Al Neuharth (cc photo: Scott Henrichsen/Knight Foundation)
The headline of Al Neuharth’s column in USA Today (7/15/11) summed up his case: “Murdoch Media Give You What You Want.”
That sort of depends on who “you” is. Neuharth explains:
Murdoch has an uncanny knack for figuring out what a sizable segment of readers and viewers want and giving it to them. Straight or slanted.
His Fox News television network is as blatantly right-wing as Murdoch intended it to be when he started it in 1996 to counter the left-wing MSNBC.
Oh, so that’s what explained the launch of Fox News Channel in October 1996–the rampant left-wing bias of MSNBC, which had been on the air for… just about three months. The channel with all the left-wing hosts–like the show that featured Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. The channel that made a big deal of hiring Don Imus in 1998.
The channel that would go on, in those early years, to bring viewers the likes of Michael Savage, Tucker Carlson, Alan Keyes, Oliver North and Joe Scarborough. Yep, Fox was launched to counter all of that.
Or maybe Neuharth means that Murdoch is so smart that he started a right-wing cable network knowing that his competitors would try to imitate his political slant for the better part of a decade, until finally deciding that counter-programming made more sense. So that in the late 2000s, Fox would finally have a liberal foil.
If that’s what he means, then Murdoch really is an evil genius.
Did anyone yet consider that John Edwards infidelity might have been discovered or proven by telephone hacking by The National Enquirer– or Fox News et al ?
Al Neuharth, a friend of George S. McGovern, wrote some fourteen months ago that the war in Afghanistan was not worth another life, as the emphasis changed from Iraq to Afghanistan.
I think Nueharth is wrong, but only mistaken. JSL
and a savant as well! he has a crystal ball he really does ! maybe msnbc should thank him for figuring out their audience . maybe he meant msnbc went so right they went left! there was some really
ugly programming there. its not about the programming its about the money stupid. its ALWAYS
ABOUT THE MONEY!
Well — Fox News was indeed launched to counter Leftism in the mythical, liberal Land of Oz. But Rupert Murdoch’s coup de grâce was in response to — and in support of — the development of right-wing counter-cultural state corporatism which had already been on-going for over 20 years by 1996. Meaning: it had little to do with countering some “Leftist” main stream medium outlet like MSNBC. What the launch of Faux News was designed to do was eliminate left-wing political posturing in the US. Permanently. And no matter who.
The right-wing counter-revolution’s roots can be found in the so-called Powell Memorandum (aka the Powell “Manifesto”). Lewis Powell — an alleged “moderate” — was appointed to the US Supreme Court by the soon to be disposed Richard Nixon. It has been referred to often as “Nixon’s Revenge” for Congress and the public at large forcing his hand to remove himself from office. [Which isn’t true, by the way. Powell dates to August 1971. This precedes the Watergate break-in by nearly a year.]
If you want to read “Powell” the document can be fund at:
http://thwink.org/sustain/manuscript2/PowellMemo.pdf
If you don’t want to read the 8 page memo — here’s a brief synopsis. Lewis Powell was an oft-failing corporate lawyer for the tobacco industry. But that doesn’t mean that he was always on the losing side in environmental and personal injury lawsuits brought against the tobacco industry. For instance, he did manage to preserve cigarette advertising in magazines and on bill boards after the industry had lost the right to advertise on TV and radio.
But Powell went further than that in his Memorandum. He felt that corporate culturalism — and their CEOs, CFOs, and major shareholders — were losing the public debate on private enterprise at public expense to the likes of Ralph Nader. Many consumer advocates — according to Powell — were agitating for criminal prosecution of top corporate executives. Even the so-called “Blue Chippers” could find themselves in hot water. Except that Powell’s answer to consumer activism wasn’t simply to plaster and paint over the scars of corporate America’s negative public relations. He wanted to uproot liberalism in America at its very foundations.
That “pinko” professor you had in college may have been a good professor. But he had to go. And sooner rather than later. University tenure would also be entering a different era. As they approached tenure, liberal professors would be read the riot act while more conservative instructors would be given a leg up.
