Media moguls manipulate coverage

By Libby

I love the periodic bean counting that goes on to manufacture an argument that there's a 'liberal press.' As if it means a bloody thing whether x number of reporters donate to Democrats or y number of columnists lean left. It's a simple business decision to have a mix of both views. What matters is how the voices are promoted, and what news gets covered and even more importantly, what doesn't. The owner dictates that and no where is the power of the owner more apparent than in the attempted manipulation of Judith Regan.

Judith Regan, the former book publisher, says in a lawsuit filed yesterday protesting her dismissal by the News Corporation, the media conglomerate, that a senior executive there encouraged her to lie to federal investigators about her past affair with Bernard B. Kerik after he had been nominated to become homeland security secretary in late 2004. [Petition here]

Now granted the OJ book was a dismally boneheaded project, but I doubt it would have gone so far without an okay from higher up so she was likely scapegoated for that little fiasco and I'm willing to believe her allegations are true. News Corp is Rupert Murdoch's baby and he was a huge Bush booster in 04. I certainly couldn't prove it, but I have little doubt he had a hand in that suggestion, one that amounts to an obstruction of justice.

But the point is, if we really had a liberal press, wouldn't they have been encouraging her to tell the truth? I mean, aren't we liberals all supposed to suffering from BDS?