Two For the Road

There is a famous 1967 Audrey Hepburn film in which she co-starred with Albert Finney.  "Two For the Road" is a serio-comic tale about a couple facing divorce and how they use the experience of a road trip through Europe one summer to try to save their marriage.  Many think it was one of her best films, and I happen to agree.  Also it was the film debut of the fabulous Jacqueline Bisset who, though she plays a very minor character with only a few minutes of screen time, almost steals the film.  Is it any wonder Bisset quickly became an international star?  Even though she shared the screen with the likes of Hepburn and Finney, at the time two of the most popular and established actors in the world, audiences only needed a glimpse of Bisset to know they wanted more … a whole lot more!
    But no, this posting isn’t about the film "Two For the Road."  Rather, today’s commentary centers around two articles in this week’s Wall Street Journal that cannot be more different but do rather vividly illustrate the new road the Journal has taken since its takeover by Rupert Murdoch.
    I’ve been reading The Wall Street Journal since high school.  It has always been, in my opinion, the best newspaper in the world next to The New York Times, certainly the very best newspaper that covers the conservative position on issues, thus balancing the Times which is the best newspaper covering the liberal position.  In fact, it was my daily reading of the Journal that prompted my academic advisor at Boston University to suggest I pursue the MBA.  He said anybody’s who’s reading The Wall Street Journal every day and actually enjoying it should be in business school.  Of course, he didn’t really need to tell me that.  I had known since junior high that that was exactly what I wanted to do. 
Once I was in 7th grade,  hit puberty, and realized I no longer wished to be a priest after all (which had been my ambition from the time I was five), I had always known what my life plan was:  first get my film degree, then my MBA, start my own film company, use my business model of high-quality micro-budgeted films to make my company a big enough success that a major studio would buy me out, then get into senior management at said studio and eventually become studio head.  In the years following BU, while I was pounding the pavements by day looking for production work and writing scripts by night, reading the Journal every day kept me on the road of preparation for that goal.  Granted as a starving artist, I had to go to the library to read it.  Same for the Times.  They’re both the most expensive newspapers in the country, but I don’t know anyone who reads either who doesn’t think they’re worth every penny.  It’s no coincidence that every business office, law office, and newspaper office in the country subscribes to both. 
    So I’ve been reading the Journal most of my life, having gotten started with it in high school when I took my first class in investing and got the huge student discount to the paper.  In fact, I kept taking the same investment class at West Bloomfield Community Ed over and over just so I could keep getting the Journal.  Once I started college, I added the Times to my daily reading list.  The Times is so dense and contains so much detail that you always feel like you just completed a college course every time you finish an issue.  It’s the only paper in the country that is so thorough in its coverage that, if you want, you can easily spend an entire half-day reading each issue. 
    So I’ve spent my entire adult life reading both and feeling like I was getting a good balance since, between the two of them, you felt you were getting the best and most qualified analysis from both the conservative and liberal sides of each issue.  It certainly forged my own frame of mind that neither side had all the answers and both sides had something to contribute. 
    They’ve both always been the most respected newspapers in the country but also the oldest, both having been founded in the 19th century and in continuous operation ever since.  And until Rupert Murdoch took over the Journal several years ago, they both had a stellar reputation for not only top notch reporting and analysis, but also for balance.  Though both had distinctly different editorial biases, it was rare that an article expounding the liberal position was not accompanied by another article arguing the conservative position on the same issue.  And always top notch writers providing quality arguments, not just giving any yo-yo space so they could claim balance.  No, when they provide an opposing argument, they find the best writers in the business to do it. 
    The Times continues to do this quite admirably.  Even though it has always been a distinctly liberal pro-Democrat paper, the staff is not at all shy about criticizing a Democrat administration when they think it’s made a wrong call.  The Times has done its fair share of criticizing Obama.  And until Rupert Murdoch, The Wall Street Journal did pretty much the same – a distinctly Republican newspaper but still not at all reticent about calling a Republican president on the carpet when they feel he’s erred. 
