Excerpt:
On June 5, Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the News Corporation, gave her presidential bid $2,300. A few weeks later, his son, James R. Murdoch, chief executive of British Sky Broadcasting in London, gave $3,400. Altogether, NewsCorp/Fox executives gave at least $40,000 to the Clinton campaign.
In July 2006, the elder Murdoch hosted a fundraiser for Clinton’s Senate re-election campaign, raising many eyebrows among Democrats. The Financial Times, which first disclosed the event, noted that Murdoch was a part of the “vast right wing conspiracy” named by Hillary Clinton as determined to destroy her husband’s presidency.
She explained her willingness then to accept Murdoch’s support to the FT: “He’s my constituent and I’m very gratified that he thinks I’m doing a good job.”
Murdoch has always been somewhat cynical in his political support. I don’t like or support Hillary but the Republican challenger was so weak he had almost no chance of winning. While Murdoch’s behavior was not admirable in this case it is least understandable. The Federal Government has so much power over the media business through the FCC it would be imprudent for someone like Murdoch who has so many media properties not to have access to policy makers.
The big picture is that the media landscape in the U.S. would be altered in a massive and a good way if Murdoch took over the NYT. Thousands of newspapers and electronic media outlets take their editorial cue from the NYT. A profound rightward shift in the editorial policy of the NYT would effect in a good way the entire national media fabric.