How About That? One Of The Strongest Defenses Of Rupert Murdoch Came Out From The NY Times

by Jon Bershad | 11:51 am, July 12th, 2011

» 25 comments

At this point, it’s pretty difficult to find ink drying on any nice words in regards to Rupert Murdoch. As News International’s phone hacking scandal gets bigger and bigger, the man has become an absolute pariah in England and the story is slowly making its way across the pond. However, this morning, an op-ed has appeared in one of this nation’s largest papers, titled “In Defense of Murdoch”; the column attempts to show another side of the media monarch. Some might find it a bit surprising that this defense comes from none other than the New York Times. And it’s written by Roger Cohen, a Brit no less!

Cohen opens his column by explaining it was “prompted in part by seeing everyone piling in on the British hacking scandal” and admitting that, yes, “Fox News, the U.S. TV network started by Murdoch, has with its shrill right-wing demagoguery masquerading as news made a significant contribution to the polarization of American politics.” And, no, Cohen makes no attempt to defend the hacking itself, calling it “indefensible.” Instead, he defends Murdoch the man as well as his business ethic, calling him “good for newspapers over the past several decades, keeping them alive and vigorous and noisy and relevant.”

From The New York Times:

“So why do I still admire the guy? The first reason is his evident loathing for elites, for cozy establishments, for cartels, for what he’s called ‘strangulated English accents’ — in fact for anything standing in the way of gutsy endeavor and churn. His love of no-holds-barred journalism is one reason Britain’s press is one of the most aggressive anywhere. That’s good for free societies.

…

The second thing I admire is the visionary, risk-taking determination that has placed him ahead of the game as the media business has been transformed through globalization and digitization. It’s been the ability to see around corners that has ushered him from two modest papers inherited from his father in Adelaide to the head of a company with about $33 billion in annual revenues.”

But I thought The New York Times was was supposed to be a home for Fox-hating, socialist, elites. Not Murdoch-defending, elitist-insulting, capitalists. Hilariously, Robert H. Christie, Senior Vice President, ofCorporate Communications for The New York Times Company played with the seeming disconnect in his promotion of the piece.

Of course, not every Times columnist feels the same way. In a blog post, Paul Krugman remarked that “it’s starting to look as if News Corp is better viewed as a criminal enterprise than as a media organization.”

Dueling opinions? Both sides given equal merit? Maybe The New York Times is fair and balanced after all.

Read Cohen’s full piece here.

(h/t Jeff Bercovici)

News Corp., News International, Paul Krugman, Robert H. Christie, Roger Cohen, rupert murdoch, The New York Times

TillieGlockenspiel

Anyone question whether George Soros’ empire is behind the villification of Rupert Murdoch? I don’t. Murdoch stands in the way of Soros’ complete control of all media platforms.
valkyrie101

TillieGlockenspiel said:
Anyone question whether George Soros’ empire is behind the villification of Rupert Murdoch? I don’t. Murdoch stands in the way of Soros’ complete control of all media platforms.

That’s pretty silly.
RIChris

The New York Times knows that no news organization is without its pockets of fraud, conflicts of interest and corruption, (the marriage of GE, NBC & the White House comes to mind). They appear to be unwilling to throw Murdoch to the wolves if only because they are unaware of where the wolves may strike next.
valkyrie101

RIChris said:
The New York Times knows that no news organization is without its pockets of fraud, conflicts of interest and corruption, (the marriage of GE, NBC & the White House comes to mind). They appear to be unwilling to throw Murdoch to the wolves if only because they are unaware of where the wolves may strike next.

40 years ago there were thousands of independently owned media organizations (newpapers, radio, tv), but now they are almost all owned by, and under the umbrella of, just six major companies. GE, Viacom, Disney, NewsCorp, TimeWarner, CBS. Who owns what is all here: http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

From thousands to six in less than 40 years.
valkyrie101

Will they stick together against the hoarde? Yep.
valkyrie101

…but ideally they would like to buy the left over pieces and make it five.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Timothy-Wright/774124882 Timothy Wright

TillieGlockenspiel said:
Anyone question whether George Soros’ empire is behind the villification of Rupert Murdoch? I don’t. Murdoch stands in the way of Soros’ complete control of all media platforms.

You folks are like talking toys! Anything bad about Murdoch your press a button or pull a string and a teapublican squawks “Soros!” “Soros!”.

