4 ms·

A guiding principle for the world's media should be this: do not hire anyone who was in a senior position at any UK-based Murdoch newspaper*, from the early 80s

A guiding principle for the world's media should be this: do not hire anyone who was in a senior position at any UK-based Murdoch newspaper*, from the early 80s to the late 2000s. Unfortunately too many of these profoundly corrupted people have found their way into the US media after a spell laundering their reputations by working as media advisers or television media commentators or writers or whatever. Phone-hacking is barely even the start of it. The Daniel Morgan case is so, so, so much worse. These people toxify the print media landscape in the UK and (as bad and as ridiculously partisan as US media has lately become) you should keep them away. They are bad people. It's just that simple. The News Of The World in particular was so malign the only fix was to shut it down, and shutting it down was also probably expedient as it meant they weren't a going concern when the Daniel Morgan case was reviewed again. It was poison. * and verify the hell out of people who worked for the Daily Mail or Daily Mirror -- like, make them do a deposition to your in-house lawyers. This shit spread somewhat into the more traditionally conservative right-wing tabloids and into the left-wing tabloids too.

neilv 2y ago
I was surprised that Bezos would pick the executive for something as important as the Washington Post... from a Rupert Murdoch property, of all places. Bezos is smart, and, whether from a belief in American principles, or just optics... I don't understand taking on the risk and appearance of tainting the WaPo with key people from one of the most corrupt and toxic franchises. Is it a signaling of power and intent, in how the WaPo will now be used, with known henchperson installed? Or maybe Bezos knows some redeeming info on this talent, and it's not what it looks like? I'd love to see the Amazon-style 6-page proposal brief on this.
- throw46365 2y ago
  This sort of illustrates the point I am making, because to US eyes in particular, and anyone with understanding of corporate scandal in general, Will Lewis looks like a minor player in News International with clean hands; he worked for the Sunday Times for a bit, and was then hired as part of the cleanup effort in 2010. So in principle he is outside the "big picture". So perhaps Bezos will have seen his time at the Telegraph, where he was something of a moderating influence, to be more important. And it may be true. But the reality is you cannot get close to the executive at News International without the blackness seeping in. They are cynicism and expedience in human form. So, as good as his intentions may be... there's probably something he doesn't want talked about. Hard to keep from getting stained. (I mean, put aside the politics of Fox News and consider the actions of Fox News, and I am here to tell you that the British Murdoch tabloids were more insidious than Fox News and -- until 2020 or so -- worse in their plain abuse of the truth) Murdoch is a uniquely toxic influence on the discourse. He makes William Randolph Hearst look like a soft-soap.
  - hnhg 2y ago
    As much as I agree with you about how awful Murdoch is, he is not unique. I would not let Viscount Rothermere off the hook so easily.
    - throw46365 2y ago
      Oh I don't -- see my footnote about the Mail and the Mirror. It's specifically unwise to hire anyone who worked for News International in that period, but if one is going to take a risk on hiring really any tabloid exec from that same window of time, it would be prudent to get the in-house lawyer to grill them about their conduct so it doesn't come back to bite. Also Murdoch's awfulness is truly international, whereas the Daily Mail is only beginning to get there. It's also not just the Brits + Fox News. Aussie Sky News is shocking. In contemporary international culture, in the 1980s through to the 2020s, there is nobody remotely like Murdoch. There are pretenders who will try to fill the gap when he finally goes, but it's difficult to imagine a single person rising to his level of influence for another few generations. Elon Musk would love to have that clout.
hnhg 2y ago
Yes, the Murdoch media is vile, but this goes for all of the British papers. The Daily Mail is a wretched place to work but is also the most well respected in the UK in terms of the training they give. That should tell you everything.
- throw46365 2y ago
  It does not go for all British papers at all. Not even all of the nationals. Probably most of the tabloids though. The Guardian, The Observer, the FT, the Independent, and some of the significant regionals (Manchester Evening News, Brighton Argus, Oxford Mail, the Scotsman, the Belfast Telegraph etc.) have much better reputations. I doubt there is a news publication in the world that has escaped having a toxic newsroom at least at some point.
  - hnhg 2y ago
    Of the ones above, the FT is perhaps the only respectable one that I can speak of; Liz Truss claiming it is a left wing publication is still hilarious. But have you read the Manchester Evening News lately? The Guardian too has diminished enormously in quality in recent years IMO. For me, the definition of toxic also encompasses the purpose of their work, not just how it is carried out. Newspaper journalists now seem consumed by driving up engagement metrics for particular audience segments and that seems pretty steady across most of the UK news media right now. There are some promising signs of change with new outlets like the Byline Times but the more established media is absolutely inbred and rotten (and dying, if you look at their audience metrics).
    - throw46365 2y ago
      Print news is dying because of the internet; this isn't news. But we're talking about the most fundamental questions of journalistic ethics here. The Murdoch media -- in particular the News Of The World -- hacked people's phones (including a missing teenager's phone, deleting voicemails and giving her family and the police false evidence she was alive), spied on people, and colluded with a series of corrupt police. And on really an epic scale. The News Of The World was little more than a criminal enterprise, and essentially everyone in News International leadership knew it. Even the (utterly loathsome, morally corrosive) Daily Mail is a beacon of truth by comparison.

