Editorial <i>Observer</i>: Why the <em>NYO</em>'s Editorials Make No Sense

The problem with the's in particular is that with their off-key earnestness they undercut the generally playful spirit that runs through the publication. Plus they're frequently quite bad.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

It's always struck me as odd that the New York Observer has editorials. They're completely meaningless, of course, but then again, so are lots of newspaper editorials. The problem with the Observer's in particular is that with their off-key earnestness they undercut the generally playful spirit that, aside from Joe Conason, runs through the publication. Plus they're frequently quite bad. As one of the five, maybe six people who read these things, allow me to pass along this week's lead editorial, the best exercise in deliberate obtuseness I've seen in quite some time.

The claim? That the people who have been doing "a fair amount of whining and yelping" about Rupert Murdoch's bid to acquire the Journal should calm down. After all:

[W]ho's to say Mr. Murdoch -- or any owner, for that matter -- is any less suited to determine a newspaper's editorial direction than the editors? Who's to say a newspaper's editor is more independent than its owner? Just as owners do, editors come to the job carrying significant conflicts of interest and other baggage -- whether because of personal relationships, aspirations toward landing a better job, hoping to get their kids into certain schools or lifelong political affiliations and friendships.

And when it comes to decisions about editorial content, who's to say the capitalist worldview of a newspaper owner handicaps him or her any more than an editor is limited by his or her intellectual worldview and liberal bias?

It's almost as if the writers know of no evidence whatsoever that Murdoch would substantially reduce, if not outright destroy, the integrity of the paper.

But that's not the point, right? Who cares who owns these journalistic institutions? "[W]ho's to say Mr. Murdoch -- or any owner, for that matter -- is any less suited to determine a newspaper's editorial direction than the editors?" Not the Observer. Unless, that is, they're whining and yelping about Morgan Stanley's attempt to eliminate the dual-class stock structure in place at the Times.

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here. Perhaps the Observer thinks the Bancrofts, as the current owners of the Journal, should be free to sell to whomever they like, while the Sulzbergers, at least on the Observer's inane theory, were being illegitimately muscled out of the way by inconvenient shareholders. Whoever drew the short straw and is writing these editorials seems to like it when papers are privately owned. Why this preference has to be coupled with an utter disregard for all of the available evidence about Murdoch's track record is not quite clear.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot