New Column for Mushnick?

No column from him today. He usually has one on Mondays.

They also usually post a note if he's going to be on vacation or not publish because of a holiday -- something like, "Phil Mushnick's column will return February 12th."

Still can't help but think something is up.

 

Let me know the first time he writes about the ethical depravity of any Murdoch-owned media outlet. Mushnick is a douche and hypocrite for accepting checks from the worst of the worst.

 

I'm going to regret writing this because it will change the whole nature of the thread, but...

Did you decry Hillary Clinton's acceptance of contributions & fundraising assistance from Mr. Murdoch? Did you demand that she return the money?

Did any of you liberals?

 

I find it funny -- and a little sad -- that in an era of Zell and Lean Dean and McClatchy and Gannett and the rest, there are still a few people who deem Murdoch "the worst of the worst." Please. He is one of the few people on earth who still not only champions the very idea of newspapers, not only tries to roust the self-defeating masses to keep them relevant, but also, not incidentally, still puts his money where his mouth is when it comes to keeping them alive as something beyond pamphlets.

Look, I work for the man, so you can throw this all away and call me a boot-licker if you like, and the Post -- or NewsCorp in general -- doesn't have to be your cup of tea. But it does seem a little silly and downright outdated to try and ascribe all that ails our business to him.

Oh, and for the record: the announcers at FOX come in for the same withering criticisms, when they're warranted, by my man Mushnick as anyone else does. Last I checked RM still owned Fox, too.

Mike Vaccaro
New York Post

 

No one said Rupert represents "all" that ails our business, just that your employer happens to represent the industry's most despicable instincts. Pornography is a good business for those who can stomach it and still look at themselves in the mirror, too.

 

I have to admit, though, that in comparison to Zell and Singleton and Gannett, Murdoch has lost any claim to being ``worst of the worst.'' Vaccaro's right on that. And he's willing to lose money to put out the papers he owns, for whatever agenda it is he's serving.

Folks in Chicago will tell you that the Sun-Times has only gotten worse with subsequent ownerships once Murdoch left. Not that it absolves him for the ills he has imposed on the bidness.

 

Yes, the bar is getting lower all the time!

 

with all due respect to me dear and talented friend vac, yes, mr. murdoch is far from the "worst of the worst" among the newspaper owners left standing. at least he's a newspaperman, though and through.

BUT, to defend him vis-a-vis phil is akin to the ol', "his brother was worse!" joke, isn't it? point being: i love phil, too, and know his heart's in the right place. but if folks want to flail away at him/rupert for living in a glass house, well, methinks they came to grip with that long ago.

and just have to accept the pebbles as they fly by.

 

zeke -- white courtesy phone, please?

 

Compared to other owners of media companies, Murdoch is a white knight.
Compared to other humans, Murdoch is an odd man but I have no personal experiences of working for one of his companies or some other related thing.
He does seem think that newspapers are worth having.
Maybe, because they push his business agenda, but it isn't like that has never happened before.

 

Nah, it's just cuz he's old and doesn't get the Interwebs.

 

First note in his column is ripping Fox News.

BTW, who signs your checks?