Because You Never Asked

(9/00)

     After having devoted some Pandit-like attention (see essay "Pornography") to the 2000 Republican and Democratic conventions, the time is upon us to discuss the media mogul whose name provides the title for this essay. Might he not be the most powerful man in the world? Should such mega-persuasionary power be concentrated in one person?

     It has always been insinuated that the news industry in the United States has generally had a liberal bias. I've always considered this somewhat of a stretch because the status quo is as precious to the news industry as it is to Exxon or Lilly. How best to preserve this status quo might lend itself to some slight liberal-conservative divergence of opinion, but this "difference" has never been substantial enough to keep our traditional means of diffusion from maintaining at least the façade of objectivity. If there is some truth to the idea of a liberal bias, up until now the game has been played with some degree of "sportsmanship" because there isn't a wide enough mainstream philosophical schism to make the stakes all that high.

     With the advent of the Murdoch media empire in the United States, this facade of fair play could soon be a thing of the past.

     The cable package that makes its way through my TV screen (so greedily provided by those humble servants of the status quo at AT&T) contains 6 channels produced by Rupert's news-sports-entertainment behemoth. Two of these channels --- the Fox Network and the 24 hour Fox News --- are news outlets for Murdoch's ultra-conservative personal bias (as are his other channels). One should find it particularly suspicious when Fox News is constantly reminding us how objective they are. ("We report, you decide".) Does Tiger Woods always have to be reminding us that he is a good golfer?

     Trying to measure truth distortion cannot be done with a slide rule. It is an esoteric endeavor the spoken word will be hard pressed to delineate. With regard to America's news industry, perhaps the closest we can come is to say the following: whereas our original news outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS, and their satellites) may have had a philosophical bias microscopically to the left of center, Murdoch has gone beyond philosophical bias and into the realm of personal "agenda". It is an agenda meant to strengthen his interests and is much further to the right than any traditional news bias has been to the left. A few examples of his coverage of the 2000 political conventions might serve to further focus the picture.

     My specific purpose in devoting some time to this year's convention season had nothing to do with the "message" or information. By now, this burlesque is virtually bereft of any ideological mystery or creativity. My sole purpose in watching was to see how our various media sources were presenting this burlesque. My zapper was to receive a good workout.

     On the first night of the Democratic convention there was an Ali-Frazier type event in the form of President Clinton's farewell address. It was an extremely anticipated political happening in which one of our nation's most charismatic and controversial presidents had one more chance to maximize his perceived accomplishments, minimize his hormonal excess (although such excess is pretty much like everyone else's), and pass the torch to his political heir. Almost all the news outlets on my dial --- ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, CNN, C-SPAN, and perhaps some others that exist in a still uncharted galaxy of satellite viewing possibilities --- carried the event in its entirety. This included the President's five-minute walk through the intestines of the arena, duly recorded on the convention floor's mega-screen as the partisan crowd worked itself into a rabid froth of delirious dervish-like hysteria.

     Someone high up in the Democratic Party's pecking order must be a pro wrestling fan.

     Curiously enough, Murdoch's Fox Network was the only such outlet not showing any of this. In Rupertland, one of the most significant moments in the last 8 years of Yankee political theater was not deemed important enough to interrupt the canned laughter of regular programming.

     Once having overcome my initial moments of surprise, I searched for an explanation. Upon further scrutiny of the senses with which my organism gathers information, it dimly made its way into my consciousness that Fox Network, although it does present the "Action News" kind of local coverage on its affiliates (you know, drug busts, fires, hatchet deaths, kids abandoned in garbage cans, etc.), does not have a national news establishment a la Brokaw, Jennings and Rather. The next day I asked around: had Fox Network shown George W's. speech during the Republican convention? I was assured they had, breaking into their regular programming to do so.

     But the plot thickens.

