Skip to comments.MURDOCH 'SOURCE' OF ERRONEOUS NY POST VP STORY, PAPER DENIES
Posted on 07/08/2004 6:56:19 PM PDT by wagglebee
When the NEW YORK POST tore up its front page on Monday night to trumpet an apparent exclusive that Rep. Dick Gephardt would be Sen. John Kerry's vice presidential running mate, the newspaper based its decision on a seemingly unimpeachable source: Rupert Murdoch, the man who controls the company that owns the POST!
Rival NY TIMES set to source the "Murdoch" source to a NY POST employee, who demanded anonymity, saying senior editors had warned that those who discuss the Gephardt gaffe with other news organizations would lose their jobs.
Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of News Corp., called his tip in to the Post's news desk just after 10 p.m. Monday, between the first and second editions, the employee said. Murdoch spoke directly with Mike Hechtman, an editor on the paper's city desk, the employee said, though the person did not know where Murdoch was or how he learned of Kerry's supposed choice.
The paper's editor denies the source was Murdoch.
Murdoch, asked by CNBC about the Gephardt article in a brief interview on Tuesday from Sun Valley, Idaho, seemed to point to others.
"Everybody made a mistake and they are embarrassed and they have apologized for it and it happens even on NBC sometimes," he said.
Drudge was reporting that Hillary would get the spot. Then he hinted at Bayh.
So his sources were not entirely on top of things either.
Oh, fer pete's sake. If anybody really cared who JFK's veep was, this might matter. But nobody does.
Btw, Da Nooz sent a little note saying something to the effect of "Congratulations on your exclusive." Now that's the kind of thing that matters. NYC is one of the few places that still has enough newspapers to do this kind of thing to each other.
Only interesting to Murdoch haters. This kind of negative publicity probably helps NY Post, whose readers care more about sports, gossip and local news, not politics.
Murdoch. Murdoch. Hmmmm... where do I know that name from?
Oh, of course. He's the former Australian who owns half the newspapers here, too.
So what's your take on Murdoch from Down Under?
Well, his papers are as right-wing as you get in this country... not that that's saying much.
And we get FOX News down here, too, on cable. The direct American feed, not this "CNN International" rubbish...
"Well, his papers are as right-wing as you get in this country... not that that's saying much."
LOL! Same here, but then of course what's "right" depends on what's "center", and the center here has moved pretty far left.
"And we get FOX News down here, too, on cable. The direct American feed, not this "CNN International" rubbish..."
CNN is bad enough; I dread imagining what CNN International would be like!
Gotta turn in to bed here, so have a good one!
What's interesting about it ..??
I think it was a planned set-up to embarrass FOX!
In other words .. who ever told Murdoch the info should be a prime suspect. And .. hopefully Murdoch will not fall for it again. I've seen Cavuto interview Murdoch and he's no dummy. He was played for a fool and I don't think he'll go quietly.
The object: FOX cannot be trusted. This was all about attempting to plant doubt in the public's mind about the content of the news on FOX. Simple!
Exactly! The Democrats hate Murdoch and Fox even more than they hate George W. Bush. It is the only media outlet that they cannot influence or control, therefore their biggest threat. They know that "Fair and Balanced" is a danger to any Democratic Party success.