Under Murdoch, Tilting Rightward At Journal

[ShockediSay]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/business/media/14carr.html


...there are growing indications that Mr. Murdoch, a lifelong conservative, doesn’t just want to cover politics, he wants to play them as well.

...adopting a more conservative tone, and editing and headlining articles to reflect a chronic skepticism of the current administration.

The pro-business, antigovernment shift in the news pages has broken into plain view in the last year. On Aug. 12, a fairly straight down the middle front page article on President Obama’s management style ended up with the provocative headline, “A President as Micromanager: How Much Detail Is Enough?”....

On Aug. 27, a fairly straightforward obituary about Ted Kennedy for the Web site was subjected to a little political re-education on the way to the front page. A new paragraph was added quoting Rush Limbaugh deriding what he called all of the “slobbering media coverage,” and he also accused the recently deceased senator of being the kind of politician who “uses the government to take money from people who work and gives it to people who don’t work.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So who really are the Fascists?

Well they come from the right wing.

Look it up.

They are dominated by Corporations.

You can look that up too.

And you can bet they use corporate and right wing
money to spread their propaganda.

In this Fascist funded propaganda they call us
socialists. I submit that to any Fascist, any
one to the left of center is labeled a socialist.
That's how propaganda works.

But that they call us Fascists - - that's so
wrong headed it could have come out of the mouth
of Sarah Palin, I respectfully submit.

If it were up to me, I'd rename the subject article
Under Murdoch, Tilting toward the Fascists

[Demeter]

1. WSJ Has Been Totally Fascist Since 1979

They adored Reagan and the editorials were all ridiculous. Murdock is just starting to slant the news as well as the editorial pages.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

2. It's not just WSJ, it's happening in the UK as well

The Independent covered a story that Sky is trying to go rightward as well. They feel that "certain media" (I think they mean the BBC) are only reporting one part of the story (ie politically slanted to the left maybe?)

[daa]

3. The WSJ news and opinion pages used to be

separate. Now I can't tell them apart, which makes the news unreliable to base investment decisions on. I will not be renewing.

[dmr]

4. What would the self-proclaimed 'patriotic' right-wing American think

if they realized that Murdoch only became a U.S. citizen just so he could own a television network?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x850626

And that more than 5% of News Corps is owned by a Saudi prince:

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/12/04/murdoch_buys_share_of_media_conglomerate_owned_by_saudi_prince_castigated_by_hannity_and_others_on_fox.php
Prince Al-Waleed upped his ante to about 5.5% of News Corp. in 2005. Now, Media Matters has reported that News Corp. head Rupert Murdoch has acquired a 10% stake in Al-Waleed's media conglomerate and has an option to acquire 10% more.

On top of all this, Murdoch made a deal and is now broadcasting in China.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2593645.stm

So the questions are:

* What does the anti-U.S. government right-wing tea-partier think about the foreign influence over America?

* Would Murdoch sell America out to further his global quest for media dominance?

* What network continuously promotes the weakening of the U.S. government?

* Do these intertwining factions care about America's survival?

* Or will it pit Americans against Americans wearing us down gradually, dividing us further, eventually to self-destruction?

* Or if none of the above is happening, could it eventually?

:shrug:

[Doctor_J]

7. the self-destruction can't come soon enough

any real patriot realizes that we're either going to have another revolution, or turn into Rwanda. at this point we still haev a choice. Another year or two and we won't.

[TheSickEmpire]

5. Don't understand why this isn't discussed further

seeing as how Fox has been promoting (and in effect, via Dick Morris, encouraging donations for) Brown in Massachusetts lately.

Seeing as how Palin is now given a soapbox to bullshit her way through whatever opportunity will give her the most money and power.

Fox feeds low-information, bad-information, distorted information, and outright lies to Americas who'd rather replace reality to fit their idea of truth.

Fox is no friend of America; or anyplace else for that matter.

[Doctor_J]

6. It is up to us to do something about it

until we do, nothing will improve.

[Tutankhamun]

8. I find it ironic that The New York Times criticizes WSJ for a right wing slant.

True, WSJ is more blatant, particularly under Murdoch, but let's not forget what NYT has done. Let's not forget Judy Miller, "embedded" with our troops in Iraq, ordering the soldiers around, sleeping with a high-ranking military official, and beating the drums for war, fact checking and impartiality be damned! Remember how she helped the Bush Admin cover up in the wake of outing Valerie Plame? Who could forget that patriotic episode over at NYT!

And who better than NYT to browbeat another paper for RW bias? After all, NYT knows what such douchebaggery looks like. Witness the way they hid the BushCo illegal wiretapping story until after the 2004 "election." Thank you, NYT, for having the guts to stone the WSJ from your own glass house. A true portrait in journalistic courage.

Probably safe to skip the "sarcasm" tag.

[ShortnFiery]

9. Let's not omit the Washington Post's sharp turn to the right during the run up to

the Iraqi invasion? :(

It's editorial page is crazy right wing and I've also noted other sections are leaning "corporate" and snotty.