Good thread.
I think a lot of people don't really understand how Murdoch's media strategy has worked for the five+ decades he's been doing it.

Denigrating women and academics is right in the identity-for-votes playbook. WSJ has no regrets. But as Noah says, Murdoch has to https://twitter.com/nberlat/status/1338565417921601536
remain legitimate-seeming. The whole propaganda campaign that WSJ uses to persuade elites is most effective if it appears fair. Some bias is ok, but revealing the bad faith at the core of it can bring the whole house of cards down.
(This is why Murdoch/Ailes used
"Fair and balanced" as the early Fox slogan before their audience was locked in.)
So the WSJ dance is to serve up red meat to wealthy mostly-white mostly-men, until a scandal gets big enough that it endangers their 'fair' schtick.
Then Murdoch has to step back. That's why
he removed Gerry Baker (Trump-bias scandal was getting too damaging) and it's why he removed Rebekah Brooks at News of the World (UK).

But Murdoch brings them back once the pressure reduces. Baker's currently doing hits on Fox and writing a bit at WSJ, and Brooks
ended up at the Sun and then as a News Corp exec.

So, in summary: This cycle of disgusting article followed by scandal followed by retrenchment is just a consequence of the way the modern rightwing propaganda machine works.

Our job is to keep pressure on.
You can follow @protecttruth_.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.