It’s kind of funny really.
J Baustian

valkyrie101 said:
40 years ago there were thousands of independently owned media organizations (newpapers, radio, tv), but now they are almost all owned by, and under the umbrella of, just six major companies. GE, Viacom, Disney, NewsCorp, TimeWarner, CBS. Who owns what is all here: http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

From thousands to six in less than 40 years.

CBS is Viacom. They are one media conglomerate, not two separate companies. That freepress.com website is outdated.

Also, AP and Reuters give you the same biases as the so-called mainstream media.
J Baustian

Okay, Viacom and CBS are two separate companies. But Sumner Redstone is the chairman of both. So they must be worth more to him as separate entities than they were when they were a single company up until 2005
valkyrie101

J Baustian said:
CBS is Viacom. They are one media conglomerate, not two separate companies. That freepress.com website is outdated.

Cool, thanks, yep. But the point remains, the number of media companies is being reduced to less than a handful.
Paleoconservatarian

Hey NYTimes. “Right-wing” sentiments aren’t “demagoguery” if they’re fact based, and a sound plan for governance.

They are.

And the “polarization of American politics” isn’t resultant of the fact that there’s a competitor news organization in existence but because there are more varied political opinions than those which exist in the boardrooms of the NYTimes.

Amazing facts, I know, though I realize why you may not be familiar with them.
Paleoconservatarian

valkyrie101 said:
Cool, thanks, yep. But the point remains, the number of media companies is being reduced to less than a handful.

Start your own news organization. It’s still America.

Oh, but the regulations…. the regulations…
Paleoconservatarian

RIChris said:
The New York Times knows that no news organization is without its pockets of fraud, conflicts of interest and corruption, (the marriage of GE, NBC & the White House comes to mind). They appear to be unwilling to throw Murdoch to the wolves if only because they are unaware of where the wolves may strike next.

More to the point, the NYTs have their own recent scandals regarding reporters and editors violating journalistic ethics to create their own stories. To criticize Murdoch in the case of the ‘News of the World’ as if they were beyond reproach would be facetious in the extreme.

Krugman doesn’t mind that, of course. His worldview isn’t bound by facts or credibility.
valkyrie101

Paleoconservatarian said:
Start your own news organization. It’s still America. Oh, but the regulations…. the regulations…

You have it the opposite. De-regulation of the industry caused it to be reduced to what it is.
Paleoconservatarian

valkyrie101 said:
You have it the opposite. De-regulation of the industry caused it to be reduced to what it is.

Ha! By de-regulation I assume you mean the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. The ’96 telcom act perhaps?

Seriously, start your business. No regulation enforces that you must sell out. It’s just that it makes good economic sense for many small, independent operators. Not that you have too, mind you. So start a competing media organization instead of whining about it. Good luck getting a small business loan, however. Or offering medical care for your employees. Regulations, you know. Those which I had in mind and were the subject of my point.

Just remember when you do so, just so you know, that America isn’t lacking for options in political opinion. Concentration of media has done nothing to affect this. Or do you suppose many outlets were flirting with socialism or enlightened despotism? Mostly, what’s been lost is localization. In an age of increasing globalization, what with the internet and all.. But if you think there’s an untapped market for accurate news dissemination that we’re not getting for the concentration of ownership, the field’s wide open.
HKGuy

NYT disabled comments after only 194 — every one of them negative. About the nicest thing any one of them said about Cohen was to call him a “toady.”
valkyrie101

Paleoconservatarian said:
Ha! By de-regulation I assume you mean the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. The ‘96 telcom act perhaps? Seriously, start your business. No regulation enforces that you must sell out. It’s just that it makes good economic sense for many small, independent operators. Not that you have too, mind you. So start a competing media organization instead of whining about it. Good luck getting a small business loan, however. Or offering medical care for your employees. Regulations, you know. Those which I had in mind and were the subject of my point. Just remember when you do so, just so you know, that America isn’t lacking for options in political opinion. Concentration of media has done nothing to affect this. Or do you suppose many outlets were flirting with socialism or enlightened despotism? Mostly, what’s been lost is localization. In an age of increasing globalization, what with the internet and all.. But if you think there’s an untapped market for accurate news dissemination that we’re not getting for the concentration of ownership, the field’s wide open.

In the past, it was hard for one owner to own many stations, etc, but that changed and systematically all the small media companies, radio, tv, print, movies, ended up in just a few hands. Because that is how the game of monopoly is played.
Paleoconservatarian

valkyrie101 said:
In the past, it was hard for one owner to own many stations, etc, but that changed and systematically all the small media companies, radio, tv, print, movies, ended up in just a few hands. Because that is how the game of monopoly is played.

