Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Murdoch's Expanding Empire Seen as "Ominous"
WASHINGTON -- Australian media mogul Rupert Murdoch added one of the most respected brands in journalism to his already vast media empire this week, gaining enough support from the deeply divided Bancroft family to buy Dow Jones & Company, publisher of the Wall Street Journal, for 5 billion dollars.
In the midst of a very public negotiation which had much of U.S. journalism recoiling in horror, Murdoch also announced his intention to launch Fox Business Network, which will begin broadcasting this October.
And it appears the News Corp. Chairman has every intention of using the journalistic resources of Dow Jones to bolster his fledgling business channel.
"Murdoch has a long and sordid history of discarding the accepted norms of honest journalism in order to advance his own political and corporate agenda," wrote Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow at Media Matters in America, in a statement published on the progressive media watchdog group's website.
"Of particular concern is Murdoch's plan to use the Journal to help launch the Fox Business Network, which will be overseen by Fox News boss and former Republican strategist Roger Ailes," Boehlert said.
The convergence of Dow Jones and Murdoch's FOX Business Network makes the NBC-owned and operated CNBC a prime target. In 1997, CNBC formed a strategic alliance with Dow Jones, including content sharing with Dow Jones Newswires and the Journal and the rebranding of the channel as "a service of NBC and Dow Jones."
Yet Murdoch and Ailes have criticised the channel for not being business friendly. "Many times I've seen things on CNBC where they are not as friendly to corporations and profits as they should be," Ailes told the New York Times.
"They [Murdoch and Ailes] say they are going to challenge this pernicious bias. Their argument is that CNBC is too anti-business, but that's hard to fathom if you've ever watched it," Peter Hart, a media analyst at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) told IPS.
While the coupling of Dow Jones and the new FOX venture is a victory for proponents of media consolidation, much of the anger throughout the journalist community has been directed at Murdoch's acquisition of the Journal -- a publication many in the U.S. believe to be the most respected name in business reporting.
Critics have decried the Dow Jones sale, arguing that Murdoch has rarely improved any news media company he has purchased, and that he will in all likelihood turn the highly respected Journal into a mouthpiece for his own political views, as he has done with the Fox News Channel.
While the Journal isn't exactly a beacon of liberal opinion -- its editorial pages boast some of the most right-wing and conservative voices in the U.S. -- the paper remains an iconic publication known for its serious and credible reporting tradition. Negative sentiments were voiced by Journal reporters themselves, who, when speaking on the condition of anonymity to the Los Angeles Times, reacted bitterly to news of the sale.
The fear is that Murdoch will imbue the Journal with the same sensationalism and, it is widely acknowledged, biased news coverage found on Fox News and in the pages of the New York Post. Thirty years ago, Murdoch purchased the liberal tabloid for 30 million dollars and promised not to alter it. Currently, the paper is regarded as a right-wing gossip rag.
"Murdoch doesn't practice journalism; he molds diverse media into a single voice. It's a dangerous uniformity -- threatening the democratic discourse a free press sustains as well as enabling wars by conniving with bellicose politicians," wrote John Nichols in a report in the Nation magazine.
News Corp. owns such media companies as the Fox News Channel, Twentieth Century Fox movie studios, the New York Post, the Weekly Standard, the Times of London, publications in England and Australia, satellite television networks in Europe and Asia, as well as the popular peer-networking group MySpace.
The recent buy-out of Dow Jones gives Murdoch Barron's Financial Weekly, Dow Jones Newswires and the Ottaway community papers.
In a letter published Wednesday in WSJ, publisher L. Gordon Crovitz reassured readers that his staff would work diligently to maintain the newspaper's editorial independence and to continue practicing accurate journalism.
In fact, he wrote, "accurate and independent journalism" was the first topic discussed by Murdoch and Bancroft family during the negotiations. According to Crovitz, the News Corp. Chairman told the Bancroft family that "any interference -- or even a hint of interference -- would break the trust that exists between the paper and its readers, something I am unwilling to countenance. Apart from breaching the public's trust, it would simply be bad business."
In order to safeguard long-standing standards of conduct -- among them "no hidden agendas" and a promise to accurately and fairly represent "the facts" -- a special committee was created to protect the Journal's newsroom from attempts to steer coverage that may advance Murdoch's interests.
While Murdoch may not initially tamper with the editorial content of the Journal, his ownership does place him in a position to directly challenge the New York Times. It would not be surprising if Murdoch engaged in a less overt campaign to woo advertisers away from that paper by offering cheaper advertising rates, according to Hart.
"That's the playbook. Go after you competitors, go after their ad rates so they lose the support from advertisers," said Hart. "You have to have money to push a price war, and if [Murdoch] did that, there would be no surprise."
Copyright © 2007 IPS-Inter Press Service



36 Comments so far
Show Alllucas is right, this guy's money has done him no good. Compare to the picture of the Dali Llama whose needs are provided but owns nothing.
