A Canadian Press story by Merito Ilo takes a look at the international media coverage of Conrad Black’s conviction, noting that “stories published Saturday in the U.S., British and Canadian media, including some newspapers that belonged to Black’s former media empire, Hollinger International, differed only in their choice of words, but not in their “he got what he deserved” attitude.”
Continue Reading Massive media coverage of Black verdict
Conrad Black has been convicted on four criminal charges, including obstruction and three counts of mail fraud. He was found not guilty on nine other charges. He now faces the prospect of as much as 35 years in jail.
Black’s tale strikes me as tragic. He had a rare shining brilliance that would have allowed him to achieve so much, to create a legacy — for his country, for journalism, for society, for his family name. Instead there is … well, this mess.
Like most everyone excepting a small following of ideological sycophants, I very often disagreed with Black’s actions and views. Like many others, I also greatly respected Black’s significant investment in real journalism and the fact that he actively created space for
those who disagreed with him to have their say. (Disclosure: toward the end of its ownership by Black’s Hollinger, I was on the editorial board of the Vancouver Sun.)
I heard Black speak in Vancouver at a Fraser Institute lunch after he’d sold what could have become one of the world’s great newspaper chains to CanWest, after he dumped his Canadian citizenship to accept the title of the English “Lord Black.” The self-indulgent, taunting speech he gave was loaded with long, complicated and seemingly-erudite words, but all it amounted to was “Lord Black” taking a long pungent piss on everything Canadian. Since then, colleagues tell me, Black changed; in recent years he even praised Canada. It was all too late.
Black is expected to appeal the U.S. court verdict, and maybe he can erase the legal stain. What he cannot erase is the fact he sold out his legacy and his country.
Continue Reading Conrad Black convicted; expected to appeal
Ken Auletta takes an in-depth look at the takeover attempt of the WSJ by Rupert Murdoch — which seems to be proceeding like a juggernaut — and how Murdoch keeps his promises. Or not. An excerpt:
Those who are suspicious of Murdoch’s pledges of noninterference recall what happened when he first extended his press holdings beyond his native Australia, nearly forty years ago: he persuaded the Carr family of London to sell him the sensational tabloid News of the World, and promised to run the paper in partnership with the family that had owned the paper for nearly eighty years; he abandoned this pledge after learning, he said, that to honor it would harm shareholders because the Carrs had created “a total wreck of a company.” When he bought the New York Post from Dorothy Schiff, in 1976, he publicly pledged to leave its liberal editorial stance unchanged, saying, “The New York Post will continue to serve New York and New Yorkers and maintain its present policies and traditions”—and promptly reversed course. But Murdoch’s approach may best be seen in what happened after he bought the influential and once storied Times of London and the Sunday Times, in 1981. At the time, English journalists asked their Australian-born colleague Phillip Knightley to analyze how Murdoch might behave, and as Knightley now recalls, “The point I made was that Murdoch came from a tradition very different from European and American proprietors. In Australia, a proprietor owned the paper and considered it was his to do whatever he liked with it. Proprietors used their newspapers to support or oppose political parties, settle private feuds, and cross-promote their other interests. Any idea that they could not do this would have met with bewilderment.”
Continue Reading Murdoch and the WSJ
“Suck it up,” an editorial in the Wall Street Journal seems to tell WSJ staffers: “Those of us who extol the virtues of Joseph Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” for others can’t complain when it sweeps through our own industry.” The piece — in the context, of course, of the journal’s mooted sale to Rupert Murdoch or some other bidder — goes on to discuss the role of the Bancroft family as owners, and tout the WSJ as standing above other big newspapers in the U.S. in the journalistic independence of its editorial page…
Continue Reading “Creative destruction” and the WSJ
The CRTC has become the target of a new media democracy movement, and TorStar media columnist Antonia Zerbisias has a column
about it — and the grassroots media activists,
lawyers, academics, labour groups and cultural nationalists involved.
They want Canadians to write to the CRTC by July 18, the deadline for
its September hearings on media concentration and diversity.
Continue Reading CRTC new focus of “media democracy” movement
The Washington Post’s Gene Weingarten outsources himself.
Using web resources only, he reports on some sort of Indian political
meeting with some sort of people in some sort of strange clothes, who
made lots of some sort of strange noise.
If you’re a newspaper
publisher in India he’ll sell you the rights to his story for “the
surprisingly affordable price of 80 rupees, or about two bucks.”
Continue Reading “A hoot”
Simplistic and sensational, eh. Never heard that before.
The SFU press release is here. It’s from last month but I post it here because its points are relevant to our industry.
study didn’t get a lot of media attention (we really don’t like
reporting on ourselves for our audience, do we) but the alternative Georgia Straight picked up
the story with a fairly thorough analysis. In her story, reporter Gail
Johnson also discussed the work of University of Victoria researcher
Alan Cassels on Media Doctor Canada, a Web site that reviews and rates news coverage on medical issues.