Could Murdoch Be The Man?

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 14, 2007 6:34 AM

While much of organized journalism recoils in horror from Rupert Murdoch's latest business gamble, let's see, as a thought experiment, if we can construct a case for his taking over the Wall Street Journal.

The newspaper business is battered these days, with rich folks buying up properties at fire-sale prices and proceeding to slash costs. Avista Capital Partners just cut 50 newsroom jobs at the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Philadelphia public relations executive Brian Tierney laid off 71 at the Philadelphia Inquirer. Chicago real-estate mogul Sam Zell hasn't taken a wrecking ball to the Tribune papers yet, but the chain's jewel, the Los Angeles Times, announced plans to eliminate another 150 editorial jobs. And none of these new owners had a previous day of newspaper experience.

Along comes Murdoch with a generous offer to buy Dow Jones, and he's not talking about slashing costs. In fact, he told the New York Times he wants to expand the Journal's Washington coverage.

Love him or hate him, the Australian-born newspaperman knows something about running media businesses. He created a fourth American network, won the rights to NFL football, built the top-rated cable news channel and snatched up the hugely popular networking site MySpace. Now, at 76, he wants to own the nation's premier financial newspaper so badly he offered to pay two-thirds more than the parent company's stock was worth.

Murdoch runs a successful public company in News Corp., but he has shown a high tolerance for losing money on such properties as the New York Post and the Weekly Standard. And since the Journal already has a pugnaciously conservative editorial page, the impact there would be minimal.

The concern, of course, is the news pages, and whether Murdoch can keep his thumb off the journalistic scale. Is he smart enough to realize that meddling would ruin the very asset he thinks is worth $5 billion?

The record is not encouraging, and not because Murdoch is a committed conservative; rather, he is a man of shifting political alliances whose media outlets tend to follow his lead.

He is a throwback to the William Randolph Hearst era, when publishers were openly partisan, made backroom deals and even ran for office. And Murdoch makes no secret of his views. At a conference last month, he praised President Bush as "persuasive, strong and articulate" and told Journal Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot: "Apart from your newspaper and mine, there's a sort of monolithic attack on him every day of the year."

This is an owner who thought nothing of donating $1 million to the California Republican Party in 1996 or, more recently, hosting a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. Anyone who thinks that didn't result in more respectful coverage of the senator in the New York Post hasn't been reading that paper very carefully.

To win control of the nearly bankrupt Times of London and Sunday Times in the early 1980s, the owner of the tabloid Sun -- famous for its topless Page Three girls -- made promises of editorial independence. Harold Evans, who was later ousted as Sunday Times editor, says Murdoch broke those promises. In a book, interestingly enough, Evans wrote that Murdoch ordered up more sports pages at the expense of financial coverage, saying: "What do you want this [garbage] for, anyway? Two pages is plenty for business news."

Murdoch and his British newspapers were staunch supporters of Margaret Thatcher. But after a dinner with Tony Blair, followed by a Blair appearance at a News Corp. conference, the Sun hailed the Labor leader's "Maggie-style crusade" to "make Britain fit for the 21st century."

Murdoch's willingness to play politics while pursuing business with China is well documented. He dropped the BBC from his satellite television service after complaints from the Chinese, and his Harper Collins publishers killed a book by a former Hong Kong governor that criticized Chinese officials. As Slate's Jack Shafer and others have observed, the Journal won a Pulitzer last month for reporting on dangerous conditions and inequality in China. Would such reporting fall out of favor if Murdoch ran the place?

Beyond that, there is no shortage of people who think Murdoch's Fox News Channel is less than fair and balanced. Little wonder, then, that the Journal's union denounced the Murdoch bid and dozens of staffers have signed letters of opposition to the Bancroft family, which controls Dow Jones and so far has rebuffed Murdoch.

If he does gain control of the Journal, Murdoch would also have to suppress his schlockmeister instincts, most recently on display with the aborted deal for that odious O.J. Simpson book and television special "If I Did It."

Given this track record, could Murdoch be a reasonable steward of the Journal? In any other field, a mogul buys a company and issues marching orders as he sees fit. Only with a news organization is a wealthy owner supposed to spend big bucks and then keep his hands off the core product, even allowing his employees to scrutinize him and his friends.

Murdoch, who wound up more than doubling the Times of London's circulation, says he would keep the Journal's management team. Could he surprise his detractors by buying the paper and showing restraint?

Last week, the Herald Sun of Australia reported on its owner's "bold plan" to reduce News Corp.'s carbon footprint to zero within three years. "Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats," the boss was quoted as saying. Rupert Murdoch, crusader against global warming? Maybe late-in-life conversions aren't impossible. Or maybe Murdoch just excels at mouthing the right words.

An Understated Pitch

The Washington ad campaign is a model of British understatement: "Avoid the pedestrian." "Leader's Digest." "International intelligence estimate."

