Murdoch: Bad for Journalism, Bad for Democracy
Posted July 31, 2007 | 02:26 PM (EST)


Today's news that the Bancroft family has agreed to News Corp.'s $5 billion dollar buyout offer for Dow Jones, is a powerful reminder of how media consolidation is constantly eroding the foundational structures of our democracy.

America's founders understood that a truly free press -- enlivened by diverse perspectives and beholden to the public interest -- is the keystone to a flourishing democracy. With the purchase of the Dow Jones Co. and its flagship Wall Street Journal another vital voice is brought under the umbrella of one conglomerate -- and one man -- that already controls too much of what Americans see, hear and read every day.

Since Rupert Murdoch's offer was made public, volumes have been written on what this historic deal might mean to journalism in America. A fair bit of the criticism and concern surrounding News Corp.'s bid for Dow Jones has focused on Murdoch himself and his well-documented penchant for employing his media outlets to advance his personal and business interests.

The Wall Street Journal is regarded as a bulwark of journalistic independence, seen by many as one of the most reliable sources of business news and a critical watchdog of corporate behavior. With less and less hard news being covered by the corporate media, newspapers like the Journal hold a powerful place in American society, helping to shape the national news agenda. Murdoch's influence over editorial policy at the Journal will have profound effects on what we see and hear on the news. Those concerned about the journalistic independence and editorial integrity at the Journal have good reason to be worried.

In addition to fears over his heavy-handed influence on editorial decisions, many worry about how Murdoch will streamline operations to create "synergy" between his various media holdings, such as Fox News and the recently announced Fox Business Network. Synergy is usually just another word for layoffs. These strategies have contributed to the dramatic staff reductions at newspapers across the country. Budget cuts have slashed things like investigative reporting and foreign bureaus in favor of "infotainment."

Above all, we ought to be most concerned with the health of our media system. Media consolidation, by its nature, diminishes the diversity of voices represented in our media or able to access to the presses and the airwaves. With fewer points of view available, those select few with an outlet increase their capacity to shape public opinion, politics and daily life. It is easy to make Murdoch a target, but this deal is not about one man so much as it is about a whole system of policies that creates a rich media but a poor democracy.

Some may say we should just let the market take its course. But today's media system isn't simply the evolutionary result of "market forces at work." It's the result of policies created by Congress and enforced by the FCC. Without those policies, Murdoch couldn't have built his media empire. Only by restoring public input in the policymaking process, can we reverse this trend and make America's media a healthier place where a marketplace of ideas and the free market can co-exist.

We can't change Rupert Murdoch. But we can change the policies that allow companies like News Corp. to control our media. We can create new policies that foster the kind of diverse, accessible and vibrant media that our country's founders imagined and our democracy needs.
To find out more or to take the first step in reforming the media explore www.StopBigMedia.com, visit www.FreePress.net and sign up as an e-activist.

Awwwwww! Poor Dharmabum, someone who isn't a dyed in the wool liberal like Pinch Sulzberger is in the newspaper business. Get over it.

Get over it.

You didn't even read the article Toadie.

Hmmmm.... I am going to go with "No".

What are you going to do about it? ;)

I did read the article and my comments remain the same.

Rupert Murdoch is not going to change the editorial policy of the WSJ. He generally agrees with the Journal's editorial policies and even if he didn't he will not change a successful formula.

What Murdoch will do is try to pull advertisers from other newspapers. He will offer them better rates than they are now getting and even take a short term loss in the interest of long term gain.

We both know your whining is precipitated by the fact that Murdoch is not a liberal.

I don't believe that you did read the article.

It isn't the EDITORIAL policy the article was referring to.

It is the JOURNALISTIC policy. Are you willing to wager that he won't change that?


.

I strongly doubt that Murdoch will do anything other than increase advertising.

And what if he does change its journalistic policy? Do you see something wrong with a newspaper changing its journalistic policy? Would it be wrong if the New York Post changed its journalistic policy? Would it be wrong if the New York Times changed its journalistic policy? How about the LA Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, or the Boston Globe?

