THE PHONE-HACKING scandal surrounding Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp has just about everything: charges of political favouritism, allegations of hidden corporate agendas, high-level media wheeling and dealing, would-be conflicts of interest. And that’s just the news organisations, not the story itself.
The saga has, perhaps inevitably, created its own secondary narrative. This one involves Big Media, whose corporate loyalties and entanglements have raised suspicions about news organisations’ independence and objectivity.
In the two weeks since allegations of widespread hacking by Murdoch's British newspapers broke open, claims of bias and suspicions of conflict of interest have flown from several directions. Given Murdoch's extensive media holdings and his equally vast array of rivals and enemies, the story has raised a question: Can Murdoch get a fair shake in the media? His US-based media organisations – Fox News Channel, the Wall Street Journaland the New York Post– find themselves in the almost no-win position of reporting a story that involves their boss. None have ignored the story, but critics have been quick to note that Fox News has devoted far less air time to its parent company's troubles in Britain than its cable news rivals, CNN and MSNBC.
At the same time, outlets such as the New York Timesand National Public Radio (NPR) have enthusiastically pursued the story, raising suspicions about their motives. The New York Timeshas a business interest at stake: it competes for readers and advertisers with the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. NPR, meanwhile, is still smarting from the beating Fox News dished out last year after the organisation fired commentator Juan Williams.
The New York Timeshelped revive what had been an almost dormant scandal last September by publishing a 6,000-word story on the subject in its Sunday magazine. The article disclosed that eavesdropping by journalists at the News of the Worldwas far more extensive than had been acknowledged by British authorities. It also revealed investigative foot-dragging by Scotland Yard.
Even before it published its story, the New York Timescame under attack: N ews of the World's managing editor, Bill Akass, accused the newspaper of seeking to injure a direct competitor. Several months earlier, the Wall Street Journal had launched a New York edition, a venture some observers dubbed "a Timeskiller". Defending his paper's coverage, New York Timeseditor Bill Keller wrote in an e-mail that the disclosures of the past two weeks had validated everything the paper reported last year.
The New York Times, he said, "has been careful to make sure our reporting is solid, our presentation is fair, and that the tone does not suggest some kind of agenda. We do that with any story, but we've been a little extra vigilant because we don't want to give readers the impression this is anything but a big, fascinating news story."
The story got new legs over the past two weeks with a series of Guardianscoops, including the revelation that News of the Worldhad hacked the phone of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler.
"The radicals at the Guardianhave clearly salivated to ruin Old Man Rupert," said Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the Media Research Centre, a conservative watchdog group based in Alexandria. The American media, he said, have joined in: "It's blatantly obvious that this pile-on . . . is all about Murdoch and his perceived noxious effect on American politics and media."
Graham singles out NPR, which has received funding from “Murdoch-hating” billionaire financier George Soros, as having a special interest in going after Murdoch’s media properties.
“We’re making decisions about the coverage of the News Corp story, as we do with all stories, based on its importance and news value,” said Dana Davis Rehm, NPR’s head of communications. “This is very big news with global impact, and we’re really proud of our coverage.”
The non-Murdoch media’s larger goal, Graham said, is “to rid America of the Fox News Channel”, which has provided a prominent platform for conservatives.
It’s certainly clear that Fox has covered Murdoch’s troubles differently from its cable rivals, MSNBC and CNN. Over a 10-day period ending on Thursday, Fox News devoted 37 segments to the hacking story, according to Media Matters for America, a liberal watchdog group. This was fewer than half the number of stories aired by MSNBC (85), and fewer than a third of CNN (124).
Fox News has had two awkward moments in regard to the story. The first, last week, was during a segment of its media criticism programme, Fox News Watch, in which panellists said they intended to avoid discussing the subject ("I'm not touching it," panellist Cal Thomas said in a comment caught by cameras during a break).
The other occurred on Friday, when Fox & Friendshost Steve Doocy and PR executive Robert Dilenschneider defended News Corp and agreed the media had devoted too much attention to the story. Dilenschneider went on to denounce hacking, but lumped News Corp among its corporate victims rather than citing the organisation as a perpetrator.
– ( Washington Postservice)