Mickey Glantz
Dateline: Shanghai
15 October 2010
Rupert Murdock deserves a prize. Really, he is one unbelievable entrepreneur a true media mogul. His empire is vast and his control over it quite secure. With all these prizes being given out, you’d think he’d be up for one: “Humanitarian of the year” award? “Truth in reporting” award? Well, the truth is that he is not likely to get any such award that has its roots in fairness, because he does not serve society: he caters to a small slice of the political spectrum, the far right conservatives. His media empire is monopolistic, or so it seems to the untrained eye. So, why write about this guy now? Many people know what Murdock is like… I think. They are aware of his power through control of the media and political stance through what his media print or air.
The reason I am writing about him now is, because of an article that I saw, quoting Murdock in the Financial Times Weekend edition last week while on a flight to Korea. It was headlined as “Murdock calls for free media in China”.
I could not believe the comments he made to the Chinese Government. According to the article, Murdock has been trying to break into the Chinese media market for years but to no avail. Relentless efforts by this powerful, rich mogul were stymied (rebuffed, actually) by the Chinese Government at it highest level. So, Murdock visited China to give it yet another try. Murdock’s comment that caught my attention is the following: “Rupert Murdock called for China to allow a more open media sector, saying Beijing needed to compete in a global marketplace of ideas” {emphasis is mine}.
He attended an “audience” (along the line of a visit to the Pope in Rome) with Chinese leaders along with 300 or so media representatives, each kowtowing to the government in the hope of getting a piece of a potentially lucrative media market made up of a potential target audience of 1.3 billion . Murdock wants China to allow his corporation to “open the door for his internet companies to operate commercially”. But one must ask, what is likely to be the political flavor of the content and messages carried by that media?
Murdock’s track record on fostering open and fair discussion and exchange of views from across the political spectrum is poor at best. He has a political agenda. For Murdock to point an accusatory finger the Chinese government for its lack of openness is laughable, because he himself does not practice what he is preaching to Chinese officials.
Interestingly, the Financial Times writer of the article that sparked my interest, Katherine Hille, reported that “the editor in chief of Reuters, called ‘openness, transparency and accountability’ in the media a ‘precondition to a truly healthy, stable and successful system’”. I can only wonder if Murdock takes heed of such an observation. In America his media outlets are the last place an objective person would consider as an open, free “marketplace of ideas” where all perspectives are sought and welcome.
Perhaps instead of looking in the mirror each morning as he shaves, he should listen to how disingenuous his plea to China for a free liberalized media sounds when compared to the lack of the same in his own media system. From any other quarter, such a plea would have merit. Not so from Murdock.