Rupert Murdoch

Rupert Murdoch Dead Last In Charitable Giving

Posted by on October 20, 2008 at 10:30 am. 12 Comments :

Conde Naste’s Portfolio Magazine has compiled a list of billionaires ranked by their charitable donations. The Generosity Index itemizes fifty of the wealthiest individuals as donors, relative to their wealth.

Coming in fiftieth is the miserly media mogul, Rupert Murdoch. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that an uber-conservative, Republican monopolist, should finish last in expressions of charity. The Republican me-first ideology that values greedy self-centrism predictably drives people like Murdoch to the bottom of these lists.

At the other end of the spectrum, the top five most generous billionaires (Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Eli Broad, George Soros, and John Kluge) are all reliable supporters of Democrats and most have contributed to the campaign of Barack Obama.

This news bite is just a little more evidence that Republicans tend to be selfish, social Darwinians and Democrats tend to have more compassion and concern for the well being of others.

Happy Birthday Fox Business Network

Posted by on October 15, 2008 at 3:52 am. 7 Comments :

Today is the first anniversary of the debut of the Fox Business Network, Rupert Murdoch’s newest propaganda platform. Ratings for the network are still so low that, even after a year, Nielsen cannot certify their reliability and they are not published. When numbers were leaked earlier this year they revealed a pitiful performance that drew only 8,000 daytime viewers, and 20,000 in prime time. CNBC, by contrast, drew an average of 284,000 viewers during the day and 191,000 in prime time.

This hasn’t stopped Murdoch from pursuing his ambition for a business channel that would be…

“…more business-friendly than CNBC. That channel leap[s] on every scandal, or what they think is a scandal.”

Ironically, the network that was hatched to put a rosy hue on business news appears to have had the opposite effect on the financial world into which it was born. The week that FBN launched the Dow Jones was at an all-time high. Since then the Dow, which also became the property of Murdoch when he purchased it along with the Wall Street Journal, has plummeted 33%.

Is it mere coincidence that the markets went straight down immediately after having been touched by Murdoch’s bony, demon finger? The first week that FBN was on the air the Dow dropped over 500 points. That should have served as a warning of the devastation yet to come.

On July 13, 2007, FBN’s Managing Editor, Neil Cavuto, disputed reports of the economy’s weakness saying that he “[didn’t] believe a word of it.” Cavuto previously downplayed the significance of the credit crunch, saying that, because “this ‘meltdown’ affects roughly 4 percent of all mortgages out there” there wasn’t really any problem at all. He then blamed market declines on John Edwards, who was running a distant third in the Democratic primaries at the time, but apparently still had superhuman powers over the stock market.

Cavuto’s colleague, Bill O’Reilly, recently asserted that the market was tanking because traders were pricing in a presumed Obama victory in November. [For the record, the market has performed better during Democratic administrations than Republicans for the past 107 years. And investments accrue more under Democrats]. O’Reilly also has a spotty record of financial analysis. He lambasted General Electric’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, with whom O’Reilly is obsessed, saying that he didn’t know how Immelt kept his job after GE’s stock dropped 36%. But O’Reilly must not have noticed that News Corp., the parent of Fox News was itself down 38% – even worse than GE. Maybe he should be asking how Murdoch keeps his job.

So in honor of FBN’s first birthday, investors and news consumers should be aware that this is the sort of credibility you can expect from Fox News and FBN which calls itself: The Network You Can’t Afford To Miss. It’s more like: The Network You Can’t Afford To Watch.

Bill O’Reilly Thinks He Is Proof Of The Existence Of God

Posted by on October 5, 2008 at 5:17 pm. NO Comments :

I may have to read this book after all. Bill O’Reilly’s new auto-bloviography, “A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity,” contains this enlightening affirmation of the divine:

“Next time you meet an atheist, tell him or her that you know a bold, fresh guy, a barbarian who was raised in a working-class home and retains the lessons he learned there.

“Then mention to that atheist that this guy is now watched and listened to, on a daily basis, by millions of people all over the world and, to boot, sells millions of books.

“Then, while the non-believer is digesting all that, ask him or her if they still don’t believe there’s a God!”

