Murdoch quashes China stories; let's let him buy the WSJ? No way.

I found a pretty interesting article in this morning's New York Times, which reports some scandalous behavior over at the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post. (Which I refuse to read - see the headline at right for a stark reason why.)

It contains some gossip about the paper's Page Six gossip column, which makes for some amusing reading, but one passage in particular caught my eye.

An excerpt:

Page Six, The New York Post's free-swinging showcase for gossip about canoodling celebrities and cheating spouses, ran a tell-all item yesterday about a subject it does not usually cover in eye-popping detail: itself. And it had some pretty juicy details: the editor of the paper patronized a strip club, and the longtime author of the column, Richard Johnson, once took a $1,000 cash gift.

And that was not all.

The item also raised anew long-heard allegations that Rupert Murdoch, The Post's owner, had directed the Page Six writers to avoid items that could be seen as critical of China, where he was trying to do business. [Emphasis Mine]

The 675-word item was the latest twist in the long-running dispute involving Jared Paul Stern, a former freelance contributor to Page Six. He was suspended in April 2006 amid allegations that he had demanded money for favorable coverage — allegations that the authorities later declined to prosecute.

But the fight rages on. Mr. Stern now says he might sue Page Six, and as part of the legal preliminaries, his lawyer obtained a statement by a fellow former reporter for Page Six, Ian Spiegelman.

That four-page blast opens with allegations about Page Six and the editor of The Post, including the strip club and the $1,000 gift. While confirming those assertions in the item, the editor, Col Allan, was quoted as calling Mr. Spiegelman's claims a "tissue of lies."

Gossip aside (is anyone surprised that a writer for the sleazy Post would take a $1,000 bribe of sorts?), what really got my dander up was how Murdoch allegedly told Page Six staffers to avoid unflattering stories about China, because he was trying to do business there.

This is exactly the reason why Murdoch should not only be prohibited from buying The Wall St. Journal, but he should be forced to sell off part of the media empire he already owns.

Media conglomeration is a direct threat to our democracy. The argument for media conglomeration is always "let the market decide" and "I/we [CEOs and corporate boards of these companies] don't interfere with the news departments and/or editorial decisions."

But this is simply the latest example that heads of media companies DO interfere with news and editorial decisions, and our government must put a stop to it.

Murdoch is hardly the only example. In the last 10-15 years alone, CBS and ABC have also been in the middle of some heady controversies about corporate talking suits and lawyers preventing their news divisions from reporting stories that didn't serve their corporate interests.

In the case of CBS, it was the high-profile case of Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, formerly of Brown & Williamson (a very large American tobacco company that has since merged with Phillip Morris), who decided to go public on 60 Minutes with the revelation that his former employers knew full well that tobacco was not only addictive, but that B&W was adding chemicals to its cigarettes to make them more addictive.

Faced with the possibility of an enormous lawsuit from B&W, CBS coerced the producers of 60 Minutes to air a sharply edited version of the story, which later became a huge story. (It's important to note that CBS in the process of being sold to Westinghouse, and the heads of the network did not want the sale jeopardized with a high-profile lawsuit.)

I digress, but the story of CBS is an amazing one, which was turned into a very good movie, The Insider, starring Russell Crowe and Al Pacino.

But, the angle of Wigand's story that didn't get nearly as much attention as it deserved is this - when should a sale or corporate merger override the public interest, in this case the health of tens of millions of Americans? Of course, the answer is "never," unless, in this case, you happened to hold thousands of stock options in CBS or Westinghouse.

Anyway, this is the cost of mega-mergers and media conglomeration with our supposedly "free" press.

Our press is only as free as the corporate boards who run our media companies want it to be. And that scares me.

Who among us thinks it would be a good idea for Rupert Murdoch to own ANY more newspapers, radio stations, television networks, etc.? The only people who like such a move are on Wall St.

Thankfully, it looks as if his purchase of the WSJ is not going to happen, but only because the Bancroft family who owns a controlling interest in the paper won't sell, not because our government is stepping in and saying, "Nice try, Rupert - you own enough."

It's time for our government to say "enough" when it comes to media conglomeration. But, unfortunately, we will probably have to wait for those changes to take place - does anyone believe the big business fetishists in the Bush administration would put a stop to Murdoch's purchase of the WSJ?

Rupert Murdoch's fourth divorce...

This time, it's from reality.

Listening to Rupert Murdoch defend President Bush strikes me as profoundly sad. It reminds me of parents whose child has been caught in a nasty prank, when the evidence is overwhelming, and they are the only people left defending the child. Admirable and understandable in many ways, but hardly a credible source. And Murdoch falls into that same category - hardly a credible source - papa Rupert defending his infant, W.

Murdoch, attending Michael Milkin's Global Conference in Los Angeles, resumed his hackneyed Bush PR campaign earlier today. (Isn't that what your network and newspapers are for, Rupert?)

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Murdoch remains solidly in the president's corner:

The News Corp. chairman and CEO said that, personally, Bush is "persuasive, strong and articulate" but that "he seems to freeze whenever a television camera appears."

