Across the pond

Murdoch watchers will find ample food for conjecture in the coverage by the London Times Online of last night’s victory by Obama. The splash proclaims ‘Barack Obama seizes moment in history.’ There is a major analysis article by the chief American correspondent, Gerald Baker. It contains much praise for Obama, including this paragraph:

‘So it is a testament to his extraordinary political skills, his stirring oratory and, above all, the change represented by his eloquent calls for an end to partisanship, his relative youth and, yes, his skin colour. He brilliantly channelled opposition to the war in Iraq — having been one of the few Democrats courageous enough to oppose it in the first place — and ended up winning not only almost the entire black Democratic vote, but breaking the colour bar and gaining enough — just — of the white vote to win the nomination.’

But Baker also emphasises the difficulties Obama faces. He begins by saying that the American dream that anyone can become President is balderdash. Reminding readers that the 42 white Presidents have all been white males. And that the first serious female contender, Hillary Clinton, has just been defeated despite her vast experience and huge party support.

He goes on to note how many contenders from minority groups have failed:

‘A word of caution is in order on this historic day. Mr Obama will be well aware that the pioneers of ethnic, religious or gender presidential equality rarely make it all the way to the White House. The first Roman Catholic to win a party’s nomination was Al Smith in 1928. But no Catholic was elected president until John F. Kennedy 32 years later. The first woman to appear on a presidential ticket was Geraldine Ferraro for vice-president in 1984. But 24 years later, as Hillary Clinton would acidly note, no woman has been elected president. The first Jewish candidate was vice-presidential nominee Joseph Lieberman in 2000. But he lost, too.’

The leading article manages to face both ways as well. It has an enthusiastic start, signalled by the sub-head:

‘The senator has reawakened admiration for the land of opportunity’

And then this paragraph:

‘Such questions have been answered by Barack Obama in a way that has already rekindled America’s faith in its prodigious powers of reinvention – and the world’s admiration for America. He could still lose the White House to John McCain. It has been a bruising journey from the Iowa caucuses to Minneapolis, where he staked his claim last night to the Democratic nomination. But today at least the tide of history seems to be with him. Win or lose in November, he will have gone farther than anyone in history to bury the toxic enmity that fuelled America’s civil war and has haunted it ever since.’

But the concluding paragraph has the unmistakeable sound of the boot being put in, albeit tentatively:

‘For a generation, the politics of America has been commodified by pollsters and analysts. Its political landscape has been minutely mapped; its new online constituencies targeted by “dog whistles” and YouTube narrowcasts. Mr Obama has torn up much of these analysts’ conventional wisdom with what he calls the audacity of hope. For what? His promises of unity and change are vague. His critics say that the ranting of his former pastor shows them also to be empty. But he has survived such claims, and may be tougher for it. His Republican opponent, “too tough to die”, embodies many strengths that Mr Obama can only applaud. But he has his own. The epic continues. Act II starts now.’

Now much of these two articles I might have written myself for The Times when it was owned by Lord Thomson. But unlike Thomson Murdoch expects his editors to toe the line and advocate the policies he wants. Two weeks ago Murdoch’s daughter hosted a fund-raising party in her Nottng Hill house for 200 of Obama’s London supporters. Last week Murdoch himself heaped lavish praise on Obama in a speech in New York.

But he stopped short of endorsing his canditure.

There is no doubt that Murdoch is signalling his willingness to be courted by Obama, and on his past record Murdoch is entirely capable of supporting a left-of-centre leader, if that leader responds to some of Murdoch’s right-of-centre wishes.

And make no mistake he is in a very strong position to influence this vital election, which is still wide open. Had I been writing The Times leader today I would have also emphasised that Jack Kennedy despite his eloquence and all his powerful media connections and the fact that the US was ready then for a change from the Republican administration of the ageing Eisenhower and his Vice President Richard Nixon, Kennedy only won by the narrowest of margins.

Murdoch owns one of the three leading American television news networks, which usually follows the Republican line, as does the Wall St Journal, which Murdoch has just bought. Murdoch also owns the New York Post, a popular paper which for most of its history has supported the Democrats. The combined efforts of these three media are very powerful artillery for the battles ahead.

The recent election for the mayor of London has demonstrated how a sustained campaign by just one influential newspaper, the London Evening Standard, can swing a campaign. Arguably it was the Standard (owned by Lord Rothermere’s Daily Mail group) which won it for Boris Johnson. The Standard had several stories a day attacking Ken Livingstone, and some of them unearthed possible corruption which led to the resignation shortly before the election of Ken Livingstone’s number two and long-established friend.

Murdoch will not scream as loudly as the Standard, but you can bet your bottom dollar that his aides are already talking to aides of Obama and McCain. And that Murdoch will also be speaking with his silvery tongue to both men. But one of these men is going to get a blast from one of Murdoch’s big guns in the very near future.