At a time when newspapers are shedding assets, the fact that Murdoch bought out the Journal at a whopping $60 a share speaks volumes. It will enable him to have another platform from which to distort the facts and push his corporate/political agenda. He really is a genius. Used to be corporations paid ad agencies and PR firms to bolster their public image and drive profits. He cut out the middlemen and has gone straight to outright ownership of the media. And instead of recognizing it as spin, he can claim "Fair and Balanced".
I will not be shedding any tears for The Wall Street Journal. This publication is not known as a bastion of free speech and liberalism.
The WSJ could already be counted on to print lies and distort facts. It's always been a bastion of right-wing "free-market" lunatics.
HERE Here is what is expanding the entire EARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgidAICoQI&NR=1
Murdoch is not Australian. Australian born, he reneged his Australia citizenship to take on American citizenship many years ago; US law requires that only US citizens can control major media assets.
Australia is embarrassed that they bred such a monster, but he's your problem now.
It'll be interesting to watch what happens from this.
Just think—as Murdoch debases the WSJ and tilts it even further away from what was right about it, he could ruin a bunch of stuff. Just conjecture...what's in a name lately?
Look at the man's face.
Death will take him, too.
According to Ed Schultz on his program yesterday, the danger isn't that the Wall Street Journal will be affected by Murdoch's ideology, it's that Fox News will start lying even more now, because Murdoch has his other media outlets to fall back on if Fox starts losing money.
Using campaign spending limits to get America better politicians is the only way to solve America's problems enough.
if he lives long enough, murdoch will find a way to steer the WSJ his way. this will make it less credible, the way fox news is less credible now. the NYT's normal reaction should be to become even more liberal and become more of a target. corporatization is to market economics as corporate finance of the two party system is to democracy. sooner or later a blind quest for efficiency of any kind lead to fascism.
Frankly, I agree, move along now nothing to see here. The Journal subscribers are mainly repukes anyway. Besides, some know how to read and possess IQ's higher than 95 so if they are independent Murdoch's smut crap has little chance of changing their minds. However, the Fox media watchers fueled by talk-radio are the republican base that should be of greater concern.
If this country actually voted for candidates that would carry out agendas that helped it voter segments the most; about .05% would be republican, maybe 5-10% would vote democrat and the rest would vote for a party that would not be afraid to supply needed government services, tax the rich, cut the taxes on the poor middle class, tax the corporations, and cut the ridiculous defense budget by 5-10 fold. Then our country would start to become a safe friendly place to live and a Country which stands for Freedom and Liberty for all.
Back to reality more, "Freedom Fries", please.
Murdoch will not be able to stop himself from corrupting the WSJ news pages. And he will inevitably have his different outlets take quotes from each other, mostly FOX News quoting WSJ stories, that of course would have been written by Murdoch employees spreading Murdoch propaganda.
I feel conflicted about it. Certainly it is good to know that the WSJ's reputation will become tarnished and it will lose its status, but at the same time Murdoch will have spread his pseudo-journalism even further, which will mean that journalism as a whole will seem even more corrupt.
Most who read "1984" see a dystopian future. Murdoch saw "1984" as a blueprint.
Another coup for the NaziCons!
.
Who gave Nicholas Negroponte a two and a half million dollar bribe to 'vouch' for the WSJ's editorial independance under Murdoch?
.
The Ministry of Truth marches on.
.
Nicholas Negroponte - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHe is the younger brother of John Negroponte, current United States Deputy ... Per Child (OLPC) although he retains his appointment as professor at MIT. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Negroponte - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
Once upon a time in a country called U.S.A. there were seven differant news papers, they could be trusted to be the guardians of democrecy. Today ,thanks to Murdoch thats gone, we have one mind set in control for corperate government. And thier goal is to make the rest of the world in thier IMAGE.
Frosty Bunny sez:
It will enable him to have another platform from which to distort the facts and push his corporate/political agenda.
*******************
Only if somebody reads it Frosty, only if someone reads it...
Lucas, never trust anyone with those type of eyes__ even if they do smile and screw their mothers.
Hey, Freedom Loving American, my I.Q. is 72, does that mean I'd be a good Democrat or independant? Wow 95, ain't that sumpin. Can I join the Green Party?
WHERE IS THE FCC?F WHY DID THE US GOVT. BREAK UP ATT AND STANDARD OIL? THIS IS BAD NEWS!
We can now expect the influence of FOX News to be be expanded to the WSJ, which unlike FOX still maintains some degree of reliability and accuracy (except for their editorial page). This would be on little concern if many American electorate were not so influanced by such biased & erronious news reporting. However recent history shows this not to be the case.
Challk up another another setback for the free press and a victory for the right wing radicals.
Social necrosis.
More damage may be to come. I am a subscriber to Smartmoney Magazine which I find useful in investing because of it's association with the WSJ business reporters and information. There is much less politics in the magazine than many other business magazines.
If this is tied to Murdoch I will have to find another business source.
