In light of the News Corporation scandal, Rupert Murdoch has been called almost every name in the book.
Some have even characterized him as the devil himself.
Media outlets, Fox News adversaries and liberal pundits alike have taken advantage of the media tycoon’s tumultuous fall.
Certainly, the bias and somewhat racial-innuendo reporting of Murdoch’s Fox News has garnered the company some obvious opponents: Democrats, African-Americans, left-wing supporters, Obama supporters, etc.
Fox News reporters have covered stories alluding to the president’s race with comments like “Hoodlums” and “Hizzouse,” brow-raising mishaps like mistaking Osama Bin Laden’s name with Obama’s, and the controversial, doctored video falsely implicating Shirley Sherrod of racist commentary, just to name a few.
With all considered, one could easily draw conclusions as to why so many seem to relish in Murdoch’s ruin. For years, Murdoch and his conglomerate have been loathed for its alleged right-wing bias and agenda-driven reporting. Now, with an open investigation implicating Murdoch’s British tabloid of corruption and phone hacking, many are hoping it will lead to the dismantling of his entire news empire.
Though Murdoch obviously is guilty of both harmful and innocuous yellow journalism, is all the media hate fairly warranted?
Yes, several Murdoch employees have been found guilty of unethical behavior, but is it really fair to socially indict Murdoch, without any concrete evidence that he is personally responsible for the immoral actions of his employees?
Theoretically, one can assume that if his “surrogate daughter,” Rebekah Brooke, and other top officials are implicated in what may be an unethically internal pattern, then Murdoch is involved in some way, no matter how minuscule it may be.
But such conjectures can only be taken with a grain of salt until proved otherwise.
So far, Murdoch has played his cards right. Upon the scandal breaking out, Murdoch immediately shut down News of the World, and even traveled to the UK to apologize to the family of the deceased young girl whose phone was hacked by reporters. He has even agreed to meet before the Parliament, whom will surely light fire under him. Whether one believes the sincerity of his apologetic nature, one must agree that he has handled the matter quite well.
It’s far too acquiescent to drag Murdoch through the mud. Maybe critics and the likes should wait for the investigation to conclusively link the immoral failings to Murdoch.
He may be guilty of bad journalism and personal gain, but guilty of corruption and masterminding a phone-hacking scandal?
We’ll have to wait for the law to determine that one.