By Joel Thurtell
Never thought an impoverished writer like me would share common ground with a billionaire.
Back in the day when I was a paid reporter, gathering and propagating news for the Detroit Free Press, I took heat for trying to influence the course of political history.
Chief operators of that news organ tried to set me up to be fired if I donated money to a political party — again. Three years before their edict, I gave to Michigan Democrats in hopes of defeating George W. Bush in the 2004 election.
Oh well. We know how that turned out.
Now, my partner in crime, Rupert Murdoch, is being pilloried for doing something similar.
Except that he’s giving to Republicans or their proxies while I gave to the Democrats.
And where Rupert is donating millions to his favorite political charities, my contribution was a piddling five hundred greenbacks.
Still, the principle is the same: Rupert and I wanted to influence the OUTCOME of an election.
Rupert and I know that there are certain political policies and government actions of which we approve, and others that we don’t like or downright detest.
Rupert and I know that we don’t like sitting on the sidelines and watching other people make things happen.
Rupert and I are journalists through and through.
From somewhat different elevations in the newspaper pecking order, Rupert and I have observed the mechanics of governmental workings and we know that individual actions can make a difference.
Rupert and I have heard it said that journalists should stay out of the “playing field of politics,” in order to maintain our journalistic “objectivity”.
Rupert and I know that this notion of “objectivity” and reporters’ alleged obligation to stay aloof from politics are hilariously bogus principles concocted by newspaper owners such as Rupert himself.
Rupert and I know that so-called “ethical guidelines” published by news organizations are conceived to enhance the interests of those who own and control those organizations.
Rupert and I know that ownership and control of news organizations means imposing discipline on individuals who might otherwise exhibit independent thought processes which need to be curtailed at all costs to ensure that news is published that is benevolent to owners of news organizations and interests allied to them.
Thus, Rupert and I are acutely aware that the principles laid down as immutable for lackeys employed by news organizations are not intended for superior mortals such as us.
It is at this point that Rupert and I come to a fork in the road of logic.
For Rupert, it is very important that the flunkies not know this.
For Rupert, it is important to obscure the distinction between giving money to achieve influence, and taking money for the same purpose.
I’m using polite language here.
A person with a crass sensibility might call what Rupert and I are doing a “bribe.”
But in our culture, it is not considered nice to say the truth, which is that our “donations” are intended to sway politicians and the practice of politics itself.
Call it what you will, isn’t there nonetheless a difference between RECEIVING such a gift and GIVING one?
Rupert and I think so.
But Rupert and his friends and fellow billionaires would like for us journalists to CONFUSE these two issues.
Coming as I do from a nether class of journalist, I would like to make the distinction.
I believe there is a HUGE difference between the act of giving money to a political party to influence a desired outcome and the act of TAKING money from politicians who hope you might use your position as a journalist to tilt the political discussion in favor of one side and against another point of view.
Rupert would like his minions at the New York Post, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Times of London and other of his myriad media outlets to believe that journalists must not take part in politics.
Not take part in politics OUTSIDE of work, that is.
Because as we know, those who labor for Rupert must toe the political line for conservative Republican candidates and issues and trash opposing ideas and candidates. That is part of the job description.
Donating money to political causes is not part of the job, except in the case of Rupert.
But TAKING money, even in the form of a salary, is not considered accepting a bribe, even though those who toil for Rupert are professional news-slanters, bias-slingers and prejudice-mongers who actively play on the field of politics.
They think they are objective journalists, but Rupert and I know better.
Drop me a line at joelthurtell@gmail.com
