Rupert Murdoch

Rupert Murdoch Censors Glenn Beck – The China Chronicles

Posted by on October 8, 2009 at 1:57 pm. 6 Comments :

When a courageous speaker of truth emerges from the forest of lies that is modern media, the risk is ever present that censorship, suppression, or worse could occur. Sadly, that is the case today. Glenn Beck produced an episode of his program that continued his valiant search for communists burrowing into the woodwork of America like subversive termites eating away at the foundation of our national home. However, this episode has mysteriously disappeared. Fortunately, I have acquired a transcript (h/t Esquire) of the “Lost Episode” that reveals perhaps the most insidious enemy of freedom yet unveiled by Beck.

GLENN BECK: THE RUPERT CONNECTION [Transcript]
[Editor: Everything below regarding Murdoch and China is true]

GLENN BECK: My viewers know that I am not the sort of guy who resorts to sensationalism and hyperbole, but today’s show is going to cause blood to shoot out of your eyes. You will totally freak out and very likely wet your pants, as I did when I found this out. In short, there are forces in the media who are directing the course of our nation’s future, and it’s not who you think it is.

If you think this country is great, but ogres are hiding under the bed waiting to defile you while you sleep, then wake up – and come on, follow me.

Hello America. I am going to ask you to pay special attention to today’s program because this is going to get complicated. Keep a pencil and notepad handy. You will want to take notes.

On previous shows I’ve warned you about the extreme radicals and avowed communists that are holding important positions in our government. I’ve warned you about conspiracies like ACORN and the National Endowment for the Arts. I’ve exposed Van Jones and Mark Lloyd and Valerie Jarrett. I know, the liberal elite are going to complain that I only go after black folks. “Oh, he’s a racist. He doesn’t like the darkies.” But that isn’t true. I also exposed the safe schools czar, Kevin Jennings, and he is a white fag…I mean gay. The point is that radicals are taking root at every level of government. People who hate the principles we devout Christians hold dear.

But today’s program is about more than just the government. Oh yes, it touches every part of the government but it has maybe even more power in this country and around the world. It’s the media.

When I talked earlier this year about how we, the patriots and truthtellers, are actually surrounding all of the weasels and the traitors, I meant every word. Barack Hussein Obama’s czars have been dispatched to every corner of Washington’s power grid. But in the case of the media, it really is surrounding us. It’s everywhere. In our homes, our cars, our offices, our fast food restaurants. It is being fed into us intravenously. We are all being indoctrinated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I don’t want to scare you, but I’m speaking to you right now on the media. Sure, the liberal pansies will cry “But aren’t you a big, rich, media star, with all your TV and radio and books?” And I shout right back at them “Well maybe I am, but you’re forgetting that I rarely make any sense and besides, shut your friggin pie hole!”

I want to tell you all something that I just recently learned from the guy who delivers my pizza. He stumbled on an article in that bastion of progressive propaganda, the New York Times, that was hidden under a pile of Hefty bags in the alley behind his shop. Now how did it get there? Hmmm? A copy of a major American newspaper, rolled up and stuffed in the trash? What are they trying to hide? Quite a lot, as you’ll soon see.

Now, it is not commonly known that the biggest media mogul in the world is a fellow named Rupert Murdoch. He runs more TV and newspaper businesses throughout the world than anyone, but still complains about the bias in the mainstream press. I mean, duh. Who does he think he is, the Pennysaver? He’s Australian by birth, but he went to live in socialist Europe, and later came to the United States. When he wanted to buy an American TV network, he got his socialist friends in the Congress to make him a U.S. citizen, which was a prerequisite for owning a network. After receiving that special treatment, he made sure to bash any other immigrants who aspired to live and work the greatest country in the world.

Then he began to build what is the most frightening corporate empire you can ever imagine. Now, the problem isn’t just that it’s big, because I happen to love big business and free enterprise. The problem is who he is in business with.

This Murdoch is very tightly entwined with one of America’s most vicious enemies. The People’s Republic of China. This association begins in his own family. His third wife, Wendi Deng, is a mainland Chinese who once worked for his Hong Kong-based satellite broadcast company, Star TV. Star TV was run by James Murdoch, Rupert’s son. Um, OK. James is the guy who complained that western reporters in China supported “destabilizing forces” that are “very, very dangerous for the Chinese government.” So let me get this straight. He was defending the communists against reporters from America? OK.

