Confessions of a Left Wing Wall Street Journal Junkie

Rupert Murdoch Miraculously Cures Newspaper Addiction

I admit it. I am a left wing Wall Street Journal junkie. I think Hillary Clinton is a closet Republican and Dennis Kucinich is a political moderate. I do not own a TV and I bike to work. I get the heebie jeebies whenever I hear a politician confabulate 9.11 and the Iraq War in the same breath. I think that the Global War on Terror is the 21st Century “commie scare.” I disdain deceptocratic Democrats as much as I disdain neocon Republicans.

But I am still a Journal junkie. Every morning I drink my mug of fair-trade coffee, dunk my trans-fat free doughnut and scour the Dow Jones Company’s conservative business newspaper from section to section. I try to keep my embarrassing addiction a secret from my friends. My subscription is in someone else’s name. I wrap my WSJ inside the local newspaper, just in case someone looks through the window and catches me reading the financial pages. When I am finished reading, I hide my tracks by stealthily dumping my Journal… in someone else’s recycling bin.

Now, however, the business tycoon Rupert Murdoch is angling to buy the Dow Jones Company and The Wall Street Journal that it publishes. Murdoch owns News Corp (as Mr. Murdoch’s transnational business is known in Street vernacular) and News Corp is one of those media conglomerates that everyone loves to hate. Mr. Murdoch, through his company, owns so many newspapers, television stations, magazines, internet outlets, cable and satellite news and infotainment networks that he is the poster child for the Corporate Mass Media. Now he wants to buy my secret addiction, The Wall Street Journal.

I do not read The Wall Street Journal to keep an eye on my non-existent stock investments. I read The Wall Street Journal because I crave data, particularly data about what the economy, the financial sector and the business community are doing. I want to know what they are doing, and what they are thinking, because, sooner or later, what they do or think will affect you and me. I also subscribe to and read the usual alternative media, print and electronic. But there is a limit to how much political orthodoxy I can take (especially when I agree with most of it) before my political gut starts to demand more substance. It is like those damn doughnuts I eat in the morning: one is good, two is okay; but a straight diet of nothing but screeds and doughnuts leaves you with a soft, flabby belly, a soft, flabby brain and a hankering for more nutrition with less fat.

The WSJ, along with The New York Times and The Washington Post, are the three principle “opinion-makers” in the United States. They set the tone and the editorial policy which then quickly percolates through the rest of the US news media. In an age when “local” media no longer have their own national or international reporters, they rely on the “biggies” to set up the stories for them. The Times, The Post and The Journal propagate the official government stories and the “approved” propaganda. If “your government” wants to channel public opinion in a particular direction, it begins with these three papers. You can read it here today, and read it in your local newspaper tomorrow. The Post writes primarily for Washington’s political wonks and The Times for bleeding heart Republicans who fancy themselves “liberals”. The Journal, however, unabashedly caters to the ruling elite, the moneyed class that owns, and, therefore, does not need to hold elected office. This class’s watchdogs monitor what we are saying; it is imperative that we also monitor what they are saying.

Clearly, it is not every story printed in The Wall Street Journal that merits our attention. This quintessentially mainstream newspaper is as skewed to the right as the rest of them, sometimes more so. However, the staff reporters of The Wall Street Journal are a rather professional lot. The reporters are also unionized and have staged at least one little publicized walk-out to protest the sale of the WSJ to Rupert Murdoch. Buried within many of the reporters’ stories are nuggets of pure information. Thus, while a headline might blandly state that “Investors Shrug Off Sub-Prime Mortgage Collapse” or “Bankers Postpone Sale of Debt for Chrysler LBO”, there lie within the articles heart-stopping descriptions of mountains and mountains of bad debt: collateralized debt obligations, collateralized mortgage obligations, securitized financial shenanigans and unhinged hedge funds that carry book values in the billions of dollars but which really may be worth practically nothing. And then you read who ultimately owns all this bad debt – not the banks (who bundle it, slice it, “repackage” it and resell the debt as “bonds” as fast as they can), not the debt brokers, not the financial big wigs on Wall Street. No, the hot potato often ends up in the lap of teacher and union pension funds, mutual funds, city and state investment vehicles, and foreign investment banks. In the quest for the maximum return on their investments, these entities have indirectly snarfed up investment instruments comprised of the shaky mortgages and gossamer securities that have held the American economy together with spit and duct tape for the past business cycle. And, as usual, it is the lesser people who will be crushed when the edifice finally collapses.

In the Journal stories you can read between the lines how the Stock Markets have been levitated by manic corporate mergers (also funded by cotton candy bonds and insignificantly collateralized securities); how the Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Ben Bernanke, acknowledges that interest rates will not drop until the unemployment rate increases (thereby creating a larger reserve of wage-depressing excess labor); how production at Mexico’s Cantarell oil fields, one of the largest in the world and one of the major suppliers of US petroleum, has peaked and its oil yield begun a rapid, irreversible decline.

