>At 12:46 PM 4/16/03 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>>Kelley wrote:
>>
>>>The Times is a Murdoch paper:
>>
>>But largely insulated from his evil influence.
>>
>>Doug
>
>
>Don't keep up with this either. How so?
This is from a profile of The Rupe in the NYT of April 7 by David Kirkpatrick:
>People who work with Mr. Murdoch said his degree of influence over
>the content of his newspapers varies significantly depending on the
>paper. At the broadsheets, The Times of London and The Sunday Times,
>he maintains a greater distance, in part because of agreements he
>made with British authorities at the time that he acquired the
>papers. The agreements bar him from naming the editors or dictating
>their editorials. Instead, the editors are named by a board of
>directors, although Mr. Murdoch still interviews candidates, makes
>recommendations and approves the final selection.
>
>Even on the crucial question of the war in Iraq, some news articles
>and columnists in News Corporation's Times of London and The Sunday
>Times, have diverged sharply from Mr. Murdoch's own views. In a
>front-page story in The Times of London last week, for example, a
>British officer excoriated an American pilot for "showing no regard
>for human life" in inadvertently attacking British troops. On March
>29, the columnist Matthew Parris posed the question, "Are We
>Witnessing the Madness of Tony Blair?"
>
>But the principal editorials of both papers, and a majority of the
>columnists, have concurred with Mr. Murdoch's own support for the
>war. And at his major tabloids, like The Sun in Britain and The Post
>in New York, Mr. Murdoch feels he should be very involved in the
>contents of the paper, his friend and adviser Mr. Stelzer said.