Under the supervision of Rupert and James, Star TV bent its programming to favor the brutal Chinese regime. In 1994 it dropped BBC News, which had frequently angered Chinese officials. One of the reports that angered the Chinese was of the brave soul who famously stood up to a flank of Chinese tanks in Tiananmen Square. The BBC replayed that video too much, so Murdoch had the network banished.

By cooperating with the communist censors in China, Murdoch earned the friendship of some very important people. The article in the Times noted that…

“His courtship has made him the Chinese leadership’s favorite foreign media baron. He has dined with former President Jiang Zemin in the Zhongnanhai leadership compound in Beijing and repeatedly met other members of the ruling Politburo in Beijing, New York and London. Television channels affiliated with Mr. Murdoch beam more programming into China than any other foreign media group.”

Uh oh. So this relationship was a boon to his financial interests. Do you think that the $50 billion ad market in China had anything to do with that? I don’t know, I’m just asking. But Murdoch was awfully cozy with these guys. His book publishing division, HarperCollins, was kind enough to put out a book of fawning propaganda about the former leader, Deng Xiaoping, that was written by his daughter, Deng Rong. He also halted publication of a book by former Hong Kong governor Chris Patten that was critical of the Chinese. Hmmm. Propaganda good – criticism bad.

In 1996, Murdoch entered a joint venture with Liu Changle, a onetime radio host for the People’s Liberation Army. And you know those radio hosts. They aren’t nothin but a bunch of ignorant, egotistical, blowhards trying to spread disinformation. This new partnership led to an even closer association with China’s propaganda machine. Murdoch was now hanging out with Propaganda Department chief, Ding Guangen, and then Prime Minister, Zhu Rongji. Another partner was the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League, considered the political power base of China’s new top leader, Hu Jintao. He parlayed these relationships into a new business, building the Internet sites for China Central Television (CCTV) and the People’s Daily, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party.

Murdoch later was permitted to launch MySpace China. He agreed to all of China’s regulations on Internet censorship and placed a convenient link on every page for users to report inappropriate information to the authorities. How thoughtful of him. I wonder how many Chinese dissidents disappeared due that little feature?

If you are not already rolled up in the fetal position under a table, I don’t know what to tell you. This is serious stuff, and it is one of the reasons I have never feared more for the future of my country. When the biggest media conglomerate in the world is in bed with the world’s biggest communist nation, how much longer can we expect to remain free? And remember, China has us by the short hairs due to all of the U.S. debt they hold.

America…It is more important now than ever to be vigilant and strong. I don’t know how much longer I will be allowed to say these things in public. I told you before that certain entities were threatening to silence anyone who speaks truthfully. I told you to listen between the sentences where I will be screaming at you. I told you to be suspicious of any reports of my demise. Do you think I want to get on the air every night and tell you this stuff? I don’t want to believe these things, but unfortunately I find them true. It’s not my damn fault. Get off my fucking back. And stop following me around. I mean, come on, follow me. Believe me. Love me. Worship me. I’m doing all of this for you. Can’t you see that?

America is at a crossroads. Which way will we go? Further to the left, where communism, tyranny, aliens, and universal health care torment every citizen? Or back to the right, where unregulated free enterprise allows clowns like me to make millions by peddling fear and phony conspiracies? Do you want to repeat the Age of Enlightenment, when society was burdened with reason and the harshness of reality. Or would you prefer the glorious Dark Ages when people relied on faith and the comforting fear of a just and vengeful God?

I know which road I’m taking. I hope to see you on it. Good night, America.

That’s the end of the transcript. The Murdoch/China connection is pretty well blown wide open now, thanks to Glenn Beck. The question is, will this episode ever see the light of day? And now that the transcript is out, will Beck be punished for his insolence? Is Murdoch already laying the groundwork for Beck’s downfall? What exactly is the connection between Murdoch and Color of Change, who have been orchestrating a surprisingly successful campaign aimed at Beck’s advertisers? About 80 advertisers have already declared that they will not purchase time on Beck’s program Could that have been accomplished without Murdoch’s knowledge and assistance?

