Rupert Murdoch’s current problems in the UK and - through a chain of chess piece executives who work for him on both sides of the Atlantic - the United States, point out just how tenuous and ephemeral our notions of a vigorous and healthy free press have become for both Americans and our British cousins.
It isn’t that the misdeeds of News Corporation companies, hacking into the private communications of subjects it considers newsworthy – like the royals, murder victims, politicians, sports celebrities, and the like – are not something that is not of major concern to us. They are, as they surely should be.
The scope and pervasiveness of Murdoch & Co.’s tactics in trying to generate “news” and their illegal efforts to cover them up by bribery and deception will be uncovered in days and weeks ahead, for they have rattled the cages of some very important people on both sides of the pond. And when you push those kinds of buttons, even if you’re Murdoch, you can expect a significant amount of pushback. The degree to which Murdoch’s willingness to act in flagrant disregard for ethical behavior, from his telephone hacking to his manufacturing of “facts” reflect his apparent assumption that there is nothing on earth which can rein him in. This should be an alarm to the citizens and politicians of both nations.
There is a larger point though, a “teachable moment, as they say, and it is this: Lax oversight on the part of regulatory agencies in both America and the UK, designed to prevent monopolies of information dispersal have severely restricted a free exchange of information and opinion in the mass media.
News Corporation's overstepping of the law currently being investigated was not done by a small-town media outlet. They were done by a multinational, multi-media company which has evolved from a small Australian daily newspaper to the 4th largest communications titan on the planet. News Corporation has its fingers in every form of information outlet, including book publishing, magazines, cable and satellite TV, newspapers, movies, sports, and broadcast. It owns local television stations and newspapers and dominates the entire media activities in some very important markets and segments. It’s most recent acquisition, Dow Jones & Co. and its flagship Wall St. Journal, makes News Corporation the major player in business information. His far right-wing Fox News Channel is the most viewed cable news (if it can be called such!) channel in the country. His local television broadcast stations alone reach 40% of the American population.
If the giant News Corporation pyramid was inverted, the flow of financial and political juice would flow to just one man, Rupert Murdoch, who has claimed for years that he is interested in being nothing more than a businessman but whose actions belie that claim. Over and over again, he has shown that he intends to become the ultimate kingmaker in the affairs of the English speaking world and beyond. His top employees are some of the most nefarious and politically savvy people found anywhere and it is their job to shape governments in Murdoch’s personal image.
Perhaps now, finally, the time has come for breaking up this enormous trust, just as we did to Standard Oil a hundred years ago. Democracies can only thrive on ideas freely and broadly expressed. When companies such as News Corporation can command the eyes and ears of a section of the electorate large enough to unduly influence the outcome of elections, as it did in the case of David Cameron in the UK and George W. Bush here in the States, the underpinnings of self-government are strained to the breaking point.
We have not seen such an accumulation of media since the days of the Hearst empire a hundred years ago. Indeed, the growth and complexity of how information gets gathered and disbursed, along with recent Supreme Court pronouncements giving citizenship to corporations, makes News Corporation orders of magnitude more dangerous than Mr. Hearst ever was. Murdoch not only creates news, he controls how it's doled out.
Politicians unwilling to take a hard look at how news is disseminated in this country will ultimately lose their own ability to act on behalf their constituents’ interests regardless of whether they are liberals or conservatives, for Murdoch can mobilize his enormous assets to take down just about anyone who doesn’t do his bidding. We have reached a near-critical mass, in which one man’s power may be greater than the American government’s ability to function in anyway resembling a democracy.
###


Salon.com
Comments
To say that Fox is no more biased that the NYT is, well, to be charitable, a stretch.
The Telecom Act of 1996 effectively removed regulators from oversight of the Telecom industry. It virtually allowed the industry to consolidate into giant companies with their mitts in every medium.
• Lifted the limit on how many radio stations one company could own. The cap had been set at 40 stations. It made possible the creation of radio giants like Clear Channel, with more than 1,200 stations, and led to a substantial drop in the number of minority station owners, homogenization
of play lists, and less local news.
• Lifted from 12 the number of local TV stations any one corporation could own, and expanded the limit
on audience reach. One company had been allowed to own stations that reached up to a quarter of U.S. TV households. The Act raised that national cap to 35 percent. These changes spurred huge media mergers and greatly increased media concentration. Together, just five companies – Viacom, the parent of CBS, Disney, owner of ABC, News Corp, NBC and AOL, owner of Time Warner, now
control 75 percent of all prime-time viewing.
