Feeling blue about Rupert

The Audit, the Columbia Journalism Review’s indispensible blog, offers an interview with James Ottaway, that is one of the best pieces on the News Corp. wooing of the Dow Jones board that I’ve come across. (CJR also ran this absolutely terrifying online profile of Murdoch last week that is a must read for anyone interested in the future of The Wall Street Journal and American journalism.)

The Murdoch sale, according to Ottaway, a shreholder who “ran the largely profitable Ottaway unit within Dow Jones, and held various other posts until 2003, and served on the board of directors until last year,” says a News Corp. takeover would result in “more media concentration in the hands the people who use their media power for personal, political, and business interests, as Murdoch does so blatantly with the New York Post, FOX News network, Star TV in China, Phoenix TV in China.”

That, he says, violates the American tradition of journalism.

The American tradition, which I think is a higher standard, produces a higher-quality of journalism. This wasn’t (always the case) from the founding of the country when we had highly partisan press run by political parties and individuals. Jefferson starting a newspaper to attack Adams when they were running for president. We’re a long way from that. But since the Second World War, the principle has been that in your news columns, you report accurately, fairly, as objectively as you can. And on your editorial pages, you can state your personal political—business interests if you want—but generally, American journalism has been to act with a sense of public service in the way you run your newspapers and to consider a newspaper…a public trust, and not just a personal piggybank.

Otherwise, he says, you have “capitalism gone crazy.”

What we’re in danger of losing is fact-based journalism that serves as a basis for public debate. I fear for the country if we do not have unbiased news sources available to every citizen so that they can hear all sides of major public issues and make intelligent decisions when they vote or speak for or against candidates or issues; where the information is based on some agreed-upon factual starting point. Otherwise everything is propaganda and biased information, and nobody knows what the truth is.

And he offers this final thought:

I am saying privately to many of the Bancrofts, and would say publicly: We should not sell Dow Jones and Ottaway Newspapers to Rupert Murdoch. If some of the family members want to sell their Dow Jones shares, let us find a way to buy them out that is not damaging to Dow Jones and its reputation for absolute integrity in reporting and analyzing global business news. Let us find new investors to help us build the company, and not sell it to a company like News Corp, whose core business is entertainment, and whose newspapers are either tabloid fluff or weapons to enhance the business and political interests of Rupert Murdoch.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Runner’s diary, Monday

I took Friday and the weekend off, but got on the treadmill this morning — temperature and humidity had already risen too much for my liking by the time I was ready to hit the pavement. Managed four miles in 35:52, followed by a 10-minute cool down and five minutes of walking backward on the EFX machine to work my hamstrings.

Today’s iPod choice: Richard Hell and the Voidoids, Blank Generation

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Strategic mistakes

I can understand the anger, but it seems a foolish to target a consistent critic of the war in Iraq because she won’t move impeachment to the top of the policy list. Rather than target Nancy Pelosi, I’m thinking it would be better to create the public momentum for impeachment — something that currently does not exist.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Troubling responses

The disconnect in these responses is rather troubling. (As is the fact that we still feel we need to ask this question.)

Although 92 percent of the NEWSWEEK Poll’s respondents claim they would vote for a black candidate (up from 83 percent in 1991), only 59 percent believe the country is actually ready for an African-American president (an improvement over 37 percent in a 2000 CBS News poll). Similarly, 86 percent of voters say they would vote for a female commander in chief, but only 58 percent believe the country is ready for one (up from 40 percent in a 1996 CBS poll).

So Americans say they would vote for a black or woman candidate, but they don’t think their neighbors would. It leaves me wondering if this is really just code, a way for poll respondents to dismiss a black or woman candidate without having to take responsibility. Or am I reading too much into it?

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here