General News

Murdoch: His Mission in Media -- Politics

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

- Advertisement -

By Karl Grossman

   With the finding this week by a committee of the British Parliament that Rupert Murdoch is "not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company," the Federal Communications Commission should move to prohibit Murdoch from owning television stations in the United States.

   The licensing system for TV and radio stations in the U.S. requires that their owners be of good character. It also mandates that only U.S. citizens hold a major interest in a station --the reason why Murdoch became a U.S. citizen in 1985 as he moved to create a U.S.-based media empire.

   His Australian citizenship went, but as for his questionable character, that remained. In its extensive and scathing report on the hacking and bribery scandal in the U.K. involving Murdoch's News Corporation, the Parliamentary committee declared that Murdoch "turned a blind eye and exhibited willful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications. This culture, we consider, permeated from the top."

The "claim that phone-hacking could be dismissed as the work of a single "rogue reporter'"was a false one," said the committee about the assertion of Murdoch and his son James in earlier testimony before it. "As a result of our own investigation, but also of civil cases currently before the courts, Lord Justice Leveson's inquiry and investigative journalism, there has been a steady flow of evidence which, taken together, comprehensively discredits that assertion. This is beyond dispute."

"Rupert Murdoch is certainly not, as part of his evidence would have us believe, a "hands-off proprietor,'" the panel stated. Indeed, last week, Murdoch finally acknowledged to the committee that there was a "cover-up" of the scandal in which he took part.

- Advertisement -

The report, said the BBC, "directly questioned the integrity and honesty of Rupert Murdoch" and could lead to a determination in the U.K. that Murdoch's company "is not fit and proper to hold a broadcasting license."

When the Federal Communications Act--the regulatory structure for radio and later also TV in the U.S.--was initially enacted in 1934, a similar standard requiring station owners to be "stewards" of the public airwaves became law in America.

Broadcast media, it was reasoned, were using a limited resource--the airwaves--and thus standards were needed to be set for who could own a station. Unlike newspapers, there could not be a virtually unlimited number of stations--frequencies were finite and use of them should only be granted to those of good character committed to serving the public interest. That also applies when a station undergoes a periodic process of relicensing.

If the owners are found guilty of a felony, an anti-trust violation, a fraudulent statement to a governmental entity, discrimination, among other things, they can lose their license to operate the station.

This is what should now happen to Murdoch in the U.S.

A problem is that the Federal Communications Commission, which enforces the Federal Communications Act, has--like so many U.S. regulatory agencies--been a lapdog to rather than a watchdog of industry.

Dark Genius by Kerwin Swint, a book about Roger Ailes who with Murdoch put together the hard right-wing Fox News Channel, notes that Murdoch "has always gotten what he wanted out of the FCC." This included, in 1993, the FCC waiving "its cross-ownership rule--barring a company from owning a newspaper and/or a radio or TV station in the same market."

Murdoch's mission in media is politics. "At Murdoch's media companies," writes Swint, "his operations are often used for expressly political purposes."   For example, the "New York Post is not profitable in a financial sense for Murdoch, but it has been invaluable to him as a battering ram for political causes and vendettas".He has skillfully used his media properties to advance political agendas , and conversely, has used those political assets to advance his media properties."

There have been outrageous media barons through the years. Citizen Kane, often co nsidered America's finest movie, is about the meglomania of William Randolph Hearst.

But Murdoch has operated--in the U.K., in the U.S., indeed all over the world--as what William Shawcross in Murdoch, his biography of Murdoch, describes as "an international Citizen Kane, with influence beyond imagining."

Next Page  1  |  2

 

www.karlgrossman.com

Karl Grossman is a professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury and host of the nationally syndicated TV program Enviro Close-Up.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

New Book Concludes: Chernobyl death toll: 985,000, mostly from cancer

Siemens' Abandoning Nuclear Power

Murdoch Media Empire: A Journalistic Travesty

Fukushima: A Month of Media Disinformation

What Could Truly End the Space Program: A Nuclear Disaster Overhead

The Cancer Epidemic: Its Environmental Causes

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments