Comments on: Murdoch to media: You dug yourself a huge hole

News Corp.'s feisty CEO slams a culture of "complacency and condescension" but says a fix for an industry healing its self-inflicted wounds remains within reach.

[Michigan_Person]

I normally don't comment on news articles, but this one definitely rattled my cage. It's ironic that Rupert Murdoch is criticizing the news media. The guy is part of the problem. I love his statement: "The complacency stems from having enjoyed a monopoly--and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted." Yeah, a monopoly he created! Thanks to him we've got one of the most biased, opinionated, and unprofessional stations around. Every time I see O'Reilly or Hannity talk to guests as though they are children, I can't help but be amazed that those guys still have an audience. They are everything that the news media shouldn't be: deceptive, arrogant, extremely biased, and unwilling to knowledge nor listen to people whose views differ from their own.

The media is supposed to be an unbiased, honest, investigative watchdog of the government. Instead we've got a media who, for the most part, try telling us what to think and believe. Maybe if people weren't so willing to sit in front of the TV and not accept everything they watch as the absolute truth, we wouldn't be in this situation. But instead there are men like Murdoch who appear to have no problem with propagating the version of the truth that he and his governmental buddies want people to hear. Thanks Rupert, for failing to do your part of democracy.

And even though I'm picking on Murdoch, this problem goes beyond the companies he owns. The news media has failed. The media are not what a democracy needs, especially in tough times as we're seeing right now. The perfect example of how the media has failed is the recent presidential election. A person who only watched the major news stations would likely be under the impression that there were perhaps 5 or 6 candidates who were running for president during the primaries, and that there were only 2 candidates (Obama and McCain) after the primaries. Not true. There were 19 candidates at one point, and 6 who were still running during the final vote. The media excluded candidates from the debates, they gave the vast majority of coverage to the main 2 candidates rather than giving them all a fair and balanced (hehe, couldn't resist using that wonderful phrase) chance to represent themselves on camera. So the final product was that the majority of Americans had no idea who these other candidates were and that Obama and McCain were really the only options, and as a result the democratic and republican parties pulled in 99% of the votes.

[veritas72]

@david2464...
"Wow, you just did a great job of illustrating the condescension much of the press shows it's customers. You were also good at tying that condescension in with your political beliefs. Democrats in general and Liberals in particular already think their smarter than everyone else but ad to that the title of " journalist " and you have a self righteous narcissistic pig. If you're offended by this, you must be a journalist"

I am sorry, but I feel the need to point out that you neither speak with proper grammar, nor spelling, and it is just laughable that you are effectively declaring yourself smarter than the person you reply to. It is "they're," not "their," and "add," not "ad." If you are going to go to the trouble of insulting those liberals and democrats for thinking they're smarter than you, don't prove them right.

[leonpeterson]

In my case I gave up reading newspapers about 18 years ago. I was fed up with the left winged propaganda. I put up with the TV news because I can always switch channels with the remote. Obviously Fox News was a welcome relief, as some conservative views were finally allowed to be aired, but even that still allows the constant whine of wild eyed leftie Alan Colmes. The internet was a revolution for people like me, whose letters were never published by newspapers. I was the conservative voice they loved to silence. If I defended Reagan they would throw my letter in the bin. I?ve been having my revenge on liberals for about 11 years now, through online discussion boards. I can tell you one thing ? they aren?t used to being spanked intellectually. They hated being shown to be wrong. They were spoiled by years of liberal editors, and can?t handle the more even-handed internet.

Would I ever return to pulped wood stamped with ink for my information? Not a chance. For you people still reading papers, wake up and smell the 21st Century.

[HighwayHome]

The media will lean whichever way suits their agenda. All the outlets were playing cheerleader and banging the drums in the leadup to the Iran war. Why? Because this kind of rah rah stuff sells papers and pacifies their major advertisers. As for the recent election, that same media was throwing GWB under the bus and ushering in a new messiah with horns blazing. Why? Because this sells papers.

