Rupert Murdoch Predicts Obama Landslide

This week’s All Things Digital Conference brought Rupert Murdoch to the stage for a surprising interview that included his views on the economy, Barack Obama, and the 2008 election.

Reuters: “News Corp Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch on Wednesday predicted a Democratic landslide in the U.S. presidential election against a gloomy economic backdrop over the next 18 months.”

Murdoch referred to the current status of the nation’s electoral mood as an “Obama phenomenon” that is fueled by a weak economy. He believes that, while race will be factor, Obama has “totally overcome” any lasting impact from the issue. Asked whether he is supporting 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.”

However, when asked if he had anything to do with the New York Post’s endorsement of Obama he said simply, “Yeah.”

As for John McCain, Murdoch, who called McCain a friend, contends that he “has a lot of problems” and will be hurt by his long tenure in Washington and his association with a party that is battling a “rising political tide” for Democrats.

The surprising thing about these remarks is the abundance of paradox that envelops them. If Murdoch is sincere (not something that can be assumed), then why does he allow his networks and newspapers to spew so much vile disinformation about Obama? The endorsement of the Post, it should be noted, was only for the Democratic primary, not the general election. And the content of the endorsement read more like an indictment. To those who would argue that Murdoch doesn’t meddle in the editorial affairs of his news operations, Murdoch has just openly declared that he does, at least with regard to the Post.

Murdoch also stated that the U.S. is “undoubtedly” in a recession that he predicts will last for up to 18 months. That is squarely at odds with the position of his new Fox Business Network that was founded in part to promote rosy economic scenarios. His managing editor, Neil Cavuto, is a persistent cheerleader for economic viewpoints that are blindingly sunny.

We’ll have to see where this all leads to in time. Will it have any impact on Fox News or other Murdoch assets? His recent conversion on the threat of global warming has not filtered through to his publications or broadcasts, must of which still ridicule the notion as a hoax. In the end, this may just be a strategic move to alleviate pressure from his critics. By making statements like these he can assert that he is a political independent. Meanwhile, his media empire can continue to hammer at Democrats and progressives in an effort to manipulate public opinion. Millions more will see Sean Hannity’s disparagements of Obama than will ever hear of these remarks by Murdoch.

Stay tuned.

The Truth About Fox News And Pravda

Ordinarily the viewpoint of a biased, journalistic extension of state propaganda would hardly seem noteworthy. The tendency of such an enterprise to weight its coverage with rosy scenarios penned by government scribes would render the reporting suspect at best. But enough about Fox News…

In an article analyzing the ratings competition between American cable news networks, it is Pravda that provides the clear-eyed view of American media. Reporting that CNN beat Fox News for the first time in seven years, Pravda opined that “TV viewers preferred the ‘objective’ CNN to Fox News that justifies George Bush’s policy. The article went on to quote the views of Joe Cuthbert, whom they identify as a Columbia University journalism professor:

“Fox News, a part of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, engaged in one-sided advocacy of the stance of the current US administration, instead of providing all-round objective reports of election campaigns. Economists proved that George Bush would have never won the 2000 election but for the support from Fox News. The TV channel definitely backs up right-wing Republicans, Cuthbert considers. ‘Fox is rather the advocate of Bush’s government than a news TV channel. Now the political ship is sinking, and so is Fox.'”

This astute analysis from Pravda (which means “truth”), while accurate, needs to be taken with a bucket of salt. The article’s headline reads, “Most Americans do not even think about getting information from alternative news sources.” Few could argue with that, but there is nothing in the article that addresses that point other than the headline. And it’s obvious that the Russian version of Fox News is just as likely to propound views favorable to their political benefactors as Fox would be. In that respect they are comrades.

However, it was interesting to note their reference to economists and the 2000 election. They appear to be referring to a study (pdf), prepared by UC Berkeley and Stockholm University, that showed that Fox News may have had a discernible impact on the election that is rarely reported in the U.S.:

“We find a significant effect of the introduction of Fox News on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000. Republicans gained 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points in the towns which broadcast Fox News.”

In an election as close as the one in 2000, those numbers could easily have altered the outcome.

While Pravda may have hit the mark as regards Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, I would not rush to associate myself with their conclusions. They are still an arm of the political hierarchy that is more interested in manipulating the public than in informing them. Which is exactly why pseudo-journalistic organizations that are really just fronts for government propaganda are so dangerous to free societies. But as I said above, enough about Fox News…

Junk News Gets FCC Seal Of Approval

Junk NewsTelevision news has taken criticism from every direction imaginable. It is accused of being too far left, or too far right, or too shallow, or too consumed with profit, etc.