And it wasn’t just professorships that took a beating. Sociology virtually disappeared on most college campuses. Economics professors who didn’t “toe the Friedman line” were disappearing in droves. And just to keep this conservative counter-revolution focused with as little outside interference as possible — the real planning for re-constructing American thought would be done — and supervised — by groups like the local Chamber of Commerce and the Nat’l Assn. of Mfgers.
And for a corporate culture that deplores equal time at college campus debates — the Pearls of Powelline were all over college administrators like a cheap suit. [pun intended]. Liberal judges hearing civil suits against Big Business could be neutralized by just two words: “judicial activism.” Conservative college professors as authors and other right-wing writers suddenly found funding in the form of publishers’ funding advances and/or being given prominent displays in book stores.
Perhaps the saddest thing of all about Powell is that corporate culture was encouraged to monitor local TV and public radio for liberal thought and liberal thinkers. And if they didn’t get “equal time” from the stations to respond, all they had to do was ruin the reputation of the liberal in question. And those think tanks of Reaction! Like the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy (which fronts the CIA inside and outside of the US). All either owe their inception to, or exponential growth to, the Powell Manifesto.
And sooner or later all that liberal bashing pays off. Big time. The system instituted by “Powell” would lead to conservative pundits who’ve seemingly never known or were taught left-wing thinking. And these loud mouthed cheerleaders have served the Powell movement well. I.E., thanks to Limbaugh, Kristol, O’Reilly, Coulter, Beck et al. — “unmitigated Greed” became “free enterprise” once more. And it took them little time to brand liberal thought as anything other than a conspiracy. Or to describe the American business climate as anything but a healthy, deity-ordained, singular pursuit — the pursuit of profit. And somehow find ways to ordain this climate as “the envy of the world.” [Much to the irritation of friend and foe alike.] As well as claiming to be the end all for communism when the Soviet bloc collapsed around 1990. Powell the man was more than happy to claim his followers successes as his own. Prophets — even dead ones — tend to do this. An irritating ritual which goes on even today. [Even though Powell died in 1998.]
Why does this sh*t go on and on? Probably because few people have ever read the Powell Memorandum. And those that haven’t make those that have pay for it just the same. But in answer to the question of founding Fox News — Murdoch didn’t give a sh*t about MSNBC or even CNN in 1996. What concerned Justice Powell concerned Rupert Murdoch. I.E., the conversion of investigative journalism into right-wing propaganda — and nothing else.
And when pundits become celebrities on the level of movie stars — something is very, very wrong. At least we know the wheres and whys and the provenance of this goulash: that it stems from the vertical integration of MSM empires with strict ideological guidelines. Every robber baron of the late 19th Century had his own railroad. Today they have their own mass media tie-in. Let’s just hope that “pride always goeth before a fall.”
Fox News Watchdog: You are typically the first responder to FAIR postings, and you simply repeat the posting word for word in white-on-black type that most web sites have figured out by now is hard to read. Apart from the fact that your “comments” on the FAIR blog amount to nothing more than advertisements for your site, your site has its own ads. Why FAIR tolerates this is beyond me.
JSL: The notion that misbehavior justifies big brother watching you is absurd, or rather, pathetic. As for your second, unrelated point, which was also unrelated to the subject at hand, I could make no sense of it whatever.
BTB: Rupert Murdoch is a savant with a crystal ball? MSNBC went right so Fox News went left? And after those pronouncements you call the rest of us stupid? Well, at least, unlike many comments on this site, you stayed on point. Better luck next time.
pl: Thanks for the literate, intelligent (apart from the junior high school naughty word), and informative comment. It was a bit longish for the venue though, and should have been an op ed piece in the NYT.
I have never seen FOX as a counter to anything.As i have not seen Rush as a counter to anything.Fox is a network that does not shy away from conservative beliefs. Plain and simple. Because they believe in them.Rush has always held conservative beliefs and he does a radio show along those lines.It reflects the beliefs of a huge portion of this country.I guess the only real question is did any station do as good a job of giving voice to conservative ideals and beliefs as FOX has?I would say no.Even the most open minded lib or right winger understands that we see the same facts from very different viewpoints.Great to have it reflected.
