Before he was promoted to his current role as chief executive officer of News Corp., Robert Thomson used his position at The Wall Street Journal to hobble the paper's reporting of the parent company's phone hacking scandal, according to a new book.
Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal is using the victory of conservative Tony Abbott in Australia's recent race for prime minister as a cautionary tale, warning American politicians to "beware the faddish politics of climate change." The warning, issued by an editorial board with a long history of misinforming the public on climate policy, comes on the heels of accusations that Abbott's victory was influenced by severe attacks on his opponent lobbed in the pages of Murdoch's Australian press empire.
Over the weekend, Australians elected Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott -- a man who has been compared to former American President George W. Bush -- to serve as the nation's 28th prime minister. Among other initiatives, Abbott intends to dismantle the country's fight against climate change, arguing that the science behind the phenomenon is "absolute crap."
In an editorial September 9, The Wall Street Journal attributed former PM Kevin Rudd's loss, and the overall defeat of the center-left Labor Party, to the party's push for a tax on carbon emissions and other "anticarbon policies." The Journal argued that Abbott successfully made the carbon tax a "political liability," and the editorial board used the opportunity to warn Republicans in the United States against going along with attempts to curb carbon emissions:
A carbon tax is one of those ideas that economists love to propose but that turn out to be lousy politics. If Republicans want to toy with the idea, they had better be prepared to eliminate the income or payroll tax along with it. Otherwise voters will figure out that the politicians are merely looking for one more way to tap into their incomes, in this case by raising their electricity and other energy bills.
Despite The Wall Street Journal's claim, voters were probably not sending a message about carbon policy. Only 37 percent of Australians support eliminating the carbon tax and replacing it with the policies of Abbott and the Coalition. The tax didn't even break voters' top three concerns, with those spots going to concerns about the economy, asylum seekers, and health care. In fact, most Australians think the country's climate policies should remain the same or stronger.
Instead, voter antipathy toward the center-left government may be rooted in an aversion to political hypocrisy and broken promises. Leaders of the Labor Party, including former PM Julia Gillard, previously promised there would be no carbon tax, then flipped on the issue and instated one any way. A reporter for The Guardian's Australian edition noted that the Labor Party was thrown out of power because for voters, it "became an issue of her [former PM's] credibility really rather than carbon pricing." The Journal did not see fit to include this important context in its editorial.
Australians will head to the polls tomorrow to decide whether or not to reelect Labor Party Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Rudd was not only forced to run against Tony Abbott of the Liberal Party, but also faced an avalanche of attacks from Rupert Murdoch, who used his newspapers to manipulate the election in such a heavy-handed way that even Roger Ailes and the Fox News editorial staff would blush.
The Hollywood Reporter noted:
Murdoch-owned papers, which control about 70 percent of the local market, have run covers featuring Rudd as a Nazi, as Col. Klink from Hogan's Heroes and as Mr. Rude from the Mr. Men kids books. News Corp's Daily Telegraph in Sydney has dropped all pretense of impartiality, publishing a picture of Rudd under the headline, "Let's Kick This Mob Out!"
The election was so important to Murdoch that, according to Australian media, he decamped Col Allan from the New York Post halfway around the world to inject some of the metropolitan tabloid's hard edge into his Oz publications.
Murdoch's behavior was so over the top that the head of the Australian Press Council felt the need to step in. "Newspapers that profess to inform the community about its political and social affairs are under an obligation to present to the public a reasonably comprehensive and accurate account of public issues," said the group's chair Julian Disney. "As a result, the Council believes that it is essential that a clear distinction be drawn between reporting the facts and stating opinion. A paper's editorial viewpoints and its advocacy of them must be kept separate from its news columns."
Murdoch's power was so vast that when Getup.org, one of Australia's largest progressive grassroots organizations, decided to run an ad criticizing the mogul, it was banned from all major television networks in the country.
GetUp was told directly by some of the networks that "they're not running the ad because they don't want to criticize Rupert Murdoch."
