News Corp

Is Neil Cavuto Stupid, Lying, Or A Stupid Liar?

Posted by on January 13, 2010 at 6:18 pm. 1 Comments :

Neil CavutoThe Carrot Top of Cable news, Neil Cavuto, is at it again. He has dragged out his steamer trunk of props to advance the moronic notion that Global Warming is a fraud because it’s colder in winter than summer.

Note to Neil:
Temperature does not equal Climate!

Cavuto is well known for contributing to the collapse of America’s collective IQ. He proudly hosts such respected policy analysts as Ted Nugent, Tommy Chong, John Ratzenberger, Mr. Handyman, Joe the Plumber, and any random Tea Bagger, to unravel our nation’s dilemmas. Cavuto has been continuing to disinform his already ignorant audience on climate matters that he clearly doesn’t understand, and wants to make sure that no one else understands either. In the video clip below he tells viewers that “it is freezing across the entire globe.” Needless to say, that is demonstrably false.

Had he done any research at all (and that’s a lot to ask someone on Fox), he would have learned that many places are experiencing record highs this winter. What’s more, climate experts agree that cold weather in places like Florida are, in fact, proof of Global Warming. It’s the result of altered atmospheric patterns that are pushing arctic conditions further south than would normally be seen. In the north there are higher temperatures, more melting of ice sheets and glaciers, and warmer oceans.

This is precisely the sort of deliberate deception that we should expect from Cavuto. He has a track record of mischaracterizing facts in pursuit of his rightist agenda. And he is not alone in the Fox family acting to deceive viewers on this issue. Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly frequently denounce Climate Change science as a hoax. Glenn Beck goes even further:

“…almost everyone who does believe in global warming is a socialist. I mean, believes in manmade global warming that now can be fixed and reversed or whatever. And we’ve got the tools to fix it. Almost everybody who says, ‘I’ve got a plan to fix it’ is a socialist.”

The presence of these Climate Crisis deniers on Fox puts Rupert Murdoch at the head of the denier class. This is his network, his people, and he regularly affirms his support of them. The reason this is notable is that Murdoch has publicly taken a position that Global Warning is a serious concern and that News Corp would work vigorously to reduce the carbon footprint of its businesses and to educate its viewers and readers.

Obviously that is a lie. It is nothing more than a veil of PR designed to give Murdoch cover and permit him to feign concern for the environment. It is entirely inconsistent to pretend to be working to reduce Global Warming while employing people who forthrightly deny that it exists. News Corp could reduce its carbon footprint to zero and not come close to offsetting the damage done by convincing millions to take no action whatsoever. Not to mention the pressure that Fox-tainted citizens would impose on public representatives to refrain from enacting common sense regulations to protect the planet.

The impact of the media on public policy can not be overstated. And when morons like Cavuto advance falsehoods that put our world at risk, Murdoch cannot escape responsibility. If the environment continues to decline, if there are catastrophic storms and floods, if there is famine and strife, it is very realistically and provably the fault of Rupert Murdoch. We will not allow him to evade responsibility for his deadly actions.

Ashamed And Sickened By Roger Ailes

Posted by on January 10, 2010 at 9:16 am. 3 Comments :

Roger Ailes

Fox News CEO Roger Ailes has become a bit of a crimp in the Murdoch family’s harmony. The New York Times is reporting that Matthew Freud, the husband of Rupert Murdoch’s daughter, Elisabeth, is not particularly fond of his in-laws.

Freud: I am by no means alone within the family or the company in being ashamed and sickened by Roger Ailes’s horrendous and sustained disregard of the journalistic standards that News Corporation, its founder and every other global media business aspires to.

Uh oh. That’s gotta make for some awkward holiday gatherings. Freud’s complaint isn’t a trivial personal incompatibility. He is aiming straight at the heart of a news enterprise’s most cherished asset: its journalistic standards. The charge of “horrendous and sustained disregard” is hardly an incidental difference of opinion. And the fact that there are others who share his shame doesn’t smooth things out for Ailes.

Freud is married to Elisabeth Murdoch, who left the family business to run her own UK-based enterprise, Shine Limited. Shine also has interests in the U.S., including Reveille, the company that produces “The Office” and “Ugly Betty.” Elisabeth was an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama and held a fundraiser for him in London. That contrasts significantly with the views of Ailes, whom the Times says threatened to quit if Murdoch permitted his New York Post to endorse Obama for president.

