The NYT’s 3,900-word investigation of Rupert Murdoch lands
with a thud this morning, and there’s really nothing there. HuffPo would
have it that the "NYT
Savages Murdoch"; if so, then, as Dennis Healy once said, this is like
being savaged by a dead sheep. There’s certainly nothing in the article to derail
Murdoch’s deal to buy Dow Jones, which seems to have taken one
step back and two steps forward over the course of the weekend.
Meanwhile, not to be outdone, Ken Auletta has 7,375
words on Murdoch and Dow Jones in the latest New Yorker. He’s clearly skeptical
that Murdoch will be able to keep himself out of interfering with the Journal’s
editorial affairs:
In 1995, I spent several months reporting for a Profile of Murdoch for The
New Yorker. During ten days in his offices, I attended meetings, witnessed
negotiations, listened to his phone calls, and conducted about twenty hours
of taped interviews with him. At least a couple of times each day, he talked
on the phone with an editor in order to suggest a story based on something
that he’d heard. This prompted me to ask, “Of all the things in
your business empire, what gives you the most pleasure?”
“Being involved with the editor of a paper in a day-to-day campaign,”
he answered instantly. “Trying to influence people.”
On the other hand, he points out that even the New York Times isn’t immune
from the influence of its owner:
“It’s in choosing editors that Arthur [Sulzberger] gets what
he wants,” observed Daniel Okrent, who was the Times’ first Public
Editor. “And not just the executive editor, Bill Keller. I don’t
think Keller would pick, say, a foreign editor that Arthur did not approve
of. Also, any executive editor of the New York Times knows that among the
things Arthur cares about most are race and gender equality.”
It looks very likely that we’ll see for ourselves just how hands-on Murdoch
will be as an owner of the WSJ. Certainly there seems to be a good chance that
he would make WSJ.com free, which would be a wonderful move.