Heard the NPR bit on this today and found it interesting, although the end was amusing. Do you really think Fox News is the only media that develops a narrative and keeps it alive despite lack of new developments? I see the same thing on CNN and MSNBC.

Dear "On the Media",
I should have written to you after listening to your series on so-called Liberal Bias, but after reading today’s lead editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal, I wanted to reach out to someone at “On the Media” who might take an interest in proving the change in editorial tone that has taken place at the WSJ since News Corporation bought the paper from the Bancroft family.

I am not talking about the editorial page, either. I am talking about everyday reporting.

I have been listening to “The Morning Read from The Wall Street Journal”, a verbatim subscription offered by Audible.com, for the past seven years every single morning while walking my dog, Blue.

With my long-ago trained ear, (U-Michigan Journalism 1973), I have started to cringe when I listen to my Journal. Ever since News Corp took over the paper, I keep hearing an unprofessional, even journalistically forbidden word whenever I listen to “The Morning Read”. The word is should. I always thought that editors would automatically strike that word from news stories, since writing should clearly signals bias.

Seemingly every article, from the lead story (now an international news or political story) to the most routine daily market review, concludes with some kind of should statement.

For all their whining about liberal bias and their bombastic criticism of NPR, The Wall Street Journal’s bias could be subjectively demonstrated with a simple Nexus search comparing the use of the word should before News Corp’s acquisition of the paper and after. You have access to the necessary tools. I do not.

Shouldn’t somebody document this irrefutable proof and publish it?

Wow. Bob Garfield, in the editorial pages of The Guardian.

Who would have guessed it?

Just maybe, Bob, you can someday get a sympathetic Labour government to write the checks -- er, cheques -- for subsidizing National Public Radio.

Am I missing some irony??? I have always liked your program, but if you really think that Fox has no influence, in a country where the entire public discourse is contorted to conform to Fox's right wing fantasies, when their stories generate policy even after the stories are exposed as hoaxes (e.g. the various Breitbart frauds) I think you need to step outside of the media bubble for a while.

Eagerly anticipating your coverage of George Soros and PBS.
Warmest Regards

The simple answer is that to preserve press freedom and a diversity of views we have to force our legislators to break up a way too overconcentrated media. That means trustbusting to preserve a variety of views and press freedom. The same could be said, of course, about all of our large modern iconic corporations. Restore capitalism and bust the trusts.

Sorry. I got so caught up in appending the fact that the media failed to adequately expose George W. Bush's intent to re-invade Iraq during the 2000 election cycle to the catalog of various media mis/malfeasances that preface this article that I missed some of the points of the piece itself. I'll have to listen again.

The media seems to have screwed the pooch again by missing the anti-public union push of the recently elected GOP governors. Or are we supposed to believe that all this activity was developed AFTER the election results became known?

I have one quibble. You say that Murdoch has "no measurable influence" on anyone in power.
But here's a quote from David Frum “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox.”
You may be right and Frum wrong, but from what I have observed, a lot of people think Fox, and thus Murdoch, are very influential.
Is there something specific that led you to the opposite conclusion?

I would like to say thank you for this piece. I live in the UK and I have to say that OTM is essential listening for me, and has been for a number of years now.

In the UK, we have lost serious (for that, read non-hectoring, non-point scoring and non-smug) criticism of our media.

It's a sad thing that I have to listen to OTM to find balanced views on UK media.

OTM has reported this scandal previously whilst the the media and establishment in the UK have treated those affected by phone-hacking have been treated like they deserved it (apart from The Guardian). No outrage from the public until now.

The closure of the NoW is a smoke screen. The nastiness of of popular press will not stop.

I remember when Diana died and there was almost a collective hanging of shameful heads from the media and the gossip loving public. Changes were promised and nevermore would there be intrusions into public life. That didn't last long at all.

News International are hard core pornographers. Soft core gossip wasn't good enough. Their readers (and there are millions) wanted more hard core, so journos gave them what they wanted and intruded more and more into people's lives.

The British public are pretty hypocritical. It's been known for years that the telephones of some MPs of the previous Government (even Prime Minister Tony Blair) were being hacked. This has serious ramifications, and it's not a step to far too call it treason. What did the public do? Laugh and disbelieve. And laugh some more - especially at Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott.

I feel terribly sorry for the family of Milly Dowler, the families of those killed in the London bombing of 7/7, the families of soldiers killed in Iraq/Afghanistan who have had their telephone messages intercepted.

But, I hope they will feel like their violation of privacy has had a silver lining.

The intrusion into the private lives of 'celebrities' and MPs did not cause outrage when it should have done.

Only now (if the momentum is kept up) will there be a change, which I hope will be for the better.

Good column - I think. Wait, what was the point? That Murdoch is shrewd? Or that his media is regarded differently in the UK & US? Or that this may be the start of a change in media-political relations culture in the UK? Or that the NYPost is schlocky?

Although I agree with nearly everything you say (except that last bit about the Democrats hooting and slapping their thighs - What was that about?) I must say the column wanders a bit. It makes more sense when I read it in Bob Garfield's voice, though.