Rupert Murdoch

Rupert Murdoch Sends Holiday Greeting, Doesn’t Mention Christmas

Posted by on December 15, 2009 at 12:15 pm. 2 Comments :

Last week a featured Fox Nation story was posted with the following image that made the point that the Obama’s failed to mention Christmas on their holiday cards (just as the Bush’s failed to do).

I wonder if the Fox Nationalists will now post a headline story about their boss, Rupert Murdoch. Here is how he addressed his “holiday” message that went out this morning:

Subject: A note to all staff: Mr. Murdoch’s Holiday Greetings 2009

The entirety of the message made no reference to Christmas whatsoever. Isn’t this an affront to God fearing Christian Americans who demand that all greetings of the season explicitly reference their savior with no other recognition of the pagan non-believers? Isn’t this more evidence of the suppression of the Christian values that our country was based on?

I can’t wait to see how Bill O’Reilly will cover this insult to “the folks.” And I’m certain that Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck will also speak up for the oppressed faithful. Right-wing blogs are sure to go wild over yet another example of political correctness from an elitist media baron. Ya think? How can Murdoch so cavalierly abandon the values of traditional Americans? While he may have chosen to excise Christmas from his message, he did say this:

“Together we informed and entertained, but more importantly, enriched the lives of hundreds of millions of people across the globe. We continued to pursue our goal of being the world’s best producer of media content, spreading the message of freedom we all believe in. Across all our businesses we advanced our digital initiatives, while holding true to our values and commitment to change for the better, including our support for clean energy and the environment.“

Where does Murdoch get off talking about a message that “we all believe in,” or claiming to be “holding true to our values,” when he has blatantly betrayed those beliefs and values? And what is this business of support for the environment? Sure, there is a web page on the News Corp. site that professes to be concerned about the state of the environment, but virtually every one of his writers and television presenters relentlessly disparage efforts to protect the environment, even calling them hoaxes, harmful, and socialistic.

All of this makes Murdoch’s holiday greeting a farce that shows nothing but contempt for the Christian supremacy that Fox News and America stand for. And now is the time to let him know that his offense will not be tolerated. All good Christians are now called upon to boycott Murdoch’s media empire, starting with Fox News. Good luck brothers. We can stop this sacrilege and restore America to the theocratic utopia it was intended to be.

Glenn Beck Has Gone Full Blown Televangelist

Posted by on December 15, 2009 at 3:38 am. NO Comments :

Glenn Beck - Obama-pocalypseOn today’s program, Glenn Beck pulled aside the veil to reveal his true face. It is a face whose features were familiar from a long beheld visible silhouette. But now it was nakedly transparent. He has finally assumed his place as the broadcast bishop, the cable cleric, the television vicar. Rev. Glenn’s sermon today commenced with a scripture from the holy Fathers of the Founding:

“The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”
– Thomas Jefferson

This verse laid the foundation for a series of lessons that placed a new focus on the American theocracy. And the first lesson was a reaffirmation of the importance of God to real Americans, and God’s insignificance to those evil progressives.

Beck: Progressives had to get rid of God […] Who is the government to tell us what to do? It’s our power. Wrong again! It is not our power. It is God. Our founders knew it comes from God to us and we give it to the government […] The earth is bigger than you. And the government is just protecting the earth. It all comes down to this: The climate cult is teaching your children that the earth is God.

To illustrate the transformational power of the presence of the Lord in a modern world dominated by the worship of science, Rev. Glenn recited the parable of Galileo, a renaissance astronomer who paid a dear price for his commitment to knowledge.

Beck: Galileo – The man who fought against the power structure of his own time to enlighten mankind that the earth wasn’t flat and the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system. It was those who held power that tried to shut him down. Just as those who are in power now try to shut up all who disagree now. Galileo is in the tower again.

Some may find irony in Rev. Beck referencing Galileo to analogize what is occurring today with regard to climate change. After all, it was not just any power structure that oppressed Galileo, it was the church. It was an ecumenical establishment that feared the impact of Galileo’s findings, which just happened to be contrary to church doctrine. So the church harassed and imprisoned this seeker of truth unto his death.