Awwwwww! Poor Dharmabum, someone who isn't a dyed in the wool liberal like Pinch Sulzberger is in the newspaper business. Get over it.

I didn't take his posting of the article to mean that he has a problem with Rupert Murdoch or the fact that he is in the newspaper business.

He is concerned about the implications of a few people controlling everything that you get to hear and read. Surely you can see a problem with have a limited amount of viewpoints to choose from?

It usually happens that one person tells one side of a story and someone else tells another side and most times the truth lies someone in the middle. You want to only hear one side of every story?

And what if he does change its journalistic policy? Do you see something wrong with a newspaper changing its journalistic policy? Would it be wrong if the New York Post changed its journalistic policy? Would it be wrong if the New York Times changed its journalistic policy? How about the LA Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, or the Boston Globe?

There is nothing wrong with changing the journalistic policy of any of those papers, unless they are all owned by one person who makes them have the same policy.

I think it has more to do with the fact that these men all have friends in high places and there is no way they are going to let THEIR news sources report a story that will make one of their friends look bad, even if it does happen to be true.

You want to only hear one side of every story?

I believe that is exactly what Frogger and his ilk would love to see.

.

There are still more than enough media outlets available. I am not one bit worried that I will not be given different views. I read three papers each day, New York Newsday, The New York Times and the New York Post. Two are very liberal and the other very conservative. I also read another half dozen or so newspapers online ranging from The Boston Globe, The Miami Herald, The South Florida Sun, The Jerusalem Post, Der Spiegel (technically a news magazine), The Manchester Guardian, and others.

If you are interested in finding the news and different viewpoints concerning the news it can be easily done.

I was absolutely right... as ususal.

I was absolutely right... as ususal.

About?

About?

Frogger being all for media consolidation.
Anything to keep their favorite power brokers from looking bad, even if it is true.

It is amazing how you can jump to conclusions, Dharmabum. It takes a special sort of mind to be able to twist posts the way you do.

I said I don't see any great danger of media consolidation not that I wanted media consolidated into some format that agrees with my political views. I gave as an example of media diversity a list of newspapers I read regularly, newspapers that run the gamut from conservative to liberal.

Only a twisted mind could interpret that to mean I am in favor of some sort of conservative media consolidation.

I think one of the most unfortunate things about people is that they very seldom look for alternate viewpoints when they look at the news. They read a certain newspaper and only THAT newspaper. They watch one news channel and ONLY THAT news channel. I can understand the fact that these channels and papers may report stories from the viewpoint that they believe, but I think it is rather closed minded to think that the other side is wrong and can never be right. It says a lot for the way people think.

I think it's great that you, Frogger, view so many different sources. It escapes me where you find the time to do it, but it doesn't change the fact that you do. I would imagine it gives you so many different aspects of the same story.

I'm retired.

Using many different sources not only gives you different perspectives on a particular issue it also allows you to see what issues are important in certain parts of the nation and the world.

Our Democracy cannot and will not survive if we have to depend upon foreign news sources for the whole story.

There is nothing wrong with changing the journalistic policy of any of those papers, unless they are all owned by one person who makes them have the same policy.

I think it has more to do with the fact that these men all have friends in high places and there is no way they are going to let THEIR news sources report a story that will make one of their friends look bad, even if it does happen to be true.

Well said.

You are absolutely right. The consolidation of our media is a direct threat to the viability of our Democracy.

The media is supposed to be the fourth check and balance for our Democracy and when they are all owned by the same person or group of people then they control the public debate and as we have seen, public perception.

That is why the media (the press) is the only industry that the founding fathers decided to protect in the Constitution.

Dharamabum,

You seem extremely worried that Rupert Murdoch will protect friends in high places by not reporting negatively about them. Are you just as worried that the liberal newspaper owners will protect friends in high places by not reporting negatively about them?


Genzo, here are some headlines from around the world. As can be seen there are concerns in othe parts of the nation and the world than most of us don't know about.

