news-record.com

John Edwards fearlessly took on media mogul Rupert Murdoch last week.

Foolishly, too.

The Democratic presidential candidate from North Carolina wasn't going to win a battle with a man who buys ink by the tanker truck and just made a deal to acquire one of the world's most respected newspapers.

Worse than that for Edwards, he deserved to lose.

The former senator issued a combative denunciation of Murdoch's deal to add The Wall Street Journal to his News Corp. holdings, calling on Democrats "to openly oppose and take the necessary steps to stop the merger."

This opposition, a statement from Edwards' campaign said, is justified "in light of the biased and unfair manner Fox News and other media arms of News Corp. cover Democrats and the Democratic Party."

In other words, Murdoch and his minions are mean to Democrats. So Democrats should "take the necessary steps" to hurt their business.

If Edwards means the Democrats running Congress -- and what other Democrats would be in a position to take the necessary steps? -- this liberal lawyer is calling for the application of government power for political reasons, to punish a media organization that doesn't see the world the way Edwards thinks it should.

He tries to make his motives appear high-minded. But that just doesn't work.

"The basis of a strong democracy begins and ends with a strong, unbiased and fair media -- all qualities which are pretty hard to subscribe to Fox News and News Corp.," Edwards said.

Oh, so this is all about democracy? The authors of the First Amendment wouldn't agree. They didn't set out to protect the freedom only of an unbiased and fair press. They were far too wise for that. They guaranteed freedom of the press, period.

The First Amendment was meant to cover a biased and unfair press, too. Maybe especially so.

Otherwise, you'd need a government agency with the power to decide which newspapers are sufficiently fair and unbiased to be allowed the freedom to print each day's edition.

Naturally, the standards for bias would change with every administration.

In an Edwards administration, Murdoch newspapers might not fare too well. News media would have to reflect his biases, not those of his political opponents.

But there wasn't any lofty idealism in Edwards' actions. Only the usual politics. He challenged his presidential rivals who have accepted campaign contributions from Murdoch and other News Corp. executives to return them.

Wait a minute. These are the same people who hate Democrats? And they're giving them money?

As Edwards well knew, Hillary Clinton was the main beneficiary, having collected $20,000 from the supposedly evil Democrat-bashers.

But $20,000 turns out to be small change. Predictably, Murdoch struck back at Edwards -- and hard. His New York Post reported that HarperCollins, a News Corp. subsidiary, paid Edwards $800,000 for a book.

Edwards responded that he gave "every dime" to charity, and complained that someone broke a confidentiality agreement about that deal.

Nevertheless, the point was made. Edwards wasn't above taking Murdoch money for his own purposes, but when he thought he could gain a political advantage by bashing Murdoch, and Clinton at the same time, he went for it.

And ended up drenched in ink.

By the way, lots of people who care about The Wall Street Journal aren't pleased to see Murdoch taking over. He's not a champion of responsible journalism. But he's not stupid, either, so it's unlikely he's going to destroy a first-class operation now that he finally owns one.

Even if he did, however, he'd give the government no grounds to intervene. The First Amendment affords him the right to turn a good newspaper into a bad one.

Just as it also gives presidential candidates the freedom to take on foolish causes.

Contact Doug Clark at dgclark@news-record.com and 373-7039.