A real Say WHaaaaat? came over me as I read the blogosphere's reaction to the NY Times piece on Rupert Murdoch and his possible take over of the Wall Street Journal. (h/t memeorandum) There is a lot of fear expressed that Murdoch would try to influence the Editorial Page of the Journal. The real cause for concern is his impact on the news reporting, where his more "active" ownership would definitely send a chill through the news room.
It would be hard for Murdoch to make the Journal's editorial page any more conservative than it already is. (Peggy Noonan, John Fund) In fact the only upside of a Murdoch purchase would be the reduction in credence and respect that the Editorial page currently enjoys. As his tenure at the New York Post has shown, Murdoch prefers columnists who lack credibility and competence, and has no objection to those who are both lazy and inaccurate. Credibility is not the first word to that comes to mind when hearing names like that of the toe-sucking Dick Morris, J Podhoretz, Rich Lowry and Michelle Malkin - to name but a few of the shrill, hysterical commenters whom Rupert pays.
One of his favorites is Andrea Peyser, and it is worth the trouble to look at her column today as a demonstration of my point. The piece appears under the headline "Prof's study in anti-Semitism," and here's the first paragraph:
Their tactics smack of McCarthyism. Hitler would be proud.
It goes on to criticize the boycott by academics in the U.K of their Israeli colleagues. She begins a description of the decision to boycott with the words:
In a move met with near-silence on this side of the pond, .... In this country the first - and the only -university president to fight the Brits comes from this city. He is Columbia University's Lee Bollinger.
She continues by praising and quoting President Bollinger; then five paragraphs later she writes:
Just two of Bollinger's colleagues have expressed solidarity with him - leaders at Berkeley and McGill universities.
Please understand that in no way do I approve of the boycotts; I'm examining her piece only to show why I'm optimistic as to why, if she gets a major post on a new editorial page of a Murdoch journal, she'll render the page irrelevant in less than a week.
By mentioning both Joe McCarthy (who the Republicans like, according to CPAC diva Ann Coulter) and Hitler (who I presume the Republicans do not like) in the first two sentences Peyser drives any serious reader away.
She shows how lazy and/or intellectually dishonest she is by saying that Bollinger is the "first - and only", and then only a few paragraphs later, notes that there are two others. A quick trip to the A.D.L. site shows a "selection of comments" from other prominent academics, such as John Sexton, President of N.Y.U.; Michael V. Drake, Chancelllor, University of California at Irvine; Stephen J Toope, President and Vice-Chancellor, University of British Columbia; Stephen Trachtenberg, President of George Washington University; Robert C. Dynes, President, University of California; Richard Joel, President, Yeshiva University. I, myself haven't checked, but then I'm not being paid either, with the stance that Brandeis is taking on the boycott.
Peyser describes the boycott as being met with "near-silence on this side of the pond." That "near-silence" was penetrated by the noise of editorials condemning the boycott in both the New York Times and the Washington Post, as well as by a petition that has so far been signed by over 6,000 academics, including several Nobel Prize Winners. I'd like to tell Ms Peyser of the "bi-partisan coalition of members of Congress" who have a resolution to repudiate the boycott, led by Democratic Representative Murphy of Pennsylvania. But I think it would fall on deaf ears.
Compare any Murdoch columnist with someone like Frank Rich, whose op-ed I discussed yesterday, and you'll see why I have hope for American democracy.
Comments