I don’t know. I’m just asking?

The Glenn Beck/Fox News Boycott Goes International

Posted by on October 4, 2009 at 1:56 pm. 12 Comments :

In the few weeks that have transpired since Glenn Beck called President Obama a racist, the campaign to persuade advertisers from patronizing his program has grown phenomenally. Today there are over 60 companies that have withdrawn from his show because they do not want their brands associated with the hatred and hostility for which Beck is known. And these are significant national advertisers like Wal-Mart and Procter & Gamble. Color of Change, the group spearheading the action, is continuing to apply pressure.

But now the campaign has expanded into the international arena. The Guardian UK is reporting that Waitrose, Britain’s most upmarket supermarket chain, has pulled all of their advertising, not just from Beck, but from all of the Fox News Channel.

“We take the placement of our ads in individual programmes very seriously, ensuring the content of these programmes is deemed appropriate for a brand with our values,” said a customer services spokesman. “Since being notified of our presence within the Glenn Beck programme, we have withdrawn all Waitrose advertising from the Fox News channel with immediate effect and for all future TV advertising campaigns.”

Fox News airs in Europe on Sky satellite television. Sky itself is part of the international media empire owned by Rupert Murdoch who, of course, also owns Fox News. Sky’s chairman is Murdoch’s son James, who is the likely heir to the News Corp. throne.

Notable in this announcement is that Waitrose explicitly states that their ads will be withheld from all of Fox News. Previously, Fox has claimed that they were not suffering any revenue loss because ads removed from Beck were simply shifting to other programs. They can no longer make that claim.

I have maintained that Fox’s claim regarding their revenue never held water because advertisers shifting to other programs would only displace the ads those programs already had. There is only so much inventory (i.e. air time) in TV. Therefore, at best it would neutral, assuming that Beck brought in replacement ads, which he didn’t. He was left with low-paying direct marketers and locals that can’t possibly raise the same revenue as Geico and Best Buy. What’s more, a recent study revealed that Beck’s show is losing about $500,000 a week. So even with his ratings increasing, Fox is incapable of converting them into dollars.

At some point Fox will have to decide whether covering for Beck is worth it. Eventually the taint will rub off on the network (more so than presently). There will be more Waitrose’s. Does Fox want to be regarded as so committed to promoting Beck’s beastly behavior that they will do so no matter how much money or reputation they lose?

Rupert Murdoch’s Organization Wants Another 9/11

Posted by on September 2, 2009 at 12:58 pm. 3 Comments :

The faux patriots at Fox Nation are continuing to make a habit of exploiting the image of 9/11 and contriving false and negative associations with Democrats. This time Rupert Murdoch and Co. have outdone themselves by accusing President Obama of politicizing the anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center and other targets.

It takes a pretty hefty portion of chutzpah for the Fox Nationalists to sell this falsehood. Particularly in light of how brazenly they themselves have been politicizing 9/11:

In this latest episode, Fox Nation links to an article at RedState, the blog of the uber-rightist magazine, Human Events. The RedState column credits the equally right-wing Heritage Foundation for discovering what they characterize as a despicable act of political exploitation.

What these stalwart detectives found was a notice on the website of Organizing for America (OFA), the Democratic National Committee’s social networking site for Democratic activists. Note: This is NOT a site that is affiliated with the White House or the President.

The offending notice was posted by a user seeking participants for a health care reform event. The notice itself could reasonably be regarded as offensive and inappropriate, but no more so than what Fox Nation has published itself.

The content of the notice said (click to enlarge):

“Sep 11, is Patriot Day, designated in memory of the nearly three thousand who died in the 9/11 attacks.

“All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.”

I can’t say that I disagree with the assessment of Fox News, but the reference to right-wing domestic terrorists was unnecessarily contentious. However, the response by Heritage/RedState/Fox Nation is ludicrous beyond imagination.

First of all, the OFA web site is a user driven site. That means that anyone can post comments, blogs and even announcements of upcoming events, as is the case here. So those responsible for the site’s administration (the DNC) cannot be blamed for inappropriate material that they did not produce or authorize. The site’s administrator did become aware of the posting and promptly removed it. Now you would think that the martinets of manners at RedState would be assuaged, even encouraged, by this behavior, but no. They quickly leaped to a new accusation that the web site had “scrubbed” the embarrassing content. How can OFA win? If they leave the posting up, they are guilty of denigrating the memory of 9/11. If they take it down, they are alleged to be hiding something.

