Search
The Foxification of the Brooklyn Paper Continues
I was first introduced to the Brooklyn Paper by a political friend who told me that it was the place local insiders went to find out what was up politically in Brooklyn. When Rupert Murdoch bought the Brooklyn Paper, I was horrified. Everything that Murdoch touches goes down hill, its accuracy suffering because of his extremist political ideology.
Well the Brooklyn Paper HAS gone downhill, but not quite as fast as I had predicted. But I have already noticed a Foxification of its style which I predict will continue.
I think a clear indication that the Brooklyn Paper will become just another lousy, biased rag in Murdoch's portfolio is the fact that starting Friday the Brooklyn Paper will now be included inside the already extremist, inaccurate and biased New York Post. The Brooklyn Paper is now going to symbolically be embraced by one of the worst papers in the world. Sadly, I once relied on the Brooklyn Paper to give me some insider perspective on local politics. Now, though it still occasionally fulfills its old function, it is clearly not to be trusted and it is very unlikely that I will be citing any Brooklyn Paper rags without first confirming from other, more reliable sources.
Re: The Foxification of the Brooklyn Paper Continues
Here's an example, not necessarily of its "going downhill" in terms of reporting, but certainly an editorial harbinger: the paper had been strenuously opposed to the Atlantic Yards project, until about two weeks after Murdoch bought it, at which point it suddenly reversed itself. And a lot of people noticed and called them out on it.
Re: The Foxification of the Brooklyn Paper Continues
Ah, beat me to it. But that also reminds me: the ostensible reason for the position reversal, Frank Gehry's dropping out of the project, was simultaneously causing supporters of the development (including the NY Times, IIRC) to change their minds. It made absolutely no sense, and the fact that they didn't just outright acknowledge "hey, we have to change our editorial position here to reflect the ownership's interests" was incredibly insulting to the readership.