This is an interesting development, especially considering many have talked about how Murdoch has been cozying up to Hillary. It also shows, I think, how corrupt the publishing world can be, something I've alleged on this site before. Does it have merit? I don't know (I've always thought Regan was sort of slimy). We'll see...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/business/14regan.html?ex=1195707600&en=6173bfb492d08cb6&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

What your posting shows is how far you will stretch for a slur on a Clinton, any Clinton.

It also shows, I think, how corrupt the publishing world can be, something I've alleged on this site before. It shows how corrupt the Murdoch publishing empire and its connections with this US administration have been, and how deeply implicated such news venues as Fox News are in this corruption.

The extension of the Murdoch and Fox (and Regan) level of impropriety and slime to the entire world of news and publishing, equivalently and without distinction, is an addition of your own, not supported by this or any other evidence.

What your posting shows is how far you will stretch for a slur on a Clinton, any Clinton.

I guess you're in a fighting mood?

OK, fine. I've grown used to your constant tantrums.

For the record, I wasn't trying to slur Clinton at all (there's an entirely other thread for that, isn't there?). She has nothing to do with this. The only reason I mentioned her is because it interests me that Murdoch is apparently cozzying up to Guilliani, when it's been well-document (by the Times and others) that he has lightened up on Hillary, donated money to her and said some positive things about her recently.

It shows how corrupt the Murdoch publishing empire and its connections with this US administration have been, and how deeply implicated such news venues as Fox News are in this corruption.

Now I think you're the one stretching. The fact Murdoch and his cohorts apparently try to exert political influence over what books they publish suggests the same thing probably happens at Fox News, but it doesn't prove it. The Times ran a piece abot Murdoch's influence back when he bought the Journal. So did the New Yorker. If I can remember correctly, both showed his influence, while powerful, tended to favor whichever candidate or political pursuasion was in power (hence his cozzying to Hillary). In other words, he may lean one way, but as a businessman, he hedges his bets — just as he did with Tony Blair.

The extension of the Murdoch and Fox (and Regan) level of impropriety and slime to the entire world of news and publishing, equivalently and without distinction, is an addition of your own, not supported by this or any other evidence.

I didn't slime the "entire world of news" (we have you for that, don't we?), but I did attack the publishing world. As I wrote in an earlier thread, I think publishers are largely motivated by their politics in many of the choices they make, whatever those politics may be. This apparently is news to you, despite the numerous examples of pols getting books deals and then voting certain ways, or the sons and daughters of pols getting book deals, or pols getting book deals when they retire. Most of the above sell poorly...

I posted this story because it's interesting to me, and if Regan is right, then this sort of tomfoolery needs to be exposed.

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" This is going to *get* ugly!