Loading

Posts Tagged ‘Rupert Murdoch’

Steve Jobs Personally Pulled Apple Ads Off Fox News

Ben Cohen · May 07,2013
Annette Shaff / Shutterstock.com

Steve Jobs: Not a fan of Fox News (Annette Shaff / Shutterstock.com)

Steve Jobs may have been a despotic control freak who loathed regulation, but he saw Fox News for what it was – a massively insidious institution that was causing a huge amount of damage to American society. Jobs hated the network so much he personally ordered Apple ads to be removed from Fox News programming (via networkworld.com):

It’s now known that the late Steve Jobs backed up his harsh words by wisely withholding Apple’s advertising dollars, according to an upcoming book about the 2012 presidential campaign.

The book’s author, Jonathan Alter, a Bloomberg political columnist and contributor to MSNBC, tells of Jobs “personally ordering that Apple ads be removed from Fox News,” according to a blog post [1] in the New York Times over the weekend. Alter’s book, “The Center Holds: Obama and His Enemies,”  is scheduled to hit stores June 4.

Apparently, Jobs even told Murdoch over a dinner how bad he thought Fox had become:

“You’re blowing it with Fox News,” Jobs told him over dinner. “The axis today is not liberal and conservative, the axis is constructive-destructive, and you’ve cast your lot with the destructive people. Fox has become an incredibly destructive force in our society. You can be better, and this is going to be your legacy if you’re not careful.” Jobs said he thought Murdoch did not really like how far Fox had gone. “Rupert’s a builder, not a tearer-downer,” he said. “I’ve had some meetings with (Murdoch’s son) James, and I think he agrees with me. I can just tell.”

Fox is a gigantic media organization that has many businesses, but Jobs was absolutely right – Murdoch’s name is synonymous with Fox News and will be his lasting legacy. And it’s not a good one.

Subscribe

avatar

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Is There Any News Value To the New York Post’s Dead Man Cover Story?

Chez Pazienza · December 05,2012
subway

By Chez Pazienza:

Denis Leary used to do an amusing bit years ago where he said that one of the best things about living in New York City is that there are so many interesting ways to die. It isn’t simply a matter of the usual daily trials of living in a big city — the potential to be shot, mugged, hassled by roving gangs of brown youths of indeterminate Latin American lineage, etc. — it’s the almost unimaginable and constantly evolving urban landmines that are indigenous to New York and that present an everyday threat, whether you choose to deny their existence for the sake of your own sanity or not. You can be killed by a block of ice falling off the top of a skyscraper. You can step on an inadvertently electrified manhole cover. You can fall through a storm grate on a sidewalk.

You can get pushed in front of a subway train.

By now you’ve all seen the photo and I guarantee you have an opinion of it: a man desperately trying to scramble back onto a Times Square subway platform while an oncoming Q-train bears down on him. You’ve seen it because it ran as a full-page image on the front cover of yesterday’s New York Post, a newspaper with a reputation for a deplorable lack of class but which generally is most offensive only for its willingness to give someone like Andrea Peyser a public forum.

The man on the tracks, 58-year-old Ki Suk Han, a father from Queens, was killed when the train in the photograph plowed into him seconds after the shot was snapped. The Post, for running a photo of what’s essentially a dead man along with the tastefully subtle headline “DOOMED: Pushed on the subway tracks, this man is about to die,” is now facing a shitload of thoroughly righteous outrage. As well it should. The decision not simply to run the image but to flaunt it is, without a doubt, one of the most indefensible, luridly morbid things I’ve ever seen from a news organization — even one as traditionally hackish and worthless as the Post. If you need a clear representation, in a single, undeniable frame, of the iniquitous impact of the Rupert Murdoch culture on the free press — and the shot of a besieged Rebekah Brooks in the back of a car being whisked away from News International, James Murdoch testifying before Parliament, or the couch-of-idiots three-shot on Fox & Friends doesn’t do it for you — Tuesday’s Post cover should give you something to mull over for months. The Poynter people have probably already hung the thing on their wall as the perfect reminder of how not to be a journalist.