Now Rev. Beck is making an argument that is ostensibly in support of science, even though his position on climate change is diametrically opposed to the vast majority of scientists. And he is simultaneously advocating returning authority over our nation to God – you know, the supreme master of the power structure that oppressed Galileo. Beck asserts that it is the minority of faith-based and industry-aligned researchers who are the Galileos of today, and that by accepting their unsupported conclusions and submitting to the will of God we are somehow honoring the memory of Galileo.

But Galileo was a lone advocate of an unpopular and dangerous opinion. He was a man of science fighting a powerful theocratic establishment that wanted to suppress any knowledge that interfered with doctrinal teachings. Rev. Beck, on the other hand, is a science denier who would squelch men like Galileo and wants to impose the same sort of theocracy that persecuted him.

It’s takes real courage to advance a position that is so brazenly contradictory and lacking in logical reasoning. But we are talking about the great Rev. Beck. How many other alleged scholars can castigate adherents to global warming theory as “climate cultists” while the logo for their network is spinning in the corner with a new green hue commemorating the Climate Conference in Copenhagen?

Does Rev. Beck know that Pope Rupert has directed his corporate empire to pursue green policies and is “committed to addressing its impact on climate change?” Murdoch has even expressed his view that News Corp has an obligation to educate and engage their readers and viewers on the matter:

Murdoch: Imagine if we succeed in inspiring our audiences to reduce their own impacts on climate change by just 5 percent. That would be like turning the State of California off for almost a year.”

Does Pope Rupert know that his cardinals are undermining his directives? Does he know that, contrary to educating the public, they are willfully misinforming them? Does he know that in addition to Rev. Beck, that Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, the cast of Fox & Friends, and others in his broadcast and publishing world, are all subverting the message he has laid down as company policy? It seems unlikely that he wouldn’t know what is being promulgated on his network and in his papers. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the policy is just phony window dressing designed to mislead the public and is meant to be ignored. It is not unlike much of the scripture that is ignored by wealthy, free market, money changers who pretend to be pious, but who are only interested in their own comfort and self-aggrandizement.

And it is for that reason that Rev. Beck exists – to satisfy the spiritual lust of greedy, egomaniacs and the pathetic disciples they deceive. He is their path to salvation and their justification for living lives devoted to materialism and selfishness. Can I get an amen?

Rupert Murdoch: Media Vulture

Posted by on December 1, 2009 at 5:51 pm. NO Comments :

News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch appeared today at a conference sponsored by the Federal Trade Commission. His address touched upon many of the issues he has been peddling recently regarding journalism’s future and the Internet.

Murdoch continues to make noises about locking up his content behind pay walls. That is as unlikely now as it was when he first proposed it. Few will pay for the disinformation he calls news. He still believes that Google is stealing his product and he repeats his threat to de-list it from the search giant. We’re still waiting, Rupert. And we’re still waiting for you to stop stealing the content of others on your Fox News and Fox Nation web sites, where you do exactly what you are accusing Google and other aggregators of doing.

Among the more intriguing remarks he made today were those associated with the government’s involvement, or lack thereof, with media. In Murdoch’s view the government ought to stay away from any effort to help the struggling industry. By this he means that anything resembling a bailout ought to be avoided. Let the weaker players fail. At the same time he is anxious for government to get involved with respect to reforming regulations. Particularly those that impose limits on cross-ownership.

What Murdoch wants is for the government to refrain from any initiative that might help shaky media enterprises because he is more than happy to see them fail. They are his competition. When they go under, his market share increases, at least potentially. And while many media firms are struggling financially, Murdoch has the resources to deficit finance his own operations until the economy improves. Then he can scoop up new business and failed businesses at bargain rates. Especially if he is freed from the ownership caps he hopes to be able to eliminate.

It is a cynical and cold-hearted strategy that feeds off of the misfortune of others. And it is quintessentially Rupert.

The Goal Of The New York Post: Destroy Barack Obama

Posted by on November 11, 2009 at 9:21 am. NO Comments :

On the heels of reports that Rupert Murdoch’s sensationalistic tabloid, the New York Post, is severely wobbling financially and bleeding circulation, comes this report from the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein about a fired NY Post employee’s lawsuit against the paper.

