me: > > how is Murdoch worse than William Randolph Hearst or Colonel McCormick > > or the many reactionary media barons of previous generations?
Ralph Johansen wrote: > But to your point, when the policy of the sitting government has > consensus in the boardrooms and policy circles, and party differences - > on policy and strategy if not on tactics and performance - stop at the > water's edge, as Arthur Vandenburg said, Murdoch is little different in > this one important respect from McCormick or Hearst in their eras, I > suppose. right. Dan Scanlan: > It's worse because it's now. huh? The question was whether or not the present is worse than the past. Saying that the present is worse than the past because it's the present doesn't make sense. Or is the present worse than the past _by definition_? ---- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
