Brooklyn Paper Already Showing Signs Of Murdoch-ness

Only two weeks ago, the storied Brooklyn Paper was sold off to News Corp after several decades as an independent newspaper covering the borough. The immediate worry was that the coverage would shift towards something more favorable to the conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch. BP's executive staff claimed the contrary position. Now only time can tell how the paper will change...or not but apparently the beginnings of that change are already evident before the month is out.

From The NY Times:

“The Brooklyn Paper’s always had a very independent feel, and we’ve been told to continue that feel,” said Mr. Kuntzman, whose paper is peppered with playful headlines with exclamation points. “We’re a scrappy paper. We always have been; we always will be.”

Some media-vigilant Brooklynites are skeptical. For example, while The Brooklyn Paper has been generally critical of the controversial Atlantic Yards development project, other News Corporation publications, such as The New York Post, have supported it.

“I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that The Brooklyn Paper’s news coverage of Atlantic Yards will diminish somewhat (as it already has), and its editorial criticism will diminish even more,” wrote Norman Oder, a critic of the development, on his blog Atlantic Yards Report.

The paper’s employees will leave their Dumbo office and join Courier-Life in an office in Downtown Brooklyn that is owned, as Mr. Oder noted, by the Atlantic Yards’ developer, Forest City Ratner Companies.

Atlantic Yards is just one issue in Brooklyn, but it is an important one. It is a battle between rich developers and those that wish to make sure the borough is developed, but not destroyed. This is an indicator of who the Brooklyn Paper will speak up for and sadly, the signs of who they will go with are ominous. This means that it will be up to what is left of the independent voices in the area, such as Atlantic Yards Report, No Land Grab and Develop, Don't Destroy to do the reporting that the News Corp. empire is unwilling to commit to.

Brooklyn Paper Submits To The NewsCorp Empire

Rupert Murdoch has been trying to get his filthy rich hands on the New York Times for a while, but for today he'll settle for the illustrious Brooklyn Paper. The long-time independent newspaper has decided to give in to the world-wide NewsCorp empire after 31 years of going it alone. They'll continue to publish of course but the city and specifically the borough has lost one more voice in the community.

From PolitickerNY:

The Brooklyn Paper's editor (and onetime Observer profile subject) Gersh Kuntzman and its publisher Celia Weintrob confirmed the news.

"We're very excited," said Mr. Kuntzman in an interview.

He said that he has not yet spoken to Mr. Murdoch, but he has had conversations with people from News Corp.

"They don’t want the product to change," said Mr. Kuntzman. "And they love the product. And the product is fantastic."

Kuntzman sounds so ecstatic about the deal, I can feel the sincerity in his quote all the way over here on the Upper West Side. The truth of the matter is, this is Rupert Murdoch we are talking about here. The purveyor of Fox News, the Post and dozens, if not hundreds of media outlets around the world has a distinct view of the world and like the Hearst of old, intends to make sure that vision is replicated throughout his empire. The Brooklyn Paper can claim they'll stay the same, but that line has been heard too many times before when an indy gets bought out by the big boys.

NY Post Vs The Public, Another Reason Bloomberg Is Out Of Touch

Opponents of Mayor Bloomberg (myself included) are looking at all ways to attack him as he attempts to run for his third term. There are so many avenues for that endeavor, fiscally, term limits debacle, etc. Now we can add racism to the mix. Not that the Mayor himself is, I'm not accusing him of that, but as the leader of our city, he must stand up for the citizenry and speak out against racist elements of our society, specifically the NY Post (more specifically the people there that drew and ran the cartoon) even if the Post runs good stories about himself.

So far the reactions to Bloomberg's reaction have been harsh:

At this morning’s City Hall rally, Councilwoman Letitia James called on black clergy members to block Michael Bloomberg from speaking to their congregations because of his lack of outrage over the controversial cartoon in the New York Post.

Bloomberg told reporters at a press conference ealier today that he accepted Murdoch’s apology at face value. Earlier, Bloomberg acknowledged that some people could be offended by the cartoon, but he didn’t seem perturbed by it.

Bloomberg may have been trying to avoid a clash with Murdoch, with whom he has had a good relationship.

Murdoch is among the contributors to Bloomberg’s effort to improve city schools, and the New York Post offered friendly encouragement for Bloomberg's presidential campaign. The September 15, 2006, editorial was headlined "Run Mike Run."

They also backed him in the term limits saga and that is just one more negative about the Murdoch rag. What we need is a new Mayor, one that will have the courage to go up against those that condone racist symbols in our society. Also, it is important that he or she be able to be able to see why people would be outraged by Delonas' cartoon.