Sandra Guzman was terminated by the Post after she had leveled criticism of an overtly racist cartoon that portrayed President Obama as a chimpanzee. Guzman’s allegations cover a broad sweep of misconduct by the paper and its editor, Col Allan. Stein writes…

“As part of the 38-page complaint, Guzman paints the Post newsroom as a male-dominated frat house and Allan in particular as sexist, offensive and domineering. Guzman alleges that she and others were routinely subjected to misogynistic behavior. She says that hiring practices at the paper — as well as her firing — were driven by racial prejudices rather than merit.

And she recounts the paper’s D.C. bureau chief stating that the publication’s goal was to ‘destroy [President] Barack Obama.’”

The lawsuit alleges that the environment at the Post was a hotbed of salacious innuendo, undisguised racism, and open political partisanship. Read Stein’s article for the juicy details. He has also posted a copy of the full complaint.

This is just another embarrassing episode for the Murdoch family of pseudo-news operations, and should further lock in Murdoch’s legacy as a disreputable purveyor of filth and lies.

Rupert Murdoch: Glenn Beck Is Right. Obama Is A Racist

Posted by on November 9, 2009 at 2:18 pm. 7 Comments :

News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch gave a wide-ranging interview to his own Sky News Australia. He is apparently not in a very good mood.

The interview touched on the so-called “war” between Fox News and the White House. Murdoch was asked a question about assertions that Fox is “an arm of the Republican Party.” Murdoch responded saying, “Everyone knows that’s nonsense” and charging that White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, is “a very young, inexperienced guy.” Of course, it was White House communications director, Anita Dunn, who made the comment, not Gibbs. Murdoch continued his defense of the fairness of Fox by bashing President Obama. When asked how the President was doing, Murdoch glibly replied with one word: “Badly.” He then claimed that only a couple of commentators on the network were presenting opinions. However, we know that isn’t true. Nevertheless, he falsely asserted that…

“We have on Republicans and we have on Democrats and we have them debate. The other networks only have Democrats, or something to the left of them.”

The truth, however, is that Fox does not have now, nor ever has had, a program hosted solely by a Democrat/liberal. CNN has Lou Dobbs, Nancy Grace, and until a few months ago, Glenn Beck. MSNBC currently has a three hour morning show hosted by conservative former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough. They have also employed Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Michael Savage. Despite the evident dishonesty by Murdoch, he still defends his network’s balance. When the interviewer inquired as to characterizations of the President as Stalinist, Murdoch firmly objected saying,

“No no, not Stalin I don’t think. I don’t know who that is. Not one of our people.”

Oh really?

This screenshot is from the Glenn Beck show wherein Beck displayed pictures of Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin, and asked, “Is this where we’re headed?” But perhaps the most shocking moment in the interview was when Murdoch was asked about Beck calling the President a racist. Despite the widespread condemnation of Beck, the loss of eighty advertisers, and even Murdoch’s qualification that the comment may not have been proper, Murdoch openly and unequivocally declared that he agrees with Beck.

“He [Obama] did make a very racist comment about blacks and whites and so on. Which he said in his campaign he would be completely above. And it was something that, perhaps, shouldn’t have been said about the President, but if you actually assess what he [Beck] was talking about, he was right.”

So now we have an unadulterated admission from Murdoch that he believes the President is a racist. If there was ever a time to make Murdoch pay for the blatant bias and hostility for which he and his enterprise are responsible, it is now. If Beck can lose eighty advertisers for calling Obama a racist, what penalty should Murdoch pay?

Two organizations have already embarked on protest activities aimed at Fox News. Color of Change is the group that successfully persuaded advertisers to shun Beck. MoveOn has a petition requesting that Democratic representatives avoid fox News. Both of the groups should now escalate the actions to include all Fox programs and all Democratic and progressive politicians, advisors, consultants, etc.

Fox News, and the rest of the Murdoch empire, has absolutely no credibility or integrity. They do not deserve to be regarded as a news enterprise. They have demonstrated their overt prejudice and their intent on being rightist advocates, not journalists. Murdoch says that he wants to be remembered as…

“…someone who has contributed to the world and has tried to make the world more interesting and better. And used the media to good effect.”

