Most Read: Opinions

direct signup

Today’s Opinions poll

Would you use an app that tells you the partisan affiliation of products you're considering buying?

Submit
Next
Review your answers and share
Erik Wemple
On Twitter E-mail |  On Twitter Follow |  On Facebook Fan |  RSS RSS Feed
Posted at 03:15 PM ET, 07/18/2011

How many ways can you describe Murdoch’s enemies?

Last week the Erik Wemple Blog argued that News Corp. entitties shouldn’t be expected to cover News Corp. with any degree of skepticism.

And, boy, is News Corp. delivering.

There’s the Dilenschneider file, the Cal Thomas moment, and today’s full-throated defense of the home team by the Wall Street Journal.

None of those, however, challenges a certain Australian newspaper columnist for rhetorical temerity in service of the Rupert Murdoch brand. In a piece over the weekend on the scandal, the Australian’s Brendan O’Neill links the “anti-Murdoch campaign” to an “elite few.” (The Australian is under the News Corp. umbrella.)

Just who are these elite few? As it turns out, they’re a lot of people. Herewith an inventory of the groups and people that O’Neill eviscerates in defense of Murdoch’s company:

1) “A Liberal Democrat MP”

2) “socialite and journalist Jemima Khan”

3) “These excitable hacks”

4) “a tiny gaggle of illiberal liberals”

5) “various minority interests”

6) “the liberal media and its lapdogs in parliament”

7) “a collection of individuals and organisations motivated by vengeance, grubby business interests or simply a burning desire to de-fang the tabloids”

8) “These self-interested crusaders”

9) “some liberal hacks”

10) “the city-centre elites.”

By  |  03:15 PM ET, 07/18/2011

 
Read what others are saying
     

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company