Our Dark Lord Murdoch
Predicts a future for ink-stained wretches like me … as long as we wipe clean the wretched stain of ink and purge our ranks of Ratherites and Obamist lickspittle, something like that. CNET:
With newspapers cutting back and predictions of even worse times ahead, Rupert Murdoch said the profession may still have a bright future if it can shake free of reporters and editors who he said have forfeited the trust and loyalty of their readers.
“My summary of the way some of the established media has responded to the internet is this: it’s not newspapers that might become obsolete. It’s some of the editors, reporters, and proprietors who are forgetting a newspaper’s most precious asset: the bond with its readers,” said Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive officer of News Corp. He made his remarks as part of a lecture series sponsored by the Australian Broadcast Corporation.
…
“The complacency stems from having enjoyed a monopoly–and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted. The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception.”
Well, that sounds easy. As a tabloid-American formerly in the Great One’s employ, now serving his erstwhile protege, it has been my honor and privilege lo these many years to compete like a bastard for the audience others have taken for granted.
“It used to be that a handful of editors could decide what was news-and what was not. They acted as sort of demigods. If they ran a story, it became news. If they ignored an event, it never happened. Today editors are losing this power. The Internet, for example, provides access to thousands of new sources that cover things an editor might ignore. And if you aren’t satisfied with that, you can start up your own blog and cover and comment on the news yourself.”
Or, you can do both. Count me in. I hear and will slavishly obey the secret directives. Hey, check this out. Great minds think alike:
To make his point, Murdoch criticized the media reaction after bloggers debunked a ”60 Minutes” report by former CBS anchor, Dan Rather, that President Bush had evaded service during his days in the National Guard.
“Far from celebrating this citizen journalism, the establishment media reacted defensively. During an appearance on Fox News, a CBS executive attacked the bloggers in a statement that will go down in the annals of arrogance. ‘60 Minutes,’ he said, was a professional organization with ‘multiple layers of checks and balances.’ By contrast, he dismissed the blogger as ‘a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.’ But eventually it was the guys sitting in their pajamas who forced Mr. Rather and his producer to resign.
“Mr. Rather and his defenders are not alone,” he continued. “A recent American study reported that many editors and reporters simply do not trust their readers to make good decisions. Let’s be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves.”
What are the chances? The Rather-bashing instructions must have been beamed in this morning when I had the tinfoil helmet off. Anyway, all hail guys in their pajamas … and our Dark Lord Murdoch! davemartin456, translate my marching orders please. Only after hitting that Paypal button.
Topics: media
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:52 pm on Monday, November 17, 2008
4 Responses to “Our Dark Lord Murdoch”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
November 18th, 2008 at 6:56 am
I would like to think these mavens of the media were really on the ropes…but it seems to me they did a bang up job of helping Obama get elected.
November 18th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Yes, I fear they are going to become even more insufferable now after their big victory. Contempt for customers is somehow becoming acceptable in this crazy new world of ours. Hey, maybe it’s the New Brutalism!
I think probably we’ll be saddled with a strange mixture of news and infotainment for quite some time.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Excellent points on wiping ourselves clean of Ratherites and Obamist lickspittle.
But…
Do they apply to “reporters” and “editors” who conduct right-wing blogs in their spare time?
Or are we just worried about “liberals?”
Do they apply to media barons who decide to rewrite history and find, for example, that a report on G.W. Bush’s military record which accurately reports Bush’s malingering is “debunked” by a apparently faked documents used as supplementary material in the report (which accurately found that Bush effectively walked away from his National Guard committments)?
November 18th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Seriously, amused? Seriously? You really think that a report based on fraudulent documents, which were obtained under circumstances that would make a junior high school reporter think twice, let alone CBS with its “multiple layers of checks and balances,” doesn’t qualify as “debunked” when those documents are shown to be forgeries?
Those faked documents weren’t “supplementary material.” They were the heart of the hit piece on Bush. Without them, you would have had a muddled story about foggy recollections and missing records. Remember, a big part of the story was the allegation that Bush received preferential treatment in order to get into TexANG. This was based on a statement from Ben Barnes that he had made a call on Bush’s behalf, and that he was sure Bush had received preferential treatment. The fake documents were used to collaborate his accusation and make it indisputable. Barnes also said in the same interview that he had no way of knowing if his call made the difference, and that sometimes a call didn’t work, anyway. Strangely enough, that little bit of tape ended up on the cutting room floor.