There’s an argument to be made that the photo of Han’s last seconds alive has news value and, while it hasn’t issued a public statement yet, at some point the Post is very likely to try to make it. Don’t be fooled: No, there isn’t any news value to the picture and the potential value of it as a news item never entered the thought processes of the Post’s editors anyway. Sure, there’s no doubt that it’s captivating, but so are crime scene photos and the press very rarely runs those unedited. While each individual news item should be evaluated on its own merits and there should rarely be an across-the-board rule about what can and can’t be published or put on-air, the good of the public always needs to be considered. The questions that should be asked when confronted with an image like that of a man trying futilely to save his own life on a subway track include: Is this of immediate importance to public safety? Is the person in the photo a “public figure” or an average citizen? Does the public right-to-know trump the pain that’s going to be caused to the innocent family of the victim? (Yes, this may seem like a dicey one to journalistic purists, but screw that: you have to be human as well as a professional and when you’re not you forfeit the right to question why people think of you and your ilk as nothing but soulless vultures.)

Like the aforementioned Leary bit, there are some who will say that the picture conveys the indiscriminate and omnipresent danger of living in New York City. It confirms everyone’s worst fear, certainly the fear of anyone who’s ever spent a good portion of his or her life standing on the edge of a subway platform — that he or she can be the victim of some nutjob who was ranting to himself in the moments before he decided that you needed to be knocked into the path of an oncoming train. But that’s fear-mongering and nothing more. The photo, its prominent placement and the ghoulish headline all exist in their current state for one reason and one reason only: to create the kind of sensationalism which subsequently turns a profit. There may have been a way to handle the story that actually did serve the public good. This wasn’t it.

Then there’s the man facing as much criticism as — if not more than — the New York Post. I’m talking about the freelance photographer who shot the picture, R. Umar Abbasi. For the record, while Abbasi is making the “I’m Not a Monster” rounds on morning TV today, it has to be noted up front that when he was first approached by CNN, the network claims that Abbasi demanded money in exchange for an interview. Apparently, coming to the conclusion that half the city he lives in now wants to see him pushed in front of a subway train, he realized it was in his best interest to go on TV and seem as devastated and haunted as possible.

I’m not going to suggest that it was Abbasi’s responsibility to save the life of Ki Suk Han, but it’s tough to argue that he couldn’t and shouldn’t have done something other than to begin taking pictures. His allegation that he attempted to use his flash to warn the driver is about as ridiculous as it sounds; it’s the kind of bullshit you’d expect from a bottom-feeding tabloid photographer and it’s somewhat comical that Abbasi expects anyone to believe it. I wasn’t there so I obviously don’t know exactly what happened, nor do I know the timeline of events. I’m also absolutely willing to concede that no one can predict how an average citizen will react to a moment of madness. But while it can be claimed that a photographer’s first instinct is to grab his or her camera and start shooting, it doesn’t make that person any less of a piece of shit for doing so when he or she is in a position to potentially help someone who’s about to die. Sorry, but “I’m a journalist, it’s my job” doesn’t cut it. The only people in a big city whose job it is to save lives are police and firefighters — it doesn’t mean everyone else gets to look the other way when there aren’t any of those handy and somebody’s about to be killed.

Years ago, when I still lived in New York City, I was walking at night along the Upper West Side and came upon an accident involving a bus and a pedestrian. I used my press pass to get behind the police line and asked one of the cops on the scene what had happened. He smirked, squatted down and shined his Maglite under the stopped bus. I leaned over and took a look for myself. There, laying on the ground, was a woman’s severed leg. “Jesus,” I winced. “Nice, huh?” he returned. “She was wearing an iPod and tried to cross against traffic — didn’t even hear the thing coming.” While gruesome and certainly a potential object lesson, I chalked it up to just another one of those dangers of living in the city. People get killed all the time in so many interesting ways. At this point, it’s not even news anymore — even if it is caught on camera.