• The Act deregulated cable rates. Between 1996 and 2003, those rates have skyrocketed, increasing by nearly 50 percent.
• The Act permitted the FCC to ease cable-broadcast cross-ownership rules. As cable systems increased the number of channels, the broadcast networks aggressively expanded their ownership of cable networks with the largest audiences. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks, challenging the notion that cable is any real source of competition.
• The Act gave broadcasters, for free, valuable digital TV licenses that could have brought in up to $70 billion to the federal treasury if they had been auctioned off. Broadcasters, who claimed they deserved these free licenses because they serve the public, have largely ignored their public interest obligations, failing to provide substantive local news and public affairs reporting and coverage of
congressional, local and state elections.
• The Act reduced broadcasters’ accountability to the public by extending the term of a broadcast license from five to eight years, and made it more difficult for citizens to challenge those license renewals.
“Those who advocated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 promised more competition and diversity, but the opposite happened,” said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree. “Citizens, excluded from the process when the Act was negotiated in Congress, must have a seat at the table as Congress proposes to revisit this law.”
(The above lifted from Common Cause)
So yes, I am for paring down the size of telecom companies in general.
Finally, what Murdoch has done has been illegal. When the 3rd largest media company in the United States engages in unlawful (and disgusting) behavior it's time to pull its plug.
Also, I'm no fan of the NYT anymore but they still can't come close to being as corrupt as Murdoch, who is a power mongering potential tyrant; although he is to old to do much more damage if he passes his power on to his son and remains unchecked then it could get worse. If this turns into a snowball effect it will be long overdue.
Rosebud.
Witness "Noirville" whatever his name is. The miserable fool can't tell the difference between the "News Corp" and the NYTIMES. Murdock is the guy who figured out how to capitalize on stupidity using the media in our lifetimes more than anybody else.
The news has always been this way, from Revolutionary War anonymous sheets to Hearst to Max Beaverbrook to the Knights and Ridders and Cox in Ohio, and Col. McCormick and his Tribune in Chicago, circa WWII. In the U.S. "two newspaper towns' meant an ongoing knife fight between the newspapers, not balanced reporting. Ben Sen, as usual, wrong, says Murdock figured out how to capitalize on stupidity. Nah, they ALL figured it out, decades ago. I'll give Murdock credit for something he did early in his career: when he was a junior editor at the London times his boss wrote venal and false pieces about a very old Winston Churchill. Murdock undercut the guy. Good for him. If you don't like his papers, don't read 'em. Or, read them and refute any assertions that you can, keep 'em honest. Do some homework Senny.
as for breaking up a monopoly, Im all for it, how about starting with the BANKING CARTEL first? its far more massive and dangerous in my opinion..... its proven itself to be highly lethal with the last financial crash.....
but, our govt does not have the willpower to break up ANYTHING any more. it can only stand in the way of mergers and make threatening noises. but then look what it did with the banking cartel!! the government itself ARRANGED the mergers. so the public is pretty dumb and not able to perceive the new shape of things.... drowned out in the noise.....
ps Ive been ranting against the MSM as fundamentally conspirational in various ways, and its nice to finally see some )( small vindication. I predict this is just the beginning of public disenchantment and raised awareness on the sludge that is known as the MSM.....
easy, because it does not challenge critical issues that are of key importance to the public. it does not challenge or inform the public, it pacifies the public with pablum. topics of critical importance to daily life that you will *never* see articles in the MSM on
- federal reserve
- 911 truth
- wealth disparity
- corporatocracy
- US warmachine
etcetera, its a long list of course....
- huffington post
- nick denton blogs
- roku internet tv channels.
- netflix
- alternet
- alex jones infowars.com
etc!
As for Murdoch, who is one of the rich as are governors, judges, corporate CEOs and boards, legislators, Congress, Wall Street, the slimey likes of the Koch Brothers, and the rest of the soulless evil ones, I think Gandhi was correct when he said, "In the end, the deceivers deceive only themselves."
As for Murdoch, who is one of the rich as are governors, judges, corporate CEOs and boards, legislators, Congress, Wall Street, the slimey likes of the Koch Brothers, and the rest of the soulless evil ones, I think Gandhi was correct when he said, "In the end, the deceivers deceive only themselves."
dont feel threatened there dude!!!
fine! go back to reading your daily M-Sludge-M