Well he certainly has made a contribution. He has contributed Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and more division and hatred than any media organization before him. And he has used the media to good effect. Well…it’s good if you like people shouting down free speech at town hall meetings and carrying posters of the President with Hitler mustaches. So it is our duty to treat them the same way we would treat partisans like the National Review, the Weekly Standard, WorldNetDaily, the Drudge Report, or any other avowed opponent. It is time to make a stand.

Stay the HELL off of Fox News: Starve The Beast!

Update: Media Matters has started an online petition calling on Murdoch to apologize. I don’t think that he will do so, but I do think it helps to send a message to him and the rest of the media that his remarks are objectionable and inappropriate. So go sign the petition.

Update II: Gary Ginsberg, a spokesman for Murdoch told Politico that Murdoch “does not at all, for a minute, think the president is a racist.” Sort of makes you wonder what he meant when he said that Glenn Beck was right when he called Obama a racist. But Ginsberg refused any further comment.

New York Post: Next Stop FAIL

Posted by on November 9, 2009 at 1:25 pm. NO Comments :

The New York Times is reporting some bad news for Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post:

“Three years ago Col Allan, the editor of The New York Post, pumped his fist and waded into a cheering crowd at a Midtown restaurant, celebrating The Post’s overtaking its rival, The Daily News, in weekday circulation. The Post trumpeted the news on a Times Square billboard and in its pages.” […] “Mr. Allan, who called it ‘a joyous occasion’ when The Post took the lead, now takes a more subdued view of the competition, saying in an e-mail exchange that ‘whether we are a little in front or a little behind has no impact on our forward business plan.'”

This turnaround in attitude is the result of a 30% drop in circulation for the Post in the past two and a half years. That is a bigger and faster decline than most of his competitors in a time of difficulty for the entire industry. This loss of readers comes on top of the paper losing approximately $50 million a year for the past ten years. Sources for the Times put the figure this year at $70 million. One must wonder how long Murdoch will tolerate such losses. He has shown in the past great patience for money-losing operations. He deficit financed Fox News for five years. He has been losing money on both MySpace and the Fox Business Network for two years. He doesn’t seemed to be the least bit phased by Glenn Beck’s loss of some 80 advertisers.

What this demonstrates is that Murdoch is not just the greedy media baron some think. He obviously is committed to his ideologies and the “news” enterprises that disseminate them. And if it costs him a few tens of millions of dollars, so be it.

Rupert Murdoch Sneers At Google – Google Shrugs

Posted by on November 9, 2009 at 1:01 pm. 3 Comments :

Rupert Murdoch has been whining for months about Google and other Internet search sites “stealing” his content. His complaint is that web users seeking information will search on sites like Google and then be directed to News Corp pages like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. This is apparently something to which he objects.

It is hard to find any logic in his complaints. If traffic is directed to his web sites it increases his page views, which permits him to charge more for advertising. It also presents an opportunity to convert those readers into loyal customers from whom he can solicit subscription fees. It is difficult to grasp what he is so upset about. Particularly since he can put an end to it all by simply placing a line or two of code in a file (robots.txt) that will restrict Google and others from indexing his sites and sending them more traffic.

Murdoch’s lament has evolved into a threat to remove his sites from Google. Of course, Google has long made known that he could do that at any time. What really makes this impotent threat even more perplexing is that he is now saying that he will carry it out in conjunction with his intent to make his sites accessible only to paying customers. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that once he constructs his pay wall, the content would not be available to Google’s users anyway. In effect he is saying that he will withhold his content from people who already can’t access it. That’ll show ’em.

During the interview Murdoch demonstrated his ignorance of the Internet and his own businesses. He asserted that the Wall Street Journal already did bar non-subscribers. That isn’t entirely true. If you search for an article on the WSJ site, you will only be able to view a paragraph without signing up. But you can search for the same article on Google and read the whole thing. Once again, that’s under Murdoch’s control, not Google’s.

Murdoch also demonstrated his hypocrisy. While he is slamming Google and other content aggregators for linking to his properties, he is doing the very same thing with his Fox Nation web site. Fox Nation is nothing more than a hub for news items from other sources. So Murdoch, by his own definition is “stealing” their content.