Remember, this is the same organization that permitted Michael Scheuer to appear with Glenn Beck and openly root for another terrorist attack on America:

“…the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.”

So, does Murdoch’s organization want another 9/11? That sounds much more plausible than the assertion that Obama’s organization is politicizing 9/11. This is nothing more than the routine disingenuous outrage from people who only know how to stir up mischief, even when none occurs. And for the Fox Nationalists to raise the ante by publishing gut wrenching photos of the 9/11 attack, with a completely dishonest headline, is the height of cynical and grotesque politicization. Especially after all of the examples above of obvious and intentional politicization on the part of Fox.

But don’t get comfortable yet. Fox News has been running promos today for tonight’s O’Reilly Factor that promise to blow the lid off of this fake scandal. So this nonsense is going from a bunch of ignorant think tankers and bloggers, to the number one cable news program in America.

Seriously…Is this all they’ve got?

Rupert Murdoch Says 9/11 Is Bullshit And Should Be Forgotten

Posted by on August 28, 2009 at 11:58 am. 1 Comments :

The faux patriots at Fox Nation are making a habit of exploiting the image of 9/11 and contriving false and negative associations with Democrats. Last week the Fox Nationalists published an article accusing President Obama of desecrating the memory of 9/11 because he supported a National Day of Service to be held in conjunction with other memorials. The view at Fox is that Americans coming together to make a better country is a horrible insult to the anniversary of the terrorist act. So Fox Nation posted this image juxtaposing the burning World Trade Center towers with the President:

Their undisguised intent was to visually associate Obama with a horrific event that he had nothing to do with. Well, today Fox is at it again with an even more repulsive and dishonest defamation:

Just three days after the death of Sen. Kennedy, Fox Nation found a way to denigrate his memory in the same fashion as they did with Obama. In this case, however, they really had to test their capacity for lying because the headline attached to the image is 100% false. The Fox Nationalist’s editors title the item “Huffington Post Compares Kennedy Death to 9/11.” But the Huffington Post did no such thing. There was no article about Kennedy and 9/11 at all, much less one comparing them. The headline is a blatant, brazen, bald-faced lie.

The article that Fox Nation links to is from Newsbusters, the uber-conservative media watch/lap dog of Brent Bozell’s propaganda tank, the Media Research Center. Newsbusters reported that Matt Cooper, editor of Conde Nast Portfolio, tweeted:

“It feels a bit like 9/11 on Martha’s Vineyard. End-of-summer weather is achingly beautiful but the mood is melancholy because of Teddy.”

For the record: After receiving some replies on Twitter that questioned whether the simile was appropriate, Cooper tweeted that he had clumsily stated his observation and only meant that both were otherwise pleasant summer days that were marred by sadness, and that is was not a comparison of Kennedy’s death to the 3,000 murders on 9/11.

So, what does Cooper’s tweet have to do with the Huffington Post? Absolutely nothing. There was no article on HuffPo that was remotely associated with this. However, Cooper has written articles in the past that appeared on HuffPo. The last one was in December 2008. So according to Fox Nation, if you are the editor of Portfolio, but you wrote something for HuffPo nine months ago, and then you tweet something on your personal Twitter account not affiliated with either publication, then obviously you are speaking for the Huffington Post and even your misstatements are attributable to them.

And best of all, for the Fox Nationalists, is that you get to post a disgusting image that conflates the recently deceased senator with a national catastrophe, and place it all above a headline that is a lie.

So did Rupert Murdoch actually say that 9/11 is bullshit? Well he is certainly exploiting it for crass political purposes which could be construed as regarding it as excrement that is not worthy of respect. So by that measure, my headline is just as accurate as the one on Fox Nation.

The Fox Nation Makes (Up) The News

Posted by on August 26, 2009 at 12:59 pm. 5 Comments :

Over at Rupert Murdoch’s Internet propaganda outlet, The Fox Nation, they are stridently pushing forward on their mission to mis- and dis-inform their readers and the world. Here are some examples of this week’s outrageous departures from honesty, decency, and journalistic ethics:

1) The Fox Nationalists see fit to juxtapose an image of the burning World Trade Center towers with that of President Obama, as if he had something to do with it. Apparently they object to September 11 being designated a Day of National Service, because who would ever want our memory of that tragedy being tarnished by Americans coming together to make their country better?

