What Do Rupert Murdoch and SCOTUS have in common?
Two news items today catch my attention. One is a long article--actually a bundle of pieces--in the NYT about NewsCorp and Murdoch's scheme to buy the WSJ. The other is the Supreme's latest decision cutting back on the McCain Feingold (or Mere Figleaf) restrictions on campaign finance. Both show the current dysfunction of media politics and the inability of the gov-o-mint to deal with it.
Writing for the nineteenth-century faction of SCOTUS, Chief Roberts says “the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it.” I agree, though I think the Court gives this a reading that is wildly and willfully ignorant of 21st century facts-on-the-ground. In fact I don't know that I really want to quarrel with the decision of the Supremes on this one, though any 5-4 ruling is going to smell bad. McCain Feingold was always a mere figleaf in any case. If the target was the influence of big money on elections, it missed by a wide margin. The only tangible benefit, in my opinion, was that it got SCOTUS to accept the notion of limits on campaign spending, and to accept it on something like "public sphere" grounds. That is, first-amendment rights include the right to a healthy public sphere, which democracy requires for its proper functioning. [more complicated argument alert--there is one, and I'm not going to make it now.] What's troubling about today's decision is that it retreats from the public sphere argument, and embraces a notion of free expression that takes no notice of the ecology of expression.
This is also the case in Murdoch-land. Again, I don't really have any quarrel with Rupert owning the WSJ. He might as well own it already, as far as I'm concerned. I have friends and colleagues who loathe its editorial page but insist that the WSJ is a model of journalistic integrity--the best news that money can buy, because naturally it is the news medium that the people with the most money DO buy. I'll grant this as a matter of personal taste. I don't trust its news, but if I did, I wouldn't worry about Rupert messing with it. He knows the franchise. What he'd do is undermine the veneer of sanctimony about it. As it is, if what interests you about the news is its class valence, then what you find in the WSJ is news for capitalists about capital. It's good to have news about capital, and the version that's designed for capitalists is likely to be all you're going to get. How will Rupert ruin it? By introducing his own political biases? Yes, but only to the extent that his political biases are congruent with the interests of capitalists as a whole. At least that's how I read his assurances to the Bancroft family, who control the voting stock of Dow Jones.
A few years ago, actually probably more like twenty years ago, there was a hiccup in the operation of the St. Petersburg Times. The Times is one of the few news organizations in the US that is actually independent. The late Nelson Poynter left it to the Poynter Institute in his will, and it is the board of directors of that Institute that runs the newspaper. Family-run newspapers, all in a panic about their independence, should follow his example. Take note, ye Blethens. (Actually, the Blethen family, who run the Seattle Times, seem to be kind of taken with the idea of leaving that newspaper to an Institute at some point of generational fatigue.) The hiccup came when Nelson Poynter's nieces, who held a share in the Institute, considered that they could get a lot of money if they could sell their shares. They asked for a buyout, and the Institute offered them what they thought was a fair price. They then proceeded to sell their share to a guy name of Bass for something more like the going rate. Here's the account from Forbes
At one point in this protracted battle, Bass turned up for the first time at a board meeting of the Poynter Institute. According to a friend who had a first-hand account of this meeting, Bass said nothing, but sat, surrounded by an aura of power and mystery, and shod in elaborate cowboy boots. The regular board members tried to do business as usual, though they were all very self conscious. Finally, someone worked up the nerve to address Bass: "May I ask what your intentions are?" He answered "No. But I will tell you that I care only about maximizing profit." And, in the final analysis, he was as good as his word.
When we get down to it, Rupert Murdoch cares primarily about maximizing profit. WSJ cares primarily about serving news of capital to capitalists. A marriage made in heaven. And for the rest of us, a festivus of clarity, because we need no longer pretend that the WSJ is anything but the tool it used to proudly claim to be.
But to the bigger point. Murdoch's inevitable bedding of the Bancrofts shows why the larger discourse of freedom of expression and democracy has to pay serious attention to the larger media environment. We shouldn't think of this intercourse as occurring among consenting adults and therefore being nobody else's business. He has TOO MUCH POWER. Any fool knows that. And so the NYT report, which worked very hard to come up with the same facts that everyone who cares already knew, framed the whole issue as one of journalistic independence. But Rupert doesn't express his power that way. In the one money quote in the whole long report, an insider puts it very clearly:
A former HarperCollins executive, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the company, said Mr. Murdoch was less hands-on than people assumed. “It’s not done in a direct way where he issues instructions,” the executive said. “It’s a bunch of people running around trying to please him.”
Just what we need in the media--more people running around trying to please Rupert.
But shouldn't he be as free as any other citizen? Yes, but only AS free. He's far more free than you or me. Unless we've turned back the clock to the nineteenth century.
