Foxification-(adj) the process through which formerly respected news outlets are transformed into mediocre propaganda machines for Rupert Murdoch and his gang of cronies.
Joe Nocera has a great dissection of how deep the reach of the evil Australian goes into the American news business. Fox News of course, has long been off the deep end-pretty much since it was stood up. But the Wall Street Journal was for decades a paper given to deep investigation, good research and reporting- and thoughtful inquiry-even if its editoral policies were slightly conservative. It was a good counter part to other major newspapers and was the paper of choice for insight into business matters.
As most of us suspected-that is no longer the case:
Along with the transformation of a great paper into a mediocre one came a change that was both more subtle and more insidious. The political articles grew more and more slanted toward the Republican party line. The Journal sometimes took to using the word “Democrat” as an adjective instead of a noun, a usage favored by the right wing. In her book, “War at The Wall Street Journal,” Sarah Ellison recounts how editors inserted the phrase “assault on business” in an article about corporate taxes under President Obama. The Journal was turned into a propaganda vehicle for its owner’s conservative views. That’s half the definition of Fox-ification.
The other half is that Murdoch’s media outlets must shill for his business interests. With the News of the World scandal, The Journal has now shown itself willing to do that, too.
As a business story, the News of the World scandal isn’t just about phone hacking and police bribery. It is about Murdoch’s media empire, the News Corporation, being at risk — along with his family’s once unshakable hold on it. The old Wall Street Journal would have been leading the pack in pursuit of that story.
Now? At first, The Journal ignored the scandal, even though, as the Murdoch biographer Michael Wolff pointed out in Adweek, it was front-page news all across Britain. Then, when the scandal was no longer avoidable, The Journal did just enough to avoid being accused of looking the other way. Blogging for Columbia Journalism Review, Dean Starkman, the media critic, described The Journal’s coverage as “obviously hamstrung, and far, far below the paper’s true capacity.”
Filthy Lucre. A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier.-H. L. Mencken