There has been much wringing of hands by Journal staff and some readers during the protracted negotiations by Rupert Murdoch to acquire the New York based daily. Predictably, the outcry is all about editorial freedom and Murdoch is painted as an interfering conservative owner who will impose his views on an otherwise objective and balanced purveyor of news.
The Leftist-motivated outrage that always greets Murdoch’s name has largely been fuelled by his Fox News Channel. For the benefit of UK visitors to this website, I can tell you that Fox has the audacity to allow some self-described conservative presenters to have a say. Anyone who is truly objective will conclude after a few nights of Fox, that it gets somewhere near to presenting more than one side of the news. For those who consider that the Leftist slant to all news and an underlying Leftist agenda is all that is tolerable, this is an outrage and a dangerous one at that. Hannity, O’Reilly and Hume are the three miscreants whose appearances on Fox cause Leftists and their Media Class masters to have apoplexy, although Hannity actually has a Leftist partner on his program. One might think that a handful of conservative commentators would not be a big deal, given that the entire remaining Media (other than Talk Radio) is Leftist and has virtual control of all the news that the masses receive.
The actual business story is that News Corp has purchased a controlling interest in Dow Jones & Co. but the journalists and assorted Leftists are only interested in the control of the newspaper, for the WSJ has been a useful propaganda outlet for all Left social causes. Under the cover of its editorial pages and its way-past history of objective and unbiased news, it has been able to pose as a conservative newspaper.
It is useful for the Media Class to be able to pretend that the media is diverse and even better when non-political readers are reading Left-biased news without awareness. I have argued from day one of this website that the WSJ was an example of how even the seeming conservative newspapers, magazines and TV channels are covertly pursuing an agenda of radical social change. The Journal is a prime example and I have frequently posted up exposes from its pages.
There are two explanations that occur to me. Either it is impossible for any but the most dedicated conservative media owners to control their workforces and impose an honest standard of reporting, or the owners share the Leftist social agenda but find it rewarding to con the readership. I do not pretend to know if Murdoch is an outsider opportunist whose only agenda is to win readers and audiences (by tapping into society’s many conservatives who are otherwise denied a voice) or he is genuinely interested in balanced reporting. It would certainly be nice if he forced some balanced reporting on the Journal’s staff, but I am not holding my breath.
In case our visitors think I am wrong about the WSJ, I refer to an article on the Free Republic website of 31st July and posted by Ben Mugged. Ben is clearly on the ball and I am indebted to him, even if the Free Republic website bans radical–and-right because we treat the BNP fairly. His piece is titled, “A Measure of Media Bias” and he refers to a December 2004 study conducted by Tim Groseclose of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri. They state, “one surprise is the Wall Street Journal, which we find as the most liberal of all the 20 news outlets studied.” (They omitted all the data that came from its editorial page.) They also mention that “Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid (2001) note that the Journal has had a longstanding separation between its conservative editorial pages and its liberal news pages.” Paul Sperry, in an article titled the “Myth of the Conservative Wall Street Journal” notes that the news division of the journal sometimes calls the editorial division ‘Nazis’. The fact is, Sperry writes, “the Journal’s news and editorial departments are as politically polarized as North and South Korea.”
One might wonder why a conservative-controlled newspaper has a Leftist newsroom, but then one could equally wonder why the BBC is infested with Leftists or why the world of journalism is willing to admit to more than 90% support of Leftist political candidates and Leftist social causes. My guess is that a poll of Fox News employees would uncover the same overwhelming preponderance of Leftists. Given what we know about Leftists and their views of truth, diversity and objectivity, we cannot expect any honesty in news and entertainment. This is a new ruling class at work!
A WSJ/NBC news poll this week trumpeted Hilary’s increasing lead over not only Obama and Edwards, but Giuliani, too. Given what I have written above about the Journal and indeed all major news and entertainment outlets, opinion polls requested by them should be treated with extreme caution and they are often produced not as genuine news, but in order to create a climate of opinion. The more polls that are commissioned to pump out this stuff, the more likely it is that the Media Class is getting worried about Obama’s appeal, especially to Democrat primary voters in the early-voting states. My money is still on Hillary for she has the backing of the Media Class, both a decisive force for concealed and unrelenting propaganda and for disposable wealth. For the record, I predict that if Obama is willing to run as Hillary’s VP candidate and not expect more than a walk-on role, this is a dream ticket for the Media Class and its agenda. It is not going to happen the other way around, of course, for Hillary will not play second fiddle again. She did her time with Bill!
To upset the Hillary march to the Presidency, it will take one of two things. Either a clear US victory over the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, so clear that even the Media cannot disguise it, or the emergence of a charismatic Hollywood conservative, (without even the smallest skeleton in his cupboard) who recognizes that the Media Class is the real enemy and by-passes it to talk to the American people direct. Unfortunately Reagan is long dead and none of the current Republican hopefuls have what it takes. I suppose a terrible Islamic attack in the US would throw all balls in the air, but who knows how the Media would re-arrange them before they fell to earth?