As always, the analysis of the New York Times’s David Carr is spot-on. His view of this incident and the Post’s treatment of it is required reading.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Subscribe

avatar

Chez Pazienza's feed

Enter email below:

Rupert Murdoch’s Newscorp Posts $1.6 Billion Loss

August 09,2012
Murdoch resized
Rupert Murdoch - World Economic Forum Annual M...

Rupert Murdoch: Empire in decline. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

The Daily Banter Headline grab (from the L.A Times):

News Corp. reported a nearly $1.6-billion loss in its fiscal fourth quarter, reflecting the declining value of its publishing businesses — a beleaguered unit that it intends to spin off into a separate publicly traded company next year.

For the April to June quarter, the Rupert Murdoch-controlled company reported a net loss of $1.55 billion, or 64 cents a share. That compared with a $683-million profit, or 26 cents a share, for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011.

The quarterly results, reported Wednesday, included a $2.9-billion pre-tax impairment and restructuring charge that the company said was related to its Australian newspaper and TV operations and other publishing titles. During the quarter, the company took a $57-million charge related to costs of ongoing investigations into the bribery and phone hacking scandal that has engulfed the company’s British newspaper subsidiary.

The company’s publishing portfolio includes the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Times of London and the HarperCollins book publishing house.

Excluding the charges, News Corp.’s fourth-quarter profit came in at 32 cents a share — matching analyst estimates.

News Corp. generated revenue of $8.4 billion for the quarter, a decline of 7% from the nearly $9 billion it took in during the year-earlier period. Strength at the company’s key cable television networks was weighed down by issues elsewhere in the company, including sagging ratings at Fox Broadcasting Co.‘s once dominant TV franchise “American Idol.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

Subscribe

avatar

Chez Pazienza's feed

Enter email below:

The Fox and the Pig

Chez Pazienza · May 31,2012

By Chez Pazienza: There’s an old saying that I’m a big fan of: Never try to teach a pig to sing — it wastes your time and annoys the pig. I think of this every time I get the urge to lash out at Fox News for some irresponsible, grossly unethical thing or other that the network has done or has had the gall to broadcast under the guise of being a real news organization. My criticism, like everyone else’s, won’t matter one bit — the attack will just bounce off of Roger Ailes’s prodigious belly like he was Kung-Fu Panda. Not only does Fox News not fret over its many detractors and their grievances, it generally welcomes the outrage as an opportunity to once again let its pit-bullish media relations department off the chain to maul the crap out of the poor bastard with the bad sense to hassle its master. The result is always bloody and the guy who dared to take a swipe at Fox rarely comes out on top.

Ailes learned from one of the most profoundly talented bullies in all of politics so it goes without saying that he’s not the kind of guy to respond, “Well, you might have a point there, my good man, but I suppose we’ll just have to chalk this up to a difference of opinion,” or even better, a simple “no comment,” whenever somebody calls his leviathan propaganda machine out for being what it is.

It’s with all of this in mind that I sit here wallowing waist deep in what I know is the futility of saying a goddamned thing about Fox News’s latest nakedly obvious and indefensibly biased attack on Barack Obama. If you haven’t seen what I’m talking about yet — the four-minute video clip that Doocy the Clown and the rest of the crew of local news rejects on Fox & Friends aired yesterday morning, benignly calling it a “look back” at the last three years of the Obama presidency — then I’m not going to go into detail for you. Suffice it to say that you really do need to see it with your own eyes to both believe it and — eventually, after it sinks in that you really are watching what you think you are — appreciate the sheer scope of its horribleness. It’s not news. It’s not even news by the very flexible standards of Fox News. At the risk of violating Godwin’s Law, it’s 1939-style propaganda and nothing more — not a thing more — and it quite frankly stands as Fox News’s darkest hour. It’s honestly so fucking shameless that even I wasn’t sure Fox was capable of creating and disseminating something like it, despite the fact that anyone as cynical as I am should’ve understood fully that it merely represents the Fox model taken to its logical conclusion.

