It’s been hard to watch The Wall Street Journal, still the global business-news leader, struggling with both hands tied behind its back to cover the incredible scandal now engulfing its parent.
The News of the World debacle—a five-alarm business story if there ever was one—is the acid test of my old paper’s independence. Of course, it’s not going well. This is a story it should be leading on, and, but for a certain feckless family that decided to go for the gold a few years ago, it would be.
If the phone-hacking scandal at the WSJ’s erstwhile sister paper (how does that sound?) was only about an *entire newsroom* gone out-of-control—paying cops for scoops, hacking phones of missing children and dead soldiers’ families—that in itself is flood-the-zone material.
But then its media parent just up and closes the thing down after 168 years? Just shutters it, tossing 2.6 million readers to the four winds?
We’re looking at a story that not only exposed rampant corruption and cover-ups at the highest levels of London’s Metropolitan police and ties between media executives and high government officials; this story hasn’t just jeopardized a crucially important merger; it has shaken the British government, and threatens the inner circle one of the world’s most powerful and influential media companies.
Indeed, the story is creeping toward U.S. shores and the CEO of Dow Jones, Les Hinton. (If you want to know what’s happening, obviously go to the Guardian.)
The Journal’s aversion to this story has been clear for a couple of years now. After the Guardian uncorked one of its more explosive stories back in 2009—that News Corp. executives had being buying the silence of hacking victims—the Journal offered only “British Tabloids Face Scrutiny By Government on Privacy Issues”. No, these were your British tabloids (the other named was the Sun, another WSJ, um, sister paper.
Last week, when the Guardian’s Milly Dowler blockbuster tore open the story yet again, Ryan Chittum noted that the paper gave it all of 349 words under the headline “U.K. Tabloid Accused of Hacking Girl’s Phone.” Oh, those pesky U.K. tabloids.
By Wednesday—after the news dam had broken, and we learned that families of terror attacks and dead soldiers had been hacked, the prime minister’s former press secretary had approved bribes to police, etc., etc. (round up here)—the Journal had mustered a story onto B1. Chittum called it a fair story, fairly reported. Okay. And on Friday, the story made page one: “Tabloid to Close Amid Scandal.” We should be grateful, I suppose, but that day, it was literally impossible to keep the story off the front page.
Then, a lost weekend.
In my Saturday print edition, the paper puts stories—well executed, but basic—on page A9. Sorry, no.
And on Sunday, well the story didn’t even get a decent burial.
And here’s what the WSJ’s U.S. home page looked liked most of the day (this around 6 p.m).
The link, by the way, was to an AP wire story, later upgraded.
Here’s what Sky News had at the same time:
World War III. That news operation is still 61 percent independent. See the difference, you British regulators over there?
And no, this is not just a media story, journos writing about other journos. It’s not just a U.K. story, if that’s what senior editors believe. No way.
Remember, this is an editorial leadership that, as we’ve noted, has decided to set the staff chasing scoops, where even seconds count, like there’s no tomorrow. It live-blogs the opening ceremonies of the Winter Olympics, with seven reporters no less.
Indeed, in the past, some of the most incisive stories about News Corp. were published by none other than The Wall Street Journal, most famously in 2000, a devastating page-one story on how Wendi Deng got to be Mrs. Murdoch* (no link available for now; I’ll try to find one. Jack Shafer discussed the story back in 2007).
The NotW coverage is so obviously hamstrung, and far, far below the paper’s true capacity. That’s too bad. I know that more coverage is planned. Perhaps there’s a leder in the works.
Why berate the Bancroft and Cox families for "going for the gold"? They owned the paper and they sold it. I don't see Starkman surrendering his pay check because it might make him feel good.
#1 Posted by Mike Robbins, CJR on Tue 12 Jul 2011 at 11:23 AM
Mike,
The Bancrofts held special "b" shares that gave them control (for which they paid nothing; just because they were Clarence Barron's great-great-step whatevers) and were created for the sole purpose of insulating the paper's journalism, which is expensive, from unwanted suitors, of which there were many many over the years. Instead, it was the worst of all worlds. They demanded outsized dividends, leaving the company dead in the water for years, then sold in a cloud of panic and confusion. It was an irresponsible use of special privileges.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/whats_good_for_the_bancrofts_i.php
#2 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Tue 12 Jul 2011 at 02:39 PM
Murdoch = Predator?
No telling where you stood on the WSJ deal, was there Dean?
I suppose that explains the grave dancing, now...
