Murdoch's NY Post's Strategic Obama Endorsement

Barack Obama has made empathy and conciliation a hallmark of his campaign for the Democratic nomination, but no one has ever associated the combative, curmudgeonly Rupert Murdoch with those ideas. So when Murdoch's NY Post endorsed Barack Obama for the New York Democratic primary, writing that "Obama represents a fresh start," some observers thought Murdoch and the NY Post had gone soft.

But when the NY Post wrote, "His [Obama's] opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again -- a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency," others said, "Oh, well, it's just Billary bashing -- The NY Post and conservatives hate Billary so much they'd endorse Micky Mouse."

However, the Obama endorsement was not about politics or Billary hating as much as it was about business. Anyone who doesn't think the endorsement was all about business strategy, doesn't know Murdoch--the most brilliant (and toughest) strategic thinker in the highly competitive and rapidly changing media business.

Murdoch has had his eye on the Wall Street Journal for decades because he wants to challenge the NY Times in the U.S. and the Financial Times globally. He wants to be the most powerful and influential media owner in the world, and don't bet against him. Here's how his thinking might have gone: "I hate the NY Times and want to position the NY Post as its opposite, especially after the NY Times endorsed Billary. By endorsing Obama I appeal to many of my core readers, especially younger ones, which advertisers love. By endorsing Obama before the Daily News does, I get a nice little circulation pump and I put the Daily News in a bind -- a strategic dilemma. If it endorses Billary like the NY Times did, it will piss off many of its readers and look like it is taking a cue from the NY Times. If the Daily News endorses Obama, that's good because it might help defeat Billary, plus it will make it look like it is following the NY Post -- a win/win in either case for me."

Murdoch's NY Post is in a mano y mano fight to the death with Mort Zuckerman's Daily News. Murdoch is richer, smarter, more strategic, and, most important, willing to be patient - he's got News Corp.'s money behind him in his fight to put the Daily News out of business. He's won the circulation battle, recently cutting the price of the NY Post to 25 cents, getting upscale readers addicted to Page Six, and moving more effectively to the Web -- proving he's willing to lose $40 million a year to win. Now, Murdoch has placed an early bet on Obama and achieved another edge on the Daily News, even if he had to get under the political bedcovers with liberal Ted Kennedy.

What could make the old liberal lion Ted Kennedy (76 in February) and the old conservative fox Rupert Murdoch (77 in March) agree: A mutual revulsion of the Clintons, yes, but for Murdoch, more than anything, it's business. The old fox is crazy like a FOX...which brings up the question, how will FOX News treat Obama? Stay tuned.

Comments

[Dandy12]

Such deception! Why don't they try to resurrect Rudy?

Some people hate Hillary for a miniscule reason or absolutely no reason at all!
Be wary of propagandists and opinion twisters!

[michael429]

Agree that Murdoch has only business strategy as motive....too difficult to discern his thinking....it is just as credible to argue that by endorsing Obama he helps Hillar.....don't forget that he has sponsored fundraisers for her and donated to her campaign....he has also buddied up to the Clinton Global initiative­.....whoev­er the players are, Rupert wants to own the stadium.

Michael Weiskopf

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

And, of course, since we describe Ted Kennedy as the "Liberal Lion," we MIGHT WANT TO TAKE OUR WORD BACK, as we have allowed so-called conservatives (the reactionary, religious-­oligarchic crowd that has succeeded in eroding both Christianity's Social Gospel [abolitition, the civil rights movement], and Constitutional self rule) to tell us what it means.

How wonderful it would be were all of us to commit the ACTUAL definition to memory, put it on t-shirts, publish it on the web, mention it in speeches, using the grassroots to easily undo what it took them 28 years to do with traditional media. To that end:

lib·er·al /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciat­ion[lib-er­-uhl, lib-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
freeman. –noun
11. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
12. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
[Origin: 1325–75; ME < L līberālis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to līber free + -ālis -al1]

[messy]

Ann Coulter just endorsed Hillary and even offered to campaign for her. Valery Salanas lives!!!!

[Silpat]

My theory is a little different because I still think that Murdoch via the NYP is out to bury the Democratic Party's chances at winning in this election.

He will use his endorsment to tear Hillary down and take subtle jabs at Obama every now and again. That endorsement seemed was somewhat insulting in tone.

Albeit, I don't want the Democrats to win, but I despise dirty tactics of any kind even more.

[StephenDedalus82]

Murdoch and all Republicans want Obama to be the nominee. Let's get real. He appeals in the Democratic primary because Democrats are idealistic and always in search of the next revolution, but they rarely win presidential elections. He can be obliterated in a general election, especially against a media darling like McCain. If Murdoch and his Republican cronies aren't afraid of a Clinton they are stupid, and they aren't stupid.

[Tellmethetruth]

I agreed that Murdock made a business decision to endorse Obama because 1) Murdock wants a Republican for president because they are better for business and he thinks that Obama will be easier to beat for a Republican in November 2) He thinks Obama will sell more newspapers, scandal magazines, and provide more media scandal news due to scandal that we don't know about. Murdock liked Princess Diana, Anna Nichol Smith, etc. for the same reason in that it help to make Murdoch a billionaire.

In other words the media like Obama because Obama mades better copy - not necessarily flattering that Hillary Clinton who would be more dull.

Murdoch made his billions on scandal.

[BUSHsurvivor]

It's just amazing that on all of these NY Post related stories this part seems to always be left out...

Now, Obama is not without flaws.

For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning. And on national security, his worldview is beyond naive - blithely unware that America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.

Meanwhile, Obama's all-things­-to-all-pe­ople approach to complex domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. "Change!" for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make.

Again, we don't agree much with Obama on substantive issues.

.....So the NY Post is endorsing BO basically because he is not Team Clinton!

Resounding endorsement...hah! If I were BO, I wouldn't bring it up!

[altohone]

Even a broken watch is right twice a day.

They don't deserve your coverage.

[DoninJoisey]

I cannot try to figure out a devious mind.

As if Post readers would be politically astute..;-)

[awb]

actually they are dying to run against Hillary and know that people who hate Post/Fox will do the opposite

as the author said "crazy like a fox"

[bauersox]

No, you have it wrong when you write "Barack Obama has made empathy and conciliation a hallmark of his campaign for the Democratic nomination."

It should read "Barack Obama has made Hallmark the keystone of his campaign for the Democratic nomination."

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Yet another alternative: the NYPost -- rightwing snotrag that it is -- thinks McCain can more easily beat Obama.