The newspaper’s financial charts and graphs, once you learn how to read them, describe the raw economic data that clearly indicate whether another war is imminent to keep the profits churning, whether the de facto devaluation of the dollar will accelerate as more foreign holders of US currency diversify out of US treasury instruments and into Eurobonds or hard assets, and whether food and energy costs will continue to skyrocket while the “experts” blandly assure us that “core inflation” (which excludes everything essential to life, like food and energy) is under control.

Should we give a rip about all this technical financial stuff? Karl Marx did. He was not just a pamphleteer and agitator. Although Marx wrote the Manifesto whose specter haunted Europe in the mid to late 19th Century, he was an especially ardent student of capitalism. Indeed, Marx’s major claim to fame is that his voluminous study, Das Kapital, is a thorough definition of capitalism, how it works, and how it fails. Marx understood that in any competition of ideas, you must first completely understand your adversary. Marx spent much of his later life burrowing into the books and financial reports archived in the British Library. Then he dissected what he learned about capitalism from the capitalists themselves, setting forth in his most significant life work one of the most cogent analyses, not of communism, but of capitalism.

Fortunately, it is not all hard work studying the world of the moneyed class. The Wall Street Journal also has its funny pages. The funnies are its Editorial and Op Ed pages. WSJ editorials have a curmudgeonly 19th Century feel to them, as though they are penned by Bedford Fall’s black hatted banker, Henry Potter (of Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life), or Scrooge of Dicken’s Christmas Tale. The Op Ed articles – most frequently written by “visiting scholars” or “fellows” resident at one of a half dozen or so oxymoronically named “think tanks” – ooze with the prerogatives of wealth and disdain for the uneducated, the poor, and the downtrodden. Here you can read rib-tickling columnists like Mary Anastasia O’Grady who, apparently, never met a Latin American plutocrat that she did not like; guest writers like Berkeley’s reactionary law professor, John Yoo, who preaches the constitutional apostasy of the President as King; former New York Times “reporter” Judith Miller who once proudly touted neocon lies about Iraq’s purported weapons of mass destruction; and Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve and champion of the “cognitive elite” (aka, aristocracy). If ever you find your faith in Enlightenment principles faltering, you need only read these opinion articles and guest editorials to reaffirm your left politics and remind yourself exactly what it is you are struggling against.

As entertaining as this is, you sober up quickly when you realize that the editorials of The Wall Street Journal are, indeed, aimed at a sympathetic and receptive audience… and it is not you or me. As scary as it seems, there are, indeed, many powerful people in the world who share the not-so-funny views of the WSJ editors. This newspaper influences the world’s thin upper crust. Their editorials, moreover, set the “talking points” adopted by the elite as they defend the likes of the occupation of Iraq, beat drums of war against Iran, champion the privatization of health care, social security and education, or justify the commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence for perjury.

It is no wonder, therefore, that Rupert Murdoch wants to add this newspaper to his media menagerie. However, the controlling stock of the Dow Jones Company (the parent corporation that owns the WSJ) lies mostly in the hands of the Bancroft family. The Bancrofts earned their stock holdings the old fashioned way – they inherited it. Ironically for owners of the Dow Jones Company and The Wall Street Journal, the Bancrofts are now faced with a conundrum more familiar to the tightly squeezed American small business owner and family farmer: do they sell their patrimony to be just one more stuffed trophy mounted on the wall of Rupert Murdoch, the Mass Media Mogul; or do they (fancy this!) spurn the big bucks, make a lot less money and keep their pride of independent ownership?

The Bancrofts have floated the idea of selling their family business to News Corp but restricting editorial policy or the power to hire and fire top editors. But it is the reporters, not just the top editors, who need to be insulated from an owner’s influence. Furthermore, no matter what limitations are placed on the deal, does anyone doubt that, sooner or later, the cold finger of Rupert Murdoch will lie heavy on one of America’s few remaining sources of uncensored critical information?

With his money, he can certainly buy up any media he likes. He cannot, however, buy its readers. I am a confessed left wing Wall Street Journal junkie, but Mr. Murdoch has the miraculous power to cure me of my addiction. If the day comes and the deal is done, then so am I. That very day will I cancel my subscription to The Journal. Cold Turkey. Will my daily buck-fifty matter to Mr. Murdoch? Not at all. But it is my money and I – and perhaps many others – would rather deny ourselves our secret journalistic pleasure than be complicit in the continuing agglomeration of all media into fewer and fewer hands.

Zbignew Zingh is a writer whose articles are CopyLeft, free to distribute, copy, reprint or repost in full with proper author citation and with the "Copyleft" designation. Read other articles by Zbignew, or visit Zbignew's website.

14 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Randall Gaylor said on July 27th, 2007 at 7:34am #

    Well done …
    Of course, out here in beef country that does have a double meaning.

  2. hal sanders said on July 27th, 2007 at 10:57am #

    You’re pompous. Why do you think most of us give a rip why you read what?

  3. Troy said on July 27th, 2007 at 2:24pm #

    Hillary is not a Liberal democrat as I would like But I will still vote for her. I would
    not go as far as calling her a Republican..

