Shane Claiborne on Rupert Murdoch, Zondervan, and Empire

Well, Murdoch was originally an Australian ... until he renounced his citizenship and became an American so that he could own American television stations.
I doubt that citizenship means very much to him one way or another, though.

Apparently, Mr. Murdoch has cash-making cows that are less in the spotlight than some of his other holdings. Zondervan is one of them. But, it is probably not used as much as others to drive the news and belief systems in the U.S. However, Zondervan contributes to Murdoch's ability to dominate the news in a number of places and to greatly influence elections and politicians when they get elected.

Therefore, what he is putting out to the public is very important. What is the world view of Murdoch, his family, and empire? Without getting into details of what it is, the view according to Murdoch and his empire, is probably not good for the future of Americans. The brand of socially irresponsible, radical conservatism that feeds a steady stream of fear and hate mongering is an extremely negative force in the U.S. and has contributed substantially to political climate that is so poisonous and ineffective, prolonging the Bush Depression and obstructing solutions that could help with employment.

Murdoch's empire need to be shrunk- he owns too much of the media in the U.S. and the U.K. Supporting him and NewsCorp through writing for his publications companies, buying his books, buying his sponsor's products, and listening and viewing his radio -TV media are not good things to do.

The question about Murdock is that he was gone through life collecting Media outlets and wives. The reality was that Zondervan was founded before Murdoch, much like the Wall Street Journal, it was added to the News Corp's empire, but it seems like its is basically left alone. Much like the early Christians had to accommodate living in the world of Ceasar, we can't live pure as the Koch brothers and Murdock own too much to be avoided.

If you re-read the post to which you are replying you will find that I qualified my comment by adding "(at least part of it!)". I agree that at any given time there have been journalists with good reputations, but look at the Beaverbrook press, Hurst's empire etc and you will soon realise that for every honest & good reporter there is probably at least one gutter journalist - and always has been. Whether the reputation the papers enjoyed while employing those gutter hacks reflected the hack's moral standing is another matter, but IMO they probably did - at least among those who had the intelligence to realise what was going on!
As for being too young, no I'm not. FYI I am in my mid 50's and have had relatives and friends in the journalism trade (including a great uncle who had the greatest pleasure in suing the Beaverbrook press over their printing of his obit....!)

Or were not driven by appearances but were one of those rare men who were comfortable enough in their own skin to dress how they wish.

It may help to bear in mind a legal term when deciding whether or not to sanction an individual or legal entity (corporation) for their perceived liability or fault in a situation where harm has been done or a crime committed. That term is "causation". Its definition is relatively simple (for a legal term). Black's Law Dictionary defines causation as "the fact of being the cause of something produced or of happening. The act by which an effect is produced. An important doctrine in the fields of negligence and criminal law." It is a general rule of law that one is not subject to a monetary civil judgment nor the imposition of a criminal penalty against them unless it has been proven that they were the cause of some injury to another or to the public peace.

Simple definition. Yet, a mind boggling amount of litigation has been initiated and judicial opinions published trying to refine the meaning of that simple definition and an almost as numerous number of scholarly tomes produced trying to explain what the litigation and the opinions ultimately mean or don't mean.

What does this have to do with the present article? Well, nothing, and then, everything! Before we cry for the black listing of any one person or the boycotting of anyone or entity for an injury or harm inflicted, we should be well convinced that the object of our actions/sanctions is in fact a, or the causation of that injury or harm we wish to end or alleviate. Justice and certainly Christian charity demand no less. And when the object of our wrath is a business corporation, LLC, etc, that causal effect which seemed so clear when an individual was involved, now becomes even more complicated and perhaps confusing.

In the case of Zondervan, although owned by Murdoch's News Corp., if its only connection with those actions of another of News Corp's holdings, its officers or employees was to have provided wealth (in the normal course of legitimate business) to the parent corporation which was then used to finance the alleged misconduct, is it right, legally or morally, to hold it liable? Moreover, is it charitable or proper to call for a boycott of its products, risking a decline in business income and the inevitable loss of the livelihoods for untold numbers of innocent employees whose only offense was that they happened to work for a company, which was owned another company, which was owned by Rupert Murdoch, who owned another company, whose employees may (or not, as the evidence is not all in) have behaved in a tortious or criminal manner?

