Some Balance on Press Snoops, Please
Why more attention should have been paid to terminal tapping at Bloomberg News
SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
Need to create a login? Want to change your email address or password? Forgot your password?
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Why more attention should have been paid to terminal tapping at Bloomberg News
For those of us who have spent the greater part of our lives writing for newspapers and magazines, these are trying times. Big dailies are being sold at rock-bottom prices, world-renowned periodicals are permanently closing their doors, and reputable journalists are left to beg, borrow, and blog for increasingly tiny sums of money.
Yet despite all the bad news, there are still reputations and money to be made in our beleaguered trade. Jeff Bezos’s purchase of the Washington Post is the most prominent example of a wealthy businessman seeking influence and acceptance by associating himself with an honored name, while Warren Buffett’s investment in newspapers in distressed locales like Buffalo shows there’s value in run-down media for smart people who just want to make a profit.
Meanwhile, a few media barons survive for whom journalism is a mixed enterprise — a cross between a moneymaking family business and an avocation. Nowadays, the three most powerful of them are Rupert Murdoch, S. I. Newhouse, and the soon-to-be-ex-mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg. Nobody would mistake these men for William Randolph Hearst — they don’t have the same kind of charisma and neurotic ambition — but they do share the trait of globe-straddling hubris.
Murdoch has been criticized, and rightly, for his low ethical standards and vile sensationalism. That being said, I think he’s too easy a target; I’m not all that bothered by the phone hacking that has landed two former subordinates of the Dirty Digger (as he was dubbed by Private Eye) in London’s criminal court. As a former police reporter, I sympathize with the journalists who find themselves pressured to get the dirt and details that everyone wants to read but no one respectable admits to enjoying. On the grand scale of perfidious misdeeds by the press, eavesdropping on a crime victim’s cell phone seems fairly tame compared with, say, Judith Miller and the New York Times helping to start a catastrophic, ongoing war in Iraq.
Newhouse is another matter. Heir to a newspaper fortune built by his father, this press lord has chosen to funnel profits from his chain of dailies into the purchase of high-quality magazines such as The New Yorker and Vogue. I don’t begrudge Newhouse his glossy empire, superficial though it is, because it’s a good deal more constructive an activity than spending billions on yachts, mansions, or overrated modern art.
But what about the supposedly benign billionaire Bloomberg? “Mayor Mike,” as he’s solicitously referred to by some, has mostly gotten a pass from media critics, since besides making money his interests seem to lie more in politics and public service than in journalism. A “nice” Republican who used to be a Democrat, Bloomberg appears almost shy next to Murdoch. His Bloomberg News service seems for the most part to be reliable, though its recent decision not to publish two stories that would have angered the Chinese government makes me doubt the company’s honesty and courage.
What I don’t doubt is that Bloomberg’s original financial-data business — the Bloomberg terminal — places him in a serious, permanent conflict of interest with his news-gathering operations, which include television, radio and magazines.
When the scandal erupted last May about Bloomberg reporters tapping into Bloomberg terminals leased by Wall Street firms to track their usage — in order to get a jump on the competition at the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal and elsewhere — my first thought was about Murdoch and his domestic servants, Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks.
How was terminal tapping at upscale Bloomberg News any less unethical than phone hacking at downscale News of the World? Why was Bloomberg editor-in-chief Matthew Winkler’s assurance that such dodgy snooping by his journalists would never be repeated allowed to pass, while Murdoch’s former employees stand trial and the British press potentially faces unprecedented regulation in the form of government licensing?
In the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations, can we really believe that none of Bloomberg’s 2,400 editorial employees will have further access to anything on the Bloomberg “professional service” terminals?
Moreover, what guarantee is there that Bloomberg journalists — if they have access to the same information at the same time as the Bloomberg terminal clients — aren’t shading their stories about companies and stock offers to benefit themselves?
A reporter or editor discerns what he believes is nervousness at Goldman Sachs about a particular stock that’s starting to tank, so he tips off a friend to sell the stock short and then writes a negative story about the company. It’s not out of the question that this could also occur by checking usage patterns on Bloomberg terminals at the Federal Reserve — concerning bank-lending rates, for example.
With nothing much to do after leaving City Hall on January 1, Bloomberg may be expected to expand his media empire — he is said to be interested in buying the very trustworthy, very independent Financial Times, archrival of Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. Maybe the British Parliament should examine the ethics of Bloomberg L.P. before such a thing happens, and before it punishes a bunch of newspaper hacks who just wanted a good story.
More from John R. MacArthur:
Publisher's Note — May 4, 2016, 12:33 pm
Journalists are doing the Clintons’ dirty work for them and their machine.
i. stand with israel
I listen to a lot of conservative talk radio. Confident masculine voices telling me the enemy is everywhere and victory is near — I often find it affirming: there’s a reason I don’t think that way. Last spring, many right-wing commentators made much of a Bloomberg poll that asked Americans, “Are you more sympathetic to Netanyahu or Obama?” Republicans picked the Israeli prime minister over their own president, 67 to 16 percent. There was a lot of affected shock that things had come to this. Rush Limbaugh said of Netanyahu that he wished “we had this kind of forceful moral, ethical clarity leading our own country”; Mark Levin described him as “the leader of the free world.” For a few days there I yelled quite a bit in my car.
The one conservative radio show I do find myself enjoying is hosted by Dennis Prager. At the Thanksgiving dinner of American radio personalities (Limbaugh is your jittery brother-in-law, Michael Savage is your racist uncle, Hugh Hewitt is Hugh Hewitt) Dennis Prager is the turkey-carving patriarch trying to keep the conversation moderately high-minded. While Prager obviously doesn’t like liberals — “The gaps between the left and right on almost every issue that matters are in fact unbridgeable,” he has said — he often invites them onto his show for debate, which is rare among right-wing hosts. Yet his gently exasperated take on the Obama–Netanyahu matchup was among the least charitable: “Those who do not confront evil resent those who do.”
Pairs of moose-dung earrings sold each year at Grizzly’s Gifts in Anchorage, Alaska:
An Alaskan brown bear was reported to have scratched its face with barnacled rocks, making it the first bear seen using tools since 1972, when a Svalbardian polar bear is alleged to have clubbed a seal in the head with a block of ice.
A former prison in Philadelphia that has served as a horror-movie set was being prepared as a detention center for protesters arrested at the upcoming Democratic National Convention, and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump fired his campaign manager.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Matt was happy enough to sustain himself on the detritus of a world he saw as careening toward self-destruction, and equally happy to scam a government he despised. 'I’m glad everyone’s so wasteful,' he told me. 'It supports my lifestyle.'”