The Sky interview also covered Murdoch’s views about the BBC, which he called a “scandal.” Clearly he is disturbed by a publicly supported news enterprise that is committed to providing news and information for free, while he is anxiously plotting to close off his content to anyone unwilling to feather his nest. He has even threatened to sue other news providers for copyright infringement. Someone might want to inform him that, unless you overtly plagiarize an article, the news does not belong to anyone. If Fox reports on a shooting in Texas, they cannot prevent me from reporting the same thing, so long as I don’t cut and paste their story verbatim.

I can’t wait until Murdoch comes through on his threats to cut off Google and to bar access to his web sites. Reducing the amount of garbage that Murdoch showers on the world will be a big contribution to journalism and the advancement of knowledge.

Rupert Murdoch: We Did Not Start This Abuse

Posted by on November 5, 2009 at 8:52 am. 7 Comments :

When News Corp released their quarterly earnings yesterday, analysts took the opportunity to address some issues that have plagued the company’s cable news division, Fox News. News Corp Chairman and CEO, Rupert Murdoch, was characteristically combative – and dishonest.

The key question was from Brian Stelter of the New York Times:

“There was much talk in the past three months about an agreement between News Corporation and General Electric to limit the attacks between Fox and MSNBC. Is News Corporation continuing to seek to limit those attacks?”

Let’s just ignore the prejudicial framing of the question that implies that Fox has already been seeking to limit attacks. There has been absolutely no evidence of that, so it makes no sense to ask if it will continue. Murdoch, however, wasn’t going to complain about a such a propitiously delivered inquiry. He responded by whining that “they started it.”

“We did not start this abuse, which we thought went way beyond – it was personal and went way beyond – not on me, but on others, and it was finally we had to allow people to retaliate. And the moment they stop, we’ll stop.”

The truth, however, is a quite different from Murdoch’s representation. The hostility between Fox and it’s cable news colleagues was initiated by Fox from the day they launched in 1996. The utterly cynical “fair and balanced” slogan was an intentional slap at the other networks, whom they were accusing of bias. The meaning of the slogan was not that Fox would present the news with fairness or balance, but that they would serve to counter what they delusionally viewed as the imbalance of the rest of the media.

Since the ideological battle between the networks began on the day Fox debuted, Murdoch can hardly accuse the other networks of starting the abuse. But it didn’t stop there. In January of 2007, Fox ran an on-air promo that said they were “The only cable news channel that does not bring you the usual left wing bias.”

And that wasn’t all. They subsequently ran ads that accused CNN of being partisan and the Fox Nation promos declared that it was “time to say no to biased media.” More recently, they falsely claimed in a trade ad that CNN had failed to cover the Tea Bagger events that Fox itself was sponsoring. So much for fairness and balance. Murdoch himself admitted that his network’s slogan was a fraud in April of 2008 when he said…

“It’s very hard to be neutral. People laugh at us because we call ourselves ‘Fair and Balanced.’ Fact is, CNN, who’s always been extremely liberal, never had a Republican or conservative voice on it.”

People are laughing at you because you make such hysterically inane remarks like that one. Just a reminder – CNN’s lineup of conservatives: Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan, Mary Matalin, Tucker Carlson, Lynne Cheney, Lou Dobbs, etc. Fox’s lineup of liberals: Alan Colmes.

Not only was Murdoch wrong about who started this war, he also improperly asserted that it was made personal by his rivals. That doesn’t really square with the facts. How would he characterize this comment from Bill O’Reilly:

“[T]here is a huge problem in this country and I’m going to attack that problem. I’m going to attack it. These people aren’t getting away with this. I’m going to go right where they live. Every corrupt media person in this country is on notice, right now. I’m coming after you…I’m going to hunt you down […] if I could strangle these people and not go to hell and get executed…I would.”

Nah, that aint personal. And then there was the time that Roger Ailes threatened that he would “unleash O’Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.” That was just after O’Reilly called GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt “a despicable human being” who was responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. And Ailes kept his promise about unleashing the New York Post who published hit pieces on Keith Olbermann that included his home address. No, not personal at all.

Now Murdoch is misrepresenting the entire affair. It is demonstrably evident that Fox started the name-calling and bullying long before this current imbroglio began. And it was Fox who escalated it to bitter and personal insults. Now Murdoch says that “the moment they stop, we’ll stop.” That is almost exactly what Fox said in May of last year. But since then, Fox has only become more adversarial, showing no interest in anything but conflict and confrontation.

