Wall Street Journal Covers Parent Company, News Corp, and Murdoch 's Scandal with Facts

Since Murdoch and his News Corp was allowed to buy The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), their coverage of corporate  news has been sinking into more general news and less in-depth business articles we had come to expect on the front page.  Then we learn the facts from The Daily Beast that since 2007 only 12% of articles on The Wall Street Journal front page were about corporations.  The first question that pops in your mind is WHY?

 "Did Murdoch Costs The Wall Street Journal the Scoop on the Goldman-Sachs/SEC Story?"  According to the linked Daily Finance article it did.  Turns out that Murdoch bought the WSJ to compete with the New York Times for local news and politics which ended up bitting the WSJ on this story when the New York Times broke the full story and 20 minutes later the Journal went with a bare bones story.

Why would Murdoch have WSJ sit on the story?  Was Murdoch's purchase of the WSJ meant to help Obama when he took office with Murdoch's switch of the WSJ to more political news and less business news?  With only 12% front page stories being about corporate America, it left a big hole for those stories how corporate America was affected by the Obama Administration.  That may be a reach but in hindsight, that looks to be a possibility.   Makes sense with the bad economy that Murdoch, who supported Obama, would make the Journal into more of a regular newspaper ignoring what was happening in corporate America for the most part.

Murdoch's support of Obama was largely ignored by the loyal supporters of Fox News who turned even more on McCain.  If Fox News told them to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, some of them would probably do just that.




There you have it -- Murdoch supporting Obama and the Wall Street Journal goes more mainstream news and less corporate.  Connect the dots.

Why have most of the conservative pundits from the beginning been ignoring this huge story out of London on News Corps which has now reached inside the United States with the FBI investigation opened?  This should be big news to everyone.  It made our local papers and the broadcast news.

Murdoch Scandal Roils WSJ

Faced with sleazy corporate cousins, reporters at the august Wall Street Journal are grappling with how to cover their boss’s scandal—and their own survival 

By Nick Summers
Jul 14, 2011 10:24 PM EDT

On Tuesday, July 5, bureau chiefs and editors at The Wall Street Journal dialed into a conference call organized by Dennis Berman, the newspaper’s new editor in charge of corporate coverage. He trotted out some numbers: of the more than 1,200 front-page stories the Journal had run in the previous year, only 12 percent had been about corporations—formerly the paper’s bread and butter. 

Since its 2007 sale to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., the Journal had been steadily devolving, old-timers thought, into a general-interest daily—still a fine newspaper, but no longer the essential first read of corporate America. “We have to raise our ambitions,” Berman said, according to someone who listened to the call. And it wasn’t hard to believe that the Journal would. A week earlier, it had won three Gerald Loeb Awards, the highest honors in business journalism, after being shut out in 2010 for the first time in decades. 

At that moment, though, a long-simmering story in the British press was exploding, dictating that the next major corporation the Journal would be covering would be its own parent.
The bombshell admission by the News Corp.-owned tabloid News of the World that its reporters had hacked the voicemail of a murdered teen, giving her parents false hope that she might still be alive, has made the Murdoch company one of the most reviled on the planet, as more allegations of unethical practices at its various properties have surfaced. News Corp.’s hasty decisions to shutter the tabloid, as well as scuttle a $12 billion bid for complete ownership of a lucrative British satellite broadcasting company, have done little to stanch the outcry. In the sprawling story’s latest developments, the FBI opened an investigation into whether News Corp. outlets violated the privacy of 9/11 terror victims in America; Murdoch himself consented to testify before Britain’s Parliament; and Rebekah Brooks, the CEO of his U.K. newspapers, resigned. 

In the last week and a half, reporters and editors at the august Journal have had to come to terms with the fact that they share corporate DNA with publications that have paid police for news, paid large settlements to keep phone-hacking victims quiet, and provided Parliament with incomplete information, among other sins against journalism. The Journal's publisher, Les Hinton, has been widely discussed as a possible fall guy for their malfeasance. For the Journal, covering it all has been an awkward and frustrating challenge. 

“It stinks. It makes our stomachs churn, to be bizarrely held accountable for some dipshit tabloid guys from eight years ago. It’s absurd,” said a staffer who has been at the Journal since before Murdoch bought the paper. Another reporter, also speaking anonymously, described an end to the era of pretending away the Murdoch taint: “This slightly naïve notion that nobody really knows that we’re part of News Corp., that what they do, what Fox News does, what Rupert Murdoch does, doesn’t affect us—when something like this happens, it forces people to recognize that it does.” 

In covering the story, the Journal has walked a fine line. After running articles on page B1 and B3 on its first two days, the News of the World closure made the front page last Friday. The story was then relegated back inside—although Journal reporters Jessica Vascellaro and Russell Adams broke news Wednesday with a report that News Corp. was contemplating the sale of its remaining British newspapers. As the scandal has continued to explode anew each day, the Journal has, indeed, upped its game. Murdoch’s decision to revoke his bid for British Sky Broadcasting was fronted again Wednesday, and yesterday, the paper published the first extensive interview with Murdoch. 