Causation, like most things associated with man, is simple in definition, but extremely complicated in its applicability to the human condition. I take no side in Will Braun's clear suggestion that Zondervan should be held accountable for being in the chain of the flow of money to Rupert Murdoch, whom he clearly dislikes and wishes not to support, financially or otherwise. I only suggest that the picture he presents us is too simplistic. Not enough is known for us to take action, which if successful could harm some of the innocents whom Mr. Braun purports to champion.

In the end it is about "Empire". As Christians (or others of faith/religious inclination), we are citizens of "empire" whether or not we want to be so counted. As such, is is sometimes virtually impossible to strike at one facet of "empire" without inflicting injury upon one's self or one's neighbor. I think it was the "Pogo" character who once quipped; "we have met the enemy and he is us". I think we should have more "Christian charity" if we were to remember this more often.

In fairness, most media companies are not as insidious as Murdoch's empire of sleaze. It is not just that Murdoch owns Zonderdans, but his tactics so nasty, regardless of what arm of News Corp. I do have pity of those that have to defend Murdoch. The question of his owning Zondervan did not come up until the rock was lifted and the light was shown on the maggots of Murdoch's ways. Fair and Balance, indeed.

Not only is it not restricted to the UK (rather than England!), this hacking scandal is not limited to the Murdock press either. ALL the papers are suspect (though so far only News International have 'fessed up') and it seems that it is probably that they were playing the same game with the 9/11 victim's families. I would be surprised if any news media organisations are squeaky-clean in this sort of practice, because it is a very competitive business and if one's rival is doing this then very soon you find you also have to to remain competitive and therefore in business.
Journo's have been doing this sort of thing ever since journalism was invented - only the methods have changed with the advance in technology.
This does not justify their lack of morals - it just puts it in perspective.

Well, we may be dealing with two different meanings of the word "tainted." Murdoch may have tainted some bibles by his business dealings that are unrelated to the text. The translation process inevitably fails to capture 100% of the meaning of the original text; it's nearly impossible to capture the context, connotations, and denotations in a translation of anything. This fact does not mean though that we can't get a very good understanding of the text. But yes, pinning lots of meaning on a single translated word is dangerous and probably wrong.

Making a "deal with the devil" is never black and white. If I work for Walmart, I am also supporting a corporate behemoth which provides funding to extreme right wing causes, supports sweat shops around the world, aggressively fights all attempts at collective bargaining, harms the environment with it's big box stores, etc. At he same time, it provides me with a minimum wage income so that I can feed my children, and food, goods, and services for those who cannot afford going to Whole Foods and Macy's.

Edited because Comments not working again...

Does God need News Corp. Strictly speaking God doesn't need any of us. But he was willing to send Jesus to die on our behalf. And I don't see that anyone at News Corp, and that includes Rupert Murdoch, is beyond his grace.

Life is complicated and rarely pure. If Murdoch wants to print Bibles under the Zondervan label, and he does so honestly, I see no reason why he should be discouraged from doing so. It's the sort of thing that a person in his position might do if he wants to be redeemed, and we're supposed to be in favor of redemption.

LV

Newspapers, tv, and cable around the world. And now Bibles as well. I'm surprised News Corp hasn't sought to dominate the publishing of all religious texts. Talk about a media empire. With all of that media conglomeration, propaganda could be taken to a new level never before seen in all of history.

Oh, so if a company is owned by a worse of sinner than another, then it makes all the difference.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? That's all it takes to get your approval?

"don't want to be mistaken as a member of the Nation of Islam."

Perhaps I'm a little too naive to make that connection. More than likely I would have just thought you were on your way to teach a chemistry or physics class.

Those who think they can live in the world and not be touched by the world, have, in my opinion, another think a comin'. The story of Naaman's servant is interesting and to this point.