Yeah, “michael e” — nothing like the sorely needed public service provided by an institution that willfully deletes the messages of terrified parents from their murdered daughter’s cell phone, in “reflecting” the conservative message to a pubic clearly starved for it! Face it, “e”, the empire of Rupert Murdoch (who will more than survive this; indeed, I believe he come out stronger than ever when everyone has forgotten about it) is the moral equivalent of UFA Studios under the Nazis.
There is no barrier that a right-wing, for profit, media conglomerate will not cross. None. We know that now. It is clear that you admire Rupe not merely because of his crypto-facist species of conservatism, but because even the present scandal is cause for celebration by people such as yourself. Knock off the anti-liberal clap-trap and admit it: torturing grieving parents for scandal value is what people like you love. You will defend even this. You and people like you sicken all decent humanity because you don’t cannnot even muster the decency to be horrified the actions of Murdoch’s henchpersons. What in God’s name is wrong with you? What?
DP: Thanks for the breath of sanity.
Well Donald Pruden boy do you have me figured….wrong!If Mr Murdoch is guilty of something along the lines you mentioned ,or anything else we have not seen as of yet- i say bring the sucker down.I worked for Clinton.When i saw he had lied to congress and under oath i thought he should do time.Him before Roger Clemens.If Murdoch is found guilty away he goes without a glance from me.Fox wont miss him.Law is blind,as it should be.Of course we still live in a country wher you are innocent until PROVEN guilty.
And lets not try to play that only right wing news hounds are willing to do anything for a story.How about wiki leaks?Break any law or steal any national secrets lately?Lets not play coy.In a world where photogs get paid 200 grand for a picture of this star or that, are you really surprise by its opposite in print media?Reminds me of that james bond(forget which one)where the media mogul means to bring down the world for a story. Look at the manipulations by George Soros Murdochs opposite.Murdock (if proven)hacked E mails in England.Soros proudly destroyed English currency for a profit.So lets keep things in perspective.
A while back several comments on this site advised DNFTT (do not feed the trolls). It was good advice. According to Wikipedia, “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
America is in decline because the media have failed to inform the public, and FAIR is one of the few voices that deals, relentlessly, with that failing — all with a brilliant staff on a meager budget. Some of the comments on recent FAIR postings, however, have been self-centered, off-point drivel. Those of us who have tried to reason with such trolls as michael e have only seen his comments get longer, more frequent and more irrelevant. Ergo DNFTT.
Roger
“Don’t feed the Trolls”….Translation – Don”t talk or listen to anyone talking against our ideology.To extrapolate…Anyone not marching to the liberal drivel -drum- beat must be shunned, shuttered, and shut down.Sorry raj it may of worked last time, but this time you are pissing in the wind.The president may not agree with what the right is saying, but he is forced to listen this time around.His days(and yours)of not inviting anyone else to the table are long past.
Fair sounds brilliant to you because you are a dyed in the wool member of the sheeple brigade.I am not.To me it sounds like an academic excercise.Take any subject ,any story,and try to glean some liberal nonsensical logic from it.While you all nod your heads in unison.Sorry but last time round ‘we” made a huge mistake.We stayed silent, allowing this insanity to gain validity in the general publics eye.”We” will speak up this time.”We” will allow that there is another side to the coin.If i were you……I would try to shut us down too.Why don’t you try personal attacks or name calling.I know your side has never tried that before :)
neuharth is obviously confused. ailes was working for the cable channel “america’s talking” when NBC and Microsoft announced they were replacing it with MSNBC which, as fair points out, wasn’t “liberal” is any way shape or form in its early going.
and faux was simply based on roger’s vision of a conservative network that he first proposed when working in the nixon white house.
Roger Ailes, that is, and faux is Fox News. Thanks, wb, for staying on point and providing some useful information.