It was always obvious, or at least it should have been, that at some point Fox News would stop even pretending that it was a responsible news organization, that it was “fair and balanced.” But the really awful thing here isn’t simply that the network had the audacity to run a four-minute hit piece on Barack Obama that looked as if it had been prepared by the GOP itself — which it in fact had, of course — but that it then couldn’t even cop to it. In an almost admirably subversive fuck-you to the indignant critics it knew would immediately pounce on it, Fox released a statement basically calling the piece an accident — saying that it had been created by an overzealous associate producer and implying that said mischievous imp would be dealt with accordingly. In case the title of “associate” isn’t enough to clue you in as to how much authority this person, if he or she really exists, would actually hold in the newsroom of a national cable outlet, let me help you out: blaming an AP for a four-minute-long package that aired not once but multiple times during one of the most popular shows at your network is like McDonald’s firing some kid who works as a fry cook in Des Moines because the company’s latest global ad campaign bombed.

It’s an almost comical conceit to throw an associate producer under the bus for something like this, but that’s the idea: Fox is basically taunting its critics. The network knows full well that there isn’t a damn thing anybody can do to stop it and it’s essentially insulting our intelligence and daring us to try. Fox News’s management doesn’t care one bit that you know they’re lying through their fucking teeth.

Quite a while back I wrote a piece for my website that asked a question that’s really worth considering in the age of Fox News: What do you do when an editorial outlet or broadcaster refuses to behave responsibly? We’ve come to a truly unprecedented moment in the evolution of the American media. Throughout history, those who practiced journalism and offered commentary in this country were, for the most part, responsible adults who understood the awesome sway they held over the public’s imagination. They adhered to a gentleman’s agreement that was largely unspoken because it didn’t have to be spoken: You don’t just go on the air or off to press spouting completely ridiculous, incendiary crap without the slightest concern for the facts or for the potential consequences of your claims. You weren’t running Fisher-Price’s “My First Television Network”; the airwaves and print outlets weren’t your own personal sandbox where you were king and could say whatever you pleased. Yes, you had the Constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, but you knew full well that with that came responsibility — and since you were a grown-up and not some asshole narcissist obsessed with the sound of his own voice and drunk on authority, you for the most part behaved accordingly.

But Fox News changed the rules. It won’t behave. It won’t be controlled, cajoled or simply won over by appeals to its journalistic ethics because it doesn’t have any. A four-minute piece of televised political propaganda proves it — and Fox’s laughably horseshit response to being called out for what it did proves that it doesn’t even respect its critics enough to tell them the truth.

Turns out, in this case the old saying is half-right. Trying to teach this particular pig to sing indeed wastes your time — but it doesn’t even annoy the pig because the pig doesn’t give a shit what you want.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Subscribe

avatar

Chez Pazienza's feed

Enter email below:

Tony Blair Grilled Over Relationship With Rupert Murdoch

May 28,2012
English: DAVOS-KLOSTERS/SWITZERLAND, 29JAN09 -...

Tony Blair: Too close to Murdoch?

Tony Blair has told the Leveson inquiry that Rupert Murdoch did not lobby him directly over media policy when he was prime minister and highlighted examples where his government had gone against the News Corporation founder’s wishes.

Blair said on Monday that he and Murdoch had “a working relationship until after I left office”. After this they became closer and Blair was godfather to Murdoch’s daughter Grace, he added.

He told Lord Justice Leveson that Murdoch “didn’t lobby me on media stuff”, but said that was “not to say we weren’t aware of the positions their companies had”, in particular his strong views in opposition to European integration.

But he said on regulatory matters affecting Murdoch’s business directly, “we decided more often against than in favour”.

Lance Price, former Labour and No 10 press officer, had previously described Murdoch as the “24th member of the cabinet”.

Blair said: “Am I saying he’s not a powerful figure in the media? Well no, of course he is, and, of course you’re aware of what his views are, and that’s why I say part of my job was to manage the situation so that you didn’t get into a situation where you were shifting policy.