There is so much wrong with that that it’s hard to know where to begin. I’m not even going to address his obvious narcissistic egomania because some targets are just too easy. But I will point out that the story O’Reilly tells is probably better evidence of the existence of Satan. Who else would give such an obnoxious, divisive, racist, self-absorbed, ignoramus such a prominent platform? Well, Rupert Murdoch would, but that’s just redundant.

I have to wonder, though, from his own perspective, if he is saying that the only way he could ever have risen to prominence was by an act of God? That would actually make sense. Or does he think that divinity is validated by how many morons you can attract? Or is he comparing himself to other famous demagogues with humble beginnings like, say Hitler?

Maybe O’Reilly thinks that we should all be amazed at the miracle of someone who was born into modest circumstances and later became successful. Does he think that that has never happened to anyone before him? He certainly doesn’t give any credit for proving God’s existence to anyone else with similar achievements.

Finally, does O’Reilly really believe that an Atheist confronted with the question above would respond…

“Hallelujah. I never knew that a white, American, Harvard graduate could become a TV personality and make millions of dollars screaming at people and spewing hatred for anyone that didn’t think like him. Obviously there’s a God. I’m saved. Just get me a white sheet and a shotgun and point me to the nearest church?”

I’ve heard of being born again, but does that mean you have to start over with the ignorance of an infant, behave like a baby, and believe that the whole world revolves around you?

Rupert Murdoch: True To Form

Posted by on September 20, 2008 at 5:13 pm. NO Comments :

Last May News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch attended the All Things Digital Conference and made a few headlines with his commentary on the presidential election:

“[Murdoch] on Wednesday predicted a Democratic landslide in the U.S. presidential election against a gloomy economic backdrop over the next 18 months.”

That sort of talk had some folks wondering if the old fella was growing a soul. Could the uber-rightist media monarch be ever so slightly scooting over to the left? Asked directly whether he is supporting Barack Obama (like his daughter, Elisabeth) he said:

“I’m not backing anyone, but I want to meet Obama. I want to know if he’s going to walk the walk.”

Since then, Murdoch has met Obama. It should be noted, however, that on that occasion the purpose was primarily to persuade him to appear on Fox News. It was therefore imperative that he pour on the charm while appearing to be neutral. Subsequent to achieving his goal, Murdoch is now publicly displaying his expected preference for leader of the free world (other than himself), and it’s the Republican, John McCain:

Breaking down Murdoch’s reasons for supporting McCain, it seems to be primarily an anti-Obama decision as he never overtly praises McCain. Still it is perplexing given the facts. He says that Obama will:

  • “…give us a lot of inflation.” Never mind that inflation right now is at it’s highest level since 1991. At that time 17 years ago, Bush, Sr. was just wrapping up his term in office. Like father like son.
  • “…ruin our relationships with the rest of the world.” If that does not immediately invoke guffaws given the world’s perception of America under George W. Bush, then note this poll that shows that “Obama was favoured by a four-to-one margin across the 22,500 people polled in 22 countries.” 46% said that relations would improve with an Obama win, only 20% held that view for McCain. Those numbers parallel American’s attitudes as well (46% Obama/30% McCain).
  • “…find companies leaving this country.” As if they haven’t been leaving in droves throughout the Bush years. Forrester Research projects a loss of 1.2 million jobs to foreign soil for 2008, increasing to 3.4 million by 2015.

To an objective observer the facts support precisely the opposite conclusion to which Murdoch has arrived. Nevertheless, the septuagenarian media mogul hangs unto his opinion that it is Obama, and not the Bush/McCain cabal, that threatens the nation’s future. That’s evidence of just how confined he is by his partisan worldview. He goes even further to tar Obama with the crusty old conservative slander that…

“[Obama’s] policy is really very, very naive, old fashioned, 1960’s socialist.”

Coming from an old fashioned, 1940’s fascist, I suppose we’ll need to take that with a pound or so of salt.

Anyone who might have thought that Murdoch’s remarks last May signaled a shift in his political ideology may now return to their senses. He is as much a right-wing propagandist as he ever was, and he isn’t shy about it either. This appearance on Neil Cavuto’s “Your World” is one of many that he has booked for himself. To underscore how peculiar that is, try to recall the last time that the CEOs of GE/NBC, Viacom/CBS, Disney/ABC, or Time Warner/CNN, appeared on their own news programs. They are rarely, if ever, guests, and certainly not even close to the frequency with which Murdoch pastes his face on his air.

