C-Span...Michael Wolff saying Murdoch will buy the NYT's...Fascinating..Anyone Watching?

[KoKo]

It's creepy and interesting at the same time. I'm not sure what to think of this...but Wolf is saying Rupurt might be the "new owner."

It's been a good review of Newspaper Publishing up until now. Lots of Secrets Revealed about where Newspaper Publishing is going in the years ahead...and WHERE it's BEEN.

Sometimes Wolff sounds like a "shill for Murdoch" but other times he gives a great history of Murdoch and what's gone on in American Newspapers..and where it's all going.

I was ready to TURN IT OFF...but glad I'm still listening...It's on now...and I'm still listening as I post this..

Amazing. Wolf says that Rupert has "never read a book" and probably doesn't read most of his newspapers unless what he can control as a "business enterprise." :eyes:

[David Dunham]

1. Bloomberg will likely by the NY Times, not Murdoch.

[KoKo]

2. I would be okay with that one...I could deal with it...n/t

[lxlxlxl]

5. a Pearson / NYTimes merger would be ideal...(ntxt)

[hay rick]

3. Makes no sense.

The NYT "brand" is "not Murdoch, not Fox, not NY Post." We're talking reverse synergy here. NYT is probably worth less to Murdoch than to anyone else. Half the subscribers would desert them on day 1 if they sold out to Murdoch.

Also, I think Murdoch is still taking a bath on his WSJ purchase.

[originalpckelly]

6. He just wants the paper...it's like a prize.

Plus, it will put an organization that's one of the few that engages in at least some investigative journalism out of business.

[lxlxlxl]

4. Wolff is kind of a weirdo...sorry to say...find the Ian Masters interview

I was surprised he was on Countdown the other day.

I completely agree that he is a 'shill.' He does it in a slick way, but I hear the same thing.

Try to dig up Wolff's interview with Ian Masters, and listen to how dismissive he is of criticism of Murdoch from a progressive prospective. Wolff lionizes Murdoch's ability to make money and accumulate power...that's it. Wolff is unconcerned with any traditional standards of journalism -- tone, deference to professionalism, or the role of the press in an educated and free society...

I'm sorry I don't have quotes to back me up, but I think the timing of this books is really odd, and how wraps it in that semi-critical tone, which is ultimately so deferential to Murdoch. Sounds likes he got close to a privileged source and is protecting him at the same time.

[KoKo]

7. Thanks...I will check out the Masters Interview (Google is my friend)

I appreciate your comments... It was kind of the same impression I got from Wolff in that interview.

He might not be a Murdoch "tool," but he does seem to have very hare "regard for Murdoch" that keeps coming through in whatever he says about him.

Maybe Rupert has given him a few bucks for "PR Work." Or, maybe I'm being too unkind in thinking that...:shrug:

[lxlxlxl]

8. found the link

http://ianmasters.org/masters_llc_011809_24.mp3

I think if someone like Murdoch knows how everyone is interested in him, and that a book is a guaranteed hit, then he is going to be picky about who gets access, and that person is going to have to tread a very fine line...

Do you know who Tina Brown's husband is? Harold Evans use to write up some vicious critiques of Murdoch style journalism...there is a great article in the Harper's archive...

[KoKo]

9. Thanks... I didn't know about Tina Brown's husband...

I'm one of the few DU'ers who likes Tina's new website, "Daily Beast" and don't see her as a flaming RW Repug. Maybe I read her wrong but, I find her wondering why we Americans aren't in the streets over what SEC has allowed with Madoff and Stanford and the Banks in meltdown very refreshing.
I'll check out the link and search Harold Evans.