“I would say very strongly we managed the position that I believed in on Europe and that was a position the Sun and the News of the World frequently disagreed with me on.”

On his relationship with Murdoch, Blair said: “Europe was the major thing that he and I used to row about. I believed in what I was doing, I didn’t need him or anyone else to tell me what to do.”

Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, said Price had also said he had been told Blair would never change policy on Europe without talking to Murdoch first.

He replied: “No we would never have given an assurance to Mr Murdoch or anybody else that we were not going to change policy without seeking their permission. That’s absurd.

“Having said that, if we were about to engage in a major change of policy on an issue that mattered to any particular media group we would probably have tried to prepare the way for it, but I think that is perfectly sensible and there’s nothing wrong with that.”

Blair also said that his relationship with Murdoch changed after he stepped down as prime minister in 2007. “So I know there has been all this stuff about me being godfather of one of his children. I would never have become a godfather of his children on the basis of my relationship in office. After I left, I got to know him and his family and the relationship can be easier and better,” he said.

Read more at the Guardian…

Enhanced by Zemanta

Subscribe

avatar

Chez Pazienza's feed

Enter email below:

Rebekah Brooks to be Charged Over Phone Hacking

Ben Cohen · May 15,2012
Rebekah Brooks resized

Rebekah Brooks to be charged with perverting the course of justice

 

Rebekah Brooks, the former head of Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper wing and a key figure in the phone hacking crisis, is to face criminal charges over the scandal, it was announced Tuesday.

The Crown Prosecution Service said that Brooks “conspired with her husband, Charles Brooks, and others to pervert the course of justice.”

Speaking at a press conference, Alison Levitt, the chief adviser to the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that Brooks and five others —her husband, her assistant, their chauffeur, their security and the head of security at News International — had all been charged. (A seventh person was arrested but is not being charged.)

She claimed that, between July 6 and 19th of 2011, Brooks and her assistant had illegally removed seven boxes of material from News International headquarters, and that the group had tried to conceal information from the police about the phone hacking scandal. The charges all stem from actions allegedly taken at the very height of the phone hacking scandal which had suddenly engulfed the entire Murdoch empire.

Levitt said that she had concluded that there was “sufficient evidence for there to be a realistic prospect of conviction” for the charges.

Brooks becomes by far the highest-profile member of the Murdoch inner circle to be criminally charged in connection with the scandal. She and the others are the first to face charges stemming from Operation Weeting, the police investigation into phone hacking that was launched in January of 2011.

Brooks was arrested in March and questioned about the allegations that led to Tuesday’s formal prosecution. She was also arrested in July of 2011 in relation to corruption.

Read more at the Huffington Post….

Enhanced by Zemanta

Subscribe

avatar

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Committee Concludes Murdoch “Not a Fit Person” to Run Media Empire

Ben Cohen · May 01,2012
Committee-Concludes-Murdoch-Not-a-Fit-Person-to-Run-Media-Empire_thumb
Rupert Murdoch at the Vanity Fair party celebr...

Rupert Murdoch: Unfit to run his business (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Rupert Murdoch is “not a fit person” to exercise stewardship of a major international company, a committee of MPs has concluded, in a report highly critical of the mogul and his son James’s role in the News of the World phone-hacking affair.

The Commons culture, media and sport select committee also concluded that James Murdoch showed “wilful ignorance” of the extent of phone hacking during 2009 and 2010 – in a highly charged document that saw MPs split on party lines as regards the two Murdochs.

Labour MPs and the sole Liberal Democrat on the committee, Adrian Sanders, voted together in a bloc of six against the five Conservatives to insert the criticisms of Rupert Murdoch and toughen up the remarks about his son James. But the MPs were united in their criticism of other former News International employees.