This most recent booking appears to have been scheduled exclusively to disparage Obama just as the electoral momentum is shifting in his direction. The looming financial crisis has focused the campaign dialog back onto issues as opposed to personalities, and Murdoch wasn’t going to sit still for that. The trivialities and tabloidism that is Murdoch’s stock in trade just happens to advantage McCain, whose campaign relies on shallow griping about celebrities and lipstick. So he goes on Cavuto’s show, calls Obama a naive socialist, enumerates reasons to vote against him that are actually reasons to vote against McCain, and concludes the interview by plugging his new and struggling Fox Business Network.

That’s Rupert Murdoch in a nutshell: An arch-conservative, self-serving, greedy, monopolistic, liar. And always true to form.

Obama “Lit Into” Ailes At Secret Meeting With Murdoch

Posted by on September 2, 2008 at 3:27 pm. 1 Comments :

Michael Wolff, contributing editor at Vanity Fair, is preparing to release an authorized biography of News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch. The book, appropriately titled “The Man Who Owns The News,” will be out some time between December and February, depending on what source you believe, and the author was given significant access to his subject. In advance of publication Wolff has written an article describing his encounters with the Media Mephistopheles that includes an account of a secret meeting with a reluctant Barack Obama.

“Obama…was snubbing Murdoch. Every time he reached out (Murdoch executives tried to get the Kennedys to help smooth the way to an introduction), nothing. The Fox stain was on Murdoch.”

“It wasn’t until early in the summer that Obama relented and a secret courtesy meeting was arranged. The meeting began with Murdoch sitting down, knee to knee with Obama, at the Waldorf-Astoria.”

This version of events is somewhat curious in that Obama had begun appearing on Fox News as early as January of 2008, six months prior to this meeting. I was highly critical at the time of Obama’s guest shot on “Fox & Friends,” probably the second worst booking he could have made after “The O’Reilly Factor” (on which he has still, so far, declined to appear [Update below]). After an inconsequential chat with Murdoch, Roger Ailes took his place before Obama, and that’s when the fireworks began:

“Obama lit into Ailes. He said that he didn’t want to waste his time talking to Ailes if Fox was just going to continue to abuse him and his wife, that Fox had relentlessly portrayed him as suspicious, foreign, fearsome – just short of a terrorist.”

Ailes, unruffled, said it might not have been this way if Obama had more willingly come on the air instead of so often giving Fox the back of his hand.

A tentative truce, which may or may not have vast historical significance, was at that moment agreed upon.

From the exchange as related here, Obama forthrightly expressed the precise reasons that he was disinclined to show Fox News any respect. But as I noted above, he was not uniformly able to maintain his will power to say “no” to Fox.

However, it is Ailes’ response that is striking in its arrogance. By suggesting that Obama’s standoffish position with regard to Fox resulted in the rancidly slanderous coverage, Ailes is in effect blaming Obama for the dirty work for which Ailes himself is responsible. He is also admitting that the coverage was as predominately negative as Obama contended. That, of course, validates Obama’s decision to stay away from the network in the first place. And perhaps worse than any of that, Ailes is implying that he orchestrated the bad press as revenge for Obama not accepting Fox’s invitations to be abused on their air. Ailes has thus confessed that he believes that it is appropriate for a journalist to bash public figures who don’t obey a demand to appear. This is a position that Bill O’Reilly himself articulated when he threatened Democrats that, “If you dodge us, it is at your peril.” Fox is to journalism what Capone was to the beverage industry.

Elsewhere in the article, Wolff offers some insight into what he believes is an evolving Murdoch who may not be as enamored with either Ailes or O’Reilly as he once was.

“Fox has been his alter ego. For a long time he was in love with the Fox chief, Roger Ailes, because he was even more Murdoch than Murdoch. And yet now the embarrassment can’t be missed-he mumbles even more than usual when called on to justify it; he barely pretends to hide the way he feels about Bill O’Reilly.”