    For those of you with whom I’ve discussed my opinions of the media, you already know that I’ve always been very critical of Rupert Murdoch. (Warning:  this is a commentary in which I’ll be arguing the liberal position.  So the conservatives among you may wish to skip the rest.)  For being a media mogul, he has no understanding of what the media is about, certainly no understanding of how the Founding Fathers intended the media to function in a free society.  And that would have been fine if he had stayed in his native Australia, but he has not.  For many years now, he has been buying newspapers and broadcast outlets all over the world until he is now probably the most powerful media mogul in the world, perhaps even in all of world history.  Truly, I think his influence and power probably surpasses Horace Greeley’s in the 19th century and William Randolph Hearst’s in the 20th. 
    There is no question that he understands how to sell newspapers and how to get top ratings for his television outlets.  He runs his businesses the same way P.T. Barnum ran his circuses, the famous Barnum maxim being, "No one ever went broke underestimating the public."  But the news business is not (or at least should not be) as the circus business is, an entertainment.  And at least Barnum was wise enough to include a great deal of variety in his acts, ranging from very low-brow to ultra-sophisticated.  The media is supposed to be about variety; the media is supposed to be about balance.  Murdoch, throughout his entire career, has been very emphatic that he does not believe in that philosophy at all.  He does not believe in balance; he believes only in truth - or more accurately his version of it - and he will not allow his newspapers and broadcast stations to present a position that opposes his own except for the purpose of refuting it and showing how ridiculous the opposing point of view is. 
    He has for years been acquiring financially troubled papers and then using them as his own mouthpiece.  There is nothing wrong with this per se except for the highly unethical way in which he’s done so, consistently promising the media outlets that he would not interfere with their editorial policy at all in order to make the deal, then quickly dismissing all editors and reporters who would not tow the line once he was in power.  And the numbers that he has dismissed pale in comparison to the number that have quit voluntarily rather than submit to his tyranny.
    He has turned Fox into probably the biggest and most influential mouthpiece in the country, except that it’s strictly a Republican mouthpiece.  I’ve never been sure how Fox has passed muster with FCC fairness rules except that the FCC has gotten much more lax since the Reagan era.  Murdoch could never have gotten away with any of what he’s done before the 1990s.  He governs this massive media empire that unabashedly follows the Republican playbook (in fact often writes it) and has been steadily influencing public opinion towards the conservative end of the spectrum for quite some time now, simply by refusing to give time or space to any quality liberal positions. 
    I know so many people who believe that Fox is the only source of news in the country that can be trusted, that it is the only place you can go to get the truth.  Of course they must believe that if the only thing they know about the other side is what Fox is telling them, and Fox has a vested interest in refuting anything and everything the other side has to say.  It is a very dangerous way to impart information and keep a society democratic, and is a real insult to the intelligence of the voters and their ability to make their own decisions.  It virtually guarantees that voters will not be adequately informed.  Murdoch is a dangerous man.  Considering his massive and pervasive influence, he is perhaps the most dangerous man in the world.  Somebody needs to come up with a business media model that will beat his.  Somebody needs to beat this guy in the marketplace and buy the sucker out. 
    That is why I was so bitterly disappointed when the Bancroft family, the descendants of Clarence Barron who took control of the paper in 1902, decided to sell to Rupert Murdoch in 2007.  Once again, Murdoch promised no editorial interference.  He was simply going to change their business model so the paper would be more profitable.  Then he went ahead and started terminating editors and reporters who would not follow his positions on the issues, and thus triggered a dramatic wave of resignations from highly respected journalists who had worked for the paper for many years. 
    I had hoped that since the Journal already had a distinctly conservative editorial position, that Murdoch would have left well enough alone.  But it turns out the Journal was not conservative enough even for his taste.  I subscribe to the online edition and receive the major headlines on email every day.  In fact, the Journal is the only major newspaper that you cannot read, even online, without a paid subscription.  So I continue to read it and it does continue to supply excellent coverage of the conservative point of view.  This is valuable in its own way. 
    The problem is that, since 2007, I cannot remember the last time I saw a pro-Democrat or pro-Obama column or article in The Wall Street Journal.  Quite the opposite.  I don’t think a day goes by when some uber-conservative like Karl Rove does not have a column denouncing Obama and telling the readers why Obama has been failing every step of the way.  The Times also talks about Obama’s failures, but it is now the only place you can go to also find out about Obama’s successes, which are considerable.  Even when Obama has had a huge success, the Journal will now spin it to make it seem like a failure.  You now must go to the Times to find out what really happened.  (Washington Week on PBS is also an excellent place to go to find out what really happened.) 
