There were several notable moments in the three-hour testimony of worldwide media-mogul Rupert Murdoch (b. 1931) and James Murdoch (his son) before a committee of the British Parliament today. As other commentators have already noted, the founder (Rupert) and the Chief Executive (James) of News Corporation came across as being largely divorced from the operations of their company. When asked why News Corp. paid the legal fees of an employee, who had pleaded guilty to phone-hacking (a felony), James Murdoch replied that he had been 'surprised' upon learning that fact. But why should he have been surprised?.
During the very same hearing, James' father actually gave the answer to that question. In response to criticism that he ought to have known about the egregious behavior carried out by his employees, Rupert stated that News of the World had represented less than 1% of his company's media empire. Hence, it was a blip on a radar screen that any executive would surely have missed. While possibly true, this statement reveals the Rupert Murdoch's view of the role of journalism in society. It is merely a business, a money-making opportunity - a source of lucrative profits for him, his family and the shareholders in News Corporation.
.
To be fair, he and his company are not alone in turning news from a public service into a private cash-cow. However, Mr. Murdoch controls the largest newspaper-TV news conglomerate in the world. How did he manage to put together such a giant company? It was quite simple, really. Mr. Murdoch and his cohorts decided long ago to ditch the idea of 'responsible journalism.' In its place came headlines full of salacious stories and pro-business, anti-labor rants by well-paid columnists and talking heads. The result? His papers and television stations achieved high ratings on gossip that ruined peoples lives and - at the same time - provided a perfect venue for businesses wishing to advertise their goods and services. News Corporation has indeed been a godsend for the corporate world. Its editorials have consistently sided with and promoted the interests of multinational corporations from Singapore to Seattle. Here is an example.
.
When the three main contenders for the US Democratic presidential nomination (Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards) had the temerity to suggest that health care was a 'right' and that a person's life transcended financial considerations, Murdoch's papers and TV stations (Fox News) immediately launched a smear campaign on behalf of the US health care industry (note the word - a correct one - industry) and the pharmaceutical companies. All three candidates were labelled as proponents of 'big government' - a euphemism used by conservatives to trigger fears of a tax increase among the upper middle and upper classes. When Obama began pulling away from Clinton on the road to the nomination, Murdoch's minions pulled out a classic right-wing label - 'socialist.' Yes, a Democrat knows that he or she has truly 'arrived' when this leftover monicker from the Cold War appears on the political horizon.
.
And what did Obama do to deserve that charge? Well, he had the utter gall to suggest that capitalism needed to be partially regulated. What does regulation mean to corporations? It means a slight loss in profits and smaller dividend checks for shareholders. That, of course, is unacceptable to the enterprising Murdoch and his allies across the corporate world. Since the 2008 election, the Murdoch media empire has conducted a daily assault on the Obama administration to preserve its interests and that of its financial backers - the corporations that advertise in their newspapers and television stations.
.
By running sensational stories (with the aid of privacy infringements), promoting the interests of the corporate world and demonizing its critics, Murdoch has developed an enormous audience raised on and hungry for more ephemeral gossip - and a long list of corporations willing to support him. It truly has been a win-win situation in a business sense. In The Times (UK), the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the Washington Times, The Australian, Barron's, Star TV (India and Greater China) and Fox News Channel among many others, Murdoch provides pro-corporate propaganda to sway the political agenda toward de-regulation, small government and laissez-faire economics for his advertisers - other corporations. All in all, it has been a perfect marriage of personal cupidity and unscrupulous business practices at the expense of the middle and lower classes.
.
News: A Public Trust, Not a Private Business
.
Hence, James Murdoch ought not have been surprised that someone in his company (presumably a manager or managing editor) authorized legal reimbursement for an employee found guilty of phone-hacking. Remember the corporate culture of News Corporation. It is a business. It exists to turn a profit - not provide a public service. Hence, its life depends on sales and ratings. Targets are set. In order to gain as many high-paying advertisers as possible, the paper and the TV station must attract the largest audience possible. If its salesmen can credibly claim that nearly everyone reads their newspapers or watches their television channels, then they will be able to attract more advertising revenue. If you owned a business, would you not want to advertise in the newspaper or on the TV station that had the most readers or viewers respectively? More people = more sales.
.
This is unethical. News should never be subordinated to the interests of the almighty US Dollar, the almighty British Pound or the Euro. Can any society claim to have 'free speech' if that speech is slanted by corporate interests? If media is driven by corporate interests and extant for corporate interests, where are the voices of community leaders? Where are the voices of dissenters? That is what makes democracy a true democracy - an open exchange of views by all members of society - where all ethnic groups, both genders and all socio-economic classes have equal access to a publicly broadcasted discourse. Companies and corporations are welcome and should be represented as well, but they cannot be allowed to set the agenda or dominate discussion.
.
There are two significant lessons to be learned from the Murdoch phone-hacking hearings. First, News Corporation needs to be broken up for the sake of the public interest in every country that used to be a part of the British Empire - including Britain herself. The Murdoch monopoly has had undue influence over the politics of these countries due to its size. Second, the business in 'news business' ought to be eliminated. While news organizations ought to be largely free of state control, citizens need to have a role in shaping the behavior of their media outlets. Accountability must be more than just a token word on a business agenda.
.
Our democratic discourse depends upon free speech and free media - free from the poisonous influence of corporate culture that places profits before people. Rather than an advertising slogan to promote a brand, the phrase 'fair and balanced' must be a high ideal delivered with integrity.
.
(Postscript: Rupert Murdoch is on the Board of Directors of Philip Morris International - one of the largest tobacco companies in the world. His son, James, became a board member of GlaxoSmithKline - one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world - in February 2009. As important or more importantly, Rupert joined the Cato Institute, an influential libertarian (small government) American think tank, as a board member several years ago. The Cato Institute advocates deregulation of industry (no checks or balances) in order to allow companies to have free rein (no oversight) in the marketplace. Consider the following analysis by FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) - a non-profit organization in New York City that evaluates bias in news organizations and conflicts of interest in news reporting,
.
"Murdoch sits on the board of directors of Philip Morris, the tobacco giant recently inducted into INFACT's Hall of Shame "for exerting undue influence over public policy-making" with the help of 240 registered federal and state lobbyists—spending as much as $2 million per month to lobby federal officials. Murdoch publications such as TV Guide reap enormous profits from cigarette ads. And Murdoch's Fox Broadcasting is cozy with Philip Morris subsidiary Miller Brewing Co., which recently boosted its advertising account with Fox to about $75 million per year for sports and primetime programs." (Advertising Age, 6/16/97).
.
To read the entire FAIR report from January 1998, which reveals the toxic nexus between Murdoch's interests and his self-serving control of the media, please click onto the following link:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1409.)
.
(Photo: Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation takes a shaving cream pie to the face during hearings on the behavior of his company - News Corporation. The perpetrator of this pointless act was immediately taken into custody by police.)
.
J Roquen