An editorial in this morning's New York Times calls on federal regulators to force Rupert Murdoch to sell either his New York newspaper or a television station in New York. It says "the proposed purchase would create a troubling concentration of media outlets" and that "eliminating competition between two independent sources of news and entertainment, would not serve the public interest."
Well, since the Times has brought up the subject of a "troubling concentration of media outlets," and of "eliminating competition," let's think about that for a moment. Take, for example, the New York Times Company's purchase of the Boston Globe, which, one could certainly argue, eliminated competition between two major Northeastern newspapers, and which also created a troubling concentration of "media outlets." Or, to take an even more egregious example, take the Times company's recent purchase of the Worcester, Mass., Telegram & Gazette, which now gives the Times company ownership of the newspapers in the two largest cities in Massachusetts. Or take the Times company's ownership of a radio station, WQXR, in New York City, where the Times company also owns a newspaper. Or take the Times company's ownership of a newspaper distributor, City & Suburban, which has been bouncing smaller newspapers from its distribution network in order to make more room for the Times. Or take the Times' reaction to the attempt in the late 1970s to start a new newspaper in New York City, the Trib. The Times greeted the Trib with a lawsuit trying to shut it down.
No, the idea that the Times really stands against "troubling concentration" and against "eliminating competition" is contradicted by the facts of its own corporate behavior. In fact, while pontificating in favor of competition, the real effect of the policy outcome this editorial calls for would be eliminating competition. The Times wants to get the government to force Murdoch to sell the New York Post. The money-losing Post might then either be weakened editorially, go out of business, or be sold to a more liberal owner who would not provide the Times with the feisty, politically conservative competition that the Post is now providing.
And beyond the hypocrisy issue, there's the First Amendment issue. Isn't it a blatant interference with freedom of the press for the government to force a newspaper magnate to sell a newspaper? Of course -- but then, the Times has already shown it doesn't care much for the First Amendment, because it backs campaign finance "reform."
Late Again: The Times this morning discovers, in its front page lead story, that some black politicians are upset by the choice of Senator Lieberman as Al Gore's running mate. That's old news to readers of the Washington Post. Thomas Edsall and Hamil Harris of The Washington Post were all over this story yesterday. So was kausfiles.com. No mention of either of them in today's Times, though.