Marty Kaplan

July 25, 2011

What story is the Murdoch story?

By Marty Kaplan

Tweet

Share

Following several days of coaching by lawyers and PR experts, it must have been really rattling for Rupert and James Murdoch when show time arrived to learn that the parliamentary committee questioning them would not permit opening statements. Framing, after all, is the name of the game. To control the package that the narrative comes in is to control the meaning of the story. No wonder Rupert Murdoch felt compelled to interrupt his son at the top of his first answer to say, “This is the most humble day of my life.” That was the frame his team had planned, not some “What did you know, and when did you know it?” story line that the committee wanted to pursue. It would have spoiled everything to let Watergate frame the day, and not King Lear.

But to my ear, Murdoch’s intervention was one odd note off. Why “humble,” and not “humbling”? “Humbling” would have had Murdoch acceding to forces beyond his control, would have him admitting to past arrogance, would have conveyed the sting of just deserts. Declaring it “the most humble day of my life” was too on-the-nose, the error of a neophyte screenwriter who tells rather than shows. It came across as a naked attempt to pick the day’s sound bite, an image consultant’s advice blurted out as a talking point. Interrupting his son in order to say it was an eruption of the very arrogance that he intended to declare extinct.

Whether Murdoch’s occasional befuddlement, his inability to recall details, his long pauses and his nodding off were evidence that this 80-year-old was no threat to anyone, or instead a sign that he’d been studying Jessica Tandy’s performance in “Driving Miss Daisy,” has been debated in the days since the hearing. It is hard to square the take-no-prisoners Murdoch, the win-at-all-costs global mogul, with the almost pitiable witness at the table. In theory, it might have been effective political theater to give the boss of Fleet Street a taste of his own medicine, but Johnnie Marbles won few cheers for attempting to pie a doddering lion in winter. 

Murdoch clearly chafed under the burden of his story line. He was unable to deliver all the dialogue that “the most humble day” required of him. Even an insincere acceptance of responsibility was beyond him, let alone an admission of blame.  “When thou dost ask me blessing, I’ll kneel down/And ask of thee forgiveness,” Lear tells Cordelia at the end; offered the chance to say whether the buck stops with him, the most Murdoch could muster was, “Nope.” He was a victim. It was the people he relied on who had let him down, he said, not the culture he cultivated that had twisted them. He could barely conceal his impatience with Members of Parliament who expect an emperor as mighty as Rupert Murdoch to pay more than 1 percent of his attention to his tabloids, which puts a pretty low ceiling on how humble a day it could actually have been. It was Yom without Kippur, humility without atonement, repentance without guilt, sorrow with nothing to be sorry for.

The media covering this story, of course, have had their own narratives to retail. “Citizen Kane” has proven to be an irresistible analogy. A ruthless publisher exploits the public’s appetite for sensationalism to inflame profitable jingoism and make himself the most powerful and feared man in the country. Joseph Mankiewicz’s script punishes Kane by showing that money can’t buy love, and that power is no substitute for the lost innocence of childhood. By contrast, the news coverage of Murdoch’s billions, of his marriage to a woman two generations younger than him, and of his global power over politicians and public opinion has been fairly fawning. If the Murdoch story has a Rosebud, it’s Millie Dowler, the kidnapped and murdered girl whose voicemail was hacked by his News of the World. Just as Orson Welles’ audience needed William Randolph Hearst cut down to size, avenging the predatory grief inflicted on an innocent English family is the engine of the Citizen Murdoch movie’s plot.

But from the moment Carl Bernstein declared that this saga had the makings of another Watergate, the dominant media narrative has been “All the President’s Men.” It’s a riveting procedural. The cover-up is proving to be more damaging than the crime. Each day’s news brings a fresh harvest of investigative journalism, with the Guardian playing the role that The Washington Post did in the ’70s, and The New York Times lapping at its heels. The suspense is how far all this will go — whether police corruption, and Prime Minister David Cameron’s appointing the British equivalent of Roger Ailes as his press secretary, will bring down Cameron’s government; whether News Corp. — an American company — has violated American laws, making its executives susceptible to U.S. prosecution; whether the dereliction of duty by Murdoch’s board that has been revealed by this scandal will cause them to turn on him; whether shareholder panic will fracture his family’s grip on the company; whether Murdoch, like Nixon, will fall.

My favorite character in this story is Rebekah Brooks, the News of the World editor whom Murdoch made chief executive of News International, and to whom Murdoch pointed, when asked what his top priority was in the hacking scandal, saying, “This one.” There is nothing like an English accent to make bulls—- sound like Shakespeare. I had never heard Rebekah Brooks’ voice until she testified to the parliamentary committee just after the Murdochs’ appearance, and I suspect that it was (no doubt unfairly) her unruly and abundant red hair, as well as the News of the World’s foul tone, that made me imagine that she would sound like Eliza Doolittle at the start of Pygmalion. But it was the King’s English she spoke at the hearing, making me wonder if I was being too hard on her. What brought me back to reality was a delicious anecdote The New York Times reported. From the moment the News of the World had come under fire, her response had been to leak damaging stories about her Fleet Street competitors. Everyone does it: that was her defense. It’s not quite “I was just following orders,” but it’s right up there. According to The Times, “At a dinner party, Lady Rothermere, the wife of the billionaire owner of The Daily Mail, overheard Ms. Brooks saying that The Mail was just as culpable as the News of the World. ‘We didn’t break the law,’ Lady Rothermere said. … Ms. Brooks asked who Lady Rothermere thought she was, ‘Mother Teresa?’ ”