Daily Mail
Madeleine McCann is a little girl who was kidnapped from her hotel room while on vacation with her parents who left her alone while they went to dinner. Most people in the U.S. and Canada have no idea who Madeleine McCann is but she is one of Great Britain's biggest, ongoing news stories.

Miami Herald
Crist leans on insurers to cut rates ( Homeowner's insurance is causing many Floridians to lose their homes. Insurers are either raising rates drastically or pulling out from the State entirely creating a major crisus for homeowners. This is a big problem in the Sunshine State but most other Americans don't know a thing about it.

South Florida Sun Sentinel
Helicopter bombs 'Glades with plants to stem pollution. Pollution of the River of Grass from farm and road runoff is a major problem that is unreported in the rest of the country.

Vancouver Sun
Prosecutor recommends against sex assault charges in polygamy case. This concerns the Bountiful settlement where men have more than one wife. The ramifications of the suit being dropped can be enormous not only on the Canadian side but across the border in the U.S. where there is a similar settlement.

Der Spiegel
Germany Shrugs Off Exchange Rate Worries. This article deals with the soaring rate of the Euro against the dollar. That rate affects our trade and tourism as well as Europe's trade and tourism.

Is not the WSJ a generally pro-business, conservative newspaper anyway? Wouldn't it would be more of an issue if Murdoch was to to purchase the New York Times?

If only he could. That would be great. Right, Dharma. It would give NYC a more conservative voice, more diversity and all that.:lolhit:

Talking in extremes is almost like giving up...

You seem extremely worried that Rupert Murdoch will protect friends in high places by not reporting negatively about them. Are you just as worried that the liberal newspaper owners will protect friends in high places by not reporting negatively about them?

I am worried about ANYONE controlling too much of one thing. It really makes no difference whether they are liberal, conservative, democrat, republican. It is a matter of monopolistic concerns.

Genzo, here are some headlines from around the world. As can be seen there are concerns in othe parts of the nation and the world than most of us don't know about.

Daily Mail
Madeleine McCann is a little girl who was kidnapped from her hotel room while on vacation with her parents who left her alone while they went to dinner. Most people in the U.S. and Canada have no idea who Madeleine McCann is but she is one of Great Britain's biggest, ongoing news stories.

Miami Herald
Crist leans on insurers to cut rates ( Homeowner's insurance is causing many Floridians to lose their homes. Insurers are either raising rates drastically or pulling out from the State entirely creating a major crisus for homeowners. This is a big problem in the Sunshine State but most other Americans don't know a thing about it.

South Florida Sun Sentinel
Helicopter bombs 'Glades with plants to stem pollution. Pollution of the River of Grass from farm and road runoff is a major problem that is unreported in the rest of the country.

Vancouver Sun
Prosecutor recommends against sex assault charges in polygamy case. This concerns the Bountiful settlement where men have more than one wife. The ramifications of the suit being dropped can be enormous not only on the Canadian side but across the border in the U.S. where there is a similar settlement.

Der Spiegel
Germany Shrugs Off Exchange Rate Worries. This article deals with the soaring rate of the Euro against the dollar. That rate affects our trade and tourism as well as Europe's trade and tourism.

Thanks for all the info. I had no idea any of these things were going on. You will now be my tertiary news source. :thumbs:

Everyone is worried about News Corp. owning to much> Lets look at the competition.

http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml

Wish I had as many choices when it comes to, viable, political parties.

So then is it already too late?

So then is it already too late?


I think it was to late when we allowed Republicans and Democrats to set up a system that effectively freezes out any third party participation.

I think it was to late when we allowed Republicans and Democrats to set up a system that effectively freezes out any third party participation.

That may explain why it is too late for politics and the U.S.Government. But is it also too late to save objective media?

I am thinking along the same lines as you and believe it is.

OK so where do we go from here?

Is not the WSJ a generally pro-business, conservative newspaper anyway? Wouldn't it would be more of an issue if Murdoch was to to purchase the New York Times?
Exactly. I was thinking that earlier - a conservative purchases the Wall Street Journal (a conservative rag), and all of the sudden it's hands across America because, apparently, we've lost our "democracy". The leap in logic is insane.

