Love Songs of the Jackals

Have you noticed how the right-hand, above the fold spot on the front page of the Wall Street Journal has suddenly become monopolized by puff pieces about Rupert Murdoch? Today's ode to the new master describes him thusly:

At all newspapers, owners have a say in broad editorial direction. Mr. Murdoch has a long history of being unusually aggressive, reflecting his roots as an old-fashioned press baron. From his earliest days, like some other newspaper proprietors of the last century, he ran his companies with his hands directly on the daily product, peppering reporters and editors with suggestions and criticisms.

In an interview in his New York office on Friday, the Australian-born magnate spoke openly about his hands-on style. "When a paper starts to go bad and go down the drain, the buck stops with me," he said. Shareholders "never ring the editor, they ring me," he said, adding that has "once or twice" led to "very unhappy but necessary decisions" to replace editors.

He said that if he buys the Journal, "I'd love to wander around....I think people quite like it if I show interest in their work." He added: "I can't put $5 billion of my shareholders money and not be able to run the business."

Oh, and about that promise of editorial independence? Been there, done that:

In London, Mr. Murdoch agreed to give extra powers to independent directors on the papers' board. The six independent members are charged with protecting the two papers' editors-in-chief from interference by the owners "in expressing opinion or in reporting news that might directly or indirectly conflict with the opinions or interests of any of the newspaper proprietors," according to the newspapers' articles of association. The six board members are supposed to have approval over the hiring and firing of the top editors, who in turn are supposed to have sole control over staffing decisions.

Mr. Murdoch is not supposed to give directions to any journalist except each paper's top editor. In a letter to the Bancroft family last month, Mr. Murdoch proposed a board "exactly along the lines of" the one he established in London for The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Murdoch made these promises as a condition of avoiding a British government review of the purchase. John Biffen, then the Secretary of State for Trade, cleared the deal in part because of the guarantee of editors' independence. Mr. Biffen says now that the guarantee was a "fig leaf" to blunt criticism that the government, in approving the deal, was granting Mr. Murdoch too much power. The government, he says, didn't consider Mr. Murdoch's promises all that important.

Several former editors of the London papers describe the independent board as ineffective, although they say that in recent years, Mr. Murdoch has left the newspapers alone. Sir Robin Mountfield, a current independent director, says the board acts like a "fleet in being," a naval term for warships that never leave port but still pose a threat to the enemy.

Frank Giles, who edited the Sunday Times from 1981 to 1983, says the board "had very little power or will to protect the independence of the papers they were appointed to safeguard."

I never imagined that I would be advocating an independent Wall Street Journal as the preferred alternative. But in a era of diminished expectations, "normal" editorial malfeasance and average reporting starts lookng pretty damned good.