The Watergate narrative has a widely-accepted moral, an upbeat interpretation of its meaning: The system works. But as it turns out, the system doesn’t work. If it did, the Supreme Court would not today be busily eliminating every law on the books aimed at preventing billionaires and media oligarchs from controlling campaigns and elections; nor would states with more livestock than people, and ideologues with more zeal than reason, be able to take our government hostage; nor would a financial sector whose recklessness destroyed our economy be able to continue relying on no-fault bailouts. The coziness of money and power in Britain that the Murdoch story shows, the corruption of the press and the police that it documents, the persistence of a tiny elite that runs things no matter what party is in charge: this pathology, alas, is not confined to the other side of the pond.

I keep wanting melodramas like this Murdoch episode to shock us into admitting how things really are, instead of calming us with an illusion of accountability and a myth about the resilience of our institutions. I’m not holding out for a story like “The Matrix,” where Neo learns the truth and joins the rebels. But it’d be heartening if there were a better alternative to that than, “Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.”

Marty Kaplan holds the Norman Lear chair in entertainment, media and society at the USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism. He can be reached at martyk@jewishjournal.com.

A version of this article appeared in print.

---

Post your comment below!

Click here to return to the homepage.

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

What Kaplan writes: “But as it turns out, the system doesn’t work. If it did, the Supreme Court would not today be busily eliminating every law on the books aimed at preventing billionaires and media oligarchs from controlling campaigns and elections; nor would states with more livestock than people, and ideologues with more zeal than reason, be able to take our government hostage; nor would a financial sector whose recklessness destroyed our economy be able to continue relying on no-fault bailouts.” should be posted on billboards throughout the land. It could not be said better.

Comment by HollywoodJeff on 7/25/11 at 11:51 pm

Murdoch is certainly the Wizard of Oz behind Roger Ailes and the ubiquitous Foxnews.  The mercenary kneejerk ideologues who “face-up” on Foxnews never mention his name without getting red-faced. Even THEY are terrified of this dynastic curmudgeon.  ////  It is imperative that the liberal press stay on this story month after month until the last schadenfreude-filled drop.

Comment by justin king on 7/28/11 at 3:25 am

THE MAN WHO OWNS THE NEWS by Michael Wolff is a good,objective biography of RUPERT MURDOCH. ///  Congrats Marty. A sparkling appraisal of one of the most cunning opportunists to ever darken the doorway of media. The man is a stain on the entire world,but i suppose that is being kind.

Comment by justin king on 7/28/11 at 3:54 am

Great to see the fall of the empire of lies and propaganda.

Murdoch is the most dangerous creature walking on the face of planet earth throughout the history until now.

He has started wars before they started. He has killed more man than anyone else. He has poisoned minds with hate and anger.

Comment by Norman Frohman on 7/28/11 at 6:02 pm

Up to this point in the comments, I agree entirely with all of the above. Hope the exposure leads to the end of Fox News and the rest of the evil empire.

Comment by andi3 on 7/28/11 at 9:37 pm

This is tall timber for the likes of Kaplan and his ilk,  observing the despised Australian born publisher having to make amends for the sins of his employees. Rather reminded me of a scene played in ‘99 by L A Times and Staples Center-but why trade on old news? Smug naysayers like Kaplan see real life a metaphor from a vacuous Hollywood script. The fact that Murdoch understood decades-ago the route best traveled in the information-age meaningless to scribes of his narrow sensibilities and petty agenda.  Murdoch a giant in his own age brilliant and tough. Small wonder the left, exemplified by the shrieking Kaplan, despises him. Aunty Mame

Comment by Mr. Againster on 7/28/11 at 10:02 pm

He’s even more despised in Australia than he is here because they know him better, and longer. If he was “brilliant and tough” he’d be aware of the “sins of his employees”. In fact he orchestrated them. As a proud member of the left, I have long noticed that people who can’t venture an opinion without using insults—“smug”, “shrieking”—are, thankfully, seldom part of our “ilk”.

Comment by Andi3 on 7/28/11 at 10:31 pm

Ah, Againster has skipped away from his keepers. Imagine, after what has been revealed about Murdoch and his enterprises, anyone can say, “Murdoch a giant in his own age brilliant and tough.” Well, as Jimmy Cliff sang back about 30 years ago “the bigger they are, the harder they fall, one and all.” Let’s hope the Againster has stock in the News Corp enterprises.

Comment by HollywoodJeff on 7/29/11 at 12:23 am

A truly ruthless man like Murdoch will stand firm no matter how unethical and immoral he knows himself to be. His “brilliance” was never standing down on the great lie of “fair and balanced”. This allowed huge numbers of rural conservatives to feel that they were mainstream, so they became vacuously involved in the discourse./// But in sad fact, they are reactionary dinosaurs that are doing a great deal of harm.

