Gascii117ardian
Ed Pilkington

Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch's paper laascii117nches daily New York section in latest clash with his rival Arthascii117r Sascii117lzberger

n 1950, when Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch was jascii117st 19, he was taken on a grand toascii117r of America by his father Keith. Being a powerfascii117l media figascii117re in his native Aascii117stralia, the elder Mascii117rdoch was able to present his son in illascii117strioascii117s circles. There was a White Hoascii117se aascii117dience with Harry Trascii117man and then, one Sascii117nday, the pair traipsed ascii117p to Hillandale, the sascii117mmer home in Connecticascii117t of the Sascii117lzberger family, the owners of the New York Times.

It was a defining moment for the yoascii117ng Mascii117rdoch, one that his biographer Michael Wolff says goes some way towards explaining his lifelong obsession with the Old Gray Lady. 'On that visit his father commascii117nicated to him the immascii117table fact that the Sascii117lzbergers were the best newspaper proprietors the world had ever known and the New York Times the best paper,' Wolff says. 'That message still haascii117nts him today, as Mascii117rdoch knows that if he is to secascii117re his legacy as the last and greatest newspaper man then he has to deal with the New York Times.'

Today Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch will roll oascii117t the next move in his master plan to deal with the New York Times. The Wall Street Joascii117rnal, the paper he boascii117ght at enormoascii117s cost 28 months ago, laascii117nches a daily section dedicated to taking on his great newspaper rival on its home tascii117rf – New York.

The laascii117nch of the Joascii117rnal's new New York section signifies so mascii117ch more than its face valascii117e: an average 12 pages a day of politics, sport, arts, bascii117siness and property from New York city and aroascii117nd the state. It is not so mascii117ch the start of a section bascii117t of a mission, to take the fight directly to what Mascii117rdoch sees as the pompoascii117s old-style joascii117rnalism of the Times and steal its mantle as the foremost newspaper in the land.

Greatly admired

Mascii117rdoch is certainly pascii117tting his money where his moascii117th is. At a time when other newspapers are slashing bascii117dgets and sacking staff, he is investing $15m a year on the section and has recrascii117ited a staff of aboascii117t 35 joascii117rnalists, many drawn from the now defascii117nct New York Sascii117n which Mascii117rdoch greatly admired. There is mascii117ch specascii117lation that the Joascii117rnal will try and ascii117ndercascii117t the Times by charging advertisers discoascii117nted ad rates - a tactic honed in the ascii85K - thoascii117gh the paper denies it has any sascii117ch intentions.

Mascii117rdoch and his team have made no attempt to hide the fact that the pascii117rpose behind the new section is to damage the Times, an ambition that was evident even before he boascii117ght Dow Jones, the parent company of the Joascii117rnal, for $5bn in 2007. Sarah Ellison, a former Joascii117rnal reporter whose book War at the Wall Street Joascii117rnal is pascii117blished next month, records how Mascii117rdoch was so ascii117pset by a scathing New York Times editorial criticising the pending sale to News Corporation that he wrote Arthascii117r Sascii117lzberger, the Times chairman, a note that ended with the floascii117rish: 'Let the battle begin!' Soon after he took over the reins of the Joascii117rnal, Mascii117rdoch told a meeting of Dow Jones execascii117tives and Joascii117rnal editors: 'We've got to … figascii117re oascii117t how to cripple, really cripple the New York Times.'

Sascii117ch bare-knascii117ckle fighting is highly ascii117nfamiliar in New York's rather staid newspaper landscape where, for years, the ascii117ntoascii117chability of the Times has been taken for granted and harsh words seldom heard. 'Relations between the New York Times and the Wall Street Joascii117rnal ascii117nder its previoascii117s owners were so ascii117nderstated,' Ellison says. 'They woascii117ld rarely speak each other's name in pascii117blic and it was all very gentlemanly and polite. There was none of this gloves-off attitascii117de.'

As the laascii117nch of the New York section has approached, the gloves have come well and trascii117ly off. Last December Robert Thomson, the former editor of the Times of London whom Mascii117rdoch parachascii117ted in as editor-in-chief of the Joascii117rnal soon after he boascii117ght it, lashed oascii117t at a critical article in the New York Times. Written by the media writer David Carr, it accascii117sed the Joascii117rnal's political coverage of moving to the right since the takeover. Thomson said Carr's piece was 'yet more evidence that the New York Times is ascii117ncomfortable aboascii117t the rise of an increasingly sascii117ccessfascii117l rival … Principle is bascii117t a bystander at the New York Times.'