It hasn’t been an entirely smooth process, especially because Journal staffers are acutely aware of who among their ranks might be termed “AM” and “PM”: after Murdoch and pre-Murdoch. Gossip flows freely in a newsroom, and spreading through the Journal grapevine now is the tale of a contentious moment last week between No. 2 editor Gerard Baker—a Murdoch hire—and Bruce Orwall, a longtime bureau chief now in London. During a conference call to plan stories, the journalists were discussing Rebekah Brooks, the News of the World editor at the time of the hacking of the teen murder victim’s phone. Baker, murmuring a word of support for the vilified Brooks, noted that she had been on vacation when the offense occurred. Orwall shot back quickly: “The last I checked, cell phones still work in Italy.” Orwall declined to comment; Baker, through a spokesperson, did the same. Journal Editor-in-Chief Robert Thomson also declined to comment. 

The Journal's competitors say the paper is performing admirably, under the circumstances. “We all know how tricky it is to cover your own company. I think the Journal has played it pretty much down the middle,” Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, emailed The Daily Beast. One Times reporter, who did not wish to be named discussing a competitor, agreed. “I think they’re doing the most they can with a very unpleasant and uncomfortable situation. No one ever wants to write about their boss,” he said. “And when you do, there’s always a degree of self-editing that goes on. Knowing that, it’s pretty impressive how they have been very tough on Murdoch and News Corp. at times.” 

Excerpt:  Read More at The Daily Beast

First time we heard of Rupert Murdoch was when we lived in the San Antonio area and he bought the San Antonio Light which was a very good newspaper -- lot of military news and facts.  The San Antonio Express at that time was more fluff.  Murdoch then got approval behind closed doors to buy the Express News promising the Light employees there would be little change.  That was one big fat lie.  Next thing we know we are down to one paper as he merged the papers and the Light employees were in the unemployment line.  Why was he allowed to buy the Express News to put the Light out of business is a question that was never answered.

Now in NYC he owns the cable Fox News, The New York Post, and now The Wall Street Journal.  The question remains of why he was allowed to buy different venues in the same city.  His aim is to put The New York Times out of business using The Wall Street Journal is failing miserably.  Journal reporters are not too happy being part of News Corp either.

If I don't like what a newspaper has to say, I don't read it and certainly will not buy it. There is Freedom of the Press along with my right to not read a particular paper if I don't agree with them.  The very idea that Murdoch bought the WSJ to put the NY Times out of business goes against everything I believe.  Don't want one sided news and that is what Murdoch seems to be after.  How long would it take him if he could buy the NY Times to merge the WSJ and lay off Journal employees in favor of the Times?  He has a track record that is not good.  Conservatives who buy into Murdoch are setting themselves up for an eventual fall because he is not conservative.  No conservative would hire Geraldo.

Very black eye for News Corp but since it is Rupert Murdoch, I am shedding no tears and consider it the beginning of payback for the San Antonio Light employees and their readers.

The Special Relationship is under fire: Barack Obama’s refusal to back Britain over the Falklands is a disgrace

Almost immediately after President Obama was sworn in a little over a year ago, it appears he set out to destroy the relationship we have with Great Britain, our strongest ally, who has been a strong partner for the United States for years. "Why?" we have been asking for months as it makes no sense unless you consider that Obama considers himself a son of Kenya.

Obama may go down in history as the most anti-American President in history as shown by his almost hostile relationship with most of our NATO allies, his playing up to our enemies, and his endless apologies around the World for the United States. Immigrants from various countries have looked at America as a Beacon of Freedom over the years as they come to our Country looking for a better life for them and their families. Ellis Island has log book after log book filled with names of people who came to America for Freedom. Now we have an American President who wants to destroy 'Freedoms' in this Country.

Obama bows to the Saudi King and the Japanese Emperor while treating the Queen of England as his next door neighbor with little regard to protocol. American President's do not bow to anyone. At the Organization of American States Summit he played up to the dictators of the Western Hemisphere while dissing the countries loyal to the United States like Colombia who we are helping in their drug lord war fight. He seems to have never met a dictator or communist head of state he doesn't like but if a country was an ally, they are now on Obama's hit list.

We are not the only ones who have noticed this as we found this paragraph from the London Telegraph telling:

Even by the relentlessly poor standards of the Obama administration, whose doctrine unfailingly appears to be “kiss your enemies and kick your allies”, this is a new low. The White House’s neutrality in a major dispute between America’s closest friend and the likes of Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez, Argentina’s biggest backer, represents the appalling appeasement of an alliance of anti-Western Latin American regimes, stretching from Caracas to Havana – combined with a callous indifference towards the Anglo-American alliance.

Countries around the world have Obama pegged, and they are correct relationships will be strained while he is in the White House. Our allies are not the only ones waking up to what this President is, but so are our enemies.

This President is spineless, rude, arrogant, and acts like a spoiled brat when he doesn't he get his way as witnessed by what happened yesterday in the Healthcare Summit where Obama lectured for more minutes then either the Democrats told their sob stories or Republicans told the facts of Democrat Healthcare bills. If what we witnessed yesterday is an indication of how he handles being in meetings with foreign leaders, it is no wonder our allies question his actions on foreign policy.