The events happening halfway around the world should be at the forefront of our thoughts. With rumors swirling of Rupert Murdoch's desire to buy more large media properties in the United States, News Corp's interference in the Australian election serves as a reminder of the damage Murdoch could wreck in the U.S. as well. Fox News' abhorrent behavior in 2010 and 2012 is benign when compared to the pressure exerted in this year's Australian election.
A CNBC reporter is under fire for using the phrase "chink in the armor" during a Tuesday discussion of Wendi Deng's pending divorce from News Corp and 21st Century Fox CEO Rupert Murdoch.
The comments by CNBC's Robert Frank drew a critical response from the Asian American Journalists Association, which condemned the statements as "offensive" and "inappropriate."
Discussing whether Deng's new lawyer might be able to gain her a share of the Murdoch family trusts during the divorce case, Frank stated on CNBC's Power Lunch: "I wonder, you know, Peter, what do you think the chink in the armor here might be? That's what [Deng's lawyer] is so good at, is finding a chink in the pre-nups and all these trusts. What do you think they may be looking for to get more out of this divorce?"
Deng is a Chinese-born American citizen. She and Rubert Murdoch married in 1999 and have two children together. In June, Rupert Murdoch filed for divorce.
Contacted by Media Matters, Bobby Caina Calvan, media watch chair for the Asian American Journalists Association, said after reviewing the video that Frank used "an unfortunate phrasing and people should know better in this day and age that a phrase like that, that I'm not going to repeat, is offensive to many of us."
Acknowledging that the statement may have been "spoken innocently" and could have been part of an "off-the-cuff question," Calvan nonetheless added that "we would like CNBC and Mr. Frank to realize that the words uttered on air today about an Asian-American in the news were inappropriate in any context." He further stated that the "phrase shouldn't have been used, it is a no-brainer."
Reached for comment, a CNBC spokesman said any offensive connotation was "totally unintentional," declining to offer any additional explanation.
Calvan said AAJA has reached out to CNBC and was willing to help the network identify "words that many of us feel are offensive."
Radio host Mark Levin attacked 21st Century Fox CEO Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Channel for "bias" in pro-immigration reform reporting, continuing to grow the divide between conservative talk radio hosts and the network.
On the July 15 edition of his radio show, Levin -- who has previously called the immigration reform bill a "disgusting disgrace" and a "crap sandwich" -- discussed a recent tweet by Murdoch, chairman and CEO of Fox News' parent company 21st Century Fox, that declared Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) was correct about the immigration reform effort and expressed support for the immigration reform bill. Levin then accused Fox News of biased reporting on immigration reform and accused "a number of hosts" who support immigration reform of not reading the bill:
This isn't the first time Levin has taken issue with what he referred to as "our favorite cable channel." On the July 12 edition of his show, Levin attacked Fox News contributor Karl Rove over his support for immigration reform saying, "you know what number Karl Rove never puts on that whiteboard? His win-loss percentage."
Earlier this month, both Levin and fellow conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh appeared on Fox, but neither was asked about immigration reform, despite their well-known outspokenness on the immigration reform effort. After Limbaugh's interview, he went on his radio show to criticize the network and claim that Fox wouldn't allow him to discuss the immigration reform effort. Yet, after walking back his comments, Limbaugh was allowed to speak on the topic during Fox News' The Five for almost ten minutes.
In addition to a conservative radio schism, conservatives in print media have also pitted themselves against one another over immigration, most recently between New York Times columnist David Brooks -- an immigration reform supporter -- and National Review's Rich Lowry and The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol, who wrote an op-ed calling on House Republicans to "[put] a stake through" comprehensive immigration reform.
Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of Fox News parent company 21st Century Fox, broke from Fox News hosts and contributors by tweeting support for the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill.
In a July 14 tweet, Murdoch called on House Speaker John Boehner to allow for his chamber to vote on the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform package. Boehner has previously committed not to bring the package up for a vote in the House:
A number of host and contributors of 21st Century Fox's subsidiary Fox News have expressed a view opposite of Murdoch's, either denouncing the Senate plan or calling for House Republican obstruction of any comprehensive immigration reform effort.
