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.

What worries the Times (and other Murdoch haters) - so they claim - is that Mr Murdoch will use the Wall Street Journal, arguably a stand out publication, as yet another tool to further his countless financial and political agendas. They fear he will not only dumb it down but that he will be unforthcoming about publishing any adverse information about his business affairs. Limited News as it were, rather than News Limited.

The Times laughs off demands by the Bancroft family - who have a lock on 64 per cent of the voting shares at Dow Jones - for iron clad assurances from Mr Murdoch that he will preserve the independence of The Wall Street Journal’s news coverage. The Times reminds readers of a 1981 report, that claimed Murdoch gave identical assurances when he purchased The Times of London, but micromanaged news operations in any event.

The malice and envy of the Times continued to be drip fed to its readers. The very next day, June 26, the Times ran yet another page one feature (that filled yet another full page) on “Rupert Murdoch’s Dealings in China: It’s business and it’s personal”.

Filled with rage and jealousy, the Times assails Murdoch’s genius in successfully entering the Chinese media market. China is significantly different from western markets and the Times eviscerates Murdoch’s character by ridiculing what the mogul has done in order to get a toehold in that market. It blasts him for exercising proprietorial discretion when he dropped the (tiresomely China bashing) BBC from his Star TV network, in order to pander to the Bolsheviks in Beijing, yet interestingly the Times is silent about the well known bigots within the BBC who flout their alleged code of impartiality in reporting.

The Times lists business deals - be they with or without Chinese partners - which Murdoch entered, winning some and losing others, all the while unable to mouth that which it will not voice: Rupert outfoxed the competition. He beat Disney, Time Warner and Viacom at their own game. Period.

The venom continued three days later. On June 29, the Times wheeled out its mobile scud launcher in the name of well known columnist Paul Krugman, who fired a missile entitled "The Murdoch Factor". Bottom line: If Mr Murdoch does acquire The (Wall Street) Journal, it will be a dark day for America’s news media - and American democracy.

He could have added that the skies will fall in; Ebola will take hold; and gay couples will displace straight couples in the queue for IVF treatment.

Mr Krugman’s attack on citizen Murdoch lines up with the strategy that seems to have been cooked up by the Washington Post. Focus on Rupert’s capacity for influencing the public, and then assail him for exercising his “massive” power. Oh, and ignore similar behaviour by other media proprietors.

The Washington Post (through its online site, Slate.com) reminded readers of how Murdoch helped Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1997 win office (through mutual back scratching) and noted that while he was solidly behind Bush Jnr, his current predisposition is to spread his cash around both sides of Congress, evidenced by a fund raiser (or a “benefit” as the Americans say) for Hillary Clinton. So, you see Murdoch can’t possibly win. He is attacked if he supports George W. Bush and is defiled if he supports Hillary Clinton.

Mr Krugman despises Murdoch’s ability (via his Fox News Channel) to offer an alternative to the left wing views that contaminate National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS). Not a word however from Mr Krugman on the benefits of diversity of views within the media.

Reminiscent of Arabs launching katyusha rockets from Gaza at Israel, Slate pummels the Internet with article after article badmouthing citizen Murdoch. Witness a few of its hate-filled web pages: 'Eight more reasons to distrust Murdoch" (May 8); "Can Murdoch pass the stink test?" (May 29); "More Murdoch Malefaction" (June 1); "If the Peach stole the Journal Cream" (June 5); "The Murdoch Journal" (June 22); "The Filth and the Fury" (June 22); "Composing Murdoch’s disclosure" (July 11) and "Homer Simpson has what the Bancrofts want" (July 13).

What Slate lacks in good prose and themes to command one’s attention throughout their dreary articles, it makes up for by sheer volume of low rent comments buttressed by its in-house anti-Australians.

It’s very emotive, or thinks it is: “make no mistake: this is the end of Dow Jones” it bellows. Then it goes to say “there is no way - no way - that the Bancroft family, which controls the majority of voting shares, can resist a $60 offer - a 67 per cent premium to the recent market price of DJ shares”.

