Power brokers, opinion formation and democracy
Published:Friday | July 22, 2011 | 12:00 AM
Wilberne Persaud, Columnist
All week the airwaves and international media have been abuzz with what appears, so far, to be the story of the century: Rupert Murdoch's News of the World's unexpected extinction.
The move followed revelations that they hacked into phone messages of Milly Dowler, a 13-year-old girl who was abducted and murdered in 2002. Their operatives deleted messages to leave space for more, giving the family false hope their daughter was still alive. An incensed British public is neither pacified nor satisfied by mere closure of the paper; the scandal refuses to go away.
As the United Kingdom's online Guardian put it, Parliament's "select committee grilling of News International tycoon attracts huge interest from members of public as well as media." One visiting Australian literary and theatre critic in London described the hearings as the best show in town, one that he would miss for nothing. He was amongst those queuing for hours before the hearing commenced.
The scandal took the scalps of two top Scotland Yard executives. PM David Cameron's choice for director of communications - a former key player in Murdoch media - opens him to the charge of poor judgement. And suddenly, if not unexpectedly, the erstwhile self-styled 'hands on' manager of a global media empire claims in testimony that he knew nothing of the 'phone hacking' practice seemingly widespread in news gathering for his tabloid newspapers' sensationalism.
This he claimed amidst an aura of almost feeble-mindedness reminiscent of the New York mafia Don who walked the streets of Greenwich Village in his housecoat or bathrobe, apparently with little control of his faculties. This ruse did not work for him.
Tony Rebel's I can't Recall seems applicable to Murdoch as well, even at 80 years old. We are yet to learn whether forgetfulness and diminished capacity shall work for him.
The available evidence defies the 'hands-off' claim. Former bosses of some News Corporation properties have previously described weekly conversations with Mr Murdoch. Certainly not the procedure associated with leaving management decisions to subordinates. This defence creates problems for Mr Murdoch in another important sense.
Should we believe it, his tenure as top dog of his media empire becomes questionable. Already, in addition to shuttering The News of the World, the Murdochs withdrew their US$12-billion bid to take control of Britain's largest satellite broadcaster, British Sky Broadcasting (BskyB). Additionally, across the pond, as United States media critics like to describe the Atlantic divide of the two countries, the FBI has become interested in exploring similar behaviours connected to survivors of victims of the 9/11 tragedy.
So the media empire is in trouble. What is important to point out, however, is the tremendous benefit this corporation and Rupert Murdoch himself derived from what appeared to be an uncanny ability to ferret out scandal associated with politicians and celebrities - whether it be in the music, sports or movie world and of course, the British Royal family.
Rupert Murdoch was the first to visit Prime Minister David Cameron at 10 Downing Street. He was ushered in through the back door. He was also among the first to visit Tony Blair when he assumed office at the same address. This is the ultimate in access to power.
Politicians were scared of the man and felt they had to court him. This was in the UK. But he has this kind of power in the US as well. Hillary Clinton, in a manner, 'sought his endorsement' in her run for the US Senate. His son, who plays a central role in the UK properties of the group, has been perhaps the most vociferous critic of the BBC as a state-supported television and radio broadcaster. With control of BSkyB it would have been useful beyond calculation and imagination, having to tackle competitively, a financially handicapped BBC. David Cameron's Conservative Liberal coalition appears to have been on board for this venture.
What would the world have gained or, perhaps better put, have lost? Would the ordinary TV or Internet viewer have had access to high-quality essentially educational, informative, mind-opening and challenging programmes such as 'Connections', 'The Life of Birds', 'Nature's Great Events' and a host of others? I daresay not from a Murdoch near-monopoly.
What of the link to democracy? If politicians, to whom we entrust governance, cower at the thought of a powerful hostile media, yet require financial contributions from owners of the same media, do we not have a huge problem? Murdoch and others like him, past and present, have learnt one thing - access to power grants inordinate influence over policy. It's a living thing.
Politicians in government can pass legislation or grant requests that transform a small hawk into a Harpy Eagle.
Once the erstwhile small, supportive predator hawk transforms into eagle, becoming more powerful than its once enabling political falconer, the notion of democratic governance becomes questionable, perhaps flies off the perch.
Do we see similarity to the progress of Dons' power in Jamaican garrison constituencies? Do we see similarities in Jamaican media? Do G2K's concerns about supposed political affiliations of commentators bear validity? The former seems to bear comparison. The latter does not. For as usual, in the run-up to elections, critical comment and polls that generate negative results for the party in power are vilified.
Carl Stone, Jamaica's pioneering political pollster, on occasion would talk of negative sounds and threats from both sides of Jamaica's political divide. G2K's outburst, therefore, though unworthy of our respect is neither unusual nor unexpected.
In the charged political atmosphere we live in, naming individuals you deem unsupportive is, putting it mildly, unwise.
It is also unfairly disingenuous, because simultaneously one should name supportive commentators. The carriageway is dual, two lanes. Our democracy should benefit from frank and openly shared views.
Postcript: The title of last week's column should have been 'Jamaica's High Investment, Low-Growth Conundrum.Vx'. Without the '.Vx' that is, version x, the first paragraph loses both humour and meaning. To comments from Dhfken, I should merely point out that 'investment' in the national accounts does not include purchase of government paper and for instance, deposits with JMMB, OLINT or Cash Plus—these are savings. Investment aggregates do not include the activity your comment addresses.