The media is in the business of giving people what they want, not what they need. Telling the truth is secondary when it comes to fulfilling a predetermined agenda. Since Murdoch's interests are obviously a bit biased on many issues, he may not be the most credible or impartial source in such a discussion. He's basically passing the buck and making scapegoats out of the lower level employees, who have no say in what the papers publish, or more importantly, what the papers ignore and fail to publish.

[zunipus]

At last we understand. Rupert Murdoch has become unbalanced and slipped into senility. How unfair. There he is, standing in front of a mirror, berating the hellhole media he personally created, telling it to stop being a catastrophic disaster of dishonesty and incompetence. Sadly, poor Rupert doesn't recognize himself any more. He's just chattering away, berating and chattering at himself, alone in the room.

Seriously, I nominate Murdoch as the WEASEL OF THE CENTURY.

In his right hand he holds the reigns of the most biased, unfair, unbalanced, dishonest, untrustworthy, propagandist television news network in US history: *** News.

In his left hand he holds his lawsuit against the FCC for censoring immoral behavior on TV. This is the guy who invented '**** On Page 3'.

This must be cognitive dissonance day. (You can look it up at Wikipedia).

Attack of the Giant Weasel from OZ.

[zunipus]

Oh sorry. I got myself censored. The ****ed out words are: Mammary Glands. I.E. Mammary Glands On Page 3, as found in Murdoch's sleazy tabloid rag in the UK.

This guy is The Sultan Of Sleaze.
Smile Mr. Murdoch!
This one's for posterity.
:-P

[willdryden]

Everyone has a bias. It is the general nature of people. To allow this bias to show in what is supposed to be the reporting of facts and in the decision of what news to report is the error that main stream media has committed. As with anything, it takes a while to notice this bias, especially if you have a leaning toward the basic views of that writer or journalist. I have found that I must temper my views with research before quoting any article even on the internet. If you can not think for yourself, you become one of the sheep and will follow whatever you read or heard last. I?ve seen it too many times and in too many people.

At one time I subscribed to four daily newspapers. I got tired of paying for the privilege of being insulted.

[mbtaggart]

I agree completely with Murdoch about so many journalists' condescension to the public. I hear it in the comments made by readers, who repeat journalists' insulting of conservatives. Those readers are like little kids repeating what they've heard their parents say. Come to think of it, maybe it's no wonder that journalists condescend.

They seem to think they're above reproach, but increasingly, their own biases are insinuating themselves into what is held out to the public as hard news. Bias is fair game if someone is editorializing, but I've seen anonymous (so presumably, objective) AP releases that were pure speculation regarding the motives of this or that public figure.

But ethics aside, it's just bad business for newspapers to allow this behavior to continue. It costs a lot less to keep a customer than to replace him once he's walked. And today, the traditional media have a lot of serious competition.

[nitram8298]

The modern-day king of yellow journalism, of raggy non-news, the creator of unfair, unbalanced *journalism* whining because nobody reads his brand of garbage anymore? Whaaaah! Quit crying and go chase some 'roos, you wanker. I really hope your whole empire collapses (except for the Kings hockey on FS-W ? I need the hockey, Rupy).

[nitram8298]

The modern-day king of yellow journalism, of raggy non-news, the creator of unfair, unbalanced *journalism* whining because nobody reads his brand of garbage anymore? Whaaaah! Quit crying and go chase some 'roos, you wanker. I really hope your whole empire collapses (except for the Kings hockey on FS-W ? I need the hockey, Rupy).

Predatory, duplicitous, and anti-intellectual! All of this from the man who owns Fox News. I have long suspected that much of our current problems with instability in the financial markets has been acerbated by Rupey's ownership of the Wall Street Journal and its conspicuous lack of investigative journalism, coupled with his somewhat less than Pro-American views. One has only to watch Fox News in order to understand what Rupey's true opinions really are regarding the intelllect of Americans.

[cephalis]

How can we take anything you right wing people say seriously; look at the mess you and your kind have made of our country. Shut up and go hide in a hole somewhere. We are no longer interested in your opinions.

[bsharkey]

Murdoch is right, CBS, NBC, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and to a lesser degree ABC and CNN can all go suck it. people are tired of being spoonfed this garbage