MURDOCH TWITTER New York Post Biden laptop row

Quite an extraordinary story.

The USA press makes claims to be neutral and objective. Generally. And then...there's the Murdoch press, specifically the gutter tabloid New York Post - subject of a Public Enemy song decrying it as 'bullshit'.

Like The S*n, the Post is avowedly the voice of its owner - again, something the US press generally claims to outlaw. Murdoch did of course sign a legal document agreeing to NOT influence the editorial direction of The Times when he was dubiously allowed to buy it (the supportive role of Thatcher has recently been revealed after the decades-long Official Secrets Act block was lifted on government papers from the time). Some chance.

Jeff Bezos, Washington Post owner (having a great covid crisis as Amazon owner, unlike his factory workers) is a favourite Trump target for his perceived liberal bias and impact on that august paper, part of the trio of local-but-national brands that dominate the US quality press with the Christian Science Monitor and New York Times.

Back to the Post. Their Twitter account was suspended for publishing what Twitter deemed fake news using hacked materials: the tale of Joe Biden's son. A favourite Trump trope - for which he faced impeachment for having misused his office.

Then Twitter owner Jack Dorsey faced a spittle-flying Senate Committee hearing, the Republicans on which were brandishing rhetorical pitchforks as they, tongue not in cheek, accused him of undermining American democracy. Presumably stopping the Post from reporting on the dubious Supreme Court confirmation, the attempts to weaken the US Postal Service to undermine postal voting, the POTUS posturing that he wouldn't accept an election defeat as legitimate or leave peacefully, the constant attacks on journalists....etc...

And lo, the Post was free once more, just before the election, to spread it's Fox News style objective reportage.

At least these things are somewhat out in the open in the USA. Unlike the UK - where PM Cameron blocked the Leveson Inquiry from its planned second stage investigation into the links between press and police plus politicians. Twitter arguably remains a much more powerful and influential press regulator than IPSO. And press (concentration of/billionaire) ownership remains a matter ignored by the supposed UK press 'regulator'.

Guardian article Oct 2020

Sidenote: The Public Enemy song I mentioned really doesn't hold up well to today's values. Singer and main lyricist Chuck D continues to be an active, activist voice on Twitter - and sacked Flavor Flav, singer and inspiration for that song, in March 2020 after a row about Chuck D appearing at a Bernie Sanders rally. See NY Times report.

This article is also useful context: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/30/is-america-a-democracy-us-election-fight-to-vote

MURDOCH CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP AND FLAK

NOV 2020 MURDOCH GRIP ON AUSTRALIA TIGHTENS

Guardian.

I've read a lot of books on Rupert Murdoch - and would suggest anyone interested in business would enjoy doing the same. Some might argue against calling him a business genius (I think he is) but at minimum he's a seriously smart, successful businessman.

He took shareholdings in two Australian newspapers left by his father and built that up into one of the biggest global media empires. He has now sold off big chunks of that but has kept the news side of it: Fox News and 100s of newspapers (plus book publishers) across the globe. 

This gives him considerable political power and influence, though there is much doubt if any of his sons or daughter will quite follow in his footsteps - with James Murdoch shockingly quitting the Murdoch media empire over what he described as the misinformation spread by his father's media outlets.

I'll gather here some resources on this specific topic, the Murdoch empire and the more general point about concentration of ownership - which of course is one the five filters in Chomsky's propaganda model. The fact that the UKs voluntary self-regulator for the press, IPSO (and its various predecessors), doesn't consider that part of its remit is a good example of Murdoch power.

In the aftermath of the phone hacking scandal, and the advertiser boycott fuelled by furious public opinion in the UK (these online campaigns are a great example of web 2.0 as an alternative source of regulation, and the failure of existing regulation - the PCC actually CONDEMNED The Guardian for reporting the story!!!), the Conservative government was forced to set up the Leveson Inquiry. A senior judge would investigate the story of phone hacking and wider malpractice within the press industry, and present his recommendations to Parliament.

He was also meant to go on to investigate the links between the press and police, and press and politicians - but PM David Cameron blocked this, despite Labour, Lib Dems, SNP all being in favour of this. He also rejected most of Leveson's recommendations, especially creating a semi-statutory new regulator run through the Privy Council, not a law passed by Parliament.

At the Leveson Inquiry the likes of ex-PM Gordon Brown would give extraordinary testimony, under oath, of how he'd been bullied and threatened by the Murdoch press - while press owners like Richard Desmond would give quite shocking testimony themselves - the famous "ethics, what are ethics" response.

Here's a start then, a report on the attempt of former Australian Labor Party PM Kevin Rudd (a fairly Blairite figure who sought to make friends with the Murdoch press just as Blair did in 1996) to force a legal inquiry into Murdoch's press monopoly (70% of Aussie newspaper circulation!) down under. The source is of course biased, as most press reports are, being from the centre-left Guardian.

. “Any Labor leader is mindful of the fact that the Murdochs will be out to take you down. Your job as leader is to try and maximise something approaching balanced coverage. That’s a really difficult thing to do … to work to ensure that our narrative is covered rather than simply ridiculed as a matter of ideological politics.” 

 Guardian, Oct 2020.