That may explain why it is too late for politics and the U.S.Government. But is it also too late to save objective media?

I am thinking along the same lines as you and believe it is.

OK so where do we go from here?


The same place we went before.
We are just slipping back into the days of monopolies. We've been there before, we broke them up, now they are forming again.

Well thats encouraging. We just need to wait it out until they implode on themselves.

Well thats encouraging. We just need to wait it out until they implode on themselves.


Whats your solution?

The same place we went before.
We are just slipping back into the days of monopolies. We've been there before, we broke them up, now they are forming again.

Herein lies part of the problem -- some monopolies were never really broken up thanks to 'grandfathering' clauses that allowed them to continue to operate as they always had.

Case in point... Dallas used to have two major dailies. The Dallas Times Herald and The Dallas Morning News. TDTH folded, leaving the city with only ONE paper, owned by the Belo Corp... which also owns newspapers in other cities across the country... as well as numerous television stations... including the ABC affiliate in Dallas AND TXCN, the 24 hr Texas news cable channel.

When laws were passed making it illegal for any media company to own both the newspaper and TV station in a given city, Belo was excused from that rule because they've been around since the 1860s.

And, BTW, not that it makes any difference, but Belo is owned by descendants of George Bannerman Dealey... as in Dealey Plaza. Dealey's great grandson, Robert Decherd is CEO of Belo Corp. Jim Moroney, another great grandson, is editor in chief of the newspaper.

As with lots of other media companies in the U.S., family ties run deep. Meaning family values run deep. Meaning if you cut off their heads, ink runs out instead of blood.

I agree, due to the reality of who owns our newspaper/tv stations, unbiased reporting in the U.S. is often VERY difficult to find.

SMW

Whats your solution?

I regret that I don't have one. But I would think it would have to start with keeping the media diversified. Monopolies are not allowed for a reason, and a dam good reason as far as I'm concerned.

The problem isn't so much that newspaper ownership is being consolidated but that newspapers are disappearing. Fewer and fewer people read newspapers and newspapers simply disappear.

Here is a list of newspapers that no longer exist.

National
Daily Worker
The National
Negro World
Police Gazette
The Spotlight

Metropolitan and local

Alabama
Birmingham Post-Herald

Alaska
Alaska Advocate
All-Alaska Weekly
Anchorage Times
Jessen's Weekly

Arizona
Gila Bulletin (Rivers)
Poston Chronicle

Arkansas
Arkansas Gazette (Little Rock)
Communique (Denson)

California
Alta California (San Francisco)
California Eagle (Los Angeles)
Hollywood Star
Los Angeles Evening Express
Los Angeles Herald
Los Angeles Herald-Examiner
Manzanar Free Press
Sacramento Union

Colorado
Granada Pioneer (Amache)

Connecticut
Hartford Times

Florida
Miami News

Georgia
The Atlanta Georgian
The Atlanta Times
The Columbus Sun
Daily Intelligencer (Atlanta)
The Georgia Gazette
The Great Speckled Bird (Atlanta)
The Macon News

Illinois
Chicago Daily News
Chicago Times
Chicago's American

Indiana
Indianapolis News
Indianapolis Times

Maine
The Maine Times

Maryland
Baltimore American
Baltimore Evening Herald
Baltimore Evening Sun
Baltimore Morning Herald
Baltimore News-Post
Bethesda Tribune
Montgomery Journal
Rockville Times
Silver Spring Suburban Record

Massachusetts
Boston Journal
The Boston News-Letter
Boston Post
Boston Traveler
Holyoke Transcript-Telegram
Provincetown Advocate
Publick Occurrences Both Foreign and Domestick (Boston)
Village Voice (Assonet)
Weekly Journal (East Freetown)

Michigan
The Dearborn Independent
Detroit Times

Missouri
Kansas City Times
St. Louis Globe-Democrat
St. Louis Star

New Hampshire
New Hampshire Weekly
Morning Star (Dover)