On the July 10 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity praised Boehner for not allowing the Senate bill to be voted on in the House, saying, "the decision by the leadership not to take the Senate bill is a good first step" to fixing the immigration system. He also advised that they take their time to get it right.
During the Hannity segment, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin offered her "qualified applause and praise" of Boehner's commitment to not bring the Senate bill up for a vote.
Additionally, Fox News contributors Laura Ingraham and Bill Kristol have both endorsed Republican obstruction of immigration reform efforts, claiming that any reconciliation of a potential House immigration reform bill and the Senate bill would be disastrous.
Other Fox News figures have staked out a different position, articulating support for the Senate's immigration reform effort. During the July 10 edition of his Fox News show, Bill O'Reilly explained that House Republicans killing the Senate immigration reform bill would "mean the chaotic status quo would remain and the Southern border would not be made more secure." And Fox News contributor Karl Rove said on Fox News Radio that while he doesn't think the Senate immigration reform bill is perfect, he wanted "the process to continue."
Like a boomerang from his Australian youth, the phone hacking and bribery scandal that Rupert Murdoch's been trying to outrun for two years keeps coming back to him.
The recent revelation that Murdoch was caught on tape privately acknowledging he was unsurprised to find his reporters were illegally paying off public officials for news tips and that he had no qualms with the practice, simply stands as the latest proof that Murdoch's career, and certainly his career in Britain, will be forever defined by the wayward lawbreaking that occurred under the Murdoch name at his London tabloids.
The criminal transgressions have never really been in doubt. What the embarrassing tape recording provides however is more evidence that Murdoch is not a man whose word can be trusted, and that he operates in an almost impenetrable sphere of hypocrisy.
It's that duplicity and lack of honor that creates such a strong stench of scandal; an odor that continues to follow Murdoch nearly two years to the week after the hacking story finally exploded worldwide in 2011.
Standing in stark contrast to his contrite admission of wrongdoing while testifying before Parliament in 2011 ("This is the most humble day of my life"), the secret recording captured Murdoch in a far more blustery mood, rallying his beleaguered Sun employees -- several key editors and reporters are currently facing charges -- by haranguing "incompetent" law enforcement for wasting its time with the News Corp. investigation.
"It's the biggest inquiry ever, over next to nothing," Murdoch told the assembled journalists in March, one of whom hit the record button when the boss started talked. (Murdoch's News Corp. has not questioned the authenticitiy of the tape.) The CEO also bragged that his company had stopped cooperating with law enforcement's investigation of News Corp.; an inquiry he labeled a "disgrace."
The bluster was alternately wrapped in the wallowing sense of victimization and persecution that has come to define Murdoch, as well as doubled as the hallmark for so many of his media proprieties. "I don't know of anybody, or anything, that did anything that wasn't being done across Fleet Street and wasn't the culture," said Murdoch, referring to London's ethically-challenged tabloid industry.
Fox News is campaigning for New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly as mayor of New York City, praising the potential Republican candidate and urging New Yorkers to "beg" Kelly to run.
Fox's push for Kelly as a mayoral candidate started with a May 20 interview with Kelly on Fox & Friends. During that interview, co-host Brian Kilmeade inquired whether or not Kelly was going to run for mayor, asking the Commissioner when he would make the decision. Kelly replied with laughter.
Days after the interview, News Corp CEO and Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch praised Kelly on Twitter. In one May 25 tweet, Murdoch claimed that Kelly was the "[o]nly hope of averting disaster for NY":
In another May 25 tweet, Murdoch praised Kelly as modest:
Following these tweets, during the May 29 Fox & Friends Kilmeade once again praised Kelly and claimed that New Yorkers should "come together and beg" Kelly to run. Kilmeade concluded that Kelly "has to run."
All of this praise comes amid speculation that Kelly is considering a campaign. A May 28 NBC New York affiliate blog post claimed that Kelly had not ruled out running, saying that "when pressed on whether he was ruling [a run for mayor] out, Kelly would only say: 'no plans.'" The blog post also noted that there had been rumors swirling about a Kelly candidacy since the last mayoral race.