Motioning to Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch said, "Apart from your newspaper and mine, there's a sort of monolithic attack on him every day of the year."

News Corp. is the parent company of Fox News Channel, the New York Post and dozens of other media assets.

"The atmosphere is absolutely toxic," Murdoch said of the partisanship of U.S. politics and much of the media. "You can't really expect anything to be achieved in the next 18 months, and it's a very serious, sad problem for this country."

Yes, the atmosphere in Washington, and in fact around the U.S. is toxic, but Murdoch and his media outlets never, ever miss an opportunity to slam, defame and defile anyone with the audacity to oppose President Bush and his disastrous policies, both foreign and domestic.

The examples are too numerous to mention, and quite frankly, I grow bored of pointing out all of them. Okay, disclosure - it's fun, especially when there are so many who insist that Fox News is merely doing what other networks have done for years. Yea, sure.

I haven't been above some name-calling at times when someone really makes me angry, but I'm not running a daily newspaper with a circulation into the hundreds of thousands, either.

The New York Post has made sport out of embarrassing Democrats or anyone who dares oppose the president. The example at right is just one of literally dozens of examples. This headline ran when the Iraq Study Group (a.k.a. the Baker-Hamilton Commission) released its report saying what the rest of us have known for years - that the War in Iraq is a waste of American and Iraqi lives, to say nothing of the half-trillion dollars we've spent (and counting). (The Baker-Hamilton was a bipartisan group made up of five prominent Democrats and Republicans.)

Again, I repeat - it's people like Murdoch, who defile and denigrate those who oppose Bush's radical, right-wing agenda, who are principle architects of the toxic atmosphere in Washington.

One other thing from Murdoch's comments that had me heaving with violent fits of laughter - he called Bush "persuasive, strong and articulate." Yea, and I'm Tickle Me Elmo.

Has Rupert gone senile? Maybe he thought he was at a Comedy Central roast of President Bush.

NY Post Corzine cover beyond contempt

Another Rupert Murdoch-owned media outlet has found new gutters through which it can crawl.

This past Saturday, The New York Post ran the above front page picture and headline about New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, who easily could have died in an automobile accident late last week. I don't even remember the last time I saw a headline that even approached the lack of decency or compassion that this one does.

Corzine, sitting in the front seat of an SUV while traveling to the governor's mansion, was in an accident on the Garden State Parkway. Corzine suffered multiple injuries in the accident, and as of Saturday morning (when the above cover his the news stands), he was still listed in critical condition.

Evidently, he was not wearing his seatbelt. Ouch. It's a mistake that could have cost him his life, but thankfully, it didn't. He deserves some heat for breaking the law by not belting up, but right now?

One thing is for certain - I will never, ever buy another copy of the Post again. I fired off a letter to the editor this morning. I would be shocked if the paper has the balls to print it. Don't bet on it:

To the Editor:
Your April 14 front page "photograph" of New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine was revolting, disgusting and in the poorest of taste. He could have died from his injuries, and while his family is grieving your paper runs a cover like that? I'm surprised you didn't run a picture of Bill Clinton eating a cheeseburger after he had his heart bypass surgery. Maybe I shouldn't give you any ideas. My days of reading The New York Post are over.

RJ

I doubt the letter will do much good, but it beats just whining about it.

Boxer has Rice for lunch - GOP press hysterical

It didn't take long for the GOP-backed press to start going crazy over the Democratically controlled Congress.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice appeared before the Senate yesterday to answer questions about President Bush's troop surge of over 21,000 troops.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) wasted no time going after Rice:

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

To Rice, Boxer said, "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Cue right-wing hysteria, beginning with the Rupert Murdoch-owned and operated New York Post, New York's conservative tabloid rag.

In this morning's paper, the Post took aim at Boxer:

Breathtaking.

Simply breathtaking.

We scarcely know where to begin.

The junior senator from California apparently believes that an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.

It's hard to imagine the firestorm that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate. (Surely the Associated Press would have put the observation a bit higher than the 18th paragraph of a routine dispatch from Washington.)
But put that aside.

The vapidity - the sheer mindlessness [emphasis in original] - of Sen. Boxer's assertion makes it clear that the next two years are going to be a time of bitterness and rancor, marked by pettiness of spirit and political self-indulgence of a sort not seen in America for a very long time.

##

When I got done laughing, I became a bit angry. This "right-wing outrage" smacks of what happened in the 2004 presidential campaign.

When Democratic Nominee John Kerry correctly pointed out that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Republicans all support an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage, Kerry referred to Cheney's gay daughter, Mary - a not so subtle shot at his opponents' hypocrisy.

Lots of phony outrage ensued, including Lynne Cheney proclaiming in front of a crowd of Republican sycophants, "This man [Kerry] is not a good man!" This from a woman, along with her husband, who proclaim themselves to be Christians. Umm Hmm.

