the local stuff here in Indiana.) They truly do have an excellent writing staff, and very high journalistic standards. And perhaps this is why Murdoch is going after the Journal... because this news room is one of the last reputable holdouts in the business.

Moyers said, of Murdoch's pursuit of the WSJ:

His worst offense with FOX News is not even its baldly partisan agenda. Far worse is the travesty he’s made of its journalism. FOX News huffs and puffs, pontificates and proclaims, but does little serious original reporting. His tabloids sell babes and breasts, gossip and celebrities. Now he’s about to bring under the same thumb one of the few national newsrooms remaining in the country.

I did a quick search of the web to see how things are going, and how the news department is handling this threat to their integrity. I was thrilled to discover that they are fighting back!

I found this press release from the WSJ reporters out on Poynter Online, in their forum:

Newspaper Guild release

June 28, 2007 11:00 A.M.

A statement from Wall Street Journal reporters:

Wall Street Journal reporters across the country chose not to show up to work this morning.

We did so for two reasons.

First, The Wall Street Journal's long tradition of independence, which has been the hallmark of our news coverage for decades, is threatened today. We, along with hundreds of other Dow Jones employees represented by the Independent Association of Publishers' Employees, want to demonstrate our conviction that the Journal’s editorial integrity depends on an owner committed to journalistic independence.

Second, by our absence from newsrooms around the country, we are reminding Dow Jones management that the quality of its publications depends on a top-quality professional staff. Dow Jones currently is in contract negotiations with its primary union, seeking severe cutbacks in our health benefits and limits on our pay. It is beyond debate that the professionals who create The Wall Street Journal and other Dow Jones publications every day deserve a fair contract that rewards their achievements. At a time when Dow Jones is finding the resources to award golden parachutes to 135 top executives, it should not be seeking to eviscerate employees’ health benefits and impose salary adjustments that amount to a pay cut.

We put the reputation of The Wall Street Journal and the needs of its readers first. That's why we will be back at our desks this afternoon, producing the day's news reports. But we hope this demonstration will remind those entrusted with the future of Dow Jones that our publications' integrity must be protected, and sustained, from top to bottom.

I am proud to see that they still appreciate their role as providers of journalistic integrity, and that they are willing to fight for it. I imagine Rupert will gobble them up as he has everything else. But at least they are going down swinging.