I find this an amazing article, and the most amazing statement I read was:
"This is not about demonizing Rupert Murdoch or Zondervan."
I'd suggest that the rest of the article disagrees with that statement. To implicitly call for a ban on purchasing from Zondervan at least hints in a demonization direction.
Frankly, I struggle to see what the clear case is against Newscorp presented here. I think it is: they make a profit, they sell a camo bible and they owned a newspaper with sinful ethics.
Do we then need to avoid products from any company with sinful ethics? Avoid the liberal media because of advertisements or shows they broadcast that are sinful? Avoid the democratic party because of the elements in there that are anti-God?
Or do we only need to boycott Newscorp companies and products because they disagree with our own liberal views?
Personally, I'm glad that an organisation chooses to make bibles available at a low cost. Why do they do it? Because they hope to make a profit from it. If they were not making a profit on it they would not do it. Certainly a non-profit agency would step in and fill the market, but at higher prices and lower sales, which I'm not sure is in anyone's best interests.
Yep, I find this amazing!

And don't forget that all christian broadcasting is a wing of the conservative party. They will never voice approval of anything progressive in the least. They will "spin" the stories so their negligent audience (negligent to find the real facts) will soak it all up without questioning any of it. I've caught so many biases on AFR radio and half truths that it isn't funny.

BTW: The other day on AFR radio they were talking about the bill in Calif. mandating some homosexual history leasons be taught and a caller said he shoot the person who would allow his son to sleep with another male. They cut the caller like right now but that's the kind of audience who soaks up their rhetoric. They are called a "hate" group for a reason. Now they're sponsors of Rick Perry's repentence prayer meeting in Houston in August claiming that it's not political. Dobson will be there too. Progressives won't touch this thing with a 10 foot pole!

you're just amazing in your analysis StephenAUS! The article was questioning the relationship. Apparently you don't care about the owners and the ways of such companies. Amazing!

wlh -- I agree. Too often we just want to put our heads in the sand and use all kinds of excuses to do nothing. We might cause damage to others who benefit from the corporation or person in question. Maybe we are being judgmental. What they are doing isn't really all that bad. And on and on. Like I said before, it's about making a decision to not support a company or person that has crossed a line. I do not buy products from certain companies because of how they conduct business. Those are only the ones I know about. It would be easier to be ignorant, but that information has been put right in front of my face, impossible to ignore.
Here it comes -- watch for it, watch for it -- Some people even give Hitler a pass because he was kind to his dog. OK there hasn't been a Hitler reference here for ages. It was due.

I find this an amazing article, and the most amazing statement
I read was:

"This is not about demonizing Rupert Murdoch
or Zondervan."

I'd suggest that the rest of the article disagrees with that
statement. To implicitly call for a ban
on purchasing from Zondervan at least hints in a demonization direction.

Frankly, I struggle to see what the clear case is against
Newscorp presented here. I think it
is: they make a profit, they sell a camo
bible and they owned a newspaper with sinful ethics.

Do we then need to avoid products from any company with
sinful ethics? Avoid the liberal media because
of advertisements or shows they broadcast that are sinful? Avoid the democratic party because of the
elements in there that are anti-God?

Or do we only need to boycott Newscorp companies and products because they
disagree with our own liberal views?

Personally, I'm glad that an organisation chooses to make bibles available at a low
cost. Why do they do it? Because they hope to make a profit from
it. If they were not making a profit on
it they would not do it. Certainly a non-profit
agency would step in and fill the market, but at higher prices and lower sales,
which I'm not sure is in anyone's best interests.

Yep, I find this amazing!

Enjoyed the reflection, especially in light of the Revised Common Lectionary gospel for this coming Sunday--the Parable of the Wheat and Tares. We do live in a world of grays, yet on we press shedding light, lavishing love, and working for justice and peace (in short, living as God's people here and now). Thanks, Will, for giving me more to ponder as I prepare my sermon.

There is a lot more to this affair than "mere" phone-hacking. The most senior policeman in the UK has just resigned because of links with ex-employees at News Corp's UK subsidiary (whose CEO has just been arrested on suspicion of corruption) that were, to say the least, injudicious; and there is a huge and growing cloud of anxiety about our Prime Minister's judgement, too.