Prefacing his comments by insisting he knows "how foreign affairs work," Glenn Beck on April 18 announced that his website, The Blaze, was breaking news about the Boston Marathon bombing: A Saudi national student on a student visa and was "absolutely involved" in the Patriot's Day blast was being deported by the U.S. government for security reasons.
Beck went further, claiming the student, or "dirt bag," as the host described him, was "possibly the ringleader" in the bombing that killed three people and injured more than one hundred, and the government was deliberately covering it up.
Beck urged listeners to spread the breaking news via Twitter and Facebook because, he warned, the mainstream media would ignore the revelation. But the right-wing media would pick up the slack. Fox News' Sean Hannity helped launch the story on April 17 and continued to fan it yesterday, claiming the student had previously "been involved with a terrorist or terror activity," while a swarm of right-wing sites pushed the paranoid tale.
By making his wild allegations, Beck was asking listeners to ignore the fact that law enforcement officials had previously, and repeatedly, denied earlier right-wing media claims that the Saudi student had been taken into "custody," or was in any way responsible for the blast.
Indeed, officials at Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security both soundly denied the story, explaining that there were two different Saudi nationals: one recovering in a Boston hospital who had witnessed and been injured in the explosions but was not a suspect, and another in ICE custody who was unrelated to the bombing investigation. Beck responded by calling for President Obama to be impeached for what he considered the sprawling government cover-up that now surrounded the student, Saudi Arabia and Al Qaeda.
So yeah, it was that kind of week for the right-wing media. It was a debacle.
In the same week that Pulitzer prizes were announced honoring the finest in American journalism, many in the far-right media worked to set news standards in mindless, awful behavior in the wake of the Boston attack.
Faced with covering the most important American terror news story in a decade, too many players opted to just make stuff up. Prompting witch hunts, they cast innocents as would-be killers and then couldn't be bothered with apologies.
Right before noon on April 16, the New York Post quietly surrendered and conceded its big scoop from the previous day, that 12 people had been killed by the Patriot's Day terrorist attack in Boston, could no longer be sustained.
The concession didn't come in the form of a correction or a clarification. (Rupert Murdoch's money-losing daily rarely bothers with such newsroom niceties). It simply appeared in a news story posted on the daily's website at 11:55 a.m., where any reference to 12 Boston victims was quietly dropped [emphasis added]:
The twin blasts killed at least three people and injured 176 -- including 17 in critical condition, authorities said today.
Four hours later, the Post reaffirmed that it had flushed its big scoop down the memory hole [emphasis added]:
A 29-year-old restaurant manager from suburban Boston and an 8-year-old boy from the city's Dorchester neighborhood were identified today as two of the three people killed in the Boston Marathon bombings.
But that wasn't all.
Right around 3 p.m. on April 16, the Post quietly conceded its other big scoop from the day before was wrong; its claim that a Saudi national student had been taken "into custody" by police, was tagged a "suspect". ("Suspect" was later amended to a "potential suspect.) That second embarrassing concession was announced on the daily's twitter feed:
Investigators rule out Saudi national as a suspect in Boston bombing after searching his apartment nyp.st/Zougoy-- New York Post (@nypost) April 16, 2013
It's not the most pressing question to ponder in the wake of the carnage that exploded in Boston, as authorities search for those responsible. But in terms of journalism and ethics and common sense, the Post's performance does make you wonder how a news organization, and even one owned by Rupert Murdoch, manages to get a story that wrong?
I understand it's the notoriously deceitful New York Post we're talking about. It's one thing to make stuff up about Democrats on behalf of the RNC while the Post proudly plays its role as cog in the Republican Noise Machine. But to completely botch, and so publicly, botch one of the biggest crime story in years?
If there's anything the Post, as a proud big-city tabloid, is supposed to be good at, it's big crime stories; working cop sources as well as sources buried deep inside the FBI and the federal government. The Post is supposed to be wired all across law enforcement, even if the breaking story unfolds in Boston.
So this debacle is bad; really bad. Even for the New York Post.
On the heels of its latest quarterly report showing a doubling profits, News Corp. is still reeling from the fallout from the phone hacking scandal as six former News of the World journalists were arrested on February 13 for allegedly intercepting voice mails. Two of those arrested are still employed at News Corp.
