RECENTLY on the BBC I heard an interesting debate centred around the ongoing attempt by international media magnate Rupert Murdoch to wrest control of the Dow Jones Company which, among other things, publishes the respected and highly influential financial newspaper The Wall Street Journal.The Australian-born, American-naturalised Murdoch, a billionaire many times over, has made a $5 billion bid for the Dow Jones Company, generally regarded as the flagship of financial publishers. TheiI>Wall Street Journal is known to greatly influence corporate and economic activities both in the US and around the world and although it certainly veers towards old school fsical conservatism in terms of its political bent, the newspaper’s independence of thought is rarely questioned.

The BBC debate, though, centred around Murdoch’s well-known proclivity to intervene in the way news is reported in the various organs of his worldwide media empire (and they now range from the London Times to Fox News).

The question was asked repeatedly during the debate what Murdoch’s ownership would do to theWall Street Journal’s objectivity. Would, in fact, ownership of the Journal allow Murdoch — who already enjoys a perhaps disproportionate influence in shaping the news on a global basis — even more power and clout given he could now potentially help to shape both public and private sector financial decision-making processes?

Murdoch’s detractors on the BBC panel pointed to his control of the US Fox News TV channel which many have likened to the right-wing’s mouthpiece in the world of American media. It’s bias towards George W. Bush in particular, and the Republican Party in general, is difficult to avoid.

Meanwhile supporters of the possible Murdoch takeover of thI>Journal saw nothing intrinsically wrong with the move, playing down the potential for him to adversely slant the financial news with his own particular ideological bent.

But I must ask, are there times when the media should not demonstrate an ideological or political preference in deference to the supposedly sacrosanct concept of objectivity?

Just last week, in the letter column of this newspaper, I was accused of not writing with particular care on the topic of Dr. Ewart Brown: I was criticised for not producing so-called “informed opinions” on his leadership.

Well, my answer to that is one-man’s informed opinion is another man’s form of packaging partisan propaganda. Frankly, you’re never going to satisfy everyone: there will always be some people who have an in-built hostility towards a particular position you take and will view it as misinformation or disinformation no matter how hard you have worked to present your facts and draw and intelligent conclusion.

And, further, I have never underestimated the intellects or reasoning abilities of my readers. I write on a very wide variety of subjects and Mid-Ocean News readers are free to agree or disagree with Alvin Williams’ arguments as they see fit.

In any event, this column is called “Commentary” not “Truth” or “Fact”. It reflects my opinions, comments, on what’s taking place in the world around me. There’s no attempt whatsoever on my part to pass these views off as straight news reporting.They are my interpretations of the news.

And let’s just stop to put things into perspective, shall we? I certainly don’t see myself as a Murdoch-type figure, the type of power broker who, no doubt, doesn’t even have to fire off emails to his various media outlets in order to see his will done — and his views represented — in terms of how the news is packaged and presented.

Occasionally, though, even mighty Murdoch is sensitive to public opinion when he pushes matters too far in the quest for ratintgs and advertising revenue. Murdoch began his career publishing sensationalistic scandal sheets in both Australia and Great Britain and he has never entirely abandoned his taste for extrene tabloid fodder. Just recently he cancelled an O.J. Simpson TV special and tie-in book in which the acquitted double-murderer would have explained in some detail how he would have gone about killing his wife and her friend Ron Goldman.

This project generated such widespread hostility even Murdoch had to back down in the face of outraged public opinion! Do all individual media outlets have particular ideological bents and/or ways of reporting or packaging the news.

The answer to that is “Yes” and sometimes this is reflected not just in editorial positions but also in the manner certain news items are overplayed (or underplayed as the case may be).

Certainly both this newspaper and its sister organ The Royal Gazette have been regularly accused of having particular points of view. This, in my opinion, largely stems from the fact that there are such large percentages of foreign journalists working in the local media.

But I never blame the media, as such, for this situation. Bermudians, by and large, are just not willing to take up careers in the media and, besides, while many people may privately complain about what they say is slanted news coverage they very rarely pick up their pens and write to the papers to engage them.

I remember a former Mid-Ocean News columnist who used to write from a decidely conservative perspective on the events of the day.

He went by the pen name Curmudgeon and the then Progressive Labour Party Opposition and the Bermuda Industrial Union were two of his favourite topics. He even took issue with a celebratory march Bermudians held to mark the release of Nelson Mandela from a South African prison!

Needless to say, this particular columnist used to pull my chain big time. But I never though this newspaper shouldn’t print what I viewed to be as reactionary, anti-PLP and anti-BIU opinions. I used to engage Curmudgeon on a regular basis by way of Letters To The Editor, challenging his views and his interpretations of certain facts.

And don’t forget newspapers and the audio-visual media have both taken up progressive causes (the black media in North America in particular) aimed at spotlighting important matters like racial equality and human and civil rights. The pendulum does swing both ways and I often think I spring from such a tradition of advocacy journalism for I will always take up the cause of those suffering under the yoke of oppression.

While journalists are trained to be impartial when it comes to their sometimes dry reports on particular stories and topics, when it comes to their opinion and editorial pieces it’s been my exerience that they — by and large — make the best commentators on the human condition. And, yes, they often take sides.