Also note that Sen. Kennedy’s passing was the second most important story according to Fox Nation.

2) This one will piss off Ron Paul supporters. A survey conducted by US News and World Report asked a dozen GOP and conservative leaders to come up with a top 10 list of people who would be the leaders of the “town hallers” (or should that be howlers?). The image posted by the Fox Nationalists shows those who came in second through fifth. Ron Paul came in first, but somehow his photo got lost.

I want to go on record as casting my vote for Sarah Palin – A Howler leader if there ever was one.

3) Here is a revealing graphic that I thought should be noted for the blatant association of Obama with a famous fictional crime family. What provoked this visual editorializing? It was Obama saying that he liked the movie “The Godfather.” If everyone who likes that movie was alleged to be a Goodfellow, it would mean most of the free world are criminals.

4) Another story featured on Fox nation was titled, “Griff Jenkins Confronts Howard Dean at Town Hall.” But if you click on the link you will see a five minute video that contains a ten second exchange with Dr. Dean and four minutes and fifty seconds of tea baggers. Some confrontation.

5) In addition to the Fox Nationalists opposing Americans participating in a Day of Service, they are also opposed to Organizing for America offering internships to young Americans. I wonder if they would also object to these internships offered by Fox News.

6) And just to get that awful taste of patriotism and public service out of our mouths, Fox Nation celebrates Town Howlers who threaten to incite “An Uprising That’s Going to Make the Boston Tea Party Look Like a Picnic!” Now that’s the sort of wholesome activity that Fox can support for America’s youth.

That’s all for today. Stay tuned for more flagrant and asinine propaganda from the Fox Nationalists.

Rupert Murdoch’s Anti-Competitive Internet News Cartel

Posted by on August 21, 2009 at 11:54 am. 1 Comments :

The newspaper industry’s woes are nothing new. They have been suffering declining revenues in both subscriptions and advertising for a couple of years. Some portion of that decline is attributable to the economy, but there is no question that the Internet has had an impact as well.

Rupert Murdoch, Chairman of news behemoth News Corporation, has been grumbling about what he regards as theft of his content for some time. Earlier this month he addressed a shareholder’s meeting and announced that News Corp would soon be charging for all of its Internet news properties. That, in my opinion, would fail to produce the results Murdoch desires. There is an abundance of news available online for free and there is little evidence that people would pay for access to Fox News or the New York Post.

Nevertheless, the Los Angeles Times is reporting that Murdoch is seeking to assemble the most powerful families in the news business to create a syndicate that would extort money from the news consuming public:

“As newspapers across the country struggle with declining readership and advertising revenue, News Corp. executives have been meeting in recent weeks with publishers about forming a consortium that would charge for news distributed online and on portable devices — and potentially stem the rising tide of red ink.”

The participating companies include the New York Times, Washington Post, Hearst Corp. and Tribune Co. With a roster like that it is difficult to imagine that they could get very far without being questioned by the Justice Department. The appearance of collusion and anti-trust activity could not be more conspicuous. There is no plausible justification for these enterprises to collectively plot a pay scheme for their individual services. It is blatantly anti-competitive and disadvantageous to consumers.

In the end, Murdoch’s proposals would not even resolve the problems the industry is facing. Any revenue that would be generated in this fashion would be a tiny percentage of the earnings these companies produce. And if they are presently losing customers who are willing to pay for subscriptions, what makes them think that these same customers would pay for the same product online?

The prospective members of Murdoch’s cartel should think long and hard about whether his counsel has any value. His own business just reported a loss of $3.4 billion. He personally was forced to take a 28% pay cut. His stewardship of MySpace is notable for his having turned it into a has-been, anti-social network that has been eclipsed by Facebook and Twitter. The New York Post has lost about $50 million annually for the past ten years. His track record on the Internet is abysmal. He is yesterday’s baron of dead-tree media whose only success has been with a cable “news” network that traffics in sensationalism and propaganda. Is this really someone whose advice should be taken seriously?

