Say what you will about the AJC

But at least Atlanta doesn’t have two newspapers that will serve Rupert Murdoch.

16 comments

  1. Mike-El says:

    I believe it’s a reference to Murdoch’s ownership of the New York Post and his potential acquisition of The Wall Street Journal.

  2. Tommy_a2b says:

    Mike, thanks for the help but it only leads to more questions. One, why do we care? Two, I would rather read either the New York Post or The Wall Street Journal than the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation (other than the Political Insider.) Am I alone in this thought? Does someone actually like the AJC? Do you see what I mean? Help Mike, please. Or maybe call rugby and get him to put out some rational thought. BTW is this a GA issue ot a national issue?

  3. SpaceyG says:

    Yes, as usual Mike-El is correct. And staffers are very nervous around the WSJ I hear. Then again, they’re always nervous nowadays at the AJC too. For good reasons. Lots of nervous people ’round MSM, eh? It’s so much calmer here in the blogosphere.

  4. TPSoCal says:

    I worked for News Corp for much of my all too long career. Murdoch is a genius and he will only I have never known him to interfere with content. The chairman of Fox (Peter Chernin) is an absolute liberal. I had the “honor” of meeting Nancy Pelosi as she came to visit our small little company. Murdoch will not alter the politics of the WSJ. Trust me, Fox is run by liberals. I know this because I worked with them. People’s perception of News Corp is not accurate, trust me, I know from the inside.

  5. rugby_fan says:

    No I don’t know how Murdoch could change the politics of the Journal.

    Tommy I thought I had linked to the story and now I can’t be bothered to add the link. Had I, the post would have made more sense.

    I will read anything, save for the Washington Times (although I do enjoy Blankley), USA Today, and many News Ltd papers. Sadly, the WSJ appears to potentially become one of those publications.

  6. atlantaman says:

    I guarantee you that Cox’s control of WSB and the AJC is a much larger slice of the Atlanta news pie than Murdoch’s control of the Post and possible control of the WSJ. The WSJ is more of a national newspaper anyway.

    Trying to make this thread a little more local – the Cox’s were extremely liberal and gave money exclusively to Democrat politicians so their massive control of the Atlanta news market is far more threatening than Murdoch’s minor control of the NY news market. Murdoch has also contributed across the board, most notably to Hillary Clinton.

  7. atlantaman says:

    Murdoch gets villified by a lot of liberals because of Fox news. What you have to realize is he’s in the business to make money and he’s a genius. It’s all about filling a need.

    If the media world had been dominated by conservatives Murdoch would have developed a news station with a liberal slant.

  8. rugby_fan says:

    While that may be so atlantaman, its not the politics I dislike, its the man and the way the man uses the Post to serve as way to boost his image.

    And don’t get me started on the “Murdoch Press” in Oz.

  9. SpaceyG says:

    I seriously doubt that but one or two living Cox family members have ever spent time in a Cox newsroom. Working in a newsroom is, like, real work. Long hours and not much pay. They’d get their hands dirty only in stuff like quail hunting on plantations.

  10. Donkey Kong says:

    I can concur what TPSoCal is saying. I know a couple top guys at News Corp too; not only is Murdoch genius (and, his staff absolutely adores him), but he has had many opportunities to interfere with the editorial board, and he has restrained. He just doesn’t do it. If Murdoch gets ticked off enough with the editorial board of a paper, he sells it.

  11. MountainThinker says:

    I spent the last week in Baton Rouge Louisiana and it was so nice to pick up a paper (the Advocate) that confronts issues in a meaningful way and holds politicos feet to the fire. They publish a chart with that week’s roll call votes and how Louisiana’s Congressman and Senator’s voted on the bills. It doesn’t editorialize, or pinpoint an “enemy” and it also knows that there is an entire state, as opposed to say, Atlanta.

    Most remarkable was the National and International coverage. It was more than the 2 sentence blurbs that the AJC gives us with the random small picture. While brief (10-20 sentences), it was an excellent snapshot of things nationally and internationally (2 pages dedicated to each, with no more than 1/3 of the page advertising).

    While you might be complaining about Murdoch owning two NYC newspapers, keep in mind there are still the NY Times, Daily News, Mirror, Examiner, plus the other more regional newspapers. Wouldn’t it be great to have a CHOICE at all in Atlanta, or barring that, have a newspaper that was genuinely worth reading??? (exclusions given to political Insider and Jim Wooten…who’s leaving…I weep…)

Comments are closed.