Limited News rather than News Limited?

There’s a war going on, but you wouldn’t know it. It’s barely reported on.

No, I don’t mean the slaughter in the name of Allah that’s going on in Sudan. Where government-backed Muslim terrorists (the Janjaweed) who - when not raping, pillaging and ethnically cleansing western Sudan of non-Muslim black Africans - are engaged in a well orchestrated genocide. And neither do I mean the war-in-waiting, the looming Iranian nuclear crisis, evidenced by the continued threats from Iran’s Mohammed Ahmedinejad and the positioning of the United States Navy’s finest ships just a few miles off the Iranian coast.

No sir. I refer instead to a low intensity war in the eastern United States by news organisations desperate to maintain their place at the top of the media food chain, by doing whatever it takes to derail Mr Murdoch’s locomotive as it inches towards the Wall Street station.

A recent trip to the United States was very illuminating.

While I visited Manhattan, drawing my attention on a near daily basis, wasn’t the offensive humidity or the eye popping exhibitions at the Guggenheim, rather it was the output from two mammoth media groups, Cinderella’s two ugly sisters: the Washington Post (a menagerie of left wing bigots) and the even more left wing New York Times.

The latter it seems, has been ruthlessly carpet bombing the Murdoch camp at every opportunity, determined not to allow him to get within cooee of the Wall Street Journal and hypocritically, accusing the Australian mogul for potentially using his money-power-influence to direct his publications to his way of thinking.

Let’s start with The New York Times. And let’s take but three examples of its naked prejudice.

On June 25, the Times ran the first of a two-part front-page inquisition into Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to buy Dow Jones Inc. and with it, its prized asset, The Wall Street Journal. These two articles - the second ran the next day - taken together with similar sludge discharged by the equally noxious Washington Post (through its online site, Slate.com) was promoted to readers as an “examination” of how Rupert Murdoch and his beloved News Corporation use the many tools in their possession to (shock horror) advance his business interests and allow him to network with the politically powerful. From Berlusconi to Blair to Bush.

The Times begins its tirade by claiming that in the (northern) autumn of 2003, the United States Congress was on the verge of limiting any company from owning local television stations that penetrated more than 35 per cent of American homes. Mr Murdoch’s Fox network reached almost 39 per cent, meaning he would have to divest.

The Times sprayed that Mr Murdoch’s lobbyists worked assiduously against the 35 per cent proposal, and backed by the White House and other big media companies, a late-night November sitting of Congressional leaders agreed to raise the limit. Raising it to 39 per cent, and thereby appeasing Rupert.

The paper alleges that Mr Murdoch influenced key Congressional leaders with sweeteners, such as enticing Sen. Trent Lott (a leading Republican from Mississippi) to get on board the 39 per cent bandwagon and thereby free Murdoch from any forced divesture. The price for the good senator’s support? Having HarperCollins (the publishing house), and a stallion in the News Corp. stable, sign the senator up to publish his memoirs. And toss him a US$250,000 bone as an advance.

Between accusing Murdoch of doling out his money via campaign contributions and offering jobs to yesterday’s government officials, it seems that the Times is running scared that Mr Murdoch, will in time, seize control of the world’s foremost business publication, in an economy where he is an active and aggressive player.