This allegedly stormy forecast for these media titans echoes a report last June in Gawker that queried whether Murdoch was about to fire Ailes. I struck down that theory at the time, and I stand by my position. But perhaps things are not so rosy as I thought. Perhaps Murdoch is evolving in ways I cannot imagine. When Wolff asked Murdoch for advice on who to vote for in November, he elicited this response from Murdoch:

“He paused, considered, nodded his head slowly: ‘Obama – he’ll sell more papers.'”

I guess Murdoch is getting both softer and greedier with age.

Update: Just a few hours after this posting, O’Reilly announced that Obama will appear on his show this coming Thursday. Here is my analysis of this development.

The Wall Street Journal: Rupert Murdoch’s Bitch

Posted by on July 30, 2008 at 7:44 pm. NO Comments :

Today’s Wall Street Journal published an editorial castigating FCC chairman Kevin Martin. Normally, that would be an unexpected and pleasant surprise. Martin’s tenure at the FCC has been a gift to Big Media, allowing them to consolidate at will and presiding over a deregulation fest that has benefited everyone but consumers.

However, the reasons for the Journal’s pique are more typical of their reputation for greed and self-interest. The FCC is reportedly prepared to rule against Comcast for blocking legal access to the Internet. At Save the Internet, Craig Aaron has nicely documented Comcast’s violations and laid out the myths versus the realities of Network Neutrality. But that’s not the end of the story.

For the Journal to take up this issue now, they are treading deeply into some serious conflict of interest. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. purchased the Journal last year. The center of News Corp’s universe is Fox News – a cable network. Cable networks depend on carriage from cable operators like Comcast. Murdoch also owns a new cable operation, the Fox Business Network, which is gasping for viewers largely because they lack carriage on enough cable systems to stay afloat.

Now the Journal is coming to the rescue of Comcast. Is Murdoch attempting to curry favor with Comcast, and the cable industry in general, in order to secure more channel space? Does a pimp want to get paid? The ferocity of the Journal’s attack on an otherwise uber-loyal Republican appointee tells the story. The column starts out swinging:

“Bad personnel decisions have haunted the Bush Administration, and one of the bigger disappointments is Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin. In his last months as Master of the Media Universe, he seems poised to expand government regulation of the Internet.”

That’s the sort of rancid rhetoric that the Journal usually saves for Democrats. On that measure, the Journal doesn’t disappoint. Delivering what must be the ultimate insult to a right-wing toady, the Journal suggests that Martin is “greasing the skids for a potential Barack Obama Administration.” Remember, we’re talking about a man so devoted to the rightist agenda that he was over-ruled twice by Congress. He never saw a merger he didn’t like. He got his job as a reward for helping Bush steal the Florida election in 2000.

Martin is not the typical target of the Journal’s scorn. But if it means consolidating more power, and making more money, Murdoch will use his house organ to achieve whatever ends he desires. Even if it means beating up one of his prized whores. It’s hard out here for a pimp.

The Fox News War On News

Posted by on July 7, 2008 at 3:31 pm. 3 Comments :

David Carr of the New York Times seems to finally have noticed what has been obvious for years to any objective news analyst. Fox News has a long-standing scorched Earth policy when reacting to other media who dare to report on Fox News.

In his column titled, “When Fox News Is the Story,” Carr confesses that just the thought of having to deal with Fox News as a subject in a story makes him and his peers nervous:

“Once the public relations apparatus at Fox News is engaged, there will be the calls to my editors, keening (and sometimes threatening) e-mail messages, and my requests for interviews will quickly turn into depositions about my intent or who else I am talking to.”

The key tactic in Fox’s PR strategy is to intimidate reporters and editors, and by Carr’s own admission, it’s working. Carr goes on to profile the Fox news PR machine as an operation modeled on political warfare, as directed by CEO Roger Ailes, a veteran of campaigns going back to Richard Nixon. He describes it as “a kind of rolling opposition research” effort intended to cause material harm to their perceived enemies. Carr cites the recent example of the hosts of Fox & Friends taking out their revenge on two Times reporters who wrote about how the competition is gaining on Fox. Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy displayed altered photographs of the reporters that were at best unflattering, at worst anti-Semitic.

