Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Right On, Rupert! The WSJ Needs You!
Boston Herald ^ | August 2, 2007 | Michael Graham

Posted on 08/02/2007 2:47:50 AM PDT by suspects

The first person I ever heard accuse Rupert Murdoch of undermining the media’s reputation for trustworthy, unbiased reporting was Ted Turner.

He was being interviewed by Mike Wallace. On “60 Minutes.”

No, seriously. Please stop laughing.

OK, OK, it’s impossible not to laugh when liberal pundits complain that Murdoch might bring a “right-wing” political slant to the Wall Street Journal. What? Bias in the mainstream media? Somebody cue Captain Renault: It’s time to be shocked, shocked!

America’s editorial writers insist that Murdoch’s purchase of Dow Jones threatens the nonpartisan purity of the press. Please. Even the most liberal news reader will admit that the media and the American left have spent more time in bed than Pam Anderson at a frat party.

Just weeks ago, MSNBC reported that of 143 journalists who’ve made political donations since 2004, 125 gave only to Democrats and liberal causes.

In 2004, 52 percent of the American people voted for George W. Bush, but according to the University of Connecticut’s Department of Public Policy, a whopping 19 percent of working journalists did the same.

And The New York Times [NYT] wants me to worry about a right-wing media bias? Reporters must think we’re as bad at math as they are.

And is the media lousy at math. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be complaining about the NewsCorp/Wall Street Journal deal. They’d be cheering.

It may have escaped the notice of the business writers at The Boston Globe-Democrat, but in a nation where most people won’t spend 50 cents for a newspaper anymore, Murdoch just spent $5 billion for one.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.bostonherald.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bias; foxnews; media; michaelgraham; murdoch; wsj

1 posted on 08/02/2007 2:47:54 AM PDT by suspects
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: suspects

Why didn’t Murdoch buy the NYT instead of the WSJ? That’s what I want to know.


2 posted on 08/02/2007 4:13:14 AM PDT by sportutegrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl

The price is still going down.


3 posted on 08/02/2007 4:49:34 AM PDT by Nephi ( $100m ante is a symptom of the old media... the Ron Paul Revolution is the new media's choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sportutegrl
Because the Ochs-Sulzberger family controls the New York Times company even though they don't own the majority of the stock. Unlike the Bancroft family which controlled the Wall Street Journal, they feel no fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. Instead they see the NYT as a private toy to be used as they desire.

Never invest in a company where the control and ownership are separated - it was not done for the benefit of the shareholders.

4 posted on 08/02/2007 5:05:42 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (May the heirs of Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski rise up again to defend Europe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: suspects

Murdoch...right wing? Hillary’s friend? That Murdoch?


5 posted on 08/02/2007 6:24:43 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson