Does The New York Times wish to detonate the possible deal between Rupert Murdoch and the Bancroft family? The Times has already editorialized against the proposed purchase, but now that the "news" side of the paper, too, is weighing in. That's the only conclusion one can draw from a hot new report, by Michael Calderone of The New York Observer, outlining the NYT's mega-investigative reporting operation--or maybe "hitjob" is a better word--aimed on Rupert Murdoch.
Of course, the Times is not confirming that it is doing any such digging at all, let alone that the results of any such dig will be negative. But Calderone seems pretty sure of his source--and provides copious detail on an effort led by managing editor Jill Abramson. Calderone is precise, for example, about who's involved: "The investigative project also includes...investigative editor Matt Purdy and reporters Jo Becker (in New York), Jane Perlez (in London) and Joseph Kahn (in Beijing)."
So if Calderone is wrong, then he's really wrong. But if he's right, then he has uncovered a major "journalistic" effort by the Times. And I put "journalistic" in quotes, because it's well known that Jill Abramson is an advocate as much as she is a reporter. Those of us with long memories will recall that she co-authored, back in the early 90s, with Jane Mayer, the book Strange Justice, which, as its title suggests, was one big smear of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. So that's where she's coming from, politically.
Abramson is a liberal hit-woman, who assuredly has never liked Murdoch, or Fox News, or anything else that the News Corp has ever done.
So don't be surprised if what comes out of the Times, this time around, is equally strange--which is to say, hostile--to Murdoch and to anyone else who favors the WSJ deal.
But what's more of an eyebrow raiser is the apparent decision of the Times hierarchy--including CEO Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr., whose family controls the newspaper--to go after Murdoch & Co. If one of the allegations against Murdoch is that he exercises too much influence on the editorial stances of his media outlets, then it's hypocritical for the Times takes an editorial stance against a possible event, and then commission an armada of reporters to fire further salvos against that possible event.
What's the reason? Is it simple liberal bias against anything fair and balanced? Is the Times afraid that Murdoch will rejuvenate the Journal and thus further crowd the Gray Lady in the news business?
Whatever the reason, the Times is evidently so desperate to block the deal that it is violating the traditional journalistic "separation of church and state"--the distinction between editorial opinion and news. In this case, as we have seen, the edit side and the news side appear to be working together, hand-in-glove--or should one say, thumb-on-scale.
So to repeat, it's the height of hypocrisy for the Times to opine, as it did on its agenda-setting Sunday edition (June 10), laying out its most vehement arguments against Murdoch: "We hope the Bancrofts will find a way to continue producing their fine newspaper, or, failing that, find a buyer who is a safer bet to protect the newspaper for its readers."
And the Times editorial continued, "For the record, most of us who still work for a family-controlled newspaper like The Times lament another news organization’s loss of protection from political currents and the unfettered demands of quarterly earnings.”
So there you have it: In its full pomposity, the Times manages to brown-nose its own ownership while advancing the Sulzberger's ideological and corporate agenda.
The Cable Game hopes that Calderone and the Observer will continue to cover--and more to the point, uncover--this blatant repurposing of journalistic power for a narrow special-interest objective.
Yes, it's a free country, but hypocrisy is free, too--and it flows freely at the Times.