So what is it exactly? Is Murdoch stealing the Journal? Hardly, given the hearty premium that he is offering. Or is he merely replacing the Bancroft managerial style with his own? Yes. And if an owner can’t have his views expressed in his paper, whose views are to be expressed? Some reporter who has a bee in his bonnet about some issue?

In 1980, Slate claims, Ansett Airlines owned in part by News Corp. applied for a US$290 million loan from the federal Export-Import Bank of the United States. The loan request was made over a White House lunch between Mr Murdoch and Jimmy Carter, the American President who let his countrymen rot for 444 days in Teheran. Three days after that lunch, Murdoch's New York Post endorsed Mr Carter in the Democratic primary. Four days later, Rupert’s loan was approved. As a tail piece, Slate notes - teeth clenched no doubt - that a congressional investigation found no impropriety. None.

While the New York Times and the Washington Post relish the roles of fashioning Murdoch’s coffin, the facts are: first the Journal is not yet in Murdoch’s hands, and second, the Journal (after his acquisition) will not fail. Like all bright proprietors, Mr Murdoch will not let his politics pollute his commercial interests.

Rupert's Wall Street Journal will be greeted by readers no doubt with an open mind. Readers will be aware of the stellar reputation that Murdoch has purchased, and will long for continuity of that tradition.

To keep subscribers subscribing and to entice new ones, the bright, worldly and sophisticated readership will insist on maintenance of excellence in the Journal’s output of news and opinion. It is arguably Rupert Murdoch’s capacity to deliver readers what they value that really terrifies the embittered snipers at the Times and the Post.

After all, if Murdoch succeeds in dumbing down his Journal and elbowing his editors, the paper will in short order fail, and rivals will be able to make inroads into that niche. Not least the Financial Times, who could easily scoop up journalists to help bolster its daily US sales from 140,000 to something approaching the two million that the Journal moves.

But if Murdoch succeeds in maintaining the excellence of the Journal, outwits and outplays the competition, then the losers will be not only CNBC whose data feed from the Journal will come to a grinding halt, but also the Times and the Post who will see their share of financial reporting reduced to a bare rump of what it currently is.

After all, if the Journal will feed its financial data to say the embryonic Fox Business Channel as well as to its sister, the New York Post, then really what use will anyone have for the Times’ and the Washington Post’s business pages? Apart from lining bird cages that is? Let’s face it. If you’re say a pensioner, seeking financial data, why would you pay US$1.00 for the Times when better data will be available for US$0.25 in the New York Post? And if you’ll subscribe to Fox Business Channel, who knows? Maybe Rupert will offer you a deep discount to subscribe to his Journal?

Rupert Murdoch like all media moguls has a track record. But on balance his influence has been positive: apart from the occasional lapse, such as his support for one E.G. Whitlam. But let’s not dwell on his (Rupert’s) youthful exuberance.

And that lapse is a walk on the beach when compared to The New York Times monumental failure in say, its coverage of the fate of European Jews in World War II. Laurel Leff, a veteran journalist and professor of journalism, recounts how personal relationships at the Times resulted in the minimising and misunderstanding of modern history's worst genocide. Leff’s book, Buried by the Times (published in August 2006) recalls how news of Hitler's “final solution” was hidden from readers and - because of The New York Times' influence on other media - from America at large.

Proprietors have always, legitimately, had their hands on the levers of their media assets. Some more than others. Antagonism by the leftist media to Murdoch is not due to his identification as a surrogate for News Corp, nor is the frustration merely a function of his political views. Rather the left’s odium is a product of his demonstrated commercial success whilst pursuing his conservative values. The very two things the leftist media resents most.

Rupert's Wall Street Journal has been long in coming. Let’s welcome it to the nearest news agent - with both an open wallet as well as an open mind.