You liberals fancy yourselves entitled to decide what other people should do with their money or property.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 12 Jul 2011 at 07:51 PM
When they start treating our government and our country as their personal playground, you bet your axx we will tell them what to do. This is known as democracy. I gather you are unfamiliar with the concept. Perhaps you should brush up on your history, for those who are as ignorant as you are are doomed to repeat all the worst mistakes.
#4 Posted by Max, CJR on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 03:48 PM
B shares! B shares!!!!
#5 Posted by Dean Starkman, CJR on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 04:38 PM
So somebody created a preferred class of stock and doled it out to relatives who then used the shares to make money in the manner of their own choosing..
And so these people, in the opinion of liberals, mismanaged their property interest...
What gives liberals the right to tell private property owners how to manage their own property (A shares, B shares, C shares... whatever)?
You have a government that runs up a $15 TRILLION debt, a $1.5 TRILLION deficit, and you guys bitch about a private citizen cashing in on his own investment in they way he sees fit?
For real?
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 06:04 PM
padikiller: Please please think objectively think about where you get information from and who you're jumping to defend.
Bribing officials in another country (as an American company which News Corp is) is illegal under the corrupt foreign practices act. They've admitted (so far) to bribing police to cover up the voicemail hacking and bribing the staff who protect the British royal family (who are meant to be police of the highest order). They've also already admitted that they tried to bribe New York City police for personal information about 9/11 victims in 2001 and later. These are facts that News International have admitted so far. There's A LOT more to come.
And unauthorized access to the voicemail of a missing girl (later found dead) giving false hope to her family that she was still alive, hassling families suffering in some of the worst moments of their lives, hassling British war veterans/their families and all the other 4000 (seriously 4000 - and that's what they've acknowledged so far) is disgusting under any circumstances let alone by a press organization. And the fact that you're not getting wide coverage in certain major media outlets should be telling you a lot.
And I suspect we're about to find out that what News Corps brands have been up to will pale in comparison to what Roger Ailes (remember his political advisory history prior to media!!!) has authorized in the US with Fox News itself.
But this isn't a right vs. left thing. This isn't an attack on Fox News (although it's going to turn into that). This is about democracy. All of us. Right and left. Truth and justice HAS to prevail or it just reinforces that the law doesn't apply equally to all of us.
This is only just beginning. News Corp has been up to the same shenanigans in Australia too (I'm a US ex-pat living there) and the investigations have already started. There's no doubt this will spread. Padikiller I'm not picking on your beliefs (this time :-). At some point a line has to be drawn.
#7 Posted by some guy, CJR on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 09:10 PM
@some guy:
What does your comment have to do with the Bancroft family selling out the WSJ?
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 11:43 PM
"What gives liberals the right to tell private property owners how to manage their own property (A shares, B shares, C shares... whatever)?"
Freedom of speech, morons. You against the expression of opinion now? Such sensitive little souls.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 14 Jul 2011 at 01:50 AM
@Thimbles, playing semantics...
Let me rephrase... "What gives liberals the right to compel private property owners in the management their own property (A shares, B shares, C shares... whatever)?"
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 14 Jul 2011 at 07:43 AM
Yay, let's play semantics!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compel
"–verb (used with object)
1. to force or drive, especially to a course of action: His disregard of the rules compels us to dismiss him.
2. to secure or bring about by force.
3.to force to submit; subdue."
The Bancrofts sold their shares. Nobody forced them to do anything. You are having a hissy fit because someone expressed their personal judgement, a right given by the constitution (to answer your dumb question).
If you are not going to bother learning the meaning of words, you shouldn't use them - in my opinion.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 14 Jul 2011 at 10:21 AM
Thimbles wrote: "You are having a hissy fit because someone (sic) expressed their (sic) personal judgement (sic), a right given by the constitution(sic) (to answer your dumb question).
padikiller responds: As long as we're in agreement that there is no right to interfere with the property rights of others... We're on the same page, Thimbo!
And if you are going to quibble over the definition of words... You should learn a little about singular/plural agreement, spelling, and capitalization, don't you think?
"Glass houses", and all, right?.....
#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 14 Jul 2011 at 04:08 PM
There's a reason why people use 'their' with 'someone'. Someone is ambiguous to sex and the sexless pronoun 'its' doesn't work with people, so some people naturally prefer to use 'their' as their sex ambiguous possessive. Normally I take care not to use singular sex ambiguous articles, but I wanted ito make clear I was defending Dean Starkman's right to an opinion, not the opinion itself. By the by, a group of people can make a single judgement in agreement.
