Thread: Murdoch To Media: You Dug Yourself A Huge Hole

November 16, 2008 6:01 PM PST


Murdoch to media: You dug yourself a huge hole


Buzz With newspapers cutting back and predictions of even worse times ahead, Rupert Murdoch said the profession may still have a bright future if it can shake free of reporters and editors who he said have forfeited the trust and loyalty of their readers.

"My summary of the way some of the established media has responded to the internet is this: it's not newspapers that might become obsolete. It's some of the editors, reporters, and proprietors who are forgetting a newspaper's most precious asset: the bond with its readers," said Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive officer of News Corp. He made his remarks as part of a lecture series sponsored by the Australian Broadcast Corporation.


Murdoch to journalists: Shape up or risk extinction

(Credit: Dan Farber)Murdoch, whose company's holdings also include MySpace and the Wall Street Journal, criticized what he described as a culture of "complacency and condescension" in some newsrooms.

"The complacency stems from having enjoyed a monopoly--and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted. The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception."

The 77-year-old Murdoch, recalling a long career in newspapers that began when his father's death forced him to take over the Adelaide News in 1952, said the profession has failed to creatively respond to changes wrought by technology.

"It used to be that a handful of editors could decide what was news-and what was not. They acted as sort of demigods. If they ran a story, it became news. If they ignored an event, it never happened. Today editors are losing this power. The Internet, for example, provides access to thousands of new sources that cover things an editor might ignore. And if you aren't satisfied with that, you can start up your own blog and cover and comment on the news yourself. Journalists like to think of themselves as watchdogs, but they haven't always responded well when the public calls them to account."

To make his point, Murdoch criticized the media reaction after bloggers debunked a "60 Minutes" report by former CBS anchor, Dan Rather, that President Bush had evaded service during his days in the National Guard.

"Far from celebrating this citizen journalism, the establishment media reacted defensively. During an appearance on Fox News, a CBS executive attacked the bloggers in a statement that will go down in the annals of arrogance. '60 Minutes,' he said, was a professional organization with 'multiple layers of checks and balances.' By contrast, he dismissed the blogger as 'a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.' But eventually it was the guys sitting in their pajamas who forced Mr. Rather and his producer to resign.

"Mr. Rather and his defenders are not alone," he continued. "A recent American study reported that many editors and reporters simply do not trust their readers to make good decisions. Let's be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves."

Murdoch's comments come at a time when the media landscape looks increasingly bleak both for print-based and online news organizations. A recent report by Goldman Sachs predicted that advertising pressure will continue because of the declines in the auto and financial industries. Online outlets are also feeling the impact. On Friday, TheStreet.com shut its San Francisco office

Despite the blemishes, however, Murdoch said newspapers can still count on circulation gains "if papers provide readers with news they can trust." He added they will also need to embrace technology advances like RSS feeds and targeted e-mails. The challenge, according to Murdoch, will be to "use a newspaper's brand while allowing readers to personalize the news for themselves-and then deliver it in the ways that they want."

"The newspaper, or a very close electronic cousin, will always be around. It may not be thrown on your front doorstep the way it is today. But the thud it makes as it lands will continue to echo around society and the world," he said.
Charles is an executive editor with CNET News. He has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. A graduate of Queens College and Columbia University, Cooper began his career in journalism at the Associated Press before moving to technology coverage. Before joining CNET News, he worked at Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. He received the Excellence in Journalism award from the Northern California branch of the Society for Professional Journalists for column writing. In addition to his blogging and podcast appearances, he is a co-host of the CNET News Daily Debrief. E-mail Charlie.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-10787_3-10098194-60.html

Media that is biased, inaccurate, and/or incomplete is not needed, nor is it wanted. If it is not needed nor wanted, it is not necessary. If it is not needed, wanted or necessary, it is obsolete.

Originally Posted by 4thHorseman

Media that is biased, inaccurate, and/or incomplete is not needed, nor is it wanted. If it is not needed nor wanted, it is not necessary. If it is not needed, wanted or necessary, it is obsolete.

It was never needed or necessary but money and big money's agenda makes it continue. Propaganda is a powerfull tool as we have seen in the election process. That's why corportations pay big money in advertising to brainwash the general public into buying their products.

It was never needed or necessary but money and big money's agenda makes it continue. Propaganda is a powerfull tool as we have seen in the election process. That's why corportations pay big money in advertising to brainwash the general public into buying their products.

Can't argue with the basic premise here. But, if the media loses its audience, then whoever is footing the bill is not getting bang for the buck. And that appears to be happening because major media outlets keep losing circulation / audience. I think Murdoch's observations were dead on. I also believe, given MSM's lousy performance during this last election campaign season, that if they dared poll the American people, the MSM approval rating would rank below not only Bush, but Congress.

Originally Posted by 4thHorseman

It was never needed or necessary but money and big money's agenda makes it continue. Propaganda is a powerfull tool as we have seen in the election process. That's why corportations pay big money in advertising to brainwash the general public into buying their products.

Can't argue with the basic premise here. But, if the media loses its audience, then whoever is footing the bill is not getting bang for the buck. And that appears to be happening because major media outlets keep losing circulation / audience. I think Murdoch's observations were dead on. I also believe, given MSM's lousy performance during this last election campaign season, that if they dared poll the American people, the MSM approval rating would rank below not only Bush, but Congress.

Good point. I do believe that the majority of Americans fall in the middle of the bell curve of intelligence so that when they are constantly bombarded by the biased medias ideas that they began to believe along those same lines. If you tell someone they are stupid long enough and consistently enough no matter how smart they are they will begin to believe it.

EVERYONE that I talk to doe not watch the stinkin 3 to get their news.

Media that is biased, inaccurate, and/or incomplete is not needed, nor is it wanted. If it is not needed nor wanted, it is not necessary. If it is not needed, wanted or necessary, it is obsolete.

Media bias is pounded from top down. Toe the corporation's political line, slant the story, or find the door. Been there, didn't toe the line, and thank goodness I remembered where the door was.

Originally Posted by vortex

Media that is biased, inaccurate, and/or incomplete is not needed, nor is it wanted. If it is not needed nor wanted, it is not necessary. If it is not needed, wanted or necessary, it is obsolete.

Media bias is pounded from top down. Toe the corporation's political line, slant the story, or find the door. Been there, didn't toe the line, and thank goodness I remembered where the door was.

Good for you, Vortex, damn proud of ya for not caving to lies and deciet. Hope you have found something more rewarding. Kudos to ya!

"It used to be that a handful of editors could decide what was news-and what was not. They acted as sort of demigods. If they ran a story, it became news. If they ignored an event, it never happened.

ISNT THAT WHAT WE HAVE NOW? Thats why more people are turning to the internet. That is also why Democrats want to squelch free speech on the radio and internet, because they cant control its contents.