I find it almost amusing to see reports about Rupert Murdoch’s takeover of the Wall Street Journal asking “whether” he’ll ruin the respected newspaper. It’s funny, of course, because the answer should be obvious — of course he’ll ruin it; it’s a matter of “when,” not “if.” He’s turned every newspaper he’s ever owned into a joke, and by all accounts, he plans to do the same to the WSJ.
In light of the news, I thought I’d remind folks about an item from two months ago, when the Journal ran a provocative item reminding people of Murdoch’s history.
A detailed examination of Mr. Murdoch’s half-century career as a journalist and businessman shows that his newspapers and other media outlets have made coverage decisions that advanced the interests of his sprawling media conglomerate, News Corp. In the process, Mr. Murdoch has blurred a line that exists at many other U.S. media companies between business and news sides — a line intended to keep the business and political interests of owners from influencing the presentation of news. […]
At all newspapers, owners have a say in broad editorial direction. Mr. Murdoch has a long history of being unusually aggressive, reflecting his roots as an old-fashioned press baron. From his earliest days, like some other newspaper proprietors of the last century, he ran his companies with his hands directly on the daily product, peppering reporters and editors with suggestions and criticisms. […]
He said that if he buys the Journal, “I’d love to wander around….I think people quite like it if I show interest in their work.” He added: “I can’t put $5 billion of my shareholders’ money and not be able to run the business.”
That sigh of sadness you hear is coming from the newsroom of one of the nation’s most venerated news outlets.
WSJ publisher L. Gordon Crovitz assures readers this morning that a) Murdoch won’t interfere with the paper’s integrity; b) the success of the paper depends on its credibility which Murdoch wouldn’t want to undermine; and c) the Journal’s bread and butter are financial reports, which apparently Murdoch couldn’t screw up if he wanted to.
The first two aren’t persuasive. As Slate’s Jack Shafer noted, “Murdoch loves to make promises but loves even more to break them.” And on the third, I’m afraid Crovitz is missing the point.
The Journal, despite its painfully embarrassing editorial board, frequently does excellent political journalism. That is, at least it used to. As Jonathan Chait put it:
If you want to learn about business lobbying or the details of a tax bill, there’s no better source. The commitment of the Journal’s newswriters to fair political reporting routinely infuriates the rabid partisans of the editorial page.
This is where I fear Murdoch’s meddling. I don’t really think Murdoch’s Journal will start passing on bogus financial reporting in order to benefit insider traders. I do suspect its political coverage will start slanting Republican, the way political coverage does at every Murdoch-owned news outlet. Crovitz writes, “we consider the integrity of business and financial journalism to be even more important than for many forms of general-interest news.” That isn’t what I wanted to hear.
Nor I. One can only hope the credible, responsible journalists in the newsroom — Jackie Calmes, I’m looking at you — are able to make the transition to an outlet that Murdoch doesn’t own.
A few other angles to consider:
* Eric Alterman: When the WSJ falls apart, at least it will take its editorial page down with it.
* Eric Boehlert: What the sale means in relation to the upcoming Fox News financial network.
* Shafer: “It takes decades for a newspaper to establish its good reputation. Murdoch will show the world how little time it takes to trash it.”
Rupert Murdoch has been one of the most destructive forces in U.S. journalism in a generation. That he’s set to destroy one of the handful of national newspapers we have in this country is a disappointing setback for the free press.