  4. cemmcs said on July 27th, 2007 at 3:07pm #

    Great essay! It was a pleasure to read. And that is so true about Marx.

  5. mhr said on July 27th, 2007 at 6:41pm #

    If more liberals would read more widely, there would be fewer liberals. But liberals are very careful to limit their reading to what their peers consider acceptable. In reality they are reminiscent of the old Index of the medieval church that forbade believers from reading certain books. I was a liberal until I decided I was old enough to read what I felt like reading. What I got was an education and I became so well informed about the truth that I am no longer a liberal. I’m free!

  6. Bill said on July 27th, 2007 at 9:09pm #

    I think you may have tweeked some of the “elites” warped consciouses , when you stated that the working guy , and his her pensions will take the whack from subprime woes – I agree . Funny how they hold out the stick to us , get richer and then take our money away . Marx was right .

    Oh…. on the politics bent . Hillary will not win the elections . Wrong senator from a wrong state. Bill

  7. CH said on July 28th, 2007 at 12:01am #

    Good to see Mr. Zingh’s a liberal who reads more widely and remains a liberal. If you can save $9/week then do so, Mr. Zingh! There are other ways to get the WSJ without paying for it. The library, perhaps.

  8. Chris said on July 28th, 2007 at 8:18am #

    Engaging story and a good way to remind us that the elites are happily jabbering away about their power plays right in front of us. Let them continue to think that there are only two kinds of people here: those in their conversation and the rest of humanity, who they believe are too powerless to do anything and anyway, mostly too stupid to understand all this. It is not just hoi polloi who are capable of forgetting history and suffering the consequences. Glad to find your article and this site.

  9. Phil said on July 28th, 2007 at 3:58pm #

    “If more liberals would read more widely, there would be fewer liberals. But liberals are very careful to limit their reading to what their peers consider acceptable.”

    Most people, regardless of political ideology, limit their reading largely to things they agree with. In my critical thinking classes, I require my students to read an op-ed expressing a view they disagree with.

    Would there be fewer liberals if liberals read more widely? That depends what you mean by liberal. If you mean it in the very general sense of left of center in US politics, then I doubt it. It’s the right that consistently relies on myths to support its world view. Many of my students are woefully poorly read and quite conservative. I generally see their views becoming more liberal the more they are exposed to wider perspectives.

    On the other hand, if you mean by liberal someone in the ideological orbit of the Democratic Party, then you may be right, since the Democrats rely on their own set of myths. But someone who abandons the Democrats after reading more widely is quite likely to move further to the left.

    Zbignew Zingh mentions several excellent reasons for leftists to read the WSJ, but I don’t see that any of those will change when Rupert Murdoch becomes its proprietor. Keep on spying on the ruling class, Mr. Z., and maybe write a few columns letting the rest of us know what you’ve discovered.

  10. João said on July 28th, 2007 at 4:03pm #

    Nice article! 😉
    but besides all the democrats i prefer Obama, he´s much more left wing than Hillary, she voted “yes” to the invasion of Irak. Obama´s tought about Irak and Mexican immigrants are really good, and being those the mains concerns of America nowadays i think that is the best way to you. Im not American, but i prefer Obama in the lead, in fact i prefer everyone except the “nazis-republicans”, oh sorry, than the republicans, my mistake.

  11. Brenda said on August 2nd, 2007 at 7:10pm #

    I’m in love! Please don’t be creeped out by such a declaration from a 60-something old fart, Zbignew. It’s just that one so seldom finds anyone who even halfway understands the stuff in the WSJ (including the “cognitive elite” who think/claim they do). And I have never before come across anyone who explicates it even a fraction as well as you have done.

    Kudos for having the starch to read the WSJ thoroughly day after day through the years. I’ve tried, unsuccessfully. Oh, I understand it pretty well, thanks to my MBA from the University of Chicago (does that qualify me for the “cognitive elite”?). But I get hives reading the self-serving views of the uber-right. Just like seeing the faces of or hearing the voices of Bush/Cheney/Rice, et al. — which is why I turn off the radio or mute the TV when they come on. And when I can’t shut down the electronics? I close my eyes, plug my ears and yodel “lalalalalala” until they’re gone.

    So you go right on reading now that the deal is, indeed, done. But have the last laugh. Bike over to the library and read it for free.

    And give us more articles. I would have paid tuition far more gladly if my B-school professors had been half as clear as you in explaining economics and finance.

  12. FemduarmaOned said on October 30th, 2007 at 3:53pm #

    You don’t really need or want that lifestyle, it might hurt y’all slowly more…….Just tell him you
    don’t wanna repeat something your not too proud of z7uas.

  13. Valerusd said on December 1st, 2007 at 3:48am #

    You have the natural advantage in debt settlement texas , which may be appropriate for debtors with …
    Great Solution

  14. Idetrorce said on December 15th, 2007 at 5:49pm #

    very interesting, but I don’t agree with you