Sorry Dean, I don't know you so you're sexually ambiguous to me. :)
But yeah, I suppose if you want to label a grammar error the same in significance as your factual ones (Starkman wasn't asserting control like you accused) then you get a point. OOooooo.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 14 Jul 2011 at 07:01 PM
Thimles digs a hole: "There's a reason why people use 'their' with 'someone'. Someone is ambiguous to sex and the sexless pronoun 'its' doesn't work with people, so some people naturally prefer to use 'their' as their sex ambiguous possessive."
padikiller responds: Thimbo... How is the word "someone" more "sexually ambiguous" than the word "their"?.. Huh? "They" can't refer to people of both sexes? Seriously? THIS is what you are claiming?
Of course not. You're just dancing you usual Liberal Two Step... As usual. And it's fun to watch - better than the circus!
Dance on, Brother Thimbles... But don't expect anyone to buy it.
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 14 Jul 2011 at 11:12 PM
Must everything, including typical grammatical mistakes be related to Liberal Conspiracy OooooOOOOooooo.
"Thimbo... How is the word "someone" more "sexually ambiguous" than the word "their"?.. Huh? "They" can't refer to people of both sexes? Seriously? THIS is what you are claiming?"
I was claiming that 'its' - the singular asexual possessive - doesn't apply to singular human beings as it does to singular TV sets. Therefore "someone expressed its personal judgement" sounds odder than "someone expressed their personal judgement" even though the former is more grammatically correct. Now maybe one could use this common error to write a paper on how the brain prizes semantics over syntax, but that isn't important to the subject discussed here.
Our discussion is how paddy appears to be as nazi-like about opinions as he is about grammar. You believe liberals do not have the right to express opinions about how an owner treats his property and condemned Mr/Ms Starkman for doing so.
You claim:
"As long as we're in agreement that there is no right to interfere with the property rights of others... We're on the same page, Thimbo!"
but in practical R-E-A-L-I-T-Y you sanction people's opinion and question their constitutional right to speak their minds. I suspect you goose step your way to work, sir.
Shame on you.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 15 Jul 2011 at 01:44 AM
This is the worst form of debating and trivializing of a serious issue that I have seen in years!
The issue here is whether a sibling (WSJ) can call the other sibling (NotW, Sun et al) bad if dad has complete control on the household. I would love to hear if any one has some suggestions on that...
I also believe that it might be the opportunity for the government to enact a law that forbids takeovers of media houses, so that only organically grown media houses can florish. This one step would give us a lot of dissenting voices so essential to protecting democratic values...
#16 Posted by Man Ish, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 05:48 AM
This is the worst form of debating and trivializing of a serious issue that I have seen in years!
The issue here is whether a sibling (WSJ) can call the other sibling (NotW, Sun et al) bad if dad has complete control on the household. I would love to hear if any one has some suggestions on that...
I also believe that it might be the opportunity for the government to enact a law that forbids takeovers of media houses, so that only organically grown media houses can florish. This one step would give us a lot of dissenting voices so essential to protect democratic values...
#17 Posted by Man Ish, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 05:49 AM
"World War III. That news operation is still 61 percent independent. See the difference, you British regulators over there?"
Here's the question I think you have to ask yourself. Does, say, the SEC actually want it's, erm, sister regulatory body, the FCC, regulating communications and media in a way that enables journalists with professional standards to report on regulatory bodies like the SEC?--to say nothing of reporting on the US government itself and the politicians and the courts that make the laws that govern regulation in the first place.
Which is to say, that we've seen from the financial crisis that US regulatory bodies, Congress, the Presidency, and the Court are not regulating (or prosecuting) the perpetrators of mass financial crime. This is true DESPITE an attempt at reasonable press coverage.
One of the most interesting things about this in the UK is the weird co-dependent relationship between the Murdoch press and the UK politicians that the Murdoch press attacks. Which is probably a little like having Goldman Sachs alumni perched like vultures all over the Executive branch of the US government that includes (conveniently enough) the US treasury itself.
I would like nothing more than for News Corp to be treated as a damaging monopolistic entity and for its US pieces to be broken up and sold off. But it strikes me that News Corp--and media concentration more broadly-- is only one small part of the the bigger problem of the subversion of national governments by highly concentrated wealth.
It doesn't seem to me that the Fourth Estate is able to function as it should in a democracy because the US government itself is deeply captured, even should the Fourth Estate clean up its own act.
#18 Posted by JTFaraday, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 07:00 AM