Robert Maxwell was a disaster for the British press, which ended with his suicide or murder on 5/11/1991: He fell from his yacht, the Lady Ghislaine, or was thrown off it, but not before he could steal from the Mirror Group, including the journalists' pension fund. Rupert Murdoch, on the other hand, is an ongoing disaster for the English-language press around the world, having rendered it devoid of morality. So perhaps the News of the World scandal and the closure of London's bestselling Sunday paper will be the beginning of the end for his professional, political and financial influence. Over the past two weeks, I tried to find something new in the scandal beleaguering the News International group. However, the coverage of the scandal was nothing short of a media circus. Then finally, I found what I was looking for in an old-new piece, which better reflects the world of the press today than it did when it was ran by the New York Review of Books on 16/8/2007. Four years ago, Russel Baker, a prominent American journalist, commentator and writer, wrote an article entitled “Goodbye to Newspapers?” In the course of his piece, Baker reviewed two books, which are: When the Press Fails: Political Power and the New Media from Iraq to Katrina; and American Carnival: Journalism under Siege in an Age of New Media. Perhaps Arab journalists have yet to become aware of the siege by the New Media, because they are already under siege with the absence of freedoms and the lack of adequate revenues from sales and advertisements, to otherwise release them from governmental bondage. However, I want to stay today with Russel. I remembered his article as I recalled something he said about Rupert Murdoch and his approach to journalism. Russel was referring to the news that leaked in May 2007, revealing that the Bancroft family, which controlled The Wall Street Journal, might be ready to sell the prestigious financial paper to Murdoch for five billion dollars. Murdoch would indeed come to buy the newspaper on 1/8/2007. He had also bought the News of the World in 1969. Later, Christopher Bancroft, from the same family that sold the WSJ, said that they would not have sold it [to Murdoch] if they knew of the magnitude of the subsequent scandal. While Murdoch has apologized though newspaper ads, apology is not sufficient, and will not prevent the upcoming U.S. probes. Russel said that Murdoch has long spread melancholy in newsrooms around the world, and that his purchase of the WSJ is a dark omen for journalism everywhere. He said that when the sign in the shop window says “Everything For Sale,” it is often followed by “Going Out Of Business”. In its eulogy of the printed press, Russel's article heavily relied on a study or a document delivered by John Carroll, the former editor of the Los Angeles Times, before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, entitled “What Will Become of Newspapers?” Carroll saw a narrowing of the purpose of the newspaper in the eyes of its new owner. In Carroll's view, making money was in the past only a part of the newspaper's business. Today, it is everything. Gone is the notion that a newspaper should lead, that it has an obligation to the public (It seems that Carroll said this with Murdoch in mind, without explicitly naming him). There are many American examples of the transformation of the American press, from torchbearers to business enterprises. In this vein, Russel's article mentions the purchase of the L.A Times and its parent company the Times-Mirror in 2000 by the Tribune Group for eight billion dollars, and how its focus shifted next to profits and cost-cutting. And we are not talking here about two or three newspapers only, since the groups mentioned above own hundreds of newspapers, including some of the most famous and oldest papers in the United States. The book “When the Press Fails” was co-written by three professors, who offer a critique of the American press and its treatment of George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the entire war cabal, along with the negligent Congress. I choose one example from the book, which is how the stances of Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, U.S. Senate Majority Whip, were overlooked, because he opposed the war, and how the statements of White House Spokesperson Ari Fleischer were instead highlighted (I know Fleischer is an extremist Likudnik even if he denies it). Meanwhile, the book “American Carnival”, written by Neil Henry, argues that the demagoguery of the journalists in the age of the New Media has pushed the public to lose its confidence in them. According to Henry, the new type of journalists includes the commentator who now prosecutes, convicts and issues sentences even before the suspects appear before the court, or the attractive host with the multi-million dollar salary, who feigns understanding for the problems of working-class people. I say to Russel Baker, John Carroll and the authors of the two books, complain to me and I'll cry to you. What the U.S. press is suffering from today goes beyond the Arab press's problems, as we moved from being infantile to being old and decrepit without passing through a vigorous and productive intermediate stage. The most important reason is the absence of freedoms, but equally important, the Arabs' aversion to reading. This means that circulation would remain limited, and subsequently advertisements, the backbone of any newspaper that strives to be free and independent, will be small in number. There are many exceptions that one can take pride in, in the early twentieth century and today. However, I am talking about the rule not the exception, which is that the old press is His Master's Voice, while the New Media can boast that it has brought about the Arab revolutions. [email protected]