     The next night at the Democratic convention was not as focused. The Party paraded out a succession of its icons, including Bill Bradley, a gaggle of Kennedy's, a host of congressional honchos, and the ever-present deliverer of the slam dunk vote, the Reverend Jesse Jackson. With the exception of C-Span, which does not possess a stable of well paid pundits to enthrall us with their analysis and only physically presents the actual proceedings (isn't that the way it should be done, absent all spin and connivance?), all the commercial media sluggers ignored these speeches. They chose to give us their own idea as to what might amuse us --- interviews with VIP's, celebrities, beautiful people, and whatever it was they thought might eventually get us to watch a commercial. Except for .   

     . Rupert's Fox Network! .

     which broke into its prime time programming to give us Jesse Jackson's speech in its entirety! No Bill Clinton, all of Jesse Jackson!

     OK class, surprise quiz, multiple choice. First question: Why would Rupert ignore Bill and give us Jesse? A) He really likes black people. B) He is a champion of the downtrodden everywhere. C) He felt guilty about the treatment of aborigines in his native Australia. D) This is the face of the Democratic Party he wants to present --- screaming black preachers badgering, pestering, and pointing accusatory affirmative action fingers at us.

     Second question: How would Rupert like us to react to Jesse's speech? A) With a sincere concern for our ill-treated brothers and sisters. B) Right on! Right on! C) I'll have to try some collared greens someday. D) Oh shut up and sit down!

     If you answered D to both questions, you are beginning to understand.

     But there's more.

     On that first night of the Democratic convention, Bill Clinton proved that 8 years spent dodging and rolling with Republican punches had not passed in vane. Having weathered their Joe Frazier-like stalking until they had finally punched themselves out, he delivered perhaps the best speech of his career. It was so good that a strange feeling came over me; I felt compelled to watch it. When this vintage performance had ended, all the media outlets that had broadcast it (which, just to refresh your memory, meant everyone except Rupert's Fox Network) quickly, in a display of very standard procedure, put their pundits to work analyzing the speech.

     Except for .

     . Rupert's 24 hour cable outlet, Fox News. Being a station that only does news, and being that the highlights of the Twins-Royals game had still not come in, they had no choice but to show the speech. This gave them 3 options after the speech: 1) to sit around and grudgingly admit our allegedly over sexed president had just hit a home run. 2) To sit around and try and convince us that the speech wasn't really that good. 3) To immediately go to the anti-everything demonstrators outside the arena for the next 15 minutes.

     If you guessed option 3, your understanding of Rupert and his henchpeople is beginning to crystallize. (Interestingly enough, as the week wore on and the convention began to take on successful overtones, Fox News turned to option 3 with more regularity.)

     Now, if you are not one of the approximately 6 billion people who are unfamiliar with these essays, it should be evident by now that this writer's socio-political soul is outside the convention arenas with those protesting the dictatorship of the Business Tyranny (see essay "The Revolution and Capitalism", and others). But it should also be evident that Fox News was not out there for the same reasons. Get the picture?

     By now I am weary, but there's more.

     Certainly, the focal-point-grand-finale of any political convention is the nominee's acceptance speech. All the news outlets on my over bloated dial carried not only Al Gore's speech in its entirety, but also his wife Tipper's stirring introduction for the candidate, where she established herself as a formidable weapon in the Gore arsenal. (One looks at Tipper Gore and immediately sees the prototype of the American woman.) All except . can you guess?

     On Fox Network, Tipper did not appear and Al's speech was broken into at about the halfway mark, given some halfhearted analysis by some local Fox affiliate pundit, from whence we were returned to regular programming.

     In conclusion, and well aware that I have dealt in the hard core reality of events and am now switching over into the more debatable realm of nuance and suggestion, I will say the following: whereas the supposedly liberal media establishment covered both conventions with the usual dose of back slapping, up beat, har-dee-har-har camaraderie, Rupert covered the Democrats with the attitude a jilted lover might show for his or her replacement. They even made snide remarks about the placards the people were holding.

     What makes this all the more galling is that Rupert Murdoch is not even an American. Like a gangster drug lord moving in on somebody else's turf, he has infiltrated our country with a Stealth-like ideological attack.

     I wonder how many lunch bucket, tabloid reading Yankee-Met fans know that Rupert owns the New York Post? If they do, I wonder if they know what that means?