April 14, 2005 6:35 PM
In a speech to a bunch of newspaper editors:
As one study said: “Even if the economics of journalism work themselves out, how can journalists work on behalf of a public they are coming to see as less wise and less able?”
I’d put it more dramatically: newspapers whose employees look down on their readers can have no hope of ever succeeding as a business.
Rupert Murdoch just woke up (04.14.2005)
Next Entry: "postmodern" (04.16.2005)
Previous Entry: Google, the category killer (04.14.2005)
Paul:
http://www.salon.com/media/col/elde/1999/12/08/tabloid/
"In the worldview of 'A Current Affair,'" Kearns writes, "people didnt insult the Church, and sex was naughty -- the word unsaid, only spelled out, S-E-X -- values needed to be upheld, and all offensive images needed to be shown in as explicit detail as the lawyers would allow."
This combination of titillation and hypocrisy was imported from Australia by Rupert Murdoch, who staked his claim to the States when he purchased 20th Century Fox and the Metromedia TV stations in the mid-'80s and formed the Fox Broadcasting Corp. And when he needed news magazines, he didn't look to "60 Minutes" as a role model. He called on some of the same Aussie journalists who had reinvented the print tabloids for him there -- men like Dunleavy and Peter Brennan.
Thu Apr 14 2005 10:35 PM
Tom from Madison:
The O'Reilly factor is a perfect example of tabloid sensibilities translated to the small screen. Rupert Murdoch has been using Fox News to promote traditional values and condemn "secularism" while he simultaneously "exposes" the threat of pornography. Not coincidentally, Murdoch himself has a vested interest in the porno biz. Nice!
Still, why are newspaper editors listening to him other than the fact that he has Billions of $. Is what Murdoch does journalism in any sense? Maybe Jeff Gannon / James Zuckert would think it was!?
Fri Apr 15 2005 4:49 PM
Email:
   
|
  
 |
