The acquisition of the Wall Street Journal by Rupert Murdoch raises ethical questions. Even though most news organizations make every effort to adhere to journalistic standards, they sometimes end up with an unintended bias in their reporting. A few news organizations purposefully spin the news in a given direction. This is like the difference between someone unintentionally shooting another person in a hunting accident and someone committing murder. Rupert Murdoch has a track record of murdering the news on his FOX News Channel.

Sent by Dale Fisk | 2:51 PM ET | 08-06-2007

I find Mr. Campbell an excellent apologist for the Rupert Murdoch way of manipulating the news. He's quite adept at it, in fact. Makes me wonder who asked him to start spinning the purchase of Dow Jones and the Journal.

Sent by L. L. Daugherty | 2:58 PM ET | 08-06-2007

The discussion about Rupert Murdoch reminds me of Col. Robert McCormick, the infamous conservative publisher of the Chicago Tribune during the 1920's - 50's. He shamelessly promoted political candidates and his opinions within the news pages of the paper. He also was successful in making the Tribune a multi-media giant. Is Murdoch a "student" of Col. McCormick ? Any insights into the similarities?

Sent by B.J. | 3:07 PM ET | 08-06-2007

The interviewer is responsible for catching spin. Campbell said that any businessman can do nothing more than work within the laws of business as they are set. This defense of Murdoch's concentration of media completely ignores the huge influence of the media on our politicians (e.g. the FCC). We need the interviewer to jump in on the listeners' behalf: "Are you saying that Murdoch does not influence or manipulate these laws?"

I don't know that Murdoch follows the law, but do recall that the FCC expanded the limit of how many media outlets could be owned by one entity AFTER this was exceeded by some organization (Murdoch's perhaps?).

As a guideline, claiming to follow the law carries little weight when one controls how that law is written. I recall a NAFTA drafter left government to open a consultancy to exploit holes she'd written into the law. Our president has claimed that he cannot be guilty of leaking classified information because he determines what is defined as classified. Certainly, we would not be placated by a dictator like Mugabe pointing out that all his excesses are legal because he has decreed them so.

Many NPR stations rebroadcast hours after your shows are live, so we have no opportunity to call in and hold guests to account. Thank you for being the voice of your listeners. The alternative is quite frustrating for us.

Miguel F. Aznar
Listener of KAZU in Monterey, CA

Sent by Miguel F. Aznar | 4:16 PM ET | 08-06-2007

It is appalling that Alistair Campbell has the hubris and the outlet (in the NY Times and now NPR) to tell Americans what they should think about the purchase of one of our major newspapers by a proven media manipulator. Murdoch has manipulated and distorted our presidential elections through his Fox stations and there is absolutely no reason to believe that he will not try to bend american financial opinion of the country to his will through the WSJ. One has to wonder if Mr. Campbell is perhaps now "representing" Mr. Murdoch as he once did Tony Blair. Or perhaps he hopes that these appearances and editorials will serve as his interview with Mr. Murdoch. I find his new-found epiphany about Murdoch's character suspicious at best. He deserves no further air time on the subject.

Sent by jay salamone | 1:29 AM ET | 08-07-2007

Mr. Campbell's sophistry equated Rupert Murdoch's loud and strident support of a narrow and one-sided representation of the news and of politicians who support that view to "everyone else is doing it". When forced by the interviewer, he reluctantly conceded that "perhaps" the editors of the London Times abruptly changed the tenor of the Times after Mr. Murdoch's purchase because they knew which side their bread was buttered on. All Mr. Campbell accomplished was in revealing not only his own abilities as a paid apologist, but Mr. Murdoch's reach in getting an apologist on the antithesis of Fox News, NPR. Equating Mr. Murdoch's flagrant manipulation and outright lies on Fox News and his other media outlets to "business as usual" is like defending a rapist by saying that everyone else is having sex.

Sent by J.K. Bostwick | 10:20 AM ET | 08-07-2007