Another Post Apology, Same Old Racist Attitudes

By the end of last week, an editor at the Post finally made a non-apology apology for their racist cartoon after many in the community came out to protest the Post's actions. Since that did nothing to address the problem that the cartoon generated, the protests continued and the press surrounding the story became increasingly negative for the newspaper rag. So who else does the Post bring out but the head honcho himself to make yet another "apology."

From The Albany Project (because I refuse to link the Post anymore):

As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me.

Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.

Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you - without a doubt - that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.

We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community.

What Murdoch is make this look serious and even professional. It does not snipe and make childish remarks such as berating Al Sharpton and others that saw the cartoon and were compelled to give their time to protest the racist behavior of the cartoonist and editor who let it be published. Yet, it is still not a true apology. I put that sentence in bold up above because as the comments at The Albany Project show, there is no way to interpret this cartoon as anything but racist. You have to be racist in order to find humor in it. Mocking the stimulus bill is one thing, but to do it in this fashion is not only about the legislation Barack Obama had signed into law last week. I sincerely find it hard to believe that Murdoch's comments are nothing more than an attempt to kill the story that his paper has serious racist elements lurking inside.

OIbermann Hits Murdoch Back Over Crazy Comment

Fox News and MSNBC have been scrapping against each other for a while but as of late things are starting to get personal. Bill O'Reilly and Olbermann have been going at it but now it is Murdoch himself who is trying to knock the phenom of MSNBC. Wednesday night Murdoch called Keith crazy and alluded that that was the reason he "fired" him all those years ago. Well Keith couldn't resist but inject a little truth into the situation.

From NY Mag:

The latest skirmish in the war between Keith Olbermann and News Corp. comes by way of Rupert Murdoch himself. According to TVNewser, at The Wall Street Journal's "All Things Digital" conference last night, a reporter asked the Fox overlord if he would ever hire Olbermann. "No, I fired him five years ago," Murdoch replied. "He was crazy." Olbermann wrote a lengthy response to TVNewser, explaining the circumstances of his departure. It turns out that back in 2001 when he hosted baseball programming for Fox, Olbermann discovered that Murdoch was thinking of selling the Los Angeles Dodgers. Before reporting the story (which he had on good authority), he checked with Murdoch's PR man. Explains the MSNBC Countdown host:

I said, in short, this is your candy store, if you don't want me to run this, I'm not running it, and I'm not leaking it, but at minimum you should know the story's out there. And the guy's answer was, thanks for thinking of us, here's our official denial, please report it and whatever your sources tell you, just please make clear that none of your sources are within the company (baseball was, and is, extremely touchy about when a team is, or isn't, "officially" for sale, and woe betide the owner who makes a deal before the "officially" kicks in). So I ran the Dodgers-Are-Unofficially-For-Sale story (with the "the sources aren't NewsCorp" caveat taking almost as long as the story itself) and everything was swell.

Needless to say, Olbermann was fired shortly after. He later heard that it was because of the Dodgers story. Not one to miss a good jab, though, he ended his e-mail to TVNewser with a classic self-referential thrust. "As to the 'crazy' part, he had to pay me $800,000 for the rest of 2001, and lord knows how many tens of millions I've helped MSNBC take out of his pocket ever since," he writes. "So: who's crazy?"

Murdoch isn't crazy, though getting rid of Keith wasn't his best move. Words describing Murdoch are more along the lines of "greedy," "sinister," "monopolist" and "propaganda provider." Thanks for setting the record straight Mr. Olbermann.

Clinton Plays Both Sides Of Controversial Murdoch

I have to be honest, it is irritating to see so many political figures on the left endorsing Hillary. Joe Wilson's was particularly troubling for me because I respect him so much. Don't get me wrong, I'd take her over any Republican any day, but it would be more about picking the less toxic poison than a candidate I believe in. One glaring example is her relationship with Rupert Murdoch. To be fair, the other front runners have taken money from Fox Execs, but not from Murdoch directly and the sums are not even close to being similar.

From The Huffington Post:

On June 5, Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the News Corporation, gave her presidential bid $2,300. A few weeks later, his son, James R. Murdoch, chief executive of British Sky Broadcasting in London, gave $3,400. Altogether, NewsCorp/Fox executives gave at least $40,000 to the Clinton campaign.

In July 2006, the elder Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for Clinton's Senate re-election campaign, raising many eyebrows among Democrats. The Financial Times, which first disclosed the event, noted that Murdoch was a part of the "vast right wing conspiracy" named by Hillary Clinton as determined to destroy her husband's presidency.

She explained her willingness then to accept Murdoch's support to the FT: "He's my constituent and I'm very gratified that he thinks I'm doing a good job."

Asked about the Murdoch contributions to Clinton's presidential bid, Howard Wolfson, director of communications, said he had no comment.