To sum up, Murdoch has a record of incompetence with regard to new media. The online pay model has failed spectacularly in all but a few non-representative cases. There is little money to be made by charging online news consumers. The availability of free news online is not only not receding, it is advancing. When the residue of the old world media is cleared from the landscape, and the economy regains some stability and vibrancy, then advertising will resume its customary place for funding news services online just like it has on every other platform it has ever employed.

The last thing the industry needs is to listen to a washed up, ink stained, relic who advocates strong-arming newspapers and consumers into an unlawful strategy that is bound to fail.

GE And News Corp: The Saga Continues

Posted by on August 8, 2009 at 2:19 pm. 5 Comments :

As previously reported, executives at GE and News Corp have been attempting to broker a deal that would end the bickering between the networks and, mostly, Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly. I continue to maintain that it would be a violation of journalistic ethics for the execs to interfere with the judgment of their commentators. But the brass at GE and News Corp don’t seem to agree with me.

The first attempt at a truce was broken within 48 hours by Olbermann who, on returning from vacation, skewered O’Reilly royally, just like the good old days. O’Reilly took up the gauntlet and, as per his routine, ignored Olbermann and went straight after his boss at GE, Jeffrey Immelt. The tactic of bypassing Olbermann and aiming at Immelt is said to have been personally suggested by Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. With the war on again, the combatants began to reveal some of their innermost thoughts – particularly Ailes who, according to the Washington Post, summarized the situation thusly:

Ailes offered a blunt, if slightly jocular, diagnosis of the problem. He could control his nutcases, Ailes said, but Immelt couldn’t control his.

That says so much. First, Ailes is acknowledging that his people are nutcases (as if we didn’t already know). And second, Ailes is admitting that he has the power to manipulate the content and views of the nutcases who host Fox programs.

GE has issued a statement saying that they haven’t “told anyone at NBC News or MSNBC how to report the news.” But the New York Times claims to have sources who said that, not only was there a deal that covered Olbermann and O’Reilly, but also…

“Employees of daytime programs on MSNBC were specifically told by executives not to mention Fox hosts in segments critical of conservative media figures.”

What I want to know is, how can you produce a segment critical of conservative media figures without mentioning Fox hosts?

Olbermann (and anyone in his position) deserves respect for standing up to interference from the suits in the suites. It is the ethical thing to do in the news business. You simply do not let them intrude on your news judgment, especially if your job is to provide analysis and opinion. Unless, of course, you’re Bill O’Reilly, who is a coward, and a puppet for Ailes, who has previously admitted that he has the ability to direct what is said by Murdoch-owned pundits on TV and in print (over which he has no executive authority):

“Ailes warned that if Olbermann didn’t stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O’Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.”

This was basically extortion on the part of Ailes who literally served notice on GE saying that, “If you stop, we’ll stop.” The objective by both the GE and News Corp executives has nothing to do with the pursuit of news. Rather, it is a self-serving plot to tamp down any criticism of the parent companies. They are looking after their corporate interest, not the public interest.

This whole affair is a near perfect illustration of why monolithic corporations, with vested interests in far flung business and government affairs, should not be permitted to own news enterprises.

Advertisers Dumping Glenn Beck After Racist Comments

Posted by on August 6, 2009 at 12:35 pm. 5 Comments :

Last month Glenn Beck appeared on Fox & Friends and accused President Obama of being a racist. He said…

“This President has, I think, exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I don’t know what it is […] I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people, I’m saying he has a problem. He has a…This guy is, I believe, a racist.”

Fox News released a timid statement intended to put some distance between the network and Beck, but it simultaneously gave Beck more leeway to spew his repulsive views.

Well, Media Matters is now reporting that members of the advertising community are beginning to regard Beck’s Acute Paranoia Revue to be an unacceptable platform for their ads:

Media Matters: Three companies who run ads during Glenn Beck — NexisLexis-owned Lawyers.com, Proctor & Gamble and Progressive Insurance — today distanced themselves from Beck. LexisNexis has pulled its advertising from Beck and says it has no plans to advertise on the program in the future. Both Proctor & Gamble and Progressive Insurance called the Beck advertising placements an error that they would correct.

It’s about time.