So contrary to Murdoch’s assertion, Fox not only started the abuse, they raised it to unprecedented levels. Now Murdoch complains that he doesn’t like it. Well, he’s saddled with it now. He invented it and promoted it. It is his legacy. Along with giving the world nutcases like Glenn Beck. That is how we remember Rupert Murdoch.

Guilt By Association With Fox News

Posted by on October 26, 2009 at 4:57 pm. 6 Comments :

Much has been made the past week of the so-called “war” between the White House and Fox News. Never mind the fact that there is nothing occurring that remotely approaches being characterized as even a metaphorical war. The administration merely expressed an opinion that Fox is more engaged in partisanship than journalism, a view most objective analysts would regard as obvious.

Ironically, it is Fox itself that has been the most vocal about the dispute. They have devoted more airtime to it and have enlisted their corporate cousins at Fox Nation, the New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal to pile on. And at the same time that they bemoan their being the target of a presidential smackdown, their own Glenn Beck offers his conspiratorial thesis that it is all an attempt to distract the public from the administration’s attempt to ram what he calls a socialistic, government-run health care bill through Congress. In a double-reverse, pitchback, fakeout, Beck’s accusation that this spat is nothing but a red herring is delivered even as he dedicates the majority of his own program to the fishy story. He is, therefore, a major contributor to the distraction about which he is complaining.

This is the sort of strategic schizophrenia that makes it difficult to even bother trying to engage with Fox. They want people to believe that they are a credible news enterprise, yet they sponsor anti-Obama tea party protests. They want people to believe that they are fair and balanced, but they populate their air with wall-to-wall propaganda and Republican talking points. They want people to discriminate between what they claim is their news and editorial content, but their news is fully contaminated by the right-wing fungi with which their editorial is fatally infected.

It appears that the only way to relate to Fox is to disengage. That is the course that Jane Hall, an associate professor in the School of Communication at American University, and a frequent Fox contributor, has taken. This weekend on CNN’s Reliable Sources she told Howard Kurtz that she has left Fox and gave as part of her reason that…

HALL: I’m also, frankly, uncomfortable with Beck, who I think should be called out as somebody whose language is way over the top. And it’s scary.

KURTZ: Was that a factor in your decision to leave Fox?

HALL: Yes, it was.

I can’t help but wonder why more people haven’t come to the same conclusion. An association with Fox can only bring derision and ill repute to anyone who actually covets a career in journalism. Being yoked to Fox ought to be regarded as scarlet letter that permanently stains any hope of a reputation for ethical reporting.

It is time to start holding people accountable for the choices they make and for the partners with whom they align themselves. If someone elects to be on the same team as Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, that relationship cannot be swept under the rug. They must expect to be identified as the professional comrades that they are. Just as Jane Hall ankled Fox due to her objection to being affiliated with Beck, any others who share that objection ought to do the same thing.

This is not a case of an aversion to being affiliated with a deviant associate who broke the law or violated rules of the company or society. Certainly Katie Couric should not be held to blame because another employee of CBS News was caught blackmailing David Letterman. In the case of Fox, the deviants are celebrated and highly promoted by Fox. They are regarded as treasures and they contribute significantly to Fox’s success. They are not black sheep, they are leaders and they are the most visible icons of Fox’s identity.

For this reason people like Chris Wallace should not be able to set aside his relationship to Sean Hannity. In fact, Wallace has said of Hannity that “I generally agree with him.” Major Garrett cannot pretend to be a journalist when he shares airtime with Bill O’Reilly. In fact, Garrett, formerly of the Washington “Moonie” Times, is amongst many Fox presenters who has written books that are as overtly partisan as O’Reilly’s. And all the other wannabe reporters who rub shoulders with the likes of Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Neil Cavuto, etc., should be made to feel the embarrassment they are due.

