Little Ryan Chittum whines and whines at Columbia Journalism Review. About what? About Rupert Murdoch. Chitty-chitty-dumb-dumb even brings up The Observer.
But so does someone we actually respect, John Pilger. And, at The New Statesman, Pilger explains what Chitty-chitty-dumb-dumb can't:
Britain is said to be approaching its Berlusconi moment. That is to say, if Rupert Murdoch wins control of Sky, he will command half the television and newspaper market and threaten what is known as public service broadcasting. Although the alarm is ringing, it is unlikely that any government will stop him while his court is packed with politicians of all parties.
The problem with this and other Murdoch scares is that, while one cannot doubt their gravity, they deflect from an unrecognised and more insidious threat. For all his power, Murdoch's media are not respectable. Take the current colonial wars. In the United States, Murdoch's Fox Television is almost cartoon-like in its warmongering. It is the august New York Times, "the greatest newspaper in the world", and others such as the once-celebrated Washington Post, that have given respectability to the lies and moral contortions of the "war on terror", now recast as "perpetual war".
In Britain, the Observer performed this task in making respectable Tony Blair's deceptions over Iraq. More importantly, so did the BBC, whose reputation is its power. In spite of one maverick reporter's attempt to expose the so-called dodgy dossier, the BBC took Blair's sophistry at face value. This was made clear in studies by Cardiff University and the German-based Media Tenor. The BBC's coverage, said the Cardiff study, was overwhelmingly "sympathetic to the government's case". According to Media Tenor, a mere 2 per cent of BBC news in the build-up to the invasion permitted anti-war voices to be heard.Are you getting how one little whore at CJR lied to you? Distracted you? Tried to punk you?
Yeah, me too.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"