    Needless to say, prior to 2007, this was not at all the case.  Prior to 2007, there wasn’t a day that went by that there wasn’t at least one pro-Democrat article in the Journal.  Prior to 2007, I could read the Journal and feel like I was still getting genuine balance.  Now I just feel like I’m being shamelessly manipulated.  I’m just thankful that there are still other places to go to get the other side. 
    So in the last few years I have been frustrated with the Journal, the once paragon of conservative virtue that has now been turned into a blatant propaganda organ for Rupert Murdoch’s brand of politics.  Yes, the changes he made to the paper’s model did improve circulation.  It doesn’t surprise me that he’s been praised for that.  What does surprise me is that even the Times has praised Murdoch’s efforts in "turning around" the Journal.  Frankly, I’ve never been convinced the Journal was in that much trouble.   Sure, he made it more profitable, the same way Barnum made Bailey’s circus operations more profitable.  But it wasn’t like they were losing that much money to begin with.  They were merely having the same problems all newspapers were having – loss of revenue due to the Internet.  Unlike every other paper, they had been most successful in maintaining their business operations as a subscription-only web site.  Why the Bancrofts sold out I do not understand.  I can only hope that once the economy is in full recovery, someone will buy out Murdoch and return the paper to its former glory. 

    But the title of this posting is "Two For the Road" and I am writing it because of the two articles I read in the last couple of days that illustrate where the Journal has been going under Murdoch.  Yes, the paper is still producing mostly excellent journalism.  And no, there is very little coverage of issues that is not in synch with Murdoch’s personal position. 
    The first article is a column by Bret Stephens titled, "The Great Global Warming Fizzle," in which Mr. Stephens, a journalist with extensive conservative credentials, tries to argue that the whole global warming movement is running out of arguments and is fading.  He compares believing in global warming with believing in the ancient Greek gods, arguing that eventually the world became more educated and converted to more credible religions, and the same thing is now happening to the proponents of global warming.  Like many of his ilk, not only does he have no credentials in climate science, but in his zeal to make his case for lack of evidence, he clings to the one morsel that supports his position, and ignores the mountain that doesn’t.  One climate report is published predicting that catastrophe will strike in 2017 and he uses that as his basis for accusing all climate science of being fraudulent.  Of course, he never mentions that most climate scientists agree that it’s not possible to set an exact date for when global warming will become irreversible if corrective action is not taken.  His arguments are so thin that even a high school debate student could refute them, if only Murdoch would let them.  But he won’t.  Prior to 2007, this article would have been side-by-side with an article by a respected climate scientist arguing the other side.  No longer. 

    The second article is "Ways To Inflate Your IQ" by Sue Shellenbarger.  This article really struck me for one of its points that musical training provides outstanding brain exercise so it not only creates better students but much more educated adults.  The overall theme of the article is that mental challenges such as a complicated job and a steady stream of new and different activities keep the brain sharp and can be a significant contributor to the increase of intelligence throughout life and the prevention of dementia in the senior years.  The author makes the case that mental challenges are proven to boost IQ and prevent mental deterioration.  Ms. Shellenbarger suggests that even as little as 25 minutes a day for just one to three weeks – playing music, reading literature, solving puzzles – can provide a brain boost that will have long-term benefits.  Studies have shown that students who do such exercises score on average 7 points higher on IQ tests, and that adults who engage in such activity regularly will continue to increase their IQ even beyond the age of 60. 
    The traditional theories are being debunked.  No longer is it a given that IQ is set at birth and there’s nothing to be done about it.  No longer is IQ used only to determine whether a child is "special needs" or not.  No longer do we assume that we reach our maximum potential in our late 20s.  We now understand that the brain is a muscle and, like any other muscle, needs to be exercised or it will atrophy.  We now know that the brain has a capacity to grow throughout life.  It’s been said that the average person uses about 20% of their brain, while geniuses such as Einstein and Newton used about 90%.  So now we’re developing an understanding of how to keep expanding the part of the brain we use. 