Now the Federal Communications Commission has settled the argument. Television news is too newsy. The FCC’s latest satire-defying ruling has declared that the gossip-mongers at TMZ, and the God-casters at Pat Robertson’s 700 Club, are “bona fide” news providers. In arriving at that ruling, the Commissioners had to conclude that there would be no overt political partisanship in the news content from these parties.

The significance of this ruling is that the broadcast licensees of these programs will not have to comply with political equal-time requirements. In the case of TMZ, the licensees are the stations in the Fox Television Station group owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. The 700 Club, of course, is openly partisan and is controlled and hosted by a former Republican candidate for president. So obviously the FCC found that there was no risk of political favoritism from these notorious right-wing entities.

Perhaps the most embarrassing revelation in this story is that the FCC justified the ruling by citing Entertainment Tonight as a precedent. Apparently the standard for newscaster bona fides is that they cover:

“…some area of current events, in a manner similar to more traditional newscasts.”

More traditional newscasts like Entertainment Tonight? This is the modern media measure for newsworthiness. And this why the legacy news networks have all taken to emulating ET. It is why Lindsay Lohan leads the evening news broadcast even when soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq. It is why Rev. Wright dominates the news cycle even when the economy falters and thousands of Americans are losing their homes to foreclosure.

It may seem ludicrous that the FCC would grant newscaster status to TMZ and the 700 Club, but the real joke is that, by contemporary standards, they deserve it.

Fox News In Critical Condition

In the first quarter of 2008, Fox News was the slowest growing cable news network (10%), behind MSNBC (66%) and CNN (87%). For the first time in six years they finished in 2nd place. Now, in the first month of the 2nd quarter, the diagnosis is even worse.

Ratings April 2008

Notably, Fox is showing a 14% decline form their year-ago numbers, while their arch nemesis, MSNBC, posts a 9% increase. This comes in the midst of a contentious election year when demand for news is uncommonly strong. Why then is Fox waning? The same dynamics I wrote about a month ago are still in play today:

“The stagnation of Fox’s audience can be traced in part to the downward spiral of the Bush presidency. Fox has long tethered its fortunes to a conservative ideology that has fallen out of favor.”

Mainstream audiences are less interested in the partisan cheerleading of right-wing zealots. They may also be tiring of the Crossfire-style tongue lashing engaged in by the modern punditocracy. A case in point is Keith Olbermann’s Countdown, which has been criticized for avoiding confrontation by declining to book adversarial guests. But its strategy is validated by consistently being the fastest growing program on cable news. The numbers for April show that it is the only program to grow (+21%), compared to CNN’s Campbell Brown (-23%) and Fox’s Bill O’Reilly (-12%).

MSNBC also benefited from the contributions of the rest of its lineup (Race For the White House, Hardball, Verdict) which were all either stable or higher, while their competition was uniformly lower. Even Countdown’s repeat contributed by improving on last year’s Doc Block by 10%.

What is particularly disturbing is that, in this environment where Fox News is gasping for air, the Democratic candidates for president chose this week to succumb to the howl of publicity hounding. What we already know about the narrow-minded nature of Fox’s audience, combined with the evidence that it is shrinking precipitously, should be enough to convince rational Democrats to remove Fox News from their itinerary.

This is not the time to surrender. The Democratic embargo of Fox News has almost certainly played a part in the network’s decline. Their programming has suffered by being over-weighted with right-wingers and Republicans. They have resorted to whining on air about the kids who won’t play with them. If it wasn’t hurting them they wouldn’t mention it. Now, with Fox on the ropes, Democrats should stay strong and resist whatever urge it is that compels them to act against their own interests by accepting invitations to a party from a host that seeks only to diminish them.

Let’s hope that now that the thrust and parry of the Obama/Clinton appearances on Fox are history, they can manage to rein in their impulses and get back on the team. Fox is hostile territory and our generals should not be giving them aid and comfort.

Murdoch Stalking Newsday

Rupert Murdoch is on the prowl again and the editors, employees and readers of Long Island’s Newsday had better pay attention. The News Corp. chief has announced that his ravenous appetite for world media dominance is far from satisfied.

“Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has been calling key state and local officials to say he is close to a deal to buy Newsday and that he looks forward to working with them.”