While Carr’s revelations are interesting, they don’t go nearly far enough to provide an historical context for Fox’s behavior. This is not a recent phenomena. Three years ago David Folkenflik wrote about how Fox bears its fangs when it doesn’t like what’s being said. And the AP’s David Bauder documented what has become known as Fox’s “Wishing Well,” a back-handed slap at anyone who says anything about Fox News that isn’t complimentary:

  • Because of his personal demons, Keith [Olbermann] has imploded everywhere he’s worked. From lashing out at co-workers to personally attacking Bill O’Reilly and all things Fox, it’s obvious Keith is a train wreck waiting to happen. And like all train wrecks, people might tune in out of morbid curiosity, but they eventually tune out, as evidenced by Keith’s recent ratings decline. In the meantime, we hope he enjoys his paranoid view from the bottom of the ratings ladder and wish him well on his inevitable trip to oblivion.
  • Ted [Turner] is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind. We wish him well.
  • Tim [Russert]’s sour grapes are obvious here, but at least he’s not using his father as a prop to sell books this time around. That said, we wish him well on his latest self-promotion tour.
  • We are disappointed that George [Clooney] has chosen to hurt Mr. O’Reilly’s family in order to promote his movie. But it’s obvious he needs publicity considering his recent string of failures. We wish him well in his struggle to regain relevancy.
  • We wish CNN well in their annual executive shuffle. We wish Jon [Klein] well in his battle for second place with MSNBC.
  • We can understand David [Shuster]’s disappointment in being let go by Fox News Channel, but he’s too young to be so bitter. We wish him well in getting his career back on track.

It’s not just PR flacks volleying in this debate. The big dogs at News Corp. are fully engaged. Rupert Murdoch’s spokesperson delivered an ultimatum to GE, saying that if they reined in Keith Olbermann, Fox would call off Bill O’Reilly. Roger Ailes stepped into the fray personally, threatening…

“…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.”

In the weeks that followed, Ailes made good on his threat. Bill O’Reilly, Steve Doocy, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, Gretchen Carlson, and others at Fox News all laid into NBC/GE with renewed vigor. O’reilly even has his own Media Hall of Shame. The New York Post’s gossips on Page Six initiated a week-long assault on Olbermann’s personal life, alleging tax evasion, calling him unstable, and even publishing his home address – a vile act whose only purpose could be to cause him harm.

The risks faced by reporters who merely want to do their jobs is very real. Fox News will throw whatever they can at you to derail your reporting and/or tarnish your reputation. Carr relates horror stories from his colleagues who have dared to cross Fox News:

“…they have received e-mail messages from Fox News public relations staff that contained doctored photos, anonymous quotes and nasty items about competitors. And two former Fox employees said that they had participated in precisely those kinds of activities but had signed confidentiality agreements and could not say so on the record.”

~

“…few were willing to be quoted. In the last several years, reporters from The Associated Press, several large newspapers and various trade publications have said they were shut out from getting their calls returned because of stories they had written. Editors do not want to hear why your calls are not being returned, they just want you to fix the problem, or perhaps they will fix it by finding someone else to do your job.”

That’s an old tactic practiced by political operatives and office holders. They know that if they deny you access, your editor is going to have to get someone else who doesn’t have that problem. In effect, they get you fired. It is unprecedented, however, for a media company to employ such hardball tactics against other media companies. But that is the way Fox does business, and their peers had better develop strong stomachs if they hope to endure.

The impression left by Carr is that many in the media have already given up fighting. They will either decline to report on anything having to do with Fox News (if it’s critical), or they will simply adjust their reporting to be more positive. That is the danger of letting bullies get away with their bad behavior. Once again, it will be up to the people to insist that they get honest, responsible journalism from the Conventional Media. It is up to us to force them to do their jobs. If we succeed then it won’t matter what Fox’s attack dogs do. Their vacant yelping will disperse like a fading echo. We wish them well as they collapse from the fatigue of chasing their own tails.

Gawker has more on Fox News PR Priestess, Irena Briganti.

Facebook Catches Up With MySpace

Posted by on June 16, 2008 at 1:06 pm. NO Comments :

In a market share race that is mirroring the cable news ratings battle, Facebook has caught up with its once much bigger rival MySpace:

“Facebook hit the mark in April 2008 by posting 115 million unique monthly visitors. Myspace has maintained similar traffic numbers for the past year, but Facebook has grown from less than 40,000 unique monthly visitors in April 2007 to the 115 million that it is today.”

