Rupert Murdoch has a new ally defending him in the opinion section of CNN’s website. The author of the article titled Media Hypocrisy On Murdoch is William J. Bennett, a member of the Claremont Institute, the Secretary of Education under President Reagan, and was the appointed drug czar by President George H. W. Bush, thus his conservative credentials are well established. In the article, Bennett claims that the outrage over the alleged wire-taping and police bribery is unethical because the same level of scrutiny has not been applied to other news organizations.
My first question for Mr. Bennett is what other network has allegedly bribed police to cover up hacking into the voicemails of a murdered teenager or celebrities? To support his claim, Bennett claims that the media’s attention, or lack thereof, towards to Wikileaks scandal is proof that there is a bias towards attacking Rupert Murdoch. I would like to know how the actions of a single journalist are in anyway comparable to what has occurred with News Corp. The answer? They are not. Mr. Bennett then goes on to cite another article claiming that the Bush-era leaks were incredibly dangerous for America’snational security. To Mr. Bennett’s credit, the article does cite Attorney General Eric Holder making the same claim. However, does the media’s reaction to the Wikileaks or the Bush-era leaks in anyway compare to what is currently happening with Rupert Murdoch? Again, the answer is no.
You see the difference between these situations and what is occurring with Rupert Murdoch’s company is that in one situation, the news media is simply trying to keep the public informed as to what the government is doing while in the other, the media is simply looking for dirt to publish in a tabloid. Do you see the difference? To another point, the so-called liberal news media tended to cover both the Bush-era leaks and the Wikileaks scandal in a very open, honest way. MSNBC, the liberal news organization, brought both sides of the issue to light and encouraged an open, honest debate. True it was a liberal interpretation on what occurred however, the heart of the facts remained true. The only areas where you saw, for instance, endorsement of the actions taken by Julian Assange in the Wikileaks scandal were made by political commentators and not News anchors. While MSNBC may not be the best at hiding their liberal views, CNN is rather good at this.
Lastly I would like to make one final point. Mr. Bennett is right in one thing and that is only something that he alludes to. The calls for Rupert Murdoch are, in my opinion, to soon. I believe in that American principle that we are all innocent until proven guilty. While I may not be a fan of Rupert Murdoch or his practices, this does not mean that he should be condemned immediately for something that he may or may not have been aware of. If he was aware of the bribery and phone hacking, then the man should be put in jail. If Mr. Murdoch did not know about these problems, then it reflects poorly on the man’s ability to keep track of his companies resources. However, when it comes to the latter, Mr. Murdoch’s ability to continue to run the company will be evaluated in due time and that is something that he deserves.
We have granted that simple thing to many others who probably deserved less so what is so different about Rupert Murdoch? However as for the rest of Mr. Bennett’s allegations and complaints, all I have to say is get over yourself. You are whining over something that is an important part of the business aspect of journalism. When a story such as this one is handed to you on a silver platter, you would be a fool to simply ignore it.