New Jersey
Centinel of Freedom (Newark)
Daily Journal (Elizabeth)
Morning Star (Newark)
Newark Evening News
Newark Gazette
Paterson Evening News
Paterson Morning Call
Paterson Morning News
Paterson Press-Guardian

New York
Brooklyn Eagle (Brooklyn, New York)
Buffalo Courier-Express
Guardian (New York City)
Freie Arbeiter Stimme (New York City)
Long Island Press (Jamaica, New York)
New York Age (New York City)
New York Daily Column (New York City), late 1960s
New York Daily Mirror (New York City)
New York Herald (New York City)
New York Herald Tribune (New York City)
New York Morning News (New York City, 1844–46), edited by John L. O'Sullivan, popularized the phrase "Manifest Destiny"
New York Morning Telegraph (New York City), merged with Daily Racing Form
New York National Democrat (New York City), 1850s
New York Sun (New York City)
New York Tribune (New York City)
New York World (New York City)
New York World Journal Tribune (New York City)
New York World-Telegram (New York City)
Newburgh Evening News (Newburgh, New York)
PM (New York City)
Syracuse Herald-Journal
Troy News

North Carolina
Twin City Sentinel (Winston-Salem)

Ohio
Cincinnati Volksfreund
Cleveland News
Cleveland Press
The Columbus Citizen-Journal
Dayton Journal-Herald
Penny Evening Telegram (Springfield), 1860s
Springfield Republic

Oklahoma
Oklahoma City Times

Oregon
Oregon Journal (Portland)

Pennsylvania
Gwiazda (Philadelphia)
Philadelphia Bulletin
Philadelphia Journal
Philadelphia Press
Philadelphia Public Ledger

Puerto Rico
El Imparcial (San Juan)
El Mundo (San Juan)
El Reportero (San Juan)

South Carolina
Columbia Record

Tennessee
Nashville Banner

Texas
Austin Citizen
Austin Tribune
Dallas Dispatch
Dallas Dispatch-Journal
Dallas Herald
Dallas Journal
Dallas Times Herald
El Paso Herald-Post
Fort Worth Press
Fort Worth Record
Houston Post
Houston Press
Houston Public News
San Antonio Light
Dallas A.M. Journal Express

Utah
Topaz Times

Virginia
Alexandria Gazette
Arlington Daily
Arlington Sun
Richmond News-Leader

Washington, DC
DC Examiner
Washington Daily News
The Evening Star | The Sunday Star
Washington Star-News
Washington Times
Washington Herald
Washington Times-Herald

Wisconsin
Green Bay News-Chronicle


I can remember when New York had a plethora of newspapers. During the fifties and sixties many of them began to combine. The Herald joined with the Tribune to become the Herald Tribune. The World and Telegraph combined with The Sun to become the World Telegraph and Sun. Others like The Mirror and Long Island Press simply stopped printing.

Eventually all but four newspapers disappeared from the downstate area, The New York Times, The New York Post, The New York Daily News and New York Newsday. Even those newspapers are losing readers and advertisers and the New York Daily News will probably eventually fold.

People are no longer reading the hard copy of many papers. Why put up with all the crap that comes with one. Its easier, cleaner, and "greener" to read the on line version.

Is not the WSJ a generally pro-business, conservative newspaper anyway?

The editorial page certainly is.

The news section however has been, until now, one of the last vestiges of actual Journalism left in American media.

That will change in short order after Murdoch takes over, just like it has at every other newspaper he has consumed. If you read the WSJ regularly, watch for the quality of news reporting to fall dramatically soon.

Is not the WSJ a generally pro-business, conservative newspaper anyway?

The editorial page certainly is.

The news section however has been, until now, one of the last vestiges of actual Journalism left in American media.

That will change in short order after Murdoch takes over, just like it has at every other newspaper he has consumed. If you read the WSJ regularly, watch for the quality of news reporting to fall dramatically soon.