This is exactly what has happened to News Corporation’s other former media powerhouse, Fox News, which has remained stagnant over time while MSNBC has more than doubled its audience.

Rupert Murdoch’s empire is crumbling beneath his feet.

Rupert Murdoch To Fire Roger Ailes?

Posted by on June 6, 2008 at 1:48 am. NO Comments :

If Gawker is to believed, News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch, and his longtime Fox News chief Roger Ailes, have had a falling out that may cost Ailes his job.

The alleged spat arose from the controversial near publication of O.J. Simpson’s confessional book, “If I Did It.” The backlash from what may have been the most nauseating literary endeavor ever, resulted in the very same people responsible for the deal running as far away from it as they could. It also caused the termination of Judith Regan, who put the revolting package together for her Regan Books subsidiary of HarperCollins. The project included a televised interview of Simpson to be broadcast on the Fox network.

Now, the recent departure as HarperCollins CEO, Jane Friedman, has people talking again. According to Gawker, a former News Corp. insider says that…

“Friedman got canned, in my view, for being anti-Regan. Rupert wanted the Simpson book out, and he also was taken in by Ailes, who orchestrated both the anti If I Did It campaign [against the OJ Simpson book] and the anti-Semitism campaign (this is fact), who will soon be shitcanned for the same reasons.”

The notion that Murdoch is contemplating the dismissal of the man who founded and built Fox News is, to say the least, far fetched. Their business relationship, and ideological consonance seem far to deep to be torn apart by a single disagreement. And if Murdoch is really upset that the Simpson book was scuttled, he didn’t say so at the time:

“I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project. We are sorry for any pain that this has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.”

In all likelihood, Murdoch did want the book to be released. It fits perfectly the tabloid trashiness of his media philosophy. Then Ailes, the former campaign consultant with political instincts, stepped in and saved Murdoch’s butt by killing the deal. Whereupon Murdoch issues a thoroughly disingenuous apology designed only to save face. So even if Murdoch harbored some resentment that his morbidly exploitive, sensationalistic score was shelved, he was still in Ailes’ debt for averting the public scorn the project produced. In other words…Ailes isn’t going anywhere.

Murdoch Unleashes O’Reilly, NY Post On Keith Olberman

Posted by on June 2, 2008 at 10:51 am. 8 Comments :

The ongoing melodrama featuring MSNBC and Fox News is heating up again and reaffirming Fox’s status as the scum suckers of news.

Two weeks ago, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post gave readers an insiders view of the conflict that centers around the blood feud between Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly. The battle lines have extended all the way up to News Corp. executive offices, including Rupert Murdoch’s. In the Kurtz column he quoted Fox chief Roger Ailes threatening his counterpart, Jeff Zucker, at NBC:

“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.”

Since then, as promised, Bill O’Reilly has devoted his Talking Points Memo to an assault on NBC/GE, calling them biased, dishonest, disgraceful, and responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. Without a hint of irony, he said that NBC “has violated just about every journalistic standard.”

The New York Post has also been answering the call. On May 19, their Page 6 gossip monger, Richard Johnson, asked if Olbermann was “on the verge of yet another professional meltdown?” Today the same Ailes apple polisher flatly asserts that Olbermann has not paid his taxes. Johnson’s source is the utterly disreputable attack dog site, OlbermannWatch. This allegedly factual assertion is made despite the fact that it is contradicted a few lines down in the very same paragraph. But that doesn’t stop Johnson from raising additional questions about other similarly resolved tax disputes. The only purpose imaginable here is to slander with innuendo and outright falsehoods.

What’s worse is that Johnson took the opportunity to engage in an act so despicable it even reflects badly on a rag like the NYPost. Without any justification or connection to the bogus tax story, Johnson published what appears to be Olbermann’s home address. The irrelevance to the rest of the column is so stark that it jumps off the page in a fit of superfluosity. This can only be regarded as an intentional and hostile attempt to bring discomfort, and perhaps harm, to Olbermann. And coming so soon after the Ailes threat, it is difficult to arrive at any other conclusion.

Let Johnson and the Post know that this is unacceptable from both journalistic and moral perspectives:

NYPost email:
Page Six: Richard Johnson
Letters to the Editor