If Hillary wants to be open and honest, she should explain her precarious situation with the global media tycoon. Rupert Murdoch is no ordinary constituent, that explanation is pathetic at best. She only refused to participate in the Fox News debate after Edwards and Obama declined first and didn't bother criticizing Murdoch or the network. Hillary touts this type of behavior as being a centrist, but in reality she looks like she is playing the base for fools.

News Corp Spreads NYC Tentacles

While Rupert Murdoch fights to take over the Wall Street Journal, he has begun spreading his enormous enterprise even further with local papers. After picking up a slew of Brooklyn and Queens newspapers, the company just acquired two Bronx weeklies. Of course this does not match the reach of the Wall Street Journal, but it counts in the Bronx, and it counts when looking at the end game.

From The New York Times:

The News Corporation, owner of The New York Post, bought two weekly newspapers in the Bronx yesterday, giving it a chain of neighborhood papers throughout three New York City boroughs that it hopes will complement The Post.

(snip)

The Bronx Times, which covers the entire borough, and The Bronx Times Reporter, which covers the southeastern neighborhoods, have a combined circulation of about 40,000 copies. Last fall, News Corporation bought The TimesLedger newspaper group in Queens and The Courier Life group in Brooklyn, with 28 weekly papers, 27 of them geared to covering specific neighborhoods.

Next month, News Corporation plans to expand circulation of some of those in the Howard Beach and the Richmond Hill areas of Queens, and to introduce two new weeklies covering Williamsburg and Greenpoint.

News Corp, like many other media conglomerates is always looking to grow bigger and reach readers with a synergistic approach. The advertising is mentioned first because that is just business. Though what the the Times does not cover is the journalism. Locals count on small time reporters to tell them what is going on in their neighborhood, not just what is for sale at the local market. News Corp has a decidedly conservative bent that might not be appealing to readers in the Bronx. It is a shame to see these two small weeklies be sold to Murdoch.;

Rupert Murdoch: The Environmentalist?

In one of the strangest turn of events the world has ever seen, arch-Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch addressed climate change in a big way. He now wants his entire company to go green. He got himself a hybrid Lexus and is set to turn News Corp. carbon-neutral by 2010. That is an enormous amount of carbon reduction due to the massive size of his empire. It is great news of course, but what led this enemy of change to wake up to the world's reality?

From The UK Independent:

In one of the most unexpected conversions since Saul of Tarsus hit the road to Damascus, Rupert Murdoch is turning into a green campaigner. He is making the whole of his worldwide operations carbon neutral and setting out to "educate and engage" his readers and viewers about global warming.

He believes his companies' "global reach" presents "an unprecedented opportunity to raise awareness and to stimulate action around the world". A former sceptic who confesses to having been "somewhat wary of the warming debate", he laid on his first global webcast for all his employees on Wednesday to tell them that he was "changing the DNA of our business". He added that he had started with himself, buying a hybrid car.

Mr Murdoch's conversion, which may surprise employees like Jeremy Clarkson, was heavily influenced by his son James - who took BSkyB carbon neutral a year ago this week - as well as by Tony Blair and former US vice-president Al Gore. All three attended his annual meeting for senior executives in Pebble Beach, California, last year where he was convinced to take the lead on the issue.

Well if this is the new thing to do for media moguls, I am all for it. Murdoch is planning an array of solutions that help lessen the impact that News Corp. has on the environment. Everything from using recycled paper for books to producing TV programs that advocate a new way for society to combat the problem. The one thing that will be amusing to watch (if this really isn't just a dream) is the conversion of all Fox's conservative "journalists" going from spinning for neo-cons about the fate of the planet to speaking actual, dare I say it, truth.

Fox News: We Admit....We Decide

It is hardly breaking news that Fox News has been and is a propraganda outlet for the right-wing faction of this country. Guests on their shows have called them on it from time to time but have been met with steadfast denials and 'shocked' looks from the anchors and hosts. They will never admit they are tools working for Roger Ailes who ultimately reports to Rupert Murdoch.

So when the ultimate evil billionaire goes to Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum and tells the truth about Fox, people pay attention. The leaders of this event cut out Rupert's admission in the film, but everyone heard what he said.

From NewsCorpse:

Murdoch was asked if News Corp. had managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. His answer?

“No, I don’t think so. We tried.” Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: “We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution.”

Let me repeat this: “We Tried!”

Ok, that last line is full of crap. Rupert and his network have rolled over and over again to make Iraq look like a place of opportunity and excitement (not coming from the constant rain of shrapnel ) for the average Iraqi. Fox can't report the truth about anything even if it continually slaps the network in the face for the last four years.

So now that Murdoch admits the motivations of his network, will anything change? Of course not, no one wants to acknowledge his admission. Crooks and Liars tried to look for the film from last week and only found nine minutes of footage that mysteriously did not include the billionaire's truthiness.