You ignore my points and do nothing but describe a situation without quantifying *how * it’s a societal problem.

Monopolies, BTW, are greatly enhanced by massive regulation that touch upon the many aspects of doing business – commerce, financial (loans), labor, medical care, work environment, etc. – in that only those who can afford to dance through their many loops can ultimately see a profit. The inherently wealthy, once more, are also the only people who can afford the lobbyists which are those who design those same regulations.

This is all to point out that your suggested ‘solutions’ *are* the problem of which you speak; as is common with much progressive rhetoric.
valkyrie101

Paleoconservatarian said:
You ignore my points and do nothing but describe a situation without quantifying *how * it’s a societal problem

Because logic says that eventually there will be one? Are you good with that? And it is the same in every industry. They are owned by conglomerates, mostly. All this small business crap that republicans hand you is a smoke screen for protecting big giant corporate interests. Do you like science fiction?
valkyrie101

Paleoconservatarian said:
Monopolies, BTW, are greatly enhanced by massive regulation that touch upon the many aspects of doing business – commerce, financial (loans), labor, medical care, work environment, etc. – in that only those who can afford to dance through their many loops can ultimately see a profit. The inherently wealthy, once more, are also the only people who can afford the lobbyists which are those who design those same regulations.

That is more like an excuse, than anything. Are you good with one corporation owning the world? Because that is where the math goes. And pretty soon, too.
yankeesJersey

Phillies Jersey
Roy Halladay Jersey
Chase Utley Jersey
Cliff Lee Jersey
Phillies Authentic Jersey
Phillies Replica Jersey
Phillies Youth Jersey
phillies Blank Jersey
Brad Lidge Jersey
Brett Myers Jersey
Carlos Ruiz Jersey
Colbert Hamels Jersey
Dave Cash Jersey
Greg Luzinski Jersey
Jamie Moyer Jersey
Jayson Werth Jersey
JC Romero Jersey
Jimmy Foxx Jersey
Jimmy Rollins Jersey
Mike Schmidt Jersey
Mitch Williams Jersey
Patrick Burrell Jersey
Pedro Martinez Jersey
Pete Rose Jersey
Placido Polanco Jersey
Raul Ibanez Jersey
Richie Ashburn Jersey
Robin Roberts Jersey
Roy Oswalt Jersey
Ryan Howard Jersey
Shane Victorino Jersey
Steve Carlton Jersey
Tim McCarver Jersey
Tug McGraw Jersey NFL JerseyWe have a huge selection of Authentic,Premier and Replica MLB Jerseys for Men,Women,Youth and Kids. Find your favorite MLB Jerseys and Get Free Shipping and 60 Days Returns Only At MLBEdge.com !
J Baustian

Paleoconservatarian said:
Start your own news organization. It’s still America.

Oh, but the regulations…. the regulations…

Dan Abrams started his own organization. Same with Tucker Carlson, same with Arianna Huffington, same with all the guys at the Northern Alliance.
J Baustian

Paleoconservatarian said:
Monopolies, BTW, are greatly enhanced by massive regulation that touch upon the many aspects of doing business – commerce, financial (loans), labor, medical care, work environment, etc. – in that only those who can afford to dance through their many loops can ultimately see a profit. The inherently wealthy, once more, are also the only people who can afford the lobbyists which are those who design those same regulations.

You are correct, sir. The massive regulatory state imposes so many costs on small businesses that it give a big advantage to big business. Only big firms can afford to hire big law firms or have their own legal department; only big firms can afford all the accountants and auditors required to make sure they are in compliance with government regulations. And only big businesses can go toe-to-toe with the regulators, to cut deals or make arrangements that make compliance easier.

This, as much as anything else, explains why the small operators are willing to sell out to the bigger firms. They just get sick of all the paperwork and the time wasted getting permits to do things which they should be able to do without having to get government permission.

i know people who tried to start a business but gave up the effort because it was just too much of a hassle. And I know people who actually started a company, and others who moved into bigger and better facilities, who had regrets later because of the additional headaches.
Damolddodge

Nothing to get worked up over like MSNBC looking for phoney anything to beat up Mr. Murdoch
Damolddodge

Nothing to get worked up over like MSNBC looking for phoney anything to beat up Mr. Murdoch