Could murdoch change?

[hairy]

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i23murdoch.htm
AUGUST 22, 2004 – All along it's been a dirty little lie. The claim that FOX News and all those AM radio shows are "conservative" is a bunch of hooey. They are just profit and power self-promoting wolves who wrap themselves in the sheep's clothing of the "conservative" label.

With Limbaugh and the AM'ers, this may not be such a relevant point. Kissing Bush Republican butt is all they have, and they never would be able to thrive financially by switching to play to the left.


Rupert Murdoch and his FOX News is another story.


As we reported back in May in this article, Murdoch has been tinkering with elections around the world for decades, and has no loyalty to one party or philosophy, only to his bank account. From that article:

As reported in a July 21, 1995 New York Times article titled, "Murdoch and Laborite: Britain’s New Odd Couple":

"Rupert Murdoch is Britain’s most powerful non-Briton. His media outlets… are so influential that critics charge him with single-handedly destabilizing the monarchy and snatching the elections."

Yes, Murdoch has been playing this game around the world for years and years. And not being a Briton or American native but Australian-born, and being amoral, money-worshipping scum, he doesn't care one way or another what happens to the people of the nations he tinkers with, only how much money he can get from them.

Margaret Thatcher and her Conservative Party, the British equivalent of the Republicans, were the early recipients of Murdoch's election snatching activities. Like he does now with his FOX News, NY Post, FOX TV, Harper Collins Publishing, Village Voice (yep, that's him,) Boston Herald, Chicago Sun Times, TV Guide (yes, he owns that, too)... in short, what he is doing now with all of his massive media holdings to promote President Bush and the Bush/Limbaugh Republicans, he may stop doing at any moment, the second his financial interests dictate, and switch to pushing the exact opposite side. (To see the full list of what Murdoch owns around the world - and it is massive beyond belief - read the May article.)

And in case you don't quite believe us, you somehow think Murdoch really is a "conservative" and so would never abandon the right-wing and switch to the left, here is a reality check for you straight from history. From our May article::

The (New York Times, July 21, 1995) article details how then-Labor Party leader Tony Blair had moved "far ahead in the public opinion polls" to replace then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with the help of a new ally for Labor, Rupert Murdoch. Back then, the article reports, Murdoch owned 37 percent of the UK newspaper market, in addition to his B Sky B network that "blankets Britain."

Well, did Murdoch leaving his usually ultra-conservative alliances and siding against his once staunch ally Thatcher show that he was indeed an unbiased, fair-minded man not allied to any party? Indeed, it did show his true allegiance.

The issue that caused him to ditch Thatcher and push Blair was none other than the one that is his central concern in America today, and why he sides with the Republicans here: media regulation.

"The 63-year old media tycoon is known to be furious at the ruling Conservatives for proposals released in May that could effectively block him from expanding further in television here unless he was willing to scale back his newspaper holdings."

So Blair went before Murdoch and said that he was "concerned about the role of a powerful "media regulator" in the Government plan," the Times reported.

And so Murdoch dropped Thatcher and adopted Blair. And so, not coincidentally, Britain shortly thereafter voted out Thatcher and in Blair.

So you see that in the end Murdoch has no problem jumping all the way from Conservative to Labor over just one issue: her purse strings.

Now you see why Blair had to go along with the Iraq war. Currently Bush is Murdoch's media deregulation shill. As we reported:

Not coincidentally, when both Republicans and Democrats got together last year to vote to restrict how much media one person can own in America, President Bush opposed the legislation. (see Washington Post article: Lawmakers Defy Bush on Media Rules)

So Murdoch had to stand by Bush and his Iraq War as Bush is his only ally here. And so that also meant trying to drum up support around the world for the war - including in such places as Britain, where he dominates the media as well.

And so guess who had to go along with the war because of this? Yep, Blair was forced to go along with with Bush's war because Murdoch was forced to go along with Bush's war. All because of media deregulation. Because President Bush will stand for the deregulation that will let Murdoch own more and more of our media, stifling America's vital free press, Murdoch - and so Blair - had to fall in line with Bush's war. If Bush had not backed media deregulation, both Murdoch and Blair might have taken an entirely different stand.

However, if Murdoch comes to see Bush as truly too incompetent and floundering, or he sees his TV station's ratings change drastically, he would have no problem shilling for the left or middle or whoever might serve him best. All other issues, such as the environment, national security, the War in Iraq are irrelevant to him. As in England, where he had no problem switching from union busting to union backing in the drop of a hat when his personal finances were on the line, he would have no problem going for Iraq War promoter to Iraq War basher in the drop of a stance against media deregulation.

Murdoch had only aligned with Thatcher to begin with because she was willing to skirt laws and regulations to get him extra cash. From the May article:

In Britain he was granted "privilege allowed to no other newspaper proprietor," as the NY Times reported, which allowed him to buy up 5 national newspapers while also combining Sky and British Satellite Broadcasting into what is now the all powerful B Sky B. Again and again he was allowed to go around the Monopolies Commission thanks to special status granted to him by – you guessed it – candidates he had helped get elected, including Thatcher herself.

So while FOX may seem to stand with the President and Republicans now because of their views on the War on Terror or economy or environment, make no mistake this is all just as much a sham as the station's "Fair and Balanced" slogan.

The President's stance on Media deregulation is the only reason Murdoch has been using his assets to back the President and his policies. If Kerry were to become the champion of media deregulation, FOX would immediately switch to talking about the true patriotism of people like Kerry who protested Vietnam and the un-Americanism of President Bush for lying to lead us to war. He would become the same one-sided shill for Kerry and the Democrats that he now is for the Republicans in a Wall Street minute.

So while Bush can always count on his AM radio cave dwelling losers, should he continue to be such an obvious loser himself, don't be surprised if Murdoch entirely shifts gears and jumps into a different swift boat. And if the President's views on media deregulation - or Kerry's - were to change, FOX News' switch would be a sure thing.

Patriotic, huh?

[Brian Morans]

1. True, but shoddy research...

from http://www.margaretthatcher.net/

Margaret Thatcher was the United Kingdom’s first woman prime minister. She came to office in May 1979 and remained until her resignation in November 1990, making her the longest continually serving prime minister in 150 years.

It was a John Major government in 1995. Blair became leader of the Labour Party after John Smith's sudden death in 1994, when Thatcher had been gone for quite some time.

True, Murdoch's Sun Newspaper (equivalent to NY Post) did throw its weight behind Blair close to the 1997 election. Maybe they already knew he'd be a lapdog.