Murdoch already owns the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, and two TV stations in the New York market, along with the Fox News Channel, and the Fox Business Network. The $580 million acquisition of Newsday would allow him to further tighten his grip on the biggest media market in the country. Murdoch hopes that by adding Newsday to his empire he might be able to reduce the debt he takes on from the Post, which has lost money for as long as he’s owned it. This would sharpen his aim at his real target, the New York Times, which he has previously vowed to bury.

As for the Newsday staff and customers, they need to be aware of what lay in store if Murdoch is successful. Despite having promised not to meddle in the editorial affairs of the Wall Street Journal as a condition for his purchasing it, his will cannot be denied.

“Marcus W. Brauchli will step down as the top-ranking editor of The Wall Street Journal after less than a year in the job, four people briefed on the matter said on Monday, just four months after Rupert Murdoch took control of the paper.”

As with most of the rest of Murdoch’s properties, Newsday would likely take on his world view. However, Newsday’s fate is not a foregone conclusion. Mort Zuckerman, who owns the New York Daily News, is reportedly preparing his own bid. This may be less because of his desire to own Newsday than his need to keep Murdoch from owning it. Whatever the reason, it may be time to start rooting for Zuckerman.

Mind War – The Pentagon’s Propaganda Assault On America

“World War Three will be a guerrilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation.” ~ Marshall McLuhan, 1968

SpinComThe New York Times has now documented the sad prescience of McCluhan. In an in-depth examination of supposedly independent, retired military analysts, the Times’ David Barstow has uncovered what may be the most brazen attempt at propaganda ever initiated.

“To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.”

“Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.”

“The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.”

It should come as no surprise that the Bush administration would manipulate the press to shape public opinion. The press, of course, are their willing accomplices. Rupert Murdoch of Fox News even admitted it publicly. And the Pentagon has been caught doing the same in Iraq. The Associated Press reported that the U.S. military secretly paid Iraqi newspapers to publish stories intended to portray operations there in a positive light.

But the scale of this program, the fact that it was directed at Americans, and the added wrinkle of financial corruption and greed at the expense of thousands of lives, is thoroughly without precedent. The article reveals that there was deliberate intent on the part of the government to define what constituted news and to replace the analysis of independent journalists with that of hand-picked and conflict-laden Pentagon mouthpieces. It was further disclosed that many of these spokespersons provided commentary they knew was false in order to protect either their access to the media or their profits. These former military officers clearly were not protecting their troops.

“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.

That’s just one of the more than 150 retired officers participating in this program, most of whom worked for – you guessed it – Fox News. One Fox News crony, Paul E. Vallely, called it a “MindWar” – using network TV and radio to “strengthen our national will to victory.” Another analyst, General Conway, confessed that “The strategic target remains our [the American] population.” He went on to callously trivialize the loss of U.S. troops as incidental to winning in the court of public opinion and, he might as well have added, in the marketplace of war profiteering.

The scope of deceit and greed that this program encompasses is mind boggling. Read the whole story at the New York Times. Then visit FreePress where they are collecting signatures to urge Congress to further investigate this breach of the public trust.

Wall Street Journal Squelches Parody

A parody of the Wall Street Journal has the Wall Street Journal up in arms. When copies of the parody appeared at newsstands, so did a Journal operative who insisted on buying every last one.

“He grabbed them all, said, ‘I need to buy all of these,'” Mr. Laurence said. “He had been going around to different stands, buying them.”

Is this just another demonstration of Rupert Murdoch’s commitment to honest journalism and free expression? Or is Murdoch merely exercising his business reporting philosophy as told to his former editor Harold Evans (Good Times, Bad Times):

“What do you want this crap for, anyway? Two pages is plenty for business news.”

This is the man who just joined the board of the Associated Press.

Rupert Murdoch: It’s Very Hard To Be Neutral

News Corp. Chair, Rupert Murdoch, lets loose with another truth eruption. He previously confessed that he tried to shape public opinion on the war in Iraq. He also admitted that his new business channel would be business-friendly. And his second in command, Roger Ailes, tried to pass off this Orwellism:

Now Murdoch strikes again. At an appearance at Georgetown University he addressed a matter that most conscious observers settled long ago – the ideological impartiality of Fox News.

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. The only difference is that we have equal voices on both sides but that seems to have upset a lot of liberals.

It’s so hard to be neutral that Murdoch and Co. have stopped even trying. Well, he’s right about one thing – People are laughing at them for calling themselves ‘Fair and Balanced.’ When people hear this latest blather they are going to double up with guffaws.

