8th April 1999, article by Scott Balson
Yesterday I had a follow up call from Courier-Mail reporter Jeff Summerfeld whose opening gambit was to question why I had a link to an article where the comment was made about Rupert Murdoch having been referred to as a "mamzer Jew" by others. The implication of his call being that I was being anti-semitic by using the link using this derogatory reference of Murdoch.
I told Jeff Summerfeld in no uncertain terms that I would never discuss anything with him on the record again after his earlier attempt at denigrating me. A copy of the email I sent him is at the bottom of this article.
I did a bit of research on the Internet about the word "mamzer" as it was new to me and had no bearing to the reason why I had put a link to this page - my interest as @notd readers would know was who was funding Murdoch and what influence they had over what we see, read and hear in his media.
Well, it appears that "mamzer" means con man... according to this alert made to Rabbis. (Think of Murdoch's tax dodges)
Then the word appears on another email giving the word another perfectly legitimate Jewish connotation, and I quote:
There are many considerations which go into a determination about a person's status as a Jew. The resulting effects of the decision sometimes affect the decision. A marriage may be annulled, a witness disqualified, a child saved from mamzer status.
From what I have read "mamzer Jew" appears to fit Murdoch rather well. Certainly nothing anti-Semitic here, just a term of phrase that fits an individual. In fact a far better fit than the Courier-Mail calling Pauline Hanson a racist or a bigot to quote just one of many colourful demeaning examples attached to people.
Thank you Jeff for drawing my attention to the statement and be assured that in future your boss will have an equally colourful, if carefully explained status.
It was interesting to see that despite his phone call no reference was made in today's paper about Murdoch being called a "mamzer Jew". Maybe the truth was a little too close to home.
Murdoch uses his diverse holdings, which include newspapers, magazines, sports teams, a movie studio, and a book publisher, to promote his own financial interests at the expense of real newsgathering, legal and regulatory rules, and journalistic ethics. He wields his media as instruments of influence with politicians who can aid him, and savages his competitors in his news columns. If ever someone demonstrated the dangers of mass power being concentrated in few hands, it would be Murdoch.
Recalled Murdoch: "I then did something that I like to think set the tone for the behavior of our company: I broke the rules of the establishment and published our opponent's offer on the front page under a headline that screamed, Bid For Press Monopoly! And I included in the story a photograph of the confidential letter to my mother. That ruined any chance I might ever have had of being invited into the better clubs of Adelaide." But he won the ensuing newspaper war and later gobbled up his rival.
Murdoch's past investors have suffered for other reasons too. News Corp. is frightfully complex, vexing analysts with its disparate collection of movie, TV, newspaper, and publishing assets, some stashed in joint ventures, others exposed to foreign markets, and all of them valued under liberal Australian accounting rules that can magically turn losses into profits (see box). More fundamentally, Murdoch's detractors argue that he treats News Corp. as his personal fief and lacks a strong commitment to shareholder value.
I refer to you call earlier this afternoon.
I am amazed at your brazeness in contacting me regarding a comment made on a link from my news of the day. Please don't waste your phone call costs in future - I would rather speak to Terry Sweetman... and that says something - as you well know.
You told me just a few weeks ago that you would stand by the article which appeared in the Courier-Mail following my agreeing to give you an interview based on "rules of engagement" which you carefully set out before the interview. You then proceeded to ignore and breach them.
The article in question is before the Australian Press Council because of its misleading headline (your headline).
You had your chance and you blew it.
It is indeed a shame that you are just like most of the others at the Courier-Mail with a sad disregard for journalistic ethics and credibility.
May I just say that I am delighted that my growing campaign against media consentration in this country is obviously starting to bite those serving Murdoch and his foreign-based financial partners' every desire.
One day journos may wake up (before its too late) and realise that they, more than anybody else, will be the biggest losers under a media monopoly. I will watch with interest the squalling of your colleagues when the Internet and Murdoch's monopoly in Australia makes 90% of your jobs obsolete. Oh, how the worm will have turned then!
For the record I haven't really started my campaign against Murdoch's drive for a media monopoly yet... and those who should be standing beside me (even if for their own sakes) still cower like gutless wonders under the mighty sword of News Corporation.
Scott Balson