The cross-party group of MPs said that Les Hinton, the former executive chairman of News International, was “complicit” in a cover-up at the newspaper group, and that Colin Myler, former editor of the News of the World, and the paper’s ex-head of legal, Tom Crone, deliberately withheld crucial information and answered questions falsely. All three were accused of misleading parliament by the culture select committee.

Rupert Murdoch, the document said, “did not take steps to become fully informed about phone hacking” and “turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications”.

The committee concluded that the culture of the company’s newspapers “permeated from the top” and “speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International”.

That prompted the MPs’ report to say: “We conclude, therefore, that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of major international company.”

Read more at the Guardian….

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Subscribe

avatar

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Did Murdoch Try to Get His Editors to Lobby Government?

Ben Cohen · April 30,2012
Rupert Murdoch - World Economic Forum Annual M...

Did Murdoch use his influence to lobby government? (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Cora Currier: In front of a British government panel this week, Rupert Murdoch denied that he tried to wield political influence or use his media holdings to further the business interests of News Corp.

“I take particular pride in the fact that we’ve never pushed our commercial interests in our newspapers,” Murdoch said at the media ethics inquiry brought on by the phone-hacking scandal at News of the World last year.

But email messages released Tuesday indicate that News Corp. executives at least considered dispatching top editors of The Wall Street Journal Europe and The Times of London, both News Corp. holdings, to advocate the BSkyB deal.

The newly released emails, totaling 163 pages, were exchanged among News Corp. chief lobbyist Frédéric Michel, company officials and government aides. Several refer to Lord Matthew Oakeshott, a member of Parliament whom News Corp. perceived as key to influencing Vince Cable, the government minister who had the authority in the fall of 2010 to approve the BSkyB deal.

News Corp. execs were worried that Oakeshott wouldn’t be receptive to their overtures. In one email to James Murdoch’s aide, Matthew Anderson, and Rebekah Brooks, chief executive at News International, Michel described Oakeshott as “a difficult character [who] hates lobbying (and doesn’t like our empire either…).”

So Michel, the lobbyist, suggested that they arrange a meeting between Oakeshott and James Harding, editor in chief of The Times. From the email, dated Oct. 12, 2010:

James Harding (p. 18)

On Oct. 18, Michel wrote that Oakeshott would also be “VERY receptive” to a message from Patience Wheatcroft, then the editor of The Wall Street Journal Europe:

Patience Wheatcroft (p. 19)

That November, Wheatcroft left The Journal after she was named to the House of Lords as a member of the Conservative party, by Prime Minister David Cameron.

It is not clear whether Harding and Wheatcroft were actually asked to lobby Oakeshott.  A spokeswoman for Harding said that “there was never a meeting between James Harding and Lord Oakeshott,” but did not say whether News Corp. officials had asked Harding to have such a meeting. Wheatcroft did not respond to our requests for comment, nor did Oakeshott.

A News Corp. spokesman declined to comment on any of the emails.

Apart from raising questions about Rupert Murdoch’s claim that there was no use of his media holdings to further his company’s interests, the emails document a more general strategy to turn media coverage of the deal in favor of News Corp. in order to give political cover to the minister, Vince Cable, who could approve the deal:

Changing the narrative (p. 12)

Cable was removed from the bid approval process after he was recorded by journalists saying he had “declared war” on Murdoch.  Cable was replaced by Jeremy Hunt, with whom News Corp. appears to have had more luck — the emails point to close communication between Hunt’s aide and News Corp. about how best to push approval of the BSkyB buyout. Hunt said Wednesday that he “didn’t know the volume of those communications or the tone” of the interactions between his aide and News Corp. The Guardian also reported Wednesday that in 2009 Hunt was at News Corp. headquartersin New York during the company’s meetings on whether to launch the bid.

News Corp. threw the support of its British newspapers behind Cameron’s Conservative party in the 2010 elections, shortly before the BSkyB bid was announced. Cameron has maintained that he had had no “inappropriate conversations” with Murdoch about the deal.

