The business press, I have to say, has done a terrific job vetting News Corp. and Rupert Murdoch as potential owners of the nation’s leading financial organ, The Wall Street Journal. The press rightly understands a broader community interest in an independent, sophisticated and courageous sentinal of corporate behavior, the financial markets, and regulators, not to mention human rights in China.
Information is the lifeblood of markets. Decision-makers, and that includes executives, public officials, investors, consumers, depositors, policyholders, voters—that is to say, all of us—can’t make decisions in a market economy and free society without it.
So hats off to Slate’s Jack Shafer, who wrote well, often and early and I think sharpened others’ thinking; along with the Journal itself; The New York Times, especially for its recent two-day series on Murdoch’s past; The New Yorker for turning around a fine Ken Auletta piece (that mentions The Audit!) in a relative hurry; and, for that matter, us.
Thumbs down to the New York Daily News and everybody else who imputed bad faith to news organizations publishing information about News Corp.’s past misuse of its own news pages to further corporate interests, and about Murdoch’s personal dishonesty. To call the Times series some kind of corporate hit job says a lot more about the Daily News than it does the Times. Imputing bad faith without any basis is something that surprised me even from News Corp. Since when did journalists start opposing journalism?
Reading over the excellent work of the past few weeks it becomes clear that one reason a News Corp.-owned paper can’t cover the story of U.S. business is that News Corp. is the story of U.S. business at the beginning of the 21st century.
The meta-business story of our age, as I see it, is how big business—not business in general, but the biggest actors—have used their growing wealth to improperly influence government to distort markets to their advantage, eroding trust in markets themselves. We’ll get into it in another post, but I don’t think I’m the only one who detects this phenomenon in insurance, financial services, the nuclear industry, real estate development, pharmaceuticals, meat-packing, mining and other industries.
Sure, that’s not the only business story. Globalization, economic polarization, the end of cheap money, the bubble in asset values—those are all important. But it is an important story, and one News Corp. is quite incapable of covering because, again, that’s what it does: It improperly influences governments to gain an advantage over other actors unwilling to do the wrong thing.
The backdrop to my meta-story is the dismantling of market regulation that began under Reagan, a theoretically reasonable idea gone far too far. With Congress compliant, the Justice Department compromised, regulators captive and a Supreme Court under big actors’ sway, there is a danger of creating an upside-down meritocracy in which not the best, but the worst actors thrive. Any Wall Streeter will tell you: bad money drives out the good.
Think about it: Many media companies might want favors from the Chinese government, but only one is willing to:
—“Publish” a biography of mostly recycled propaganda of Deng Xiaoping written by his daughter;
—“Befriend” the son of President Jiang during a $150 million Murdoch investment spree on mostly failed Chinese internet ventures;
—“Recruit” the son of Ding Guangen, a government propaganda chief, as a “partner” in a venture that allowed News Corp. to become, for a while, a “backdoor national broadcaster” in China.
The reason I put those verbs in quotes is because that’s the language the Times uses in its brilliant piece on News Corp. in China by Joseph Kahn.
Audit Readers, those are all euphemisms for “paid.” That is, News Corp. paid relatives of government officials in a position to influence official decisions of direct concern to News Corp. And if you don’t think that story took skill and guts to do, from Kahn all the way up to the general counsel, it is safe to say you’ve never done one of those.
But why worry about China? That’s far.
How about a company that: