Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Let's imagine the dynamics that might emerge if Murdoch gains control of the Wall Street Journal.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

On the Media Horizon: "We Invest, You Decide"

By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. Posted May 4, 2007.


Let's imagine the dynamics that might emerge if Murdoch gains control of the Wall Street Journal.
Advertisement

Predictably, some critics have decried the current efforts by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. to buy the Dow Jones company, which publishes The Wall Street Journal. But let's imagine the dynamics that might emerge if Murdoch gains control of that newspaper.

Like viewers of his Fox News Channel, readers of The Wall Street Journal under Murdoch could look forward to jaw-dropping claims along the lines of "We invest, you decide."

The Wall Street Journal would need to make some changes in order to be in sync with Murdoch-brand journalism. The Journal's recent design make-over could provide a tidy framework for spreading the content of the editorial page to the rest of the newsprint pages.

But executives at News Corp. would swiftly face a dilemma. Investors and money managers -- prime demographic targets of The Wall Street Journal -- are apt to be intolerant of financial news reporting that's unduly screened through an ideological mesh.

Slanted journalism may be fine for big commercial enterprises when news consumers largely base their outlooks on prevailing media biases. But investors and others who move large amounts of money are apt to be less forgiving when political agendas behind news reports might impede the quest to maximize profits.

Each day, investors seek accurate news as the basis for their money-related decisions. On Wall Street, they can recognize when an editorial page is spinning and grinding ideological axes. But investors will quickly stop relying on financial news pages if those pages are more dedicated to political maneuvers than well-founded portrayals of business reality.

In other words, if a newspaper is just distorting reality to the detriment of civic understanding and democratic discourse, the most powerful corporations may not mind at all. In fact, corporate elites are likely to appreciate any storyline that helps them to consolidate power over the nation's political system.

But if a business-oriented newspaper claims to be reporting the financial news and keeps skewing that news to serve ideological agendas, many investors and business leaders are likely to turn away in disgust. It's one thing to bamboozle the American public -- but quite another to mislead high-end readers about how to get even richer.

Right now, the editorials of The Wall Street Journal are the rough equivalent of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh (with an occasional dose of Ann Coulter thrown in). The grasp of right-wing ideology is notable, but the grip on reality is loose to the point of routine slippage.

At times, we all find ourselves wishing that the world were different than it is. But on the job -- at least in theory -- reporters can't allow themselves the luxury of turning wishful delusions into straight-faced news accounts.

However, like those who call the shots at Fox News Channel, the Dow Jones employees in charge of the editorial page at the Journal have been unstinting in their fantasies: The Iraq war remains a noble enterprise. Global warming is a liberal fraud. There is no widening gap between the rich and poor in the United States. And so on, and so on, and scooby-dooby-doo.

It's all well and good to mislead voters and cover up for an administration in Washington that is functioning more like a massive criminal enterprise than a legitimate executive branch. But if press ideologues serving as apologists for the Bush presidency try to blend their contempt for reality with purported financial news, the media result could prove less than satisfactory for the nation's upper-crust money movers.

If his current media properties are any indication, Rupert Murdoch would quickly turn The Wall Street Journal into a news operation engaged in a dizzying regimen of spin and distortion. For several decades, he has enjoyed notable success in marketing right-wing political fantasias to the general public. Whether the nation's financial elites would be such easy marks is another matter.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: dow jones, wall street journal, murdoch

Norman Solomon is the author of the new book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Media Consolidation ends open debate
Posted by: Michael Boldin on May 4, 2007 12:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Already centralized and consolidated to a degree probably never thought of, a newscorp purchase of the Journal would be another nail in the coffin of free speech, free press and open debate in this country.....

What we need is to break the monopolies of information control - and ensure that the internet is never forced down this same path...

A good read on this:

The Death of American Debate - click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The seven propaganda devices include:
Posted by: rwa on May 4, 2007 1:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Name calling -- giving something a bad label to make the audience reject it without examining the evidence;
Glittering generalities -- the opposite of name calling;
Card stacking -- the selective use of facts and half-truths;
Bandwagon -- appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to follow the crowd;
Plain folks -- an attempt to convince an audience that they, and their ideas, are "of the people";
Transfer -- carries over the authority, sanction and prestige of something we respect or dispute to something the speaker would want us to accept; and
Testimonials -- involving a respected (or disrespected) person endorsing or rejecting an idea or person.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"stories are too long" says Murdoch.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on May 5, 2007 2:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read some story about how Murdoch would change WSJ and basically, he wants to "Foxify" it (shorter stories, more glitz, less depth, etc.) I thought he already owned the NY Post for this type of reporting. Currently the WSJ is the only daily paper worth reading (in the USA). Despite political differences from some of the editorial slant, they have interesting stories, it is well written, and covers many stories that other papers don't. I sure hope Foxs, Gannet, or the other conglomerates don't buy it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

unbeliever
Posted by: luisbaez on May 5, 2007 9:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You say:
"If his current media properties are any indication, Rupert Murdoch would quickly turn The Wall Street Journal into a news operation engaged in a dizzying regimen of spin and distortion." My comment is: And wasn't it always that way?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: unbeliever Posted by: lessbread