July 18, 2007

Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal


Ruthie is right to worry about Rupert Murdoch's prospective takeover of the Wall Street Journal. Mr Murdoch's networks have shown a rather cavalier regard for the truth in the past. Perhaps most damaging as Ruthie notes is the Murdoch network's coverage of China which has been distorted definitely by the tycoon's media interests. The UK Times has run interviews with the Chinese President in which human rights were not mentioned. Murdoch's companies in the UK have sacked journalists like Jonathan Fenby who are critical of the current Chinese government, ceased publishing biographies by senior British Political figures like Chris Patten because of their critiques of the Chinese government and in America removed stories about Chinese diplomats enjoying the company of strippers. Mr Murdoch's further participation in the media is not to be welcomed- increasingly this propriator seems less concerned by reporting the facts than by reporting what his commercial interests would lead him to notice.

8 comments:

Lord Straf-Bilderberg said...

I agree with Welshcakes that he's astute but astute does not necessarily denote "good". He is too happy to allow sleaze for mine, because it sells. Not just sleaze either but a centre-weighted view on most matters and dealing with caricatures, blandishments and accepted truisms.

It's just one man's view.

Lord Nazh© said...

You guys act like he will turn the newspapers from something currently good to something bad.


Yes he may indeed slant his papers, but they aren't putting out good pieces now anyway. He's just moving the slant.

dan said...

the WSJ has always been a rightwing nutcase conservative paper, nobody reads it in the USA anyways. what the big deal?

dan said...

and the reason Murdie slants the coverage of commie CHINA is his wife has her fingers wrapped all around him and he does what she says. she is a plant. watch that story unfold. if it ever gets told.... killed once already...and even OZ paper could not report it......she will be his ruin.....watch!

mutleythedog said...

I think twas always so Mr Wisdom. Just that his commercial interests have increased and widened - the WSJ may be a right wing paper - but it is an independent one.. not like Murdochs London Times for example..

Ruthie said...

Dan, tons of Americans read the WSJ. I would not, in a million years, describe it as a "rightwing nutcase conservative newspaper."

LN, the fact that his papers develop a slant is not more acceptable because "they aren't putting out good pieces now anyway" (I would disagree with that, but even if it's true, it doesn't make it right).

At the rate he's buying up papers and corporations, I'm going to have to work for him one day. I'd like to feel assured that creative/editorial control will remain in the hands of the journalists, without being swayed by his personal inclinations/corporate interests.

Lord Nazh© said...

Ruthie, you misread what I wrote (or I miswrote what I attempted to say). I didn't say him changing the slant of a newspaper was right. I didn't defend him or condone anything he did. I said that he isn't breaking anything because it is already broke, he's just breaking it a different way.

My point was why the fuss over him instead of the newspapers that are already slanted.

Lord Nazh© said...

oh and the WSJ is more liberal than conservative in news, but right-wing for sure in editorials and 'other' application. (best of the web for example)