Cliff Kincaid is the editor of an organisation called Accuracy In Media which describes itself as a "grassroots citizens watchdog of the news media that... sets the record straight". But I wonder just how straight and accurate that can be when he writes that the New York Post's endorsement of Hillary Clinton for the Senate over a solid conservative Republican is "another sign" that Rupert Murdoch "moving to the left." Moving to the left? Are you serious?
Sorry if this sounds rude, Mr Kincaid, but you obviously don't know much about Rupert or, for that matter, Hillary. First, Murdoch likes to back winners and, as the Post editorial rightly said, her opponent is not credible. He can't possibly win. Clinton's poll lead is indeed "insurmountable". This doesn't indicate that Murdoch has moved leftwards. It is yet another example of his political pragmatism and it does not imply that he has changed his general (ie, right-wing) outlook.
Second, though Clinton has liberal social views - on abortion, gay rights and gun control, for instance - she remains committed to the prosecution of the war on terror, having backed the invasion of Iraq, and has never advocated genuine leftist economic policies. In many ways, her general outlook is not dissimilar to that of Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, who Murdoch has supported for many years.
By the way, Mr Kincaid, just to feed your right-wing paranoia, perhaps you ought to know that, in his undergraduate days, Murdoch had a bust of Lenin over his fire. Conclusive proof that he's a communist "sleeper", eh?
