Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the username or e-mail address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 04/24/2008 1:00 am

wOw's Views on the News: Rupert Murdoch Bids $580M for Newsday

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© AP

Rupert Murdoch bid $580 million for Newsday in hopes of adding it to his collection of New York-based newspapers. He already owns two of the nation’s top ten highest-circulation newspapers — The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. Read about it here in The New York Times and here in Newsday. Some say Murdoch is an old-fashioned press baron, destroying America’s business paper of record; others say he is simply shoring up an ailing industry just in time. What do you think?

 

155 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Joan Ganz Cooney
While we may deplore him for his political views and feel disgust at his down market and often crude handling of news in his various outlets, he is a force of nature. Here is a person in his late 70s who has never heard of the concept of “enough.” I’m a grudging admirer of his grit, determination, risk taking and sheer raw energy.
By Joan Ganz Cooney on 04/24/2008 1:00 am
Candice Bergen
Don’t we have multiple rules and regulations preventing this kind of monopoly? Is there no limit? No cutoff point past which one cannot go?
By Candice Bergen on 04/24/2008 1:00 am
MugsyPeabody
We’ve just spent millions upon millions of dollars determining who can run for POTUS; meantime, this character either outright owns or controls essentially all the media in the world (and hence, how we receive our news) (except China, and he’s working on that), and not a shot fired. Um um um um um.
By MugsyPeabody on 04/24/2008 1:31 am
FrannieEm
Mugsy, right - it is time for more letters. I say time to get rid of the whole bunch up in Washington and start over from the beginning. Can we do that?
By FrannieEm on 04/24/2008 1:40 am
BethWillis
Yes, I think the Federal Communications Commission is supposed to control these kinds of monopolies. Guess they’re too busy monitoring boob flaps, literally and figuratively.
By BethWillis on 04/24/2008 4:35 pm
NoGOP
Bush has put cronies at the head of every government institution to serving private interests not the public interests.. Here is the short list: http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/09/unqualified_but.php “Bush has taken the government out of the hands of the people”: http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=92 From sourcewatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_cronyism_…
By NoGOP on 04/24/2008 6:53 pm
DrMarkKlein
Mugsy—”…and not a shot fired.” What Murdoch got for generous donations to the pols backed up by editorial support. Nevertheless he may have bought pigs in a poke because News Corps shares are doing very poorly. How many readers here take conventional newspapers anymore?
By DrMarkKlein on 04/24/2008 9:53 am
FrannieEm
Candice, that is what I want to know. Aren’t there anti-trust laws to protect us against lack of competition in a free market society? It gets ‘curiouser and curiouser’ every day. The inmates have truly taken over the asylum. No wonder small businesses (that want to expand and create jobs) struggle more and more every day, and I know this from personal experience.
By FrannieEm on 04/24/2008 1:37 am
DanH
There are many laws on the books to prevent anti-trust and monopoly practices. But they never have been enforced against the media, because of its power. The newspaper industry was the only industry in the country allowed to get away with using child labor — and outdoors in dangerous urban areas in the wee hours too. The Congress and Justice Department allowed so-callled joint operating agreements between major newspapers in cities with the consequence that a kill-or-be-killed battle began until most cities were down to one paper. Laws such as the Clayton and Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Robinson-Patman Acts were ignored. The air waves were considered public property, and they were treated that way until about 30 years ago. There used to be an “equal time” requirement for viewpoints expressed on radio. Now, radio and right-wing are synonymous except for the internet phenomenons like Air America. And Rupert Murdoch has continued to run amuck. Yet, the worst feature is that the electronic media has dumbed down the entire American population as good journalism is hard to find. And the New York Times just reported record losses. Without some political intervention, it will get worse before it gets better.
By DanH on 04/24/2008 1:35 pm
NoGOP
Dan—In addition to Anti-Trust laws, if we had a government functioning under the Constitution the entire Bush Administration would be on trial under the RICCO Act….but we don’t. And as Edith Ann says, ‘That’ the trufth.”
By NoGOP on 04/24/2008 1:43 pm
eleanor roche
Why do you deplore him? If he were a far left guy you would be applauding him. Never mind that he is probably saving print media from extinction.
By eleanor roche on 04/24/2008 2:43 am
DanH
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Bill Moyers, one of the most intelligent and reasoned voices in the media, was forced off PBS, because of his alleged political provacations. He is back, thank heavens! Olbermann is the lone exception to the rule of right-wing rule of the air waves and of most newspapers and magazines.
By DanH on 04/24/2008 1:40 pm
FrannieEm
Dan, you’ve got to be kidding if you believe that!!
By FrannieEm on 04/24/2008 6:00 pm
MugsyPeabody
No, no no no no no no! The concentration of too much power in the hands of any one person or interest is always dangerous. Left, right, pink, purple, no matter. “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
By MugsyPeabody on 04/24/2008 3:08 am
eleanor roche
In this case we are talking about capitalism and free markets, not the government. Our government was designed to avoid the concentration of power—3 branches, checks and balances, remember that? Controlling free enterprise is what they do in socialist countries, not free ones. When you start allowing the government to decide who is allowed to do or buy what, you are creating the very situation you are talking about.
By eleanor roche on 04/24/2008 8:01 am