Christien Louviere

I have trouble reading any newspaper these days, and (after
going through Katrina) I take what I see on any cable news outlet with a huge
grain of salt.  The only newspaper I read with any regularity now is the Wall Street Journal.  It always
seems to attack issues from a business standpoint rather than always a
political one.  I live in Atlanta,
and I think it’s one of the worst papers in the country as far as always being
extreme left (they do have a great Sports section though).  Of course, the
standard for these papers is and probably always will be the New York Times.  Talk about a prime
example of a stubborn brand that used to stand for something strong has now
become weak and transparent.

Part of the problem is that the people creating the stories live in a
box.  They live in a world on
paper.  It’s the equivalent of a baseball beat writer following a team
never having played baseball, understood baseball or watched baseball.
All they want are answers so they can create a story of what exists in their
minds and feed it out to the thousands, maybe millions reading it.
They’ve become blinded by the quick fix and dollar causing them to lose their
integrity to report the news.

This Monday past, I was watching CNBC’s Morning Call which interviewed NYT’s
columnist Paul Krugman (watch it here).   The topic was Rupert
Murdoch’s media conglomerate News Corp’s bid to takeover the WSJ
publication.  Krugman is a wormy guy that looks and sounds like he’s been
in a lab writing formulas all day.  In his interview, he shows clearly his
disdain for News Corp’s bid of the WSJ.  That’s fine.  I get
that.  I share Krugman’s view in that it could be serious conflict of
interest if it becomes the right-wing version of the NYT; however, Murdoch is
very savvy when it comes to running a media outlet (probably the best in his
age group); however, if I were a shareholder then I would have faith that he
wouldn’t screw up what works for the WSJ.  They have a very unique
position in the landscape of newspapers…having said that, Murdoch is human.

The initial concern Krugman has is where our POVs cease to agree.  One of
the first things he mentions on the video is how FOX has a right wing bias, etc
and that would carryover onto the WSJ.  When I watch cable news on a
story, I usually take in MSNBC, FOX and CNN.  On the news front, I don’t
find a huge bias from one side to the next.  It’s a huge marketing scheme
on all sides, and they love that this is a topic of discussion. 
Regardless, why is the man so worried about this bias if it did happen?
From a readership perspective, he is a columnist for the largest liberal
newspaper in the country.  Isn’t our country supposed to be about hearing
various sides of an issue and finding common ground? That seems hypocritical to me. It’s like the kid in school who takes his
ball and goes home if he doesn’t win.

The NYT should be ashamed for making Krugman their face on TV.  The man
looked scared.  Liz Clayman (the hostess) was not exactly asking difficult
questions, and the man couldn’t help but to just focus on his disdain for FOX
News Channel.  He is blind by his viewpoints and yet we consider him an educated
voice.  How can anyone be educated that can’t at least try to see different viewpoints?
To me, I consider it ignorant.  As I said, he’s a lab geek.  He has
no idea about how a business is run and doesn’t give Mr. Murdoch enough
credit.  Murdoch inherited some small shares of a newspaper and ton of
debt from his father in 1952.  He now runs one of the largest (and most
successful) media conglomerates in the world.  The man knows what he’s
doing and is dynamic enough, even at 76, to change with the times.
Krugman shows no respect for this fact.

The rest of the interview is basically doing what he can to discredit FOX News
as a legitimate new source.  I’m not making this up…his evidence was a
polling to suggest that as the Iraq War has turned away from Republican favor then
FOX covers it less.  Truth be told, many (right and left and regardless of
news outlet) are aggravated with the way the war has been executed, and
Americans have become empathetic so they’re not watching as much.
Therefore, the news outlets aren’t covering as much.  To illustrate his
example, he cited that FOX News had three times the coverage of Anna Nicole
Smith’s death than any other channel.  Ms. Clayman quickly interjected
that ALL the networks covered this.  It’s true.  I was sick of
it.  Outside of saying that she died, I don’t understand all of the
hype.  CNN’s Larry King had Paris Hilton’s first interview out of
jail.  Again, I don’t know who cares, but Krugman never mentioned that.

I read the WSJ and like the position it takes.  I’m interested to see how
the new FOX business channel turns out.  Note that the new FOX channel is
taking direct aim at CNBC and Ms. Clayman stayed true to the interview.
Krugman tried to turn the tables and she wouldn’t let it happen.  That is
journalistic integrity and savvy.  That’s the way it should be.
Maybe the NYT should hire her.  Although, I doubt they have the insight or
the guts to do it.  Now, I think it would be much more entertaining for
Murdoch to skip the WSJ buy and buy the NYT.  I’d love to see a column
from Krugman after he gets a paycheck from his new boss! Of course, he’d probably grab his pen and go
home.