The Times notes that Ailes also played a part in Lachlan Murdoch’s decision to leave his father’s company in 2004 and return to Australia. Up until then Lachlan was considered Rupert’s heir apparent. The article goes on to hype Ailes’ mythic reputation as a political strategist and media guru. But what it doesn’t say is that while being successful at lining the pockets of the principles, Fox News was also killing the Republican Party.

It’s good to know that there are some reasonable members of the Murdoch clan who aren’t afraid to voice their opinions. It makes for some interesting speculation about the future of News Corp. when the Murdoch progeny assume control. While son James is still a high-ranking executive running Papa’s European satellite operations, siblings Elisabeth and Lachlan will inherit equal voting shares from their father’s estate.

Should any of this make Ailes nervous? Well, would you want to keep a division head that made you “ashamed and sickened” if you inherited a multinational media empire? Would you allow your news network to continue to have a “horrendous and sustained disregard” for journalistic standards? Would Ailes even want to remain at Fox with Obama supporters as his new bosses? I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

[Update] News Corp responds: “Matthew Freud’s opinions are his own and in no way reflect the views of Rupert Murdoch, who is proud of Roger Ailes and Fox News.”

Rupert Murdoch’s pride in Ailes irrevocably ties him to the insults, lies, and journalistic disrepute that is the hallmark of Ailes and his stars like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly. Murdoch again chooses to align himself with the dregs of the television idiocracy. That will be his legacy.

Rupert Murdoch: We Did Not Start This Abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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.

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.

Rupert Murdoch Running Criminal News Enterprise?

Posted by on July 8, 2009 at 3:49 pm. 3 Comments :

The Guardian has a story that simply must be read:

Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers has paid out more than £1m to settle legal cases that threatened to reveal evidence of his journalists’ repeated involvement in the use of criminal methods to get stories.

The payments secured secrecy over out-of-court settlements in three cases that threatened to expose evidence of Murdoch journalists using private investigators who illegally hacked into the mobile phone messages of numerous public figures and to gain unlawful access to confidential personal data including tax records, social security files, bank statements and itemised phone bills. Cabinet ministers, MPs, actors and sports stars were all targets of the private investigators.

Today, the Guardian reveals details of the suppressed evidence which may open the door to hundreds more legal actions by victims of News Group, the Murdoch company that publishes the News of the World and the Sun, as well as provoking police inquiries into reporters who were involved and the senior executives responsible for them.

The rest of the story just gets more lurid. This is a shocking look into the way that Murdoch and his accomplices operate.

[Update 7/9/09] Rupert Murdoch appeared on his own Fox Business Network today where Stuart Varney, who is notorious for aggressively challenging (i.e. interrupting) liberals, attempted to ask him a question:

Varney: The story that is really buzzing all around the country, and certainly right here in New York, is that the News of the World, a News Corporation newspaper in Britain…
Murdoch: No, I’m not talking about that issue at all today.
Varney: OK. No worries, Mr. Chairman. That’s fine with me.

That’s fine with you? Way to suck up to your boss, Stuart.

Murdoch Pawns Off Weekly Standard To Anschutz

Posted by on June 19, 2009 at 6:38 am. NO Comments :

Rupert Mudoch’s News Corp. has been bleeding badly financially. They have lost 49% of their stock value in the past 52 weeks. And acquiring the Wall Street Journal for $5 billion just as the newspaper business was collapsing couldn’t have helped matters.

Now News Corp. is reporting that they are unloading the Weekly Standard, the uber-rightist magazine founded by neo-icon, William Kristal. No reason or sale price was given in the announcement, but it is fairly evident that Murdoch needs to raise some cash and cut costs to service his massive debt.

The buyer is Clarity Media Group, a part of Phillip Anschutz’s billion dollar media and entertainment conglomerate. Clarity is the publisher of the Washington Examiner, a conservative freebie tabloid in D.C.

Don’t expect much to change at the Standard. Kristal will likely stay aboard, along with executive editor Fred Barnes. Both will also remain Fox News contributors. If anything, the magazine may begin to feature more stories dealing with Anschutz’s obsession for Dark Ages Christian Fundamentalism. He is a major backer of the Discovery Institute, a creationist think tank. He also finances anti-gay and pro-censorship organizations and initiatives.

In other words…more of the same.