A couple of days ago I wrote about Beck’s plea for peace. I found it thoroughly disingenuous and was suspicious of the timing. This may explain it. Certainly his superiors would have put some pressure on him if they were getting cancellations on ads. Especially after releasing quarterly earnings that reported a $3.4 billion loss. Rupert Murdoch must be a very unhappy mogul.

It should be noted that Procter and Gamble is the biggest advertiser in the world. Now, we don’t know where these ad dollars are going. They may just be shifted to other programs on Fox. But over time the network will not be able to remove itself from the taint that people like Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, Cavuto, and the phalanx of obnoxious contributors bring to the airwaves.

Color of Change had taken the lead in protesting Beck’s remarks with a petition that delivered 45,000 173,000 signatures. They are still seeking to apply more pressure to more advertisers. So go there and help out.

Update: Advertisers continue to bail on Beck:

LexisNexis Proctor & Gamble Progressive Insurance
S.C. Johnson Geico Clorox
Men’s Warehouse Sargento Lowe’s
State Farm Roche Sprint
Sanofi-Aventis RadioShack Airware Inc
Con-Agra Travelocity Ancestry.com
Wal-Mart Best Buy AT&T
CVS Allergan Blain Labs
Ally Bank Broadview Security Campbell Soup
Re-Bath Farmer’s Insurance DiTech
The Elations Co. Experion Johnson & Johnson
NutriSystem UPS Stores Verizon Wireless
Applebee’s Bank of America Bell & Howell
DirecTv General Mills Kraft
Regions Financial SAM (Store and Move) Travelers Insurance
Vonage Binder & Binder Capital One
Dannon Company Discover HSBC
ICAN Benefit Group Ins Infiniti Jelmar
J. McKenna Debt Counseling Mercedes-Benz Simplex Healthcare
AmMed Direct Citrix Online Concord Music Group
Diageo Eggland’s Best Equifax
Eulactol USA GetARoom.com Hoffman La Roche
Metropolitan Talent Management ooVoo Overture Films
Scarguard Schiff Nutrition Seoul Metropolitan Government
Subaru Toyota-Lexus Waitrose
Woodland Power Products

Click here to see the advertisers remaining with Beck. It’s pretty pathetic.

Would You Pay To Read Fox News?

Posted by on August 5, 2009 at 11:06 pm. 6 Comments :

Rupert Murdoch announced today that he intends to convert all of News Corp’s online news assets to subscription services. This news was released along with the quarterly earnings for News Corp that revealed a full year net loss of $3.4 billion, down from a profit of $5.4 billion.

If he thinks that he is going to recoup his losses by shutting the gates to his web properties, and sending that traffic to his competitors, he will be bitterly disappointed. News is not the sort of product that maintains exclusivity for very long. If there’s an earthquake in Peru or a celebrity dies, that information cannot be copyrighted and doled out by a privileged owner. And even when a reporter uncovers a major story after weeks of diligent and skillful research, as soon as it hits the streets it’s just more news and everyone else can pass it on to their audience.

The inherent value of a news enterprise is its credibility, its relationship with the customer, and its advertising reach. By erecting a wall between the publisher and the customer, both of the latter two items are severely squeezed. And if no one is consuming your product, credibility is hardly a concern. Nevertheless, Murdoch seems intent on his strategy for wringing revenue from his web visitors, but his arguments make little sense.

MURDOCH: The digital revolution has opened many new and inexpensive methods of distribution but it has not made content free. Accordingly we intend to charge for all our news websites.

Of course the truth is that it has made content free – at lease the majority of it, including most of what Murdoch publishes. Part of the reason it is free is due to the many new and inexpensive methods of distribution. If you remove costly production items like paper and presses and warehouses and trucks, you ought to be able to publish with significantly lower overhead. That means that advertising alone should be sufficient to be profitable. Television networks do it, and they have far greater overhead in production costs and celebrity salaries.

MURDOCH: Quality journalism is not cheap and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting.

Again, the media is a unique marketplace that has always given away its content in exchange for eyeballs that can be peddled to advertisers. And with regard to quality journalism not being cheap, that is something that Murdoch has never had to worry about since he doesn’t deal in quality journalism.