Comment by justin king on 7/29/11 at 12:54 am

Ah ye of blind faith. Believing all you read in leftist blogs and newspapers; steadfast to your task.  Murdoch’s purchase of Wall St Journal bemoaned by phalanx of hate-obsessed scribes as the death-knell for the reliable but stogy Wall Street daily. Murdoch “will kill WSJ” came the mewling and bleating from America’s journalistic lemmings. And what happened?  WSJ sports the largest circulation of any U S daily and little-wonder! Ever read a Murdoch bio? Doubt it. Murdoch’s most persistent critics are jealous mental-midgets notorious for not giving the Devil his due. Auntie Mame (Cont’s)

Comment by Mr. Againster on 7/29/11 at 5:26 pm

Rupert Murdoch has dared what lesser men proved witless to perceive.  His achievements are legend,  highlighted perhaps by his generous and genuine support for the State of Israel. Had this singular human being done nothing else in his life, it would have been enough. Take a deep breath, and hold-it; might have those bunched up panties offering some relatively required relief. Aunty Mame

Comment by Mr. Againster on 7/29/11 at 5:27 pm

By George, Againster, you’re right about the circulation wars which may reflects WSJ’s (Murdoch’s) decision to make readers pay to see its stories online, something the NYT is beginning to do, or, or, it is yet further proof that HL Mencken was right when he said, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”

As for this scumbag’s support for Israel being his most important contribution to the betterment of man, that’s a thought that’s best left unsaid, but it does tell much about you and the dangerous direction in which Israel is headed.

Comment by HollywoodJeff on 7/29/11 at 5:43 pm

Marty writes “the persistence of a tiny elite that run things no matter who is in charge” is the crux of the matter. ///  good books that pertain to this idea: THE GLOBAL CLASS WAR by Jeff faux, REASON by Robert Reich, SEE NO EVIL by Robert Baer, and CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HITMAN by John Perkins. ///  the supreme court’s ruling to open up a donation free-for-all is a national tragedy until overturned.

Comment by justin king on 7/30/11 at 1:47 am

Amazing how any grown adult can take Kaplan seriously.  He is a leftist college professor who never says anything good about America or how to be a better person like Dennis Prager.  He has no common sense and wisdom like a George Will, Dennos Prager, or Charles Krauthammer.  He is, like his fellow leftists, Howard Zinn, Cornel West, and Paul Krugman, devoid of anything meaningful to the national dialogue.

Comment by Rich on 8/20/11 at 3:50 pm

(AP) WASHINGTON, DC. April 20. Walter Reed Hospital announced today that it was releasing George Will, Dennis Prager, and Charles Krauthammer from custodial care after having found not a trace of humanity or common decency in any of the three well known pundits.

“We have put them through rigorous tests and they have come through with flying colors,” said Rich Richer, a spokesperson for the hospital. “We would like to assure the public that here is absolutely no danger that readers of their columns will learn anything positive about their fellow human beings from anything any of the three will say or write.”

Comment by HollywoodJeff on 8/20/11 at 10:29 pm

Oh! HollyweirdJeff give us a break.  You lie.  These conservatives are Pro-America, Pro-Jewish, Pro-Israel.  Can you name anyone on your side that is the same?  I bet not.  From Prager one can learn to be a better person to oneself and to others.  That may be offensive to the left, including many liberal L.A. Jews.  For shame!  P.S. Zinn, West, and Krugman are all Anti what Prager, Sowell and Krauthammer are Pro.

Comment by Rich on 8/23/11 at 6:40 pm

Rich, not only are you wrong but you are insulting - a common conservative trait. It’s comforting to know that we disgraceful L.A. liberals do not meet with your approval. Be it ever so.

Comment by andi3 on 8/23/11 at 6:57 pm

andi3:  I simply stood up for some decent men.  Being wrong and insulting is not a conservative trait.  These journalists are nothing like that.  Check out the insulting, mean-spirited, libelous views of those on the left.  I also was not WRONG for pointing out that these people are Pro-Israel, etc.  That is a FACT.

Comment by Rich on 8/23/11 at 7:17 pm

I meant that you were wrong in your description of liberals—“Check out the insulting, mean-spirited, libelous views of those on the left.” Specific examples?
“I also was not WRONG for pointing out that these people are Pro-Israel, etc.  That is a FACT.” Right, they are pro-Israel, as are many liberals, including me. I’m just not anti-Palestinian.

Comment by andi3 on 8/23/11 at 10:28 pm

Insulting? Mean-Spirited?  Libelous?  Slanderous?  You should be referring to MSNBC, The KOS, Move-on, any left-wing publication andi3.

Comment by Rich on 8/30/11 at 5:57 pm

Insulting? Mean-Spirited?  Libelous?  Slanderous?  You should be referring to MSNBC, The KOS, Move-on, any left-wing publication andi3.

I wasn’t referring to anyone - I was QUOTING Rich.

Comment by andi3 on 8/31/11 at 12:02 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?