Our State Department is not any better so anyone thinking Hillary would have been better as President, think again as witnessed by their quotes on The Falklands and their actions on Honduras -- BTW, whatever happened in Honduras after their elections as we hear nothing more about how wrong it was to kick out a President who went against the Constitution. Is Obama afraid that it might come back to bite?

From the State Department spokesman:

“We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality. The US recognises de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.”

The remarks had echoes of an earlier statement by a senior State Department protocol official who, when asked about the shoddy treatment of the British Prime Minister in March last year, responded:

“There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”

This Administration is a disgrace on the world stage. We would bet if the Olympics had been held in Venzuela, Obama would have gone instead of sending the "do nothing" Biden as he describes his job as Vice President.

The next time the American people are faced with a Presidential election, they had better be demanding candidates show everything from a formal birth certificate to academic paperwork to anything they have written as adults plus their medical record all of which Obama has kept secret.

One problem we see even when we acknowledge that Obama was most likely born in Hawaii was that he was not raised in an environment that could be called American. He spent his formative young years in Indonesia going to a Catholic school as a Muslim, went to live in Hawaii with his grandparents and was under the influence of family friend, Communist Franklin Marshal Davis, who introduced him into the Chicago political scene and to the Ayers Family. As an adult, Obama attended Rev Wright's Church which is known for its black liberation philosophy and support for black Afrocentrists. Rev Wright, as a former Muslim, caters to other Muslims so they can attend a 'Christian' church for business purposes and cover up the fact they are Muslim.

You may ask yourself what the last paragraph has to do with the United States and its special relationship with Great Britian, but you need to look no farther then the fact Obama's father was a Kenyan socialist. When Obama Sr was born and growing up, Kenya was a Crown Colony under the rule of Great Britain. At the time of Obama's birth, Kenya was in the process of becoming an independent country from Great Britain. This may be an underlying cause for Obama's contempt for Great Britain. It is as good of theory as any.

In 2012 we need to elect a President who understands our special relationships around the World especially with Great Britain and honor those relationships not kick them to the curb as Obama as done. In one year Obama has managed to wreck our foreign policy that has stood for years and the American economy. Obama likes the perks as President as he travels on AF One at the drop of a hat and hosts parties every week but allows others (Chicago White House Mafia?) determine policy.

After his arrogant, self-centered, long winded lecture yesterday, it is obvioius that he doesn't even grasp what is in the healthcare bill he has been touting for years. With that we can safely assume, that policy making in the White House is not being done by the President. Who is the main voice behind Obama on policy? Is it Emanual, Jarrett, Axelrod, or Soros who is outside the Administration. Do we have a shadow government calling the shots? Maybe when history is written, we will find out the truth.

Read this article and ask yourself what have the American people done in putting a son of a Kenyan socialist, someone mentored by a Communist friend of his mother's family, who is/was a friend of domestic terrorists, and had a minister who preaches black liberation in the Office of the President of the United States.

The Special Relationship is under fire: Barack Obama’s refusal to back Britain over the Falklands is a disgrace

By Nile Gardiner World
Last updated: February 25th, 2010

The Obama administration’s decision to remain neutral in the dispute between Great Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands is a shameful decision that will go down very badly across the Atlantic. As The Times has just reported, Washington has point blank refused to support British sovereignty over the Falklands, and is adopting a strictly neutral approach.

(snip)

Over the course of the last year, we’ve seen a staggering array of foreign policy follies by this administration, from the throwing under the bus of the Poles and the Czechs over missile defence to siding with Marxists in Honduras. But this latest pronouncement surely takes the biscuit as the most brazen betrayal so far of a US ally.

As the Obama government is amply aware, the tensions between London and Buenos Aires are escalating dramatically, with British military contingency planning already under way. In effect, Washington declared today that it would remain neutral in the event of another war in the South Atlantic, a stunning declaration to make.

(snip)

To put it bluntly, the Obama administration is killing the Special Relationship, and the prospects of a recovery look extremely bleak as long as Barack Obama remains in the White House.

I am in no doubt though that messages of support for Britain will begin to flow in the coming days from Senators and Congressmen who actually understand the importance of Anglo-American friendship and loyalty, and who recognize the tremendous value of the ancestral, linguistic, economic, cultural, military and intelligence ties that bind the two greatest nations in the world. And I am very sure that the vast majority of Americans will reject the spineless neutrality of the White House and State Department, and wholeheartedly support the British people in the event of another conflict.

Excerpt: Read More at London Telegraph

Powerline this morning has another take on this and lends credibility to the question of "Why does Obama hate England?":

Mel and Barack: What do they have in Common?
Feb 25, 2010

They both hate England, apparently. The difference is that Mel Gibson's antipathy, as expressed in Braveheart and The Patriot, is mostly fictional. Why Barack Obama hates England is hard to say, but his antipathy is distressingly real. Now, Obama has declared that the U.S. is neutral with regard to the Falklands. The Telegraph headlines: "Et tu, Barack? America betrays Britain in her hour of need"

Excerpt: Read More at Powerline