You can't be serious. So it's Murdoch the crusading principled journalist and light of the world against the "left-wing bigots" of the New York Times?

Really, what rock did you crawl out from under? Journalists are opposing Murdoch's planned seizure of the Wall St Journal because the man has a record in ruthlessly compromising the editorial independence of publications under his wing to pursue his dubious business and political agendas.

Have you read The Australian lately? This is a publication which has given up any pretence of even-handedness and the separation of news from unadulterated opinion and spin. In the US, Murdoch's Fox 'news' channel sets new low standards every day in twisting its 'coverage' of politics to suit its blinkered view of the universe.

Anyone who has spent any time working in the media knows that Murdoch's media minions check their principles of editorial independence in at the door when they work for him

Thanks, Mr Dinmore. Very well put.

I had something to say on this in a brief article entitled "The Australian's white-anting of Australian democracy continues" at:

http://candobetter.org/node/48

Like Mr Denmore, I was amused that Jonathan Ariel could imagine anyone would take his piece seriously. I had not come across him before, so I Googled him: very interesting stuff, led me to some(for me) new websites, to which I will certainly return.

Hi Johntas

Regarding your googling of me, please note that while I share the same name as a 'veteran' journalist (called 'Jonathan Ariel', who has published widely on western civilization and the Middle East, I am not he.

I am too young to be considered a 'veteran' and my background is in economics and finance.

Thanks

Noted, Jonathan. I wondered, since your namesake clearly shares Mr Murdoch's involvement or interest in American Israel issues.

ahahaha

What a brilliant piece of satire :)

...it WAS satire wasn't it? :/

I find it ironic that the writer spends most of the article espousing the evil 'left wing' media's inadequacies, then casually defends FOX News as a an innocent 'alternative to the left wing views that contaminate'. I'm very sorry. Have you ever watched Fox News? If it wasn't so dangerous it would be funny. It is devoid of journalistic integrity. It has been demonstrated time and time again that they are blatantly - often intentionally - liberal with the truth; hiding lies and manipulation behind 'opinion' based segments and shows. They pedal in sensationalist crap. The evidence is out there if you care to look for it Jonathan.

The rest of the media only looks 'left wing' in comparison because the Murdoch Press is so far right. What you refer to as 'left wing' is more often than not, coming from the centre of the political spectrum. Stick to the economics Jonathan. Leave the more 'analytical' ventures to people who are actually willing to do it properly :)

Just to add to my previous comment, and possibly to give the writer of this article some interesting reading:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

Here is an independent report that found that a significantly higher per centage of viewers who predominantly watched Fox News before and after the Iraq war were found to have held strong misconceptions about it.

I wonder why the hell that is Jonathan?

The idea of "Murdoch=bad=rightwing" is no different from "Fairfax=bad=leftwing"

TODAYS HEADLINES

The Australian. "Union Blitz delivers $15 Billion"

The AGE. "Canberra to Sieze control of Murray"

I mean..duh... think about it.. BOTH sides of the media are biased and self interested in promoting the party they see as fit to govern.

The thing which amazes me is that when Newscorp demonstrate their bias, they are 'running dogs of right wing capitalist pigs' (words to that impact) but when Fairfax turn John Howard into a predatorial rodent pariah..it is 'sound and thoughtful journalism' or words of that impact.

GIVE me a break. I wasn't born yesterday and I hope most other Australians were not also.

If a dum dum like me can see this stuff... surely most other Aussies can also, and further, I can't see why the 'left' becomes so hysterical about some media bias when they have their own pet media moghul in Fairfax.

Fortunately for us, we have always the Bible, the message of which can liberate us from blind following of one side or the other, and can introduce us to Jesus Christ, who gives us true freedom, and liberty.

