SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Why the News of the World Shutdown Could Be a Bad Thing

JONATHAN CHAIT JULY 7, 2011

Why the News of the World Shutdown Could Be a Bad Thing

[Guest post by Alex Klein]

Rupert Murdoch just drove the final nail into his News of the World coffin, shoving it unceremoniously out to sea like a recently deceased Al Qaeda boss. Its editor Rebekah Brooks gets to keep her post as chief executive of all News International while its reporters mill around outside of the building, levying vague threats. It’s fair to say good riddance, and rejoice that a newspaper that hacked 4,000 and bribed £100,000 will soon be moldering in the trash heap.

But the fall of News of the World isn’t all good news. In fact, it could do a lot of damage to the tabloid’s more dignified News Corps neighbor at 3 Thomas More Square: England’s thunderer, The Times of London. The closure of Murdoch’s cash cow will make it much harder for him to prop up his legitimate outlet, a paper with fine journalism, but little money.

The Times (full disclosure: I have worked there) has long been considered the UK’s newspaper of record. Walk a few yards (or meters) from the Sun’s Page Three girls and the NoTW’s Nazi hookers and you’ll find yourself in the land of Kipling and Russell, a paper which broke key WikiLeaks stories last summer and uncovered the recent World Cup bribing scandal.

But the staid newspaper hemorrhages money. The Times and Sunday Times lost £87.7 million in 2009 and £50.2 million in 2008. Murdoch bought The Times as a prestige paper in 1981 for tens of millions, and as he puts it, “[My] only paper that’s in loss is the London Times. And that’s always been the case.” To his credit, the paper might have failed otherwise. The Times is still a loss leader with half a million or so readers, propped up by the gangbuster revenues of other News Corps outlets like the Sun and News of the World, which boast about 2 and a half million readers apiece. News of the World alone makes over £150 million a year in sales and ads.

With that revenue stream gone, News Corps papers are going to come under a lot of pressure. We’re going to see the expansion of the odious Sun (read: thesunonsunday.co.uk). Worse, the company has already announced it will move The Times and Sunday Times to seven-day working. Given Murdoch’s uncanny bottom-lining ability to turn news into a sideshow, there’s good reason to fear that a lot of what makes The Times great is about to come under the chopping block. Last summer, the paper lost 60 staffers amid budget cuts.

Not all British journalism is bad. The problem is, one of its best parts has found itself chained to one of its worst, thanks to the encircling grip of the Murdoch conglomerate. News of the World deserves to go down the drain — but it might pull down some good journalists along with it.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 6 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

6 comments

This is another superb post. It exhibits the kind of dialectical thinking that vast numbers of commenters out here are incapable of (roid, answer your phone).

- liberalref

July 7, 2011 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How long before The Sun on Sunday? Murdoch's not going to let that market lie untapped for long. It's a smart move, gains sympathy for the truly unforgiveable and gives him a blank page to start again.

- IggyPop

July 7, 2011 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would not be all that tragically disappointed, or surprised for that matter. The Times could have gone in the direction of The Guardian, but it did not. Many people viscerally distrust Rupert Murdoch and his odious editorial policies. It is partially for that reason that The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian have been able to slightly dislodge The Times from its position as fusty newspaper of record.

- chaitless

July 7, 2011 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now if only we could get him to shut down Fox News and The Wall Street Journal. And then go crawl under a rock and stay there.

- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old

July 7, 2011 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's see. Times of London. New York Times. New Republic. Now news will not mean that no bad news happens; it just means it will catch us even more by surprise and off guard. Watch out...an asteroid is headed toward earth. The Revolution will not be announced on Twitter.

- skahn

July 7, 2011 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I second chaitless. I grew up in England, I remember The Times of old (30+ years ago) as serious, authortitative and weighty - the paper of record, no question. When I now visit the old country, and pick up the paper, the change is quite remarkable. It is middle-brow, lightweight, with no in-depth reporting but a surfeit of personal columnists, all complaining about their lives, or the state of the country (the English pastime) but with little insight or interest. How much of this decline is due to Murdoch, and how much to general trends in the newspaper industry is hard to tell. But the NY Times is holding up pretty well, as is The Guardian. So I really don't think that the demise of The Times, in its present incarnation, would be much of a loss.

- robertgorton

July 7, 2011 at 10:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close