AHC: *New York Post* stays liberal

lerner.jpg



This cartoon explained: In 1962-63, when New York City was hit by a newspaper strike, the Post settled earlier than other newspapers, so these grumbling businessmen-commuters have to read the then very liberal Post and its then very liberal columnist Max Lerner--when obviously they would prefer to read the Herald Tribune. (The cartoon, though, is not the most famous joke about the Post's liberalism at the time. That honor goes to Calvin Trillin's mock-headline: "Cold Snap Hits Our Town/Jews, Negroes Suffer Most" https://books.google.com/books?id=4iozDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA60)

To keep the Post liberal, it would be necessary that Dorothy Schiff not sell it to Rupert Murdoch in 1976. "Schiff sold the Post to Rupert Murdoch, for a reported $31 million (equals $133 million in 2017), in 1976.[1] It is believed that she was pessimistic about the future of afternoon papers in the city; also, a change in federal inheritance laws would have affected the value of her estate unless she sold the paper when she did." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Schiff But might she have sold it to someone other than Murdoch? The Post of course would still be a money-loser, as it has been under Murdoch. But there may have been wealthy people just as willing as Murdoch to run a money-losing newspaper for the sake of personal prestige and power who did not share Murdoch's politics...
 
. . . But there may have been wealthy people just as willing . . .
Let’s say there’s a rich guy or gal who’s built a successful business and who believes Wall Street is a casino economy built on top of the real economy and which is a drag on the real economy and at times wrecks the real economy. And this rich person is going to hire extra journalists to do some good old-fashioned investigative reporting of Wall Street.

Well, that would be their first mistake . .

Because Fox viewers like the whole confrontational, in-your-face style. They’re not watching it for responsible journalism.

Or . . . maybe this rich gal or guy uses the Post merely as a launching point, and next buys a local TV station where they can make some real money! :)
 
Let’s say there’s a rich guy or gal who’s built a successful business and who believes Wall Street is a casino economy built on top of the real economy and which is a drag on the real economy and at times wrecks the real economy. And this rich person is going to hire extra journalists to do some good old-fashioned investigative reporting of Wall Street.

Warren Buffet! But he bought ABC IOTL and didn’t do anything special with it.
 
The main problem is that you are going to have an owner who is willing to lose money and only Rupert Murdoch is willing to do that because he wanted a major media outlet in NYC.
Times-Mirror which was once the parent company of the Los Angeles Times shut down New York Newsday an offshoot of the Long Island Newsday even though it was making about a million dollars a year in profit, it just wasn't enough for them.
 
"Become"? I think you misspelled "remain." Murdoch was a big Whitlam supporter in 1972, and "the Australian, which Murdoch had launched as a national newspaper in 1964, had won considerable support as a progressive newspaper tinged with radicalism." https://books.google.com/books?id=u9gGAAAAMAAJ&q="the+australian+which+murdoch+had+launched"&dq="the+australian+which+murdoch+had+launched"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjU2_P9pqbaAhXEzVMKHeCLAm4Q6AEIKzAA
He was also a Labour member in Oxford and his failure to get elected to the executive his one reasons I believe is his apathy to the party and left wing politics as a whole.
 
As a younger, left-wing Australian, it's extremely bizarre (to the point of axiomatic refusal) to think of Murdoch media as being anything other than conservative-right. The papers will sometimes endorse Labor, but usually only at times when a Liberal/National government is at the end of its useful life anyway and obviously on the way out.
 
"Become"? I think you misspelled "remain." Murdoch was a big Whitlam supporter in 1972, and "the Australian, which Murdoch had launched as a national newspaper in 1964, had won considerable support as a progressive newspaper tinged with radicalism." https://books.google.com/books?id=u9gGAAAAMAAJ&q="the+australian+which+murdoch+had+launched"&dq="the+australian+which+murdoch+had+launched"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjU2_P9pqbaAhXEzVMKHeCLAm4Q6AEIKzAA

Even though Murdoch supported Whitlam in 72, he was never "left wing" because of that. When Whitlam made his leftward turn Murdoch went after him hardcore.
 
Even though Murdoch supported Whitlam in 72, he was never "left wing" because of that. When Whitlam made his leftward turn Murdoch went after him hardcore.

Murdoch's political record before the mid-1970's was mixed. "The Murdoch press supported Labor in 1963, at the same time supporting the Country party element of the coalition government and strongly opposing the Liberal party majority. This difficult piece of political legerdemain — supporting an opposition and part of a government against the rest of the government — was not repeated. In the two subsequent elections Murdoch supported the coalition.

"The solid [newspaper] front against Labor began to wilt after the 1969 elections which Labor came within an ace of winning. The coalition government, which had held office since 1949, was running out of steam. The Liberal prime ministers who succeeded the legendary Sir Robert Menzies had lacked distinction. Labor under Whitlam had emerged, relatively united, with a new set of coherent and attractive policies. Plainly the era of Liberal-Country party domination was running out.

"These factors drew Murdoch to the Labor camp. In addition, the Australian, which Murdoch had launched as a national newspaper in 1964, had won considerable support as a progressive newspaper tinged with radicalism. Murdoch had also purchased two Sydney newspapers from Sir Frank Packer. This was a double bonus for Labor: it removed the harmful impact of the Packer press, which had been remorseless in its opposition to Labor, and it brought Murdoch and it brought Murdoch to the support of Labor with a string of daily newspapers. Murdoch also made a substantial contribution to the Labor party's campaign funds. Supported by the influential Melbourne paper, the Age, Labor entered the 1972 election campaign wityh a considerable volume of media backing, and this it had lacked in all precious elections..." C. J. Lloyd, "The Media and the Elections" in Howard R. Penniman (ed), Australia at the Polls: The National Elections of 1975, p. 179.

The question is what caused the rift and growing animosity between Murdoch and Whitlam and whether it could have been avoided. According to Lloyd (p. 180) "Whitlam publicly attributed it to his government's refusal to approve a major mining venture in which Murdoch had an interest." (Mutdoch of course denied that, saying he had only had a "minute" share in the consortium.) Also, it was widely reported that Murdoch had sought the post of Australia's High Commissioner to London from the Whitlam government...
 
Murdoch's political record before the mid-1970's was mixed. "The Murdoch press supported Labor in 1963, at the same time supporting the Country party element of the coalition government and strongly opposing the Liberal party majority. This difficult piece of political legerdemain — supporting an opposition and part of a government against the rest of the government — was not repeated. In the two subsequent elections Murdoch supported the coalition.

Supporting the pre-70s ALP hardly makes one "left wing."

nearly 70 years of ALP principles such as the White Australia Policy and protectionism. It was the end of a socially conservative old guard. Calwell oversaw the greatest immigration program in Australia’s history. But he was wedded to the White Australia Policy, which had been bipartisan parliamentary policy since 1901 (save for a couple of Free Traders). He oversaw the deportation of hundreds of Chinese and Malay seamen who had taken refuge in Australia during the war.

Hell, even Whitlam himself wasn't all that "left," especially not at first.

Gough Whitlam was more social democrat than socialist and once said that nationalisation was ‘the Old Testament’ whereas he preferred ‘the New Testament’.

Whitlam is regarded today as having been on the left politically but he was actually in the party’s Right faction when he replaced Calwell. Whitlam was strongly opposed to the Left and to the influence of the trade union leaders in formulating party policy.
 
Top