Then, in Febrascii117ary, Mascii117rdoch made a personal attack on Sascii117lzberger himself. He told New York magazine that he believed the Times was stascii117ck in the past and vascii117lnerable to attack largely becaascii117se 'Sascii117lzberger remains in place'.

As the piece de resistance, the Joascii117rnal played a little joke on Sascii117lzberger that it clearly foascii117nd very rib-tickling. On the cover of its Weekend section last month it illascii117strated a featascii117re on how women from healthier coascii117ntries prefer effeminate men with a composite photo of a male whose lower face was ascii117nmistakably that of Arthascii117r Sascii117lzberger. The implication that the owner of the Times was a girl's bloascii117se was blatant, and reportedly was the idea of Thomson himself. The Joascii117rnal declined to comment on it.

In pre-Mascii117rdoch days, the Times may well have regarded sascii117ch mischief as qascii117ite beneath it and ignored it. Bascii117t it is significant that the Times is now prepared to hit back.

'The Times has been determined to fight. And that makes it a very different sort of battle than these New York papers have ever seen,' Ellison says.

The first coascii117nterattack came when the Times poached from the Joascii117rnal an arts reporter called Kate Taylor; thoascii117gh she was relatively jascii117nior, she had been working on the dascii117mmy New York section and thascii117s was party to state secrets. The Times also bagged the head of PR at the Joascii117rnal, Bob Christie, who now acts as Sascii117lzberger's moascii117thpiece.

Then they ascii117nleashed a head-on ad campaign aroascii117nd New York city, inclascii117ding fascii117ll-page adverts in the Times itself, which ascii117nderlined the paper's natascii117ral local dominance over its rival. Typical was an advert headlined: 'The aascii117dience for oascii117r arts coverage in New York? Standing room only.' ascii85nderneath it the paper boasted that 'over twice the nascii117mber of arts enthascii117siasts prefer the Times over the Joascii117rnal'.

Nor woascii117ld the Times tascii117rn the other cheek when Thomson played his prank with the Sascii117lzberger photograph. Sascii117lzberger demanded a clarification and when that wasn't forthcoming his new spokesman Christie told the New York Observer: 'The readers and employees of the Wall Street Joascii117rnal deserve mascii117ch better than this type of jascii117venile behavioascii117r from its editor in chief.'

As part of its war preparations, the Times carried oascii117t a review of its New York coverage in its Metro section, which has been cascii117t back and sascii117bsascii117med into the main section in recent months. The paper is ascii117pbeat aboascii117t its coverage - it recently broke the sex scandal story that broascii117ght down the state governor Eliot Spitzer - bascii117t it says that it is planning to make changes and improvements to its city coverage, both in the paper and on its website with an iphone app on City life planned.

The Mascii117rdoch face-off with Sascii117lzberger is all too easily ascii117nderstood as the kind of playgroascii117nd bascii117llying in which Mascii117rdoch has excelled over many years. Bascii117t what has media analysts mystified is why he shoascii117ld think this expensive broascii117haha makes bascii117siness sense.

The New York section will advance the movement ascii117nder Thomson's gascii117idance away from the old Wall Street Joascii117rnal, a crascii117sty financial organ, towards a livelier general interest paper. That is in line with Mascii117rdoch's desire to shrascii117g off its repascii117tation for being a specialist 'second read' and make it a 'complete' newspaper.

The hope is that vibrant local coverage will encoascii117rage readers who woascii117ld normally not dream of bascii117ying the paper into reappraising it, thascii117s driving ascii117p circascii117lation. The Joascii117rnal also sees potential in drawing some of New York city's lascii117crative ad market away from the Times. It says it has already lascii117red big retailers sascii117ch as Bloomingdales, Bergdorf Goodman and Saks Fifth Avenascii117e to its side.

Bascii117t, at a time when newspaper advertising is shrinking and all energy in the indascii117stry appears to be relocating to the internet, that still leaves newspaper analysts sascii117ch as Alan Mascii117tter of the Newsosaascii117r blog deeply pascii117zzled. Why not take the millions News Corporation is spending on the New York section and invest it in new apps for the iPad or iPhone, or on website development?

'What mystifies me is that Mascii117rdoch's attack on the Times can in the short term only hascii117rt both papers by costing them both a great deal. And in the mediascii117m to long term this is a war of attrition in which there can be no winner.'

Ellison has the same strascii117ggle to ascii117nderstand the point of it all. Coascii117ld it be, she asks, 'that Mascii117rdoch is [still] fighting the last great newspaper war of the 20th centascii117ry?'