According to a February 13 Bloomberg article:
News Corp.'s phone-hacking scandal is widening after London police arrested six more former journalists at its now-defunct News of the World tabloid and uncovered a new conspiracy to intercept voice mail.
Three men and three women suspected of hacking phone messages in 2005 and 2006 were arrested today and some homes are being searched, the Metropolitan Police Service said in a statement. Two of the people arrested currently work at News Corp.'s other U.K. tabloid, the Sun, Britain's best-selling daily title.
News Corp. has settled about 200 civil phone-hacking lawsuits. It faces as many as 100 more as police continue to notify victims, lawyers said at a London court hearing last week.
At least 55 journalists have been arrested in the last two years in connection with the phone hacking investigation.
These arrests, the latest in a long string of arrests and charges for News Corp. employees, are a reminder that the media conglomerate is far from free of its ethical challenges. According to Bloomberg, lawyer Mark Lewis said, "It comes as no surprise that the lines of investigation are widening ... There is a lot further to go, and ultimately this is a problem that will continue to have reverberations at the top of News Corp."
The ongoing investigation hasn't stopped CEO Rupert Murdoch from exploring new business ventures or racking up billions in profits. News Corp. reported net profits of $2.4 billion in the last three months of 2012, mostly related to gains from cable TV and new channel acquisitions, effectively doubling its profits from the same period in 2011.
News Corp. has paid more than $340 million in costs related to the phone hacking scandal.
Last year, News Corp. announced plans to split the company into separate publishing and entertainment divisions. On a quarterly earnings call February 6, News Corp. executives said the planned separation was on track "to be completed in approximately one year from the date of announcement."
The Wall Street Journal published an editorial defending the latest report by StudentsFirst, an education reform group run by former Washington, D.C., schools superintendent Michelle Rhee, and failed to disclose the education interests of its parent company, News Corp., and its reported financial link to the advocacy organization.
In an editorial titled, "Where Failure Is a Virtue," the Journal is critical of Richard Zeiger, California's chief deputy superintendent, for making light of his state's "F" grade on the StudentsFirst report and calling it a "badge of honor." StudentsFirst ranked and graded each state's education policy on categories such as "value effective teachers" and "empower parents with information." California was one of 11 states to receive an "F." From the editorial:
Mr. Zeiger claimed to be elated by the failure. He called StudentsFirst "an organization that frankly makes its living by asserting that schools are failing," adding to the New York Times that "I would have been surprised if we had got anything else."
Mr. Zeiger is a factotum of the teachers unions that dominate California politics, so he naturally dislikes StudentsFirst because it advocates evaluating teachers based in part on student performance on standardized tests. Ms. Rhee and her reform group also want teacher evaluations to be made available to parents, among other policies to improve accountability. Unions don't like accountability.
In coming to Rhee's defense, the Journal failed to disclose links between News Corp. and the education reform industry. CEO Rupert Murdoch, who has expanded his media empire to include a digital education company, has reportedly donated to StudentsFirst. According to journalist Steve Brill's book Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America's Schools, Rhee "had gathered more than $100 million in donations or pledges from heavy hitters such as ... Rupert Murdoch." Fox News' Neil Cavuto has similarly reported that Murdoch is a StudentsFirst donor. Murdoch has also publicly supported Rhee in her advocacy efforts, reportedly calling her "a bona fide reformer."
In a New York magazine post, Gabriel Sherman pointed out that while Fox News resisted calls to discuss gun policy in the wake of the shooting at Newtown, Connecticut, Rupert Murdoch, the head of Fox's parent company, News Corp., was expressing support for more restrictive gun laws. Sherman noted that the difference between Fox's pro-gun history and Murdoch's call for action on gun control "highlights the growing chasm between Rupert Murdoch and [Fox News CEO Roger] Ailes":
Certainly Fox's decision to avoid widespread policy talk could be seen as an editorial impulse to keep the focus trained on the tragedy's human dimension. But Fox's coverage also highlights the growing chasm between Rupert Murdoch and Ailes. Gun culture is alive and well at Fox News. Roger Ailes and Sean Hannity are reportedly licensed to carry concealed handguns in New York City. Fox personality Eric Bolling is a vocal Second Amendment proponent on air. "Not only do they carry guns, they don't allow an honest debate on TV," a Fox News insider said. In the past, when Ailes has clashed with Murdoch on politics, Fox News's outsize profits have helped Ailes prevail. Earlier this fall, Ailes signed a new four-year contract, and he retains complete editorial control over the network.