Two news items today catch my attention. One is a long article--actually a bundle of pieces--in the NYT about NewsCorp and Murdoch's scheme to buy the WSJ. The other is the Supreme's latest decision cutting back on the McCain Feingold (or Mere Figleaf) restrictions on campaign finance. Both show the current dysfunction of media politics and the inability of the gov-o-mint to deal with it.
Writing for the nineteenth-century faction of SCOTUS, Chief Roberts says “the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it.” I agree, though I think the Court gives this a reading that is wildly and willfully ignorant of 21st century facts-on-the-ground. In fact I don't know that I really want to quarrel with the decision of the Supremes on this one, though any 5-4 ruling is going to smell bad. McCain Feingold was always a mere figleaf in any case. If the target was the influence of big money on elections, it missed by a wide margin. The only tangible benefit, in my opinion, was that it got SCOTUS to accept the notion of limits on campaign spending, and to accept it on something like "public sphere" grounds. That is, first-amendment rights include the right to a healthy public sphere, which democracy requires for its proper functioning. [more complicated argument alert--there is one, and I'm not going to make it now.] What's troubling about today's decision is that it retreats from the public sphere argument, and embraces a notion of free expression that takes no notice of the ecology of expression.
This is also the case in Murdoch-land. Again, I don't really have any quarrel with Rupert owning the WSJ. He might as well own it already, as far as I'm concerned. I have friends and colleagues who loathe its editorial page but insist that the WSJ is a model of journalistic integrity--the best news that money can buy, because naturally it is the news medium that the people with the most money DO buy. I'll grant this as a matter of personal taste. I don't trust its news, but if I did, I wouldn't worry about Rupert messing with it. He knows the franchise. What he'd do is undermine the veneer of sanctimony about it. As it is, if what interests you about the news is its class valence, then what you find in the WSJ is news for capitalists about capital. It's good to have news about capital, and the version that's designed for capitalists is likely to be all you're going to get. How will Rupert ruin it? By introducing his own political biases? Yes, but only to the extent that his political biases are congruent with the interests of capitalists as a whole. At least that's how I read his assurances to the Bancroft family, who control the voting stock of Dow Jones.
A few years ago, actually probably more like twenty years ago, there was a hiccup in the operation of the St. Petersburg Times. The Times is one of the few news organizations in the US that is actually independent. The late Nelson Poynter left it to the Poynter Institute in his will, and it is the board of directors of that Institute that runs the newspaper. Family-run newspapers, all in a panic about their independence, should follow his example. Take note, ye Blethens. (Actually, the Blethen family, who run the Seattle Times, seem to be kind of taken with the idea of leaving that newspaper to an Institute at some point of generational fatigue.) The hiccup came when Nelson Poynter's nieces, who held a share in the Institute, considered that they could get a lot of money if they could sell their shares. They asked for a buyout, and the Institute offered them what they thought was a fair price. They then proceeded to sell their share to a guy name of Bass for something more like the going rate. Here's the account from Forbes
In 1988, Texas billionaire Robert M. Bass stunned the paper by purchasing 40% of Times Publishing’s voting stock from Poynter's nieces. Then Bass launched an unsolicited takeover bid for the rest of the company and sued it in an effort to increase his share of its dividend payments. Times Publishing rejected Bass' offer and, after a protracted battle, bought back Bass' stake for $56 million.
At one point in this protracted battle, Bass turned up for the first time at a board meeting of the Poynter Institute. According to a friend who had a first-hand account of this meeting, Bass said nothing, but sat, surrounded by an aura of power and mystery, and shod in elaborate cowboy boots. The regular board members tried to do business as usual, though they were all very self conscious. Finally, someone worked up the nerve to address Bass: "May I ask what your intentions are?" He answered "No. But I will tell you that I care only about maximizing profit." And, in the final analysis, he was as good as his word.
When we get down to it, Rupert Murdoch cares primarily about maximizing profit. WSJ cares primarily about serving news of capital to capitalists. A marriage made in heaven. And for the rest of us, a festivus of clarity, because we need no longer pretend that the WSJ is anything but the tool it used to proudly claim to be.
But to the bigger point. Murdoch's inevitable bedding of the Bancrofts shows why the larger discourse of freedom of expression and democracy has to pay serious attention to the larger media environment. We shouldn't think of this intercourse as occurring among consenting adults and therefore being nobody else's business. He has TOO MUCH POWER. Any fool knows that. And so the NYT report, which worked very hard to come up with the same facts that everyone who cares already knew, framed the whole issue as one of journalistic independence. But Rupert doesn't express his power that way. In the one money quote in the whole long report, an insider puts it very clearly:
A former HarperCollins executive, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the company, said Mr. Murdoch was less hands-on than people assumed. “It’s not done in a direct way where he issues instructions,” the executive said. “It’s a bunch of people running around trying to please him.”
Just what we need in the media--more people running around trying to please Rupert.
But shouldn't he be as free as any other citizen? Yes, but only AS free. He's far more free than you or me. Unless we've turned back the clock to the nineteenth century.
posted by jnerone at 12:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home