-Caveat Lector- CITIZEN OF THE WORLD Bad Company Rupert Murdoch and his son genuflect before Chinese communists. BY TUNKU VARADARAJAN Monday, March 26, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST Rupert Murdoch, a master practitioner of the corporate kowtow, has instructed his son James perfectly in the craft of craven submission to the communist regime in China. The young Murdoch--a college dropout, now chairman and CEO of his father's Hong Kong-based Star TV company--gave an impressive, almost balletic, performance of the genuflectory arts last week in an address to the Milken Institute in Beverly Hills. In words that astonished those gathered for the institute's annual business conference, James Murdoch, all of 28 years, lit into the Falun Gong religious resistance movement in China, describing it as a "dangerous" and "apocalyptic cult," which "clearly does not have the success of China at heart." He criticized the Western media and the Hong Kong press for their negative coverage of human-rights issues in China, concluding with the lament that "these destabilizing forces today are very, very dangerous for the Chinese government." Young Mr. Murdoch, who described himself as "apolitical," counseled Hong Kong's beleaguered democracy advocates to resign themselves to the reality of life under an "absolutist" government. The youthful CEO made no mention of the 150 Falun Gong members who have died in Chinese police custody, nor of the approximately 10,000 who languish in prison. Nor did he mention threats to Taiwan, slave labor, Tibet, arbitrary executions or the removal for sale of organs from the bodies of those executed. But let us not go there. The Murdochs have obviously had considerable success in China with their lapdog approach, and they must see no reason why this approach need change. This is far from the first time a News Corp. executive has brown-nosed Beijing since a gung-ho little speech, made by Rupert Murdoch in 1993. In that speech Mr. Murdoch said satellite television was "an unambiguous threat to totalitarian regimes everywhere." A month later the Chinese government clamped down on the installation of satellite dishes, much to the chagrin of Mr. Murdoch, who had purchased Star TV in the hope of capturing the satellite market in China. The media magnate had never run up against real totalitarians before, and was rather startled. In a bid to undo the commercial damage caused by his speech, Mr. Murdoch abased himself immediately, dropping the BBC's World Service Television from the China beam of Star TV's satellite. This he did shamelessly, telling all the world that he'd always believed that the folks at the BBC were pesky liberals who were out to portray China in the worst possible light. No wonder that Christopher Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, called Mr. Murdoch's decision to pull the BBC from Star's menu "the most seedy of betrayals." In an interview with Ken Auletta for a New Yorker profile, Mr. Murdoch said: "The BBC was driving them"--the Chinese regime--"nuts. It wasn't worth it." Mr. Patten was later the victim of another seedy betrayal. His book, "East and West," which was to be published by the Murdoch-owned HaperCollins, was dumped after Mr. Murdoch decided it was too critical of Beijing. In a pre-emptive smear, designed to ward off accusations that Mr. Murdoch was prostrating himself before the Chinese communists, flacks at HarperCollins put out the word that the Patten book was dropped for being "too boring." This lie was nailed by the editor who commissioned the book, who lauded it as "probably the best written and most compelling book I have read by a politician since I came into publishing." Mr. Murdoch, let us remember, suffered a huge moral defeat when he was compelled to apologize "unreservedly" to Mr. Patten, as well as to pay him an undisclosed out-of-court settlement. There are other examples, some boorish, some insidious, of Mr. Murdoch's willingness to sing Beijing's tune. He has described the Dalai Lama as "a very political old monk shuffling around in Gucci shoes," and has spoken of pre-1950 Tibet, before the illegal Chinese occupation, as being "a pretty terrible old autocratic society out of the Middle Ages. . . . Maybe I'm falling for propaganda, but it was an authoritarian medieval society without any basic services." As Jonathan Mirsky, a peerless authority on China, responded in the New Statesman of London, "Murdoch is not falling for Chinese propaganda. He's repeating it word for word." Mr. Mirsky has firsthand experience of how Murdoch-owned media have drawn in their horns on the subject of China. In the last year of his five-year stint as the East Asia editor of the London Times, Mr. Mirsky found that much of his copy--invariably critical of the Beijing regime--failed to make it into the paper. He felt compelled to resign. He had harsh