Competing news organizations and others had opposed the deal because they said it would further concentrate the media power of Murdoch, who controls 40 percent of Britain’s newspaper circulation. The bid was eventually put on hold when news of phone-hacking by Murdoch papers broke last summer and engulfed the company in scandal.

 

This article was originally published on ProPublica

Enhanced by Zemanta

Subscribe

avatar

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Murdoch’s Rotten Empire a Reflection of Himself

Ben Cohen · April 26,2012
Rupert Murdoch - Caricature

Rupert Murdoch: Media empire rotten to the core (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

By Ben Cohen: The news that Rupert Murdoch has confessed to there being a “cover-up” at News International over the phone-hacking scandal at the Leveson inquiry should come as no surprise to anyone. Under serious public scrutiny, Murdoch has done his best at the inquiry to play nice, expressing regret over the scandal and a desire to help authorities uncover exactly what happened.

However, Murdoch is still insisting he knew nothing about the extent of the scandal. Had he know, he claimed, he would have closed the News of the World “years before and put a Sun on Sunday in”. Murdoch stated he was “misinformed and shielded” from what was going on at the paper. Murdoch has blamed layers of management and individuals hired by other people – everyone other than himself.

It is quite possible that Murdoch didn’t know anything about the hacking and is telling the truth. But that isn’t the point. Murdoch’s media empire produces the type of journalism that relies on nasty gossip, and given the pressures to produce in such a competitive industry, it is hardly surprising phone hacking of celebrities and nationally recognized figures occurred.

Rupert Murdoch has had an deeply insidious effect on the media, particularly the news. He single-handedly created today’s current brand of personality driven news shows (Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly being the prototypes in America), and turned major newspapers and networks into propaganda outlets for Right wing political parties and big business. Accurate and honest reporting was never something Murdoch was interested in – he simply followed the money. Murdoch saw that a mixture of entertainment and coddling up to power interests was the way forward and built his empire around those principles. He was right, and he has become one of the most powerful figures the media has ever seen.

His disregard for ethical journalism has caused untold damage to what used to be considered a serious craft. It laid the foundation for a new type of journalism that put ratings above anything else. Murdoch cares only about profit, and the natural consequence of this has been to feed people’s insatiable desire for gossip at any cost.

Murdoch may claim innocence when it comes to the specifics of the phone hacking scandal, but he is responsible on a far broader basis. Murdoch’s media empire and what happens in it is a reflection of his own values – and sadly he doesn’t have any.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Subscribe

avatar

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Newt Gingrich: “CNN is Less Biased than Fox”

Ben Cohen · April 12,2012
Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich slams Fox News

Newt Gingrich’s blistering attack on Fox News, in which the former House speaker accused the network of favoring Mitt Romney in its coverage, has drawn the ire of at least one of its on-air personalities.

“I think Fox has been for Romney all the way through,” Gingrich said Wednesday during a meeting with Delaware tea party leaders, according to RealClearPolitics, which was given access to the private meeting. “In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than Fox this year. We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of Fox, and we’re more likely to get distortion out of Fox. That’s just a fact.”

Several spokespeople at Fox did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but one on-air personality at the network took to Twitter to respond to the candidate’s remarks.

“Such sentiments nowhere apparent in my intvu w/him on Fox News Sunday. New Newt. Seems Old Newt loose again,” Brit Hume wrote on Twitter Wednesday evening.

In another tweet, Hume wrote, “Newt griping about Fox News, like Rick before him, is reminder: winners take responsibility; losers blame.”

During Wednesday’s meeting, Gingrich had also accused News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch of perpetuating the network’s slanted coverage of the 2012 race.

“I assume it’s because Murdoch at some point said, ‘I want Romney,’ and so ‘fair and balanced’ became ‘Romney,’” Gingrich said, according to RealClearPolitics. “And there’s no question that Fox had a lot to do with stopping my campaign because such a high percentage of our base watches Fox.”

Read more at Politico….
Enhanced by Zemanta

Subscribe

avatar

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Copyright © 2013 BanterMediaGroup, L.L.C. All rights reserved.