By Oh Young-jin
Assistant managing editor
When Thomas Jefferson, the third U.S. president and principal author of the country’s Constitution wrote to his friend in 1787: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government with newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter,” in all likelihood, he didn’t have Rupert Murdoch in mind.
It is questionable whether snobbish Brits, beleaguered by the pandemonium let loose by Murdoch and Co., may have allowed their former prime minister to be called the “poodle” of a U.S. president, but they are not likely to accept 200-year-old advice from one of the leaders of the colonial period rebels, who directed the very quote against their British masters.
Another irony is that Murdoch the problem (old) boy is from Australia, a former British colony and now a member of the Commonwealth that served as a British prison colony. The sun may have set on the empire but troubles from (former) colonies have never ceased. No offense, my British friends!
Let’s set aside other historical and personal twists of irony about News Corp., Murdoch’s global media empire; its British subsidiary News International and the now-defunct News of the World, the epicenter of the phone-hacking, police-bribing scandal. We will get back to Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity, whose venom has poisoned the American society.
But the heart of the question posed by Murdoch has to come down to how we see the problem by the Jeffersonian standard with a little twist: “Which is the problem, Murdoch or the media?”
First, it is obvious that the majority of people have now come to appreciate the intrinsic value of the press, perhaps taking it for granted as if it were the air we breathe. Equally obvious is their abhorrence toward the man, who is (was) often viewed to wield as much influence as switching prime ministers at his whim.
The challenge for us is that Murdoch is as much part of the media as he represents the gist of its content. In other words, it is hard to separate one from the other.
There arises a bigger challenge of surgically separating Murdoch from the media in order to keep its best part that Jefferson said he would be willing to trade for government.
That would really be a tall order. As often with a case in modern society, Murdoch’s is being dealt with, not just in the court of law but, more seriously in the court of public opinion.
The combination of the two courts has time and again proved to be less surgical than blunt. In other words, one may lose his foot in an operation to remove a corn on the sole. An interpretation is that, according to the way the probe is being conducted, not just Murdoch but also Fleet Street is taking the blow.
There are two observations to be made in the defense of not Murdoch but the media.
First, it reflects a society as one of its members. As with other members of society, media outlets compete with each other to survive. Their competition is often based on the prompt delivery of accurate news and analyses as scoops. Sometimes, the competition turns into a race over who can go the furthest in terms of sex, voyeurism and money.
Nobody would be willing to say on Murdoch’s behalf, “Sorry.” Obviously by looking at the way he has operated his business, he deserves little sympathy. But I would say sorry not in his defense but for my industry.
It may sound corny but there are far larger numbers of honest journalists, perhaps 100 of them for every Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson or Clive Goodman.
For their behavior, they are presumed to be guilty even before conviction (the rule of law should be respected) but it in one way or another also reflects the desire of society. After all, the News of the World was the best-selling tabloid in Britain before being shut down. Granted the media drew first blood in this vicious, ever-escalating reproductive cycle in which the media reports outrageous things and readers want more of it.
In spite of my fear that if I say anything more along these lines it could sound like whining, I will say it any way. The media industry is being restructured in a way that nobody, Murdoch included, may have its survival guaranteed. Perhaps, the media as we know it may be wiped out. Casualties are already everywhere with the mood of the industry ever pessimistic.
It is time for you, consumers of the news, to ask yourselves the Jeffersonian question: Do you need us or not? The answer beyond any question is that you need us.
If you ask us what we want you to do ― pardon Murdoch ― I would say no.
If you press me with the question one more time, I would say my answer is hidden in the title of the column. The likeness of Jefferson is printed on a 2-dollar U.S. bill that many think is out of circulation and is presented as a good-luck gift. In other words, I wish good luck to you in your attempt to find what you feel is best for the media and let me know when you find it. Until then, we will we keep writing and broadcasting whether you like it or not. A footnote is that the Jefferson quote is worthy of a historical and rhetorical forensic check up. Historically, he said it well before his 1801-1804 presidency, when his spirit of rebellion against the British Empire peaked. I bet that he would not have said it when he was in office or if he knew he would become President. Rhetorically, Jefferson cleverly used the subjunctive mood, “Were I…” and auxiliary verb “should,” conveying a sense that his choice of the newspapers without a government should be a moral call that lacks reality.
P.S. I don’t know O’Reilly and Hannity personally but they should not be part of journalism. They are more like talking heads that are willing to do anything it takes in order to gain a greater audience and please them. For their sins, Murdoch should be held responsible.