things to say about Mr. Murdoch then, and he has harsh things to say about him now. In an e-mail to me over the weekend, in reaction to James Murdoch's remarks at the Milken Institute he mused: "Nothing the Murdochs say about China surprises me. I watched the influence at the [London] Times. There, in the last year, reporting from Beijing has avoided all controversial subjects and all analysis, unless they were of huge news importance like the Falun Gong suicides." He goes on: "The Times has avoided the implications of the Falun Gong arrests, the defense of the Falun Gong to exist in Hong Kong by the Bishop of Hong Kong and the United Nations representative there. The Times reported the school explosion [in the town of Fanglin, in which 38 schoolchildren, forced by their teachers to make firecrackers for sale, died] but not Premier Zhu's apology. Whenever possible on days when other papers such as The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, New York Times, Washington Post etc were analyzing events, the [London] Times printed old stories about early discoveries about Christians--and others of that sort." Mr. Mirsky concludes damningly: "At the school explosion ALL outside media were excluded from the town except Phoenix TV, of which Murdoch owns a big piece, which echoed the Beijing line and missed the Zhu apology." What does one make of the Murdoch position on China? In my view, it is a form of corporate prostitution, something quite different from ideological blindness or agnosticism. After all, it's one thing to make anodyne remarks about China's need for stability and the like, and quite another to weigh in with specific censure against a religious movement, especially when that movement lays claim to being the best-organized opposition to a repressive and godless regime. The younger Mr. Murdoch (clearly with his father's blessing) accuses China's dissidents of not having the success of China at heart. It is touching to see the Murdochs compensate for the unpatriotism of the Falun Gong, even though they are guilty of confusing the interests of the small coterie of people governing China with those of the Chinese people. But the Murdoch method--demean yourself, for it's the pragmatic thing to do--may, in fact, result in harm to News Corp.'s business interests. Willy Lam, a Hong Kong-based China analyst, says the Murdochs should be more careful, even as a cold-blooded business calculation: "Many businessmen seem willing to do or say anything to get into the China market, including through the backdoor. However, this is a tricky venture because Chinese politics is going through unprecedented changes." Mr. Lam continues: "Rules and regulations--and more importantly, the cadres running the show--can change overnight. The millions of dollars spent, and the flattering remarks and half-truths uttered, by Western businessmen to curry the favor of a top cadre or his son could come to nought when the wheel of political fortune in Beijing spins in an opposite direction." >From a more philosophical perspective, the essence of James Murdoch's position, like that of his father, is a contempt for the First Amendment compact, or bargain: to wit, that news media are generally protected from government interference on the understanding that they act as a check on government. As a close Murdoch-watcher told me yesterday: "What the Murdochs have specialized in is trading newspaper support to governments in return for regulatory favors in nonprint media and business generally. While others may do this from time to time, they do it all the time, and without intermission." American conservatives often regard Rupert Murdoch as an ally, but they are quite wrong to do so. He has promoted social democratic governments in Britain (Tony Blair) and Australia (Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating) with as much alacrity as he has championed conservative politicians like Margaret Thatcher. Now, and nakedly, Mr. Murdoch is an apologist for the Chinese regime. The only qualification is that a government, or a politician must be ready to go along with his business requirements. But China is run by sophisticated tyrants. They see the use of people like Messrs. Murdoch--p�re et fils--and will use them. They are not taken in by the flattery, the unctuousness, the bowing of the corporate knee. They are not unduly impressed by the Murdoch attempts to be more Catholic than the pope when it comes to China. They know that he wants to make more money in China and that he is willing to pay any price to do so. They also know that the Murdochs become less useful to China by becoming such obvious prostitutes. A little bit of discretion might have served James Murdoch better at the Milken Institute, not just in terms of public dignity, but eventually in terms of profit as well. -- Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