Anyway, Senator Boxer did nothing more yesterday than state the obvious - that Rice has no personal sacrifice in this war, just as President Bush and Vice President Cheney don't have any sacrifices, either. Cheney's children are too old, and does anyone think the president's daughters, Jenna and Barbara, are going to serve in the military? RIGHT!

So, that's all Boxer was doing - again, pointing out that the decision makers about this war don't have any personal stake in this war, and that includes Condi Rice.

I would seriously doubt that Senator Boxer believes that "an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman."

I'd love to have seen the look on the editor(s) at the Post who penned this article. Do they really believe that Boxer believes that?

It's beyond ridiculous.

The American public is overwhelmingly against Bush's Troop Surge, and Boxer took Rice to task on this administration's decision.

Simple as that.

Murdoch is one of the biggest threats to our democracy - along with other media conglomerates.

I'll have more on Murdoch in a bit when I review Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, which I watched last night.

I've already steeled myself to the fact that there will be much more of this pseudo outrage over the next two years.

Get used to it.

Clinton sodomized in 9-11 movie

I've been away for a while and haven't had much time to post much lately because of school and the craziness before, during and after the wedding (A good, but busy kind of craziness!). However, I do have a lot on my mind from my time away from the blog, and I do plan on at least partially catching up.

In the meantime, I laughed today when I clicked on a link of an article to The New York Post about the upcoming movie, The Path to 9-11, which will air on ABC this Sunday and Monday. Bill Clinton appears to be pretty pissed, and it looks like he has good reason to be. According to the article in the Post, part of the movie details how Clinton was too distracted by the Lewinsky scandal to deal with bin Laden. What a truckload of shit.

The accurate history of what happened the summer the embassies were bombed was that Clinton was busy going after bin Laden following the attacks, trying to do his job, despite a witch hunt out to get him. Unfortunately, this coincided with the growing momentum to impeach the president. Republicans in Congress accused the president of trying to distract the American public with a missile attack against bin Laden. Self-righteous Republicans didn't want to hear stories about bin Laden - they wanted to get the president. Fortunately, the American public wasn't fooled - nearly 3/4 of Americans didn't want to see Clinton removed from office, and he wasn't, much to the frustration of Republicans. However, when viewed through a post-9-11 lens, this paragraph all seems too unbelievable to be true, but it IS true.

Here's a thought - maybe if the FBI didn't have dozens (and I've read hundreds in some places) of agents investigating a blow job (along with the majority of Congress), maybe the agency could have been protecting America. The same goes for Congress at the time. Call me crazy.

And here's a few more thoughts on the movie and right-wing myths. 9-11 happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. Idiots on the far right suffer from amnesia about this. The Clinton administration handed over all sorts of information to the incoming Bush administration on bin Laden and the growing threat of terrorism, but to no avail. The Bush cabal was too busy trying to figure out a way to repay favors to people who put Bush in office. Part of this repayment included massive tax cuts for the rich (that we still can't afford), instead of taking part of that money and adequately funding anti-terrorism programs.

If this movie is depicted as discussed in the Post article, it is a massive distortion and a disservice to the dead of 9-11, and to all Americans. The latter all too often relies on movies and pop culture to get depictions of history, and this movie will unfortunately play a part. That's pathetic and sad.

ABC has already stated that some scenes were dramatized in the movie. Really? What a shock.

Two other quick points. I'm not one of those people who believe Bush knew about 9-11. No president would knowingly permit such a brutal, ghastly attack. I do believe that if the agencies, including the CIA, FBI and NSA, hadn't had its collective head up its ass, they may have been prevented. Bush deserves some blame, no doubt, but so does Clinton, Congress and a host of other people. This is a story that will continue to emerge for years if not decades. But, I also laugh derisively at people who buy into the urban legend making its way around the Internet that states bin Laden could have been handed over to the U.S., but Clinton refused to take him into custody. This absurd right-wing myth that persists, facts be damned, and it's laughable.

And Republicans were so obsessed with bin Laden in the late 1990s (a total fucking lie), they why haven't they captured his ass since then? They've only had nearly 6 years, and 5 since 9-11. But, don't worry, people. I'm sure bin Laden is somewhere in Iraq.

I don't know what's worse - the obsession with Clinton in the late 90s, or the travesty that continues in Iraq, each and every day. Bush has got us in a real quagmire. There, I said the Q word. His debacle in the Middle East will wear the Scarlet Q for years to come, all at the cost of American blood.

My other point? Rupert Murdoch is no doubt laughing his extremist-right-wing ass off today. He owns the Post.

**

Anyway, I will watch the movie this Sunday and Monday, and report back how I feel about it. We are also having our post-wedding celebration in the Poconos this weekend, so I will no doubt have many great pictures to share. Oh, and a teeny little league called the NFL starts tonight, and I'm definitely ready for some football. And I'm even more ready for the NHL season. So much to write about, so little time. All for now.

Tune back tomorrow for a highly scientific analysis of who will have a better season, my Dallas Cowboys, or my wife's (and in-laws') Denver Broncos. Part of this proof will be in pictures!