PS - I find CNBC to be way too business friendly and often incapable of any objective information because of the pointless attachment to theory rather than actual business and economic results. If Fox Business is more business friendly small investors would be wise to stay away in droves.
what are those two masks from greek plays? wasn't one of them "pathos"? doesn't it look exactly like murdoch's here? sadness, despair -- the results of a life lived by such a one as rupert m.
the WSJ can take a dive into the shitter for all i care.
reporting on the "dow jones industrial average" has not a damned thing to do with the average joe. all these teevee shows about the world of "business" are propagandistic. do some research on who actually owns these stocks. it's part of the illusion of the american dream, that we all partake vicariously in the extreme wealth of a priviledged few.
reporting from the point of view of "capital" is illegitimate and dysfunctional. it's immoral. money cannot be viewed in isolation from its social and environmental impact. to pretend that money can be studied apart from the human beings and the relationships through which money is both expressed and founded upon is sociopathic.
WSJ is founded upon the belief that money is an existential quantity with rights and priviledges that trump those of living beings. ultimately, capitalism is an obsession with death. capitalism, for the most part, doesn't even exist in the US. ours is a land of government corruption in the service of the wealthy -- a massive government welfare machine for the rich, the oil companies, and the military contractors.
adam smith's "free hand" of laissez faire economics is actually cheney's fist up our collective ass.
good riddance WSJ. you and all your pork barrel KY Jelly will not be missed.
Since when have they regulated anything?
Not until we strip corporations of their "rights of personhood" will we be able to stop this crap.
What is all this nonsense about the WSJ being some sort of bastion of journalistic integrity? The whole deal is about one group of hard core fascists selling their interests to another hard core fascist for a fast buck.
patnval August 3rd, 2007 5:00 am
There your one of the people that figured out the fatal flaw. Abe Lincoln was a "Railroad Lawyer" and as soon as he was elected he gave the railroads that he worked for the nation on a plate. The fatal flaw!
What at first glance seems like the end of the world, is really the end of the right wing's hold on our media. Although it will be the end of professional journalism at the WSJ. Print journalism will reinvent itself beginning with the grassroots, leaving the entire world market to eat each other, and those with vested interests in it. Bon Apetit!
I don't even know why we're paying attention to this. It's something that belongs to the capitalist world. It's capitalists cannibalizing capitalists. Every day that the system continues to exist, it proves more and more that it is the most flawed economic system in the world.
And, to tell the truth, Murdoch isn't lying. He's not going to interfere with the Wall Street Journal. How could he force them to "push his right wing agenda"? THEY'VE BEEN PUSHING IT FOR YEARS WITHOUT HIM, THEY DON'T NEED HIS HELP.
Perhaps the future for news is not in the print media anyway.
The future is in the internet and mobile phones:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6929537.stm
and ordinary people from around the world will be posting information about what they are seeing and what they are thinking.
(and sh@dow that was a great youtube. I've sent it on to others.)
I wonder why Murdoch never had a face lift. :) He has the money.
WSJ has been an accurate source of business news. I am not an investor, but I have always found that accurate business news helps tremendously in understanding the political news. The WSJ reports often lend insight into what is really going on geopolitically or in national affairs, though that is generally not the reporter's intent.
Even those of us on the far left lose something when the WSJ news cannot be trusted anymore.
Isn't Murdoch a U.S. citizen, papers rushed through immigration by Newt the Gingrich for a publishing deal? Don't we have monopoly laws that regulate this sort of thing?
END corporate personhood!
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html
I always suspected that the "balance" in "fair and balanced" refered to Murdock's bank account, and "fair" to his skin color..a network for the rich and whie
Everybody above has missed one thing. Murdoch will die. And soon. And then? the breakup of the empire that he spent his life creating. None of his children are as driven or as venal (nb James's reported reaction to Rupert's undying support for the Zionist cause).
Getting any financial press to speak the truth is a struggle.
But nice to see some tensions in the ranks. e.g. John Bolton had some Neo-Con crap in the Financial Times on 1 August. THe piece was met with a tidal wave of vitriol and ridicule in the letters page on Thursday and Friday (2nd & 3rd). FT readers are saying, in effect, to JB - fuck off to the Murdoch press.
And can I second fatfreddyscat on the motion to 'end corporate personhood'.
Corporate personhood is the ultimate scam. people talk about 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Bah humbug.
shane:"Australia is embarrassed that they bred such a monster, but he's your problem now."
I only wish that were true. It could hardly apply to John Howard and his white supremacist lot - and millions of like-minded Aussie rednecks.
Lots of bad news, but I wish we'd give publicity to positive media developments sometimes. For instance, http://www.goleft.tv is a wonderful development.
Imagine if we gave http://www.yesmagazine.org the sort of attention we give to Fox News.
I think they'd have many more subscribers, and progressives would be inspired by their stories on what people are doing to create a more just and sustainable world.
Or, what if we gave Bob Kincaid of http://www.headonradio.com the sort of "mindshare" we give to perception managers like Sean Hannity. Kincaid's "conversation radio" would be huge, and it would be an even more effective space for people to congregate and share info and ideas.
We need to look at what people like Murdoch are doing to build their media empires, but we need more attention directed towards grassroots efforts to make a media of our own.