The Hacking of Rupert Murdoch by anamaulida


									News media mogul Rupert Murdoch's hacking tribulations are related as
much to his fundamental conservatism as they are to the stupidity of his
underlings. In Murdoch's case, the term "conservatism" must be qualified
in that he may have gut conservative values but he also possesses the
innate instincts of a businessman-politician. He fund-raised for Hillary
Clinton and quasi-endorsed Barack Obama yet he sits on the Board of
Directors of the Cato Institute and his beleagured News Corporation fully
owns the bane of all liberals, the Fox News Network, as well as the World
Street Journal. Murdoch is essentially a realistic, closet conservative
who knows where his bread is buttered. No one has been buttering his
bread lately since the revelations that employees at one of his British
newspapers, the News of the World, committed horrendous acts of phone-
hacking, violating the privacy and memories of innocent people dead and
alive. News Corp closed the 168 year old tabloid in the wake of that
scandal. As unforgivable as those acts were, the real question relates to
why and how a CEO should be held responsible for the stupid
insensitivities and ignorance of a relative few of News Corp's tens of
thousands of employees. The Brits, as usual, are all in a dither,
arresting at least ten and threatening to put the kibosh on Murdoch's
multi-billion dollar deal to purchase of BSkyB because of the phone-
hacking scandal, as if the Brits weren't well-accustomed to scandals and
improprieties. The buck and the British pound seem only to stop at the
top when a conservative resides at that top. Still, Murdoch dutifully and
very publicly apologized but, aside from the necessity of keeping News
Corp's stock price from plummeting further-and of buttering his bread-
there was no need for a CEO to apologize. Express regrets, yes,
apologize, no, unless he or his immediate appointees authorized illegal
or unethical activities, which he and they did not.On the other hand, why
is Rupert Murdoch treated differently from how New York Times chairman,
Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., is treated when the Times repeatedly
breaches journalistic ethics and reports misleading and distorted
stories? The easy and simple answer is that Sulzberger and the Times are
as leftist as they come, Murdoch and News Corp are not, and the leftist-
liberals are intent on destroying Murdoch and, with him, the only viable
alternative to Obama's fully-owned mainstream media, the Fox News
Network. If "progressives" succeed in taking down Murdoch or simply
intimidating him into somehow bailing on Fox, we should be prepared for
fair and balanced reporting only from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and
CNBC. We'd be better off watching the Disney Channel or TVLand. No one in
his or her right mind could overlook the criminality of the twisted
people at News of the World. Likewise, no one in his or her right mind
would condemn a CEO for the iniquities of underlings, unless the boss
leans conservative, in which case anything goes.(See all sources at

To top