My heart sank as I read your article Jonathan Ariel. Fortunately my faith in the steady awakening to crooks like Murdoch was restored quickly when I read the comments this article has attracted.
You seem to think that Rupert should be left in peace to enjoy the victories of the brave business wars he has fought against his contemporaries…and ‘won’. Worse, you seem to think he should be cheered along as he endeavours to extend his web of influence.
The mass media is not simply a business in which the players fight vigorously for the attention of the consuming public – filling the demand with supply. No, no, Jonathan. There is something much more important than money at play here. We are talking human lives, the development (or destruction) of entire nations. Illegal wars… and the list goes on.
As any journalist knows, the media carries with it a serious responsibility. People form their local, national and international view points from information they receive via the media.
You might be the only person who reads this site that has not heard the news. PEOPLE ACTUALLY KNOW LESS IF THEY WATCH FOX!
To brush aside Murdoch’s crimes against information, and suggest his detractors must be left wing extremists or jealous, does nothing but highlight your own cognitive deficiencies – not to mention your thinly veiled political and religious bigotry.
Towards the end of your piece, Jonathan, you announce that: ‘Rupert Murdoch like all media moguls has a track record. But on balance his influence has been positive: apart from the occasional lapse, such as his support for one E.G. Whitlam. But let’s not dwell on his (Rupert’s) youthful exuberance.’
Were you serious here? Or was this a well disguised piece of satire?
Fox news’ declaration that they present ‘Fair and Balanced’ stories does not necessarily make it so. You should be careful who you believe, Jonathan. Surely the ‘Fair and Balanced’ slogan is the world’s greatest example of irony

Agree with Mr Denmore. The standard criticism of Murdoch is that he exerts tight editorial control over his journallists. He proudly admits that prime ministers fall when his papers remove their support.

The American media is very critical of the right wing focus of Fox News which has strong appeal to the fundamental Christians in our midst.

So Jonathan Ariel Junior is making a name for himself being more right wing than his name sake.

i have on three occasions been involved in small newspaper stories with no political content. all three were misreported or edited into inaccuracy. i expect stories involving money or politics are even less likely to have any connection with reality. i don't expect or require accuracy, just another opinion to balance many others.

don't sneer at murdoch- he's in the newspaper business to make money, not to satisfy your curiosity. it's a business, not a public service. he does it very well, i admire his business sense. his newspapers are pretty useless, but the cure is simple.

Of course it was satire Stabinthedark. I laughed too. Even Boazy thought it amusing. Most of us can determine 'left' wing or 'right' wing bias. The majority of the population probably sits nicely in the centre, with'leftish' on some things, 'rightish' on others.

The real issue of course is that the reporting of news and well articulated opinions from both political spectrums are essential for a healthy democracy with citizens who can participate as intelligently and as well informed as possible.

This is just not possible when the majority of news and opinions come from a single commercial source with a dominant owner. For that reason alone he should be curtailed in his acquisitions.

Rupert has never made any secret of where he stands politically or that he might influence his editors, so I don't understand the indignant huffing and puffing of his cheer squad.

Rupert is not an Australian. His commercial interests are so important to him that he became an American citizen. Any principles are held only while they are of financial benefit.

"even Boazy" ? :)

grr..thanx...I think ^_-

cheers Yvonne...

What a long bow you can draw. Any debate regarding the dissemination of information to the public should always be welcomed. Do you remember that lefty George Orwell and big brother ?
I wonder how that far rightist Hitler(and you drew that bow) would have gone as a media mogul.
Balance by necessity and not by market forces is what media needs for democracy to function.

Dear Folk,
The "New York Times" and the "Washington Post" should beware the angry Rupert. They will find themselves as his possessions, if they are not careful.
In the media, hell hath no fury like the Rupert scorned. Yes, he does set the tone of his media, wake up folks, he owns it. He did not get to be who he is by letting all and sundry run the media he owns. What Rupert says go's. No correspondence is entered into, you toe Ruperts line or else.
Another point to be remembered, Rupert is an American citizen, his use of his own country's political system to his benefit, makes him no better or worse than any American media organisation.
rargrunt
32 years experience in Australian Publishing