The Murdoch-Cameron deal

What Murdoch can expect in return for the Sun's support of the Tory leader

How did David Cameron, a man until recently regarded by Rupert Murdoch as a "lightweight", convince one of the media mogul's most cherished papers, the Sun, to support him?

Initially the News Corporation head, fond of the days when Margaret Thatcher's cabinet contained "more old Estonians than Old Etonians", was highly sceptical of the upper-class Cameron.

Appearing on The Charlie Rose Show in July 2006, Murdoch was asked, "What do you think of David Cameron?" His contemptuous reply was: "Not much." Conversely, he was highly impressed by Gordon Brown and admired his intellect, his work ethic and his Presbyterian conscience.

As Michael Wolff, the author of the Murdoch biography The Man Who Owns the News, noted during this period: "Murdoch continues to like Gordon Brown -- he might be the Labour Prime Minister, but he's conservative, particularly in the Murdoch sense of no pretence, no frills."

So what changed? The most obvious answer is Cameron's poll ratings. Murdoch may present himself as a contrarian who relishes every opportunity to defy "the establishment" but politically he has always followed rather than led public opinion.

Then there's the BBC. As I first noted