A Fox News spokesperson declined to comment on Ailes's Second Amendment views.
While Ailes's network said it wasn't the right time to talk about legislation, Murdoch had no hesitation. Within hours of the attack, he took to Twitter to call for an automatic-weapons ban. "Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy," he wrote, referring to Australia's move to ban assault weapons in 1996 after a man used two semiautomatic rifles to kill 35 people and wound 21. That massacre came six weeks after the horrific mass school shooting in Dunblane, Scotland, in which sixteen children and one adult were murdered. (Despite Murdoch's plea, automatic weapons are already illegal in the United States; Adam Lanza used semiautomatics.)
Sherman further reported that the lack of gun policy coverage on Fox stemmed from an order from David Clark, executive vice president of Fox's weekend coverage, who reportedly instructed producers to avoid the subject. According to Sherman's sources within Fox, the decision not to address gun policy "created a rift inside the network."
Fox has a history of top-down orders to affect how news is reported on the network. Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon has attempted to slant Fox's coverage on everything from climate change to health care reform and influenced Fox's coverage of President Obama's 2009 Cairo speech on America's relationship to the Muslim world.
Two recent gun tragedies produced instant reaction within the world of Fox News. The fact that they were diametrically opposed suggests an internal conflict may be looming. Either that, or Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch has no idea what's being broadcast on his all-news channel in America.
In the wake of the Newtown, CT school massacre, the News Corp. chairman used his Twitter account to belittle politicians for their inaction on the issue of gun control and demanded to know when they will "find [the] courage to ban automatic weapons."
On Saturday, Murdoch took a swipe at the president: "Nice words from POTUS on shooting tragedy, but how about some bold leadership action?"
The irony here is that if Murdoch didn't own Fox News, Fox News hosts would denounce him for trying to "politicize" the Newtown shooting. That's what Murdoch's team did two weeks ago after NBC sportscaster Bob Costas spoke for 60 seconds during the halftime of an NFL game and addressed America's "gun culture" in the wake of Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher killing his girlfriend and then driving to the local football stadium and shooting himself in front of his coach.
The morning after his comments, Fox targeted Costas for a full-on barrage of criticism, denouncing him for having the audacity to broach the topic of gun violence. Costas was "kind of a coward" in the way he made his comments, which were possibly fueled by his own "political ambitions," according to Fox.
The message from Fox to Costas was unmistakable: Sit down and shut up about guns. But now, as Newtown prepares to bury 26 victims, Murdoch's lashing out at "politicians" and the "POTUS" for failing to lead on gun reform?
By going on Twitter and demanding Obama take action while Murdoch's highest profile property in the United States actively tries to silence debate about gun reform, the media baron either revealed himself to be a hypocrite of historic proportions, or clueless about Fox News' content. It's content that seems specifically designed to interfere with any attempt to have a rational conversation about guns. (Just ask Costas.)
Note to Murdoch: By all measures, your cable channel operates as an appendage to the National Rifle Association. Fox News has done more in the last four years to embrace and echo the NRA's paranoid, anti-Obama gun fantasies than any other national media outlet in America, such as Bill O'Reilly calling gun control advocates "totalitarians," Glenn Beck warning about a looming "ban on guns," and Dick Morris feeding right-wing fears about "back-door gun control" in America.
Here's a test of leadership for Rupert Murdoch: If you're truly concerned about gun violence in your adopted home country, then you should demand Fox News stop demonizing gun reform and stop championing fanatical, pro-gun paranoia.
If Murdoch wants to lead on the topic of gun reform, he has the media tools to do so. The question is, does he really care about America's crisis at hand?