Murdoch has been a vocal critic of Google and other news aggregators who he says are stealing his product. He accuses them of benefiting from his company’s hard work without paying for it. But his Fox Nation is doing precisely the same thing by posting links to other news sites without offering them any payment either. So I wonder if he intends to start compensating those sites after he commences to charge for his own.

I still can’t see much of a market for online subscriptions to Fox News, Fox Nation, the New York Post, etc. Murdoch says that the fees charged by the Wall Street Journal are proof that the subscription model will work. But the differential between a subscription to the Journal and the Journal online is only forty cents a week. I suspect that that is not much of a barrier for Journal readers. Consequently, that may account for any success seen in that marketplace (although we don’t even know if there is any success because Murdoch will not release data on the Journal’s online only subscriber base).

In the end, Murdoch will just be doing a favor for all the other online news sites who learn to operate profitably without subscription fees. As the market matures there will be more and more of them. Advertisers will migrate to the web as it increasingly provides a superior return to fading newspapers. And since Murdoch is overweighted in dead-tree media, and his online acumen has been notoriously sub par (witness MySpace), this is just good news all around – the kind even I’d be willing to pay for (but don’t tell Rupert).

GE And FOX Agree To Censor Their News Divisions

Posted by on August 1, 2009 at 2:58 pm. 7 Comments :

In a report in the New York Times, the corporate parents of NBC and Fox News were brought together at a summit for CEO’s in an attempt to settle a long-simmering feud. Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, and Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp, sat down to try to work things out.

What they were striving to resolve was the eternal and bitter competition between MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Fox’s Bill O’Reilly. This affair has been a rancorous, and often humorous, battle wherein Olbermann frequently awarded O’Reilly his “Worst Person in the World,” trophy, and O’Reilly countered by slandering NBC, GE, and Immelt personally (O’Reilly would never utter Olbermann’s name). According to the Times’ Brian Stelter…

“It was a media cage fight, televised every weeknight at 8 p.m. But the match was halted when the blood started to spray executives in the high-priced seats.”

There are two things that are immensely disturbing about this backroom handshake. First and foremost, the corporate parents of news enterprises ought not to be dictating the content of their news divisions, or the opinions of their commentators. That is especially true if the reason for the ivory tower interference is to dampen any blowback on the parent company’s business or executives resulting from controversial positions. This is about the best example of why it is unwise for corporations with vested interests in broader business and government affairs to own news publishers to begin with.

Secondly, the result of this inter-cable warfare is precisely what Fox News wanted. MSNBC is caving in to a deliberate tactic designed to halt criticism of Fox and its personnel. It is a one-sided victory for Fox that comes at the expense of MSNBC’s best interests and dignity. It was less than four months ago that Fox News CEO, Roger Ailes, laid down the threat from which they are now reaping the harvest. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post reported the tantrum Ailes threw in response to the escalating on-air debate:

“Ailes warned that if Olbermann didn’t stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O’Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.”

That’s precisely what happened, and it didn’t even take two weeks for Fox to follow through on its threat. Now we see this truce in effect at least partly because Immelt doesn’t like being called “a despicable human being” by O’Reilly. And the worst part is that Fox’s blatant bullying is being rewarded with a complete capitulation by MSNBC.

For these networks to enforce this agreement is nothing short of censorship. Olbermann responded with an email that said that he was not a party to any agreement, but he also seems to have halted his once routine attacks on O’Reilly and Fox News. As for Fox, their position now is that it is appropriate to direct their commentators to steer clear of certain topics. But that appears to apply only to topics that negatively impact the company brass. Just last week, after Glenn Beck called President Obama a racist, Fox released a statement that said that beck had merely…

“…expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions.”

That freedom, of course, has limitations. From the Fox News point of view, it is alright for one of their hosts to comment disparagingly on the President of the United States, but it is not OK to comment on the president of the company. The company, after all, is sacrosanct and its interests are superior to those of the nation.

It is disheartening to see this sort of corporate thuggery imposed on what should be independent news divisions. One can only hope that the truce will fail and free expression will prevail.

Update: Olbermann returned from vacation and struck down any notion that the network brass would dictate the content of his program. To prove it, he returned Bill O’Reilly to the “World’s Worst” list and reprised his old “Bill-O the Clown” routine. Apparently, news of a network truce were exaggerated. That’s good news.