John Micklethwait, editor of the Economist, says the radio spots and billboards are aimed not "at the guy who lives in Georgetown and works at the State Department, but the family who lives in Falls Church" and is affected by global economic change.

The Economist sells 1.2 million copies worldwide -- more than half in North America -- and its D.C. circulation has risen by one-third in three years, to 36,000. Micklethwait says he's positioning it as an opinionated "synopsis" of the week's news in an Internet age: "We are quite useful as a filter. . . . We have looked at it all and this is what we think you need to know."

The 164-year-old London magazine -- a finalist for a National Magazine Award in its first year of eligibility -- fields 10 correspondents in the States. "If people don't think we cover America well, they'll be unlikely to trust us on the other stuff," Micklethwait says.

The writing is tight, foreign policy and economics get ample space, and the likes of Paris Hilton (jail term or not) are conspicuously absent. Last week's cover story was titled "The Battle for Turkey's Soul." Vladimir Putin made the cover depicted as a gangster, and after the Virginia Tech shootings the cover image was a star-spangled gun, with the headline "America's Tragedy."

That story demonstrated that the magazine is not Time or Newsweek with an Oxford accent. It said the National Rifle Association "constantly exaggerates the threat to gun-owners" and that "few urban Americans swallow this twaddle," although some rural people "think anti-gun Democrats are wusses." Similarly, a piece on Rudy Giuliani declared: "He has a hideous temper and a tendency to bully. . . . He is famously and foolishly intolerant of criticism. . . . Mr. Giuliani has at times shown woeful judgment."

Micklethwait says the weekly is liberal on social issues -- favoring, for example, gay marriage -- and conservative on trade and economics. After the Abu Ghraib scandal, the Economist demanded in an editorial that Donald Rumsfeld resign, but it remains a staunch supporter of the Iraq war. "It's a somewhat lonely place," Micklethwait says.

The magazine clings to one ancient tradition: no bylines. "The Economist tries to speak with one voice," Micklethwait explains.

Gregory in the Morning?

NBC White House correspondent David Gregory is getting a tryout this week in MSNBC's old "Imus in the Morning" slot, following last week's stint by the cable network's Joe Scarborough. Gregory's show is the first that will be carried by WFAN, Imus's old New York radio outlet. "I am intrigued by this, but I am also very happy doing what I'm doing at NBC," Gregory says.

I'm very happy doing what I'm doing at The Washington Post, but if anyone wants to give me a national radio show . . .

The phrases "Democratic Party" and "pro-military" don't automatically go together, but the LAT sees an effort to change that:

"Ever since the Vietnam era, Democrats have struggled to overcome a notion the party is not just antiwar but antimilitary. Now, sensing a chance to shed that image, Democrats are wrapping themselves in khaki and embracing the nation's fighting men and women.

"Even as they press for withdrawal from Iraq, congressional Democrats have proposed more money for armored vehicles, shorter tours of duty for Reserve soldiers and expanded programs to care for veterans. On the campaign trail, party leaders and Democratic presidential hopefuls invariably couple condemnation of the war with expressions of sympathy and support for those fighting.

"The reception has been positive, from even the most fervently antiwar audiences. Recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) drew a cheering, whistling, foot-stomping reception at the state party convention in San Diego when she combined an assault on the Bush administration with heaping praise for U.S. troops."

In this NYT piece on all the ways that Bill could be an asset to Hill--fundraising, advice, contacts, speeches--there was this interesting paragraph:

"When need be, she also knows how to cut him off. In preparation for a Senate debate, she more or less ordered him out of the room when he began coaching too much, Democrats close to the Clintons say. During a policy discussion awhile back about New York issues, when Mr. Clinton began to pontificate, she told him that he did not exactly know what he was talking about and to hush up."

Perhaps she used a stronger word than hush.

Hey, the RNC just sent out excerpts from the story with the headline, "Get Ready for 'Billary.' "

Oh, and this just in: "Maya Soetoro-Ng, debuting Saturday as an enthusiastic campaigner for brother Barack Obama, recalled that he could be 'bossy' but was never mean to his little sister."

At Real Clear Politics, Tom Bevan scratches his head over Edwards's latest move:

"This makes no sense. In an interview with the Associated Press earlier this week, John Edwards declined to reveal how much he was paid by the hedge fund Fortress Investments for a one year consulting contract. But Edwards also told the AP that 'the amount will be revealed when he releases his financial disclosure forms due May 15.'

"In Chicago on Wednesday, Edwards brushed off another question about how much he was paid by Fortress, saying that we'd learn about it in a 'few weeks' via the 'normal' disclosure process.

"This is one of those situations where the candidate's handling of an issue becomes the issue itself. Even if the amount of the contract is insanely high - which I'm sure it is - if Edwards is going to disclose the number in the next couple of weeks, what justification does he have for making the public wait to get that information?