neilv 2y ago

I was surprised that Bezos would pick the executive for something as important as the Washington Post... from a Rupert Murdoch property, of all places. Bezos is smart, and, whether from a belief in American principles, or just optics... I don't understand taking on the risk and appearance of tainting the WaPo with key people from one of the most corrupt and toxic franchises. Is it a signaling of power and intent, in how the WaPo will now be used, with known henchperson installed? Or maybe Bezos knows some redeeming info on this talent, and it's not what it looks like? I'd love to see the Amazon-style 6-page proposal brief on this.

throw46365 2y ago
This sort of illustrates the point I am making, because to US eyes in particular, and anyone with understanding of corporate scandal in general, Will Lewis looks like a minor player in News International with clean hands; he worked for the Sunday Times for a bit, and was then hired as part of the cleanup effort in 2010. So in principle he is outside the "big picture". So perhaps Bezos will have seen his time at the Telegraph, where he was something of a moderating influence, to be more important. And it may be true. But the reality is you cannot get close to the executive at News International without the blackness seeping in. They are cynicism and expedience in human form. So, as good as his intentions may be... there's probably something he doesn't want talked about. Hard to keep from getting stained. (I mean, put aside the politics of Fox News and consider the actions of Fox News, and I am here to tell you that the British Murdoch tabloids were more insidious than Fox News and -- until 2020 or so -- worse in their plain abuse of the truth) Murdoch is a uniquely toxic influence on the discourse. He makes William Randolph Hearst look like a soft-soap.
- hnhg 2y ago
  As much as I agree with you about how awful Murdoch is, he is not unique. I would not let Viscount Rothermere off the hook so easily.
  - throw46365 2y ago
    Oh I don't -- see my footnote about the Mail and the Mirror. It's specifically unwise to hire anyone who worked for News International in that period, but if one is going to take a risk on hiring really any tabloid exec from that same window of time, it would be prudent to get the in-house lawyer to grill them about their conduct so it doesn't come back to bite. Also Murdoch's awfulness is truly international, whereas the Daily Mail is only beginning to get there. It's also not just the Brits + Fox News. Aussie Sky News is shocking. In contemporary international culture, in the 1980s through to the 2020s, there is nobody remotely like Murdoch. There are pretenders who will try to fill the gap when he finally goes, but it's difficult to imagine a single person rising to his level of influence for another few generations. Elon Musk would love to have that clout.

hnhg 2y ago

Yes, the Murdoch media is vile, but this goes for all of the British papers. The Daily Mail is a wretched place to work but is also the most well respected in the UK in terms of the training they give. That should tell you everything.

throw46365 2y ago
It does not go for all British papers at all. Not even all of the nationals. Probably most of the tabloids though. The Guardian, The Observer, the FT, the Independent, and some of the significant regionals (Manchester Evening News, Brighton Argus, Oxford Mail, the Scotsman, the Belfast Telegraph etc.) have much better reputations. I doubt there is a news publication in the world that has escaped having a toxic newsroom at least at some point.
- hnhg 2y ago
  Of the ones above, the FT is perhaps the only respectable one that I can speak of; Liz Truss claiming it is a left wing publication is still hilarious. But have you read the Manchester Evening News lately? The Guardian too has diminished enormously in quality in recent years IMO. For me, the definition of toxic also encompasses the purpose of their work, not just how it is carried out. Newspaper journalists now seem consumed by driving up engagement metrics for particular audience segments and that seems pretty steady across most of the UK news media right now. There are some promising signs of change with new outlets like the Byline Times but the more established media is absolutely inbred and rotten (and dying, if you look at their audience metrics).
  - throw46365 2y ago
    Print news is dying because of the internet; this isn't news. But we're talking about the most fundamental questions of journalistic ethics here. The Murdoch media -- in particular the News Of The World -- hacked people's phones (including a missing teenager's phone, deleting voicemails and giving her family and the police false evidence she was alive), spied on people, and colluded with a series of corrupt police. And on really an epic scale. The News Of The World was little more than a criminal enterprise, and essentially everyone in News International leadership knew it. Even the (utterly loathsome, morally corrosive) Daily Mail is a beacon of truth by comparison.