    I was struck by all this because, in my own studies of piano, one of the first things I learned is that piano – and all of music – has an intense mathematical basis and demands mental acuity to the micro-second.  Besides the beauty of the music, this is what so dramatically appeals to me.  Many studies have shown that advanced piano students excel at other academic subjects as well, that there is a significantly disproportionate percentage of advanced piano students that go on to medical school than from other backgrounds.  It is wonderful brain exercise and, in my experience, has benefits that extend well beyond the music into every other creative and analytical activity in which I engage, providing stimulation and greater productivity in both my film and business pursuits, as well as everything else.  It was so thrilling to read this article and receive yet another validation of all this.  It is the reason why I hope to continue studying piano the rest of my life.  I believe music holds the key to success in every other goal I have. 
    The interesting contrast between this article and the global warming column is that Shellenbarger has been specialized in "Work and Family" issues for over twenty years and has become an authority on the mental stresses that come with balancing home and career.  Her 2005 book, "The Breaking Point," deals with midlife crisis in women, another scholarly treatise on mental stresses and how the brain works.  In other words, she is writing with authority on a subject on which she is an authority.  She’s also looking at all the evidence and letting the evidence lead her to her conclusions rather than picking and choosing only the evidence that supports her conclusions.  Mr. Stephens, on the other hand, is a credentialed journalist rather than a journalist with credentials.  He is simply a conservative-striped columnist who is making his case anyway he can, evidence be damned.  It is the difference between the pre and post Murdoch worlds. 

    Despite my wishes that somebody else owned it, I continue to read the Journal daily.  It is still without a doubt the best conservative-striped newspaper in America and is certainly the best business newspaper in America, if not the world.  Every office in America - media, business, and law - still subscribes, though most financial firms now rely more heavily on Investors Business Daily (IBD) for market news since, under Murdoch, the Journal has become more general interest and less market-oriented. 
    IBD is the second highest circulation business newspaper in the world after the Wall Street Journal, and William O’Neil, its founder and publisher, is even more conservative than Murdoch.  The difference is that O’Neill doesn’t pretend to be otherwise.  He is quite unabashedly completely pro-Wall Street and anti-government.  His daily newspaper is immensely popular because it supports a highly successful investment strategy of O’Neil’s invention that has made a lot of people very wealthy.  O’Neil has published several books about this strategy with specific details on how it works.  Once you’ve studied these books and understand his strategy, his newspaper provides every day a list of all the stocks that qualify for a "buy" or "sell" under the criteria defined for his strategy.  Thus he takes all the really hard work out of successful investing and there are millions of subscribers to his newspaper all over the world who swear by it. 
    But O’Neil is not a journalist and doesn’t claim to be.   Rather, he is a financial pioneer who has made it his life’s mission to teach as many people as possible how to be outstanding investors, boasting returns of about 25% when the market has averaged about 8%.  He uses his books and newspaper to educate people about money and yes, he has a massive and loyal following.  It doesn’t matter whether you agree with his politics or not.  His politics have no bearing on your investment decisions. 
    Murdoch cannot make the same claims.  His life mission has been to build a media empire that puts a one-sided filter on all the news.  My only complaint is that, unlike O’Neil, he makes pretensions at being a journalist.  He is not. 
    So I’m writing about Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal because of these two articles that have appeared in the last three days, November 29th to be exact.  These two articles illustrate two important truths about the road Murdoch travels:  (1) the pre-2007 balance that made the Journal one of the world’s great newspapers for over a century no longer exists, and (2) the paper is still capable of producing excellent journalism as typified in the Shellenbarger article … when it chooses to. 
    Two weeks ago, there was a big sign of hope in the air.  Murdoch’s own sons came out publicly opposing his business methods and political positions and, for the first time ever, waged an open war with him at the Fox annual shareholders meeting in November.  Unfortunately, they lost.  But the fact that even his own family now questions his ethics and the wisdom of his massive power is a very good sign indeed.  There is always next year’s stockholders meeting. 
    Yes, I do hope someone finds a business model someday that can put the likes of Murdoch out of business and return the Journal to its roots.