"From a strategic standpoint, Edwards is just kicking the bad publicity can down the road a bit. In the meantime, he's leaving the impression that he's not particularly interested in being upfront with either the press or the public. That's a mistake."

Not a mistake that Mitt Romney's folks made by leaking word that his disclosure would show him to be worth more than $200 million.

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff sees a troubling trend for Obama:

"Barack Obama is really scuffling, as baseball players used to say when they went into a tailspin . . . He got the death count in the Kansas tornado wrong by 9,988 people. Now, Jim Geraghty reports that Obama botched his facts in a speech criticizing the U.S. auto industry for 'investing in bigger and faster cars while foreign competitors invested in more fuel-efficient technology.' Obama stated that 'while our fuel standards haven't moved from 27.5 miles per gallon in two decades, both China and Japan have surpassed us, with Japanese cars now getting an average of 45 miles to the gallon.' But Toyota, which should know, has responded that 'No carmaker gets 45 m.p.g; ours is closer to 30 m.p.g.'

"Any candidate can make a mistake or two, but the most recent one in particular suggests that Obama may lack the staff support he needs to compete with the Hillary Clinton machine."

Romney was on "60 Minutes" last night and had to say how he thinks polygamy, once sanctioned by his church, is a really, really bad idea. But his religion remains a big problem, says the New Republic's Michelle Cottle:

"One prominent activist graciously took time out from burning an effigy of Rudy What's-the-Big-Deal-About-Roe? Giuliani to share this tidbit: 'I asked a friend of mine who's a pastor in Middle America, "You have a choice between two candidates: Hillary Clinton versus someone who is good on social issues and who is a Mormon." And my friend said, 'I don't think I could vote for a Mormon.'

"Think about that: A social conservative is given the choice between a Mormon and Hillary Clinton--the modern personification of Evil for GOP wingers--and he can't make up his mind? This does not bode well for Mitt's fortunes in the Heartland.

"Not that one anecdote an election makes. But this is representative of the kind of story that the conservatives I've been talking to say they're hearing from the conservatives they've been talking to. It is also the sort of sentiment contributing to poll numbers indicating that between one-quarter and one-third of Americans would not vote for a Mormon--a number that grows much bigger when you include less definitive options, such as those who say that they wouldn't be comfortable voting for a Mormon or those who believe the country isn't ready for a Mormon (two-thirds of America, if last September's Gallup poll is on target.) Not insignificantly for Romney, a February 2007 Gallup poll showed that, the more religious a person is, the more likely he is to have a negative view of Mormonism."

I wonder if he'll have to give a JFK-style speech addressing his religion--although, in a pluralistic society, he shouldn't really have to.

New York magazine reveals that Rudy met Judith Nathan at "Club Macanudo, a swanky cigar bar on East 63rd Street . . . Sometimes a woman would approach him, interrupting his cigar-smoking to express her admiration, maybe get an autograph. Perhaps flirt mildly. So it wasn't surprising when Nathan, a pretty woman with rich brown hair, came over and said hello . . .

"A few days after their fateful meeting, the mayor had an aide retrieve Judith's business card from his desk drawer at City Hall, then he phoned and asked her out."

This one has gained some traction in the liberal blogosphere. Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum explains:

"As part of a campaign stop planned for Iowa last week, Rudy Giuliani's Des Moines office called Deb and Jerry VonSprecken to see if they'd host an event at their farm. They agreed. After several days of planning and a security check, though, Deb was told to call Giuliani's New York office:

"'They wanted to know our assets,' she revealed, and added that she and Jerry have a modest 80 acre farm and raise cattle.

"Later she received a call from Tony Delgado at the Des Monies location. 'Tony said, "I'm sorry, you aren't worth a million dollars and he is campaigning on the Death Tax right now." Then he said they weren't going to be able to come,' Deb continued.

"The guy's just all class, isn't he?

"POSTSCRIPT: So what really happened? It sounds like Giuliani's gang was playing an old time conservative game: trying to find a family farm that would eventually have to be sold in order to pay inheritance taxes. Of course, they can practically never find one, since inheritance taxes don't even start to kick in until a farm is worth several million dollars, and there aren't very many family farms worth anywhere near that. But that doesn't keep them from trying."

Come on--don't all politicians look for people who illustrate the problem that their plan (on taxes, Social Security, whatever) is going to solve?

But get this, via Greg Sargent: "Senator John McCain put in a personal call to an Iowa woman that was snubbed by Rudy Giuliani's campaign, asking to meet with her and apologizing to her on 'behalf of all politicians,' the woman told me this evening.

"'John McCain personally called me -- today, this afternoon,' the woman, Deb VonSprecken, told me. 'Wow. He said, I want to come and meet you.'(TM)"

Apparently, she was too traumatized to agree to an immediate meeting.