The Part of Wicked Witch of the West is played by Murdoch

Wicked Witch

Wicked Witch



First things first. This is not a defense of Rupert Murdoch and the evil empire. I think the word was coined on The Daily Show for what I feel on the whole phone-hacking scandal: schadenfreudegasm.


But in keeping with the themes around here, I can’t help point out the following:

1. I cannot believe that these practices of skulduggery are limited to just the mad Aussie’s firms. Presumably, any journalist who knows of these practices at their respective institutions will be coming forward (ed. note: hahahahaha… please stop with the jokes). More likely, there will need to be laws put into place to prevent media organizations from engaging in these practices. Cue the outrage from journalists, reporters and pundits.

So far, I’m on the “Couldn’t care less about freedom of press”-train. For starters, we now live in a world where institutions, private groups, corporations, organizations and even private individuals, who do not fall under the umbrella of “government” or “public sector,” have the technological means, ability and money to invade privacy rights, compromise property rights and undermine individual rights of life and liberty. What sins in the past had been the exclusive province of governments and political bodies, i.e. the possibility and probability of reducing fundamental rights, are now theoretically within the reaches of any cantankerous busybody with an internet connection.

We’re not in Kansas anymore, and, wherever we are, we better figure out what the rules in this strange land are.

2. Isn’t it a rule that shareholders, legal departments and management do not call the shots in the press room, do not play editors and do not run the news rooms? Now I’m talking to you Mr. Pundit, who says News Corp. is to blame because they should have known, or made efforts to know, that their subsidiaries were using less-than-reputable sources. Either (i) management takes an active interest in the news decisions being made and must be held responsible or (ii) the reporters and editors are solely in charge, with shareholders have a fiduciary trust with the teams they hire and nothing more. Which do you prefer, Mr. Pundit? Can’t have it both ways now can you?

I believe its this disconnect that goes to the heart of why you can’t say I am defending Murdoch. Murdoch seems to be clearly taking an active interest in the running of his newspapers to the point of micro-managing them. Hence he can and should be held responsible under (i). Option (ii) clearly doesn’t seem to have been the case.


For more, read David Carr’s excellent piece. I like his last line: “When you throw money onto a burning fire, it becomes fuel and nothing more.”

This entry was posted in media. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Part of Wicked Witch of the West is played by Murdoch

  1. zolltan says:

    I think the pundits’ “ideal” of newspaper owners is like ombudsmen: knowing what the newspaper does and stopping it when wrong, but staying above the ideological fray. You’re right to point out that this ideal is dumb as there is no way to achieve it in reality. If owners know what their newspaper is doing, they exercise some ideological control even if it’s thru the self-censorship of journalists not wanting to lose their jobs (and most times much more than just in this way). If they don’t exercise control over the newspaper, they can’t possibly know what it does. You’re right about Murdoch’s position within those two alternatives, too.

  2. Zuuko says:

    yeah. we agree.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s