Most importantly, News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch cannot be permitted to wash the slime from his hands. Rupert Murdoch IS Glenn Beck. They are inseparable and indistinguishable. Murdoch likes to present himself as an old school news publisher, but he is actually a tabloid sensationalist who has done more to tarnish the profession of journalism than anyone before him. His purchase of the Wall Street Journal was intended in part to bring him respect and to co-opt the credibility of the iconic financial digest. But instead of the Journal lending its glow to Murdoch, Murdoch has leeched his bile onto the Journal. From now on the Wall Street Journal is the paper of Glenn Beck. His picture should appear in the masthead. In fact, Glenn Beck’s alternately smirking and scowling visage should grace the cover of every News Corp enterprise. It should be sewn onto the lapels of every News Corp reporter. It should edited into every Fox News program and promo.

It is precisely because the editorial content at Fox is indistinguishable from what they call news, that no one in the Murdoch family of companies should be allowed any distance from the insane ravings of Glenn Beck. From now on it is Glenn Beck’s Fox News, Glenn Beck’s Wall Street Journal, Glenn Beck’s Rupert Murdoch. If Murdoch is happy to sponsor Beck’s program, even as advertisers desert it, then let him be melded to it. If he is proud of his racist and incendiary provocateur, then fasten Beck around his neck and let this be the legacy he leaves. If Beck is what he wants, then Beck is what he gets. And Murdoch will forever be remembered, not as a media baron or press magnate, but as a disreputable exploiter of division and hate. His legacy, in the twilight of his career, is inextricably intertwined with the mugging buffoonery of Glenn Beck. And heretofore, no one will be able to conjure up the memory of Murdoch without being drenched in the spittle and dementia of Beck. Congratulations Rupert.

[Update:] Beck has responded to Jane Hall, calling her “that idiot who left Fox:”

BECK: “Well, don’t let the door hit you on the ass when you leave. I’m going to miss you, I am, whatever your name is.”

Here we have Glenn Beck, a drug-addicted, alcoholic dropout, calling Hall, a Phi Beta Kappa with a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University, an idiot. And Beck doesn’t even know her name although she’s been a Fox News contributor for eleven years. No wonder she doesn’t want to be associated with that network anymore. Why would anyone want to be?

Fired By Fox News: Marc Lamont Hill Gets What He Deserves

Posted by on October 16, 2009 at 11:56 am. 18 Comments :

Marc Lamont Hill is described on his web site as “one of the leading hip-hop generation intellectuals.” He is an author and a professor at Columbia University. For the past few years he has also been a paid contributor at Fox News.

Hill’s appearances on Fox have been almost exclusively with Bill O’Reilly. He is actually one of the few foils who has demonstrated an ability to hold his own, to not get railroaded by O’Reilly, and to hold fast to true liberal arguments. In other words, he is no Juan Williams (aka Right-Wing Tool/Fool).

The news out of this morning’s annual meeting of News Corp shareholders is that Hill has been fired. This announcement came right from Murdoch himself. Murdoch was responding to a question about why he would employ a radical leftist defender of cop killers.

It appears that Hill was getting the Van Jones treatment and that Murdoch was as thin-skinned as President Obama. The question was presumably from Cliff Kincaid of the uber-rightist Accuracy in Media. Kincaid had issued a press release prior to the meeting announcing that he would be posing this challenge to Murdoch. Kincaid is so far to the right that he has railed against what he views as the “leftward drift” of both Matt Drudge and Fox News.

Well, now those drifting pinkos at Fox have set Prof. Hill adrift. They certainly couldn’t tolerate the presence of an intelligent, articulate, black man, spoiling the fun of the 24 hour Tea Party people at Fox. It will be interesting to see if O’Reilly has anything to say about the blackballing of one of his most frequent guests.

But Hill ought to have known better. He was crossing a river with a scorpion on his back. Did he think he would not get stung? Had he not taken the time to look around at the pathetic husks of Juan Williams, Kirsten Powers, Alan Colmes, or the rest of the limp losers who Fox allows to represent their version of the left? It was just a matter of time.

This is further evidence that it is a complete waste of breath to appear on Fox News. It only lends them credibility that they haven’t earned on their own. It permits the false claim of fairness and balance to persist. It boosts their ratings. The fireworks sparked by the conflict and manufactured debate is what Fox thrives on. I couldn’t be happier that Hill was fired. I hope that he’s learned something from the experience, and I hope that others take it as a warning.

No good can come from fraternizing with scorpions.