For Murdoch to allege that CNN “never had a Republican or conservative voice” is the peak of hilarity. What side of the aisle does he think Robert Novak was on? Or Pat Buchanan? Or Mary Matalin? Or Tucker Carlson? Or Lynne Cheney? Or Lou Dobbs? All of these uber-rightists were veterans of CNN and were featured regularly.

And for some real comedy, chuckle along with Murdoch’s claim that Fox has equal voices. Perhaps he thinks that whatshisname (Sean Hannity’s sidekick) balances out Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham, John Gibson, Greta Van Susteren, Brit Hume, Steve Doocy, Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, Tony Snow, Rick Santorum, Robert Novak, Karl Rove, etc.

I’m crackin’ up just thinking about it.

Murdoch Holds Fundraiser For Obama – No, Not That Murdoch

I don’t know quite what to make of this, but I thought it should be noted:

Television tycoon Elisabeth Murdoch, daughter of News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch, is holding a fundraiser for Barack Obama at her London home.

Maybe it’s just a typical rebellious child, establishing a separate identity from her famous father. Maybe it’s a way of having the family cover all the bases. Maybe Hell froze over. Or maybe she just really likes Obama.

Stay tuned.

Karl Rove’s Blogger Smackdown

Karl Rove may have been Bush’s Brain, but the nimrods at NewsBlusters are the ones who seem to be in need of gray matter reinforcements. NB’s Matthew Sheffield did an interview with Rove that is downright hilarious.

The first question dealt with why wealthy conservatives do not invest in media, whereas wealthy liberals do. [Pause for laughter] Sheffield didn’t bother to cite a single example of a wealthy liberal media investor, and Rove answered the question as if the premise wasn’t nonsense.

“I think wealthy conservatives are busy investing in profit and job creation and enterprise and wealthy liberals, many of them either from the media industry themselves or from – recognize the value of communications and are more ready to put money into a less profitable enterprise, namely the media.”

Rove ignores the fact that his new boss, Rupert Murdoch, deficit-financed Fox News for five years, and it is still less profitable than CNN despite having more viewers; his New York Post has never made a profit as long as he’s owned it; the newly hatched Fox Business Network is struggling to stay afloat; and he purchased MySpace for over half a billion dollars though it had never, and still has not, made a profit.

As for conservative investors in the media, Sheffield and Rove might want to familiarize themselves with former GE chief Jack Welch; or the Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his Washington Times; or former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer of Freedom’s Watch, a $200 million propaganda factory; or the Heritage Foundation; or the American Enterprise Institute; or Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal al Saud (of the Saudi Sauds) who is a significant shareholder in both Time Warner in News Corp.

When asked about the Internet, Rove came out swinging at liberal blogs saying that…

“…most of them are hate-filled, obscenity-clogged rants of anger and hatred.”

[Pause for laughter] But that’s not the funniest part. When asked why there are more liberals in the Blogosphere, he said…

“I hate to sound sort of diffident about it but it strikes me that a lot of people on the right have got active lives and are doing other things and the idea of spending a lot of time on the internet and taking their talents and displaying them there is not something they really do.”

[Still laughing] Bear in mind that he was speaking to a blogger. Did Rove intend to insult him as a loser who had no life? Or is it only liberals who blog because they have nothing else to do? Another reason that people on the right are not “taking their talents” to the Internet may be because they haven’t got any – witness Sheffield.

Rove returns often to the theme of blogging as something conservatives haven’t the time for. He says they have more “active lives;” or they are “busy investing in profit;” or they are “not completely absorbed in politics;” or that they “have other enterprises and charitable efforts.”

If all of that were true, then what does it say about the conservatives who do stoop to blogging? And why does he want them to do it more? Does he want their lives to be more shallow and vacant as he imagines the lives of liberal bloggers to be? I also wonder how Rove reconciles the claim that conservatives have more profitable endeavors to pursue with the claim that conservatives tend to engage more in philanthropic activities. Which is it – are they helping themselves or helping others? It hardly matters because, according to Rove, being charitable is a compliment to conservatives but an attack on liberals. And the same is true for being wealthy.

What’s really funny is that NewsBlusters published this incoherent, contradictory spew as if it were somehow newsworthy. Sheffield didn’t seem the least bit perturbed by Rove’s insults. Nor did he pick up on any of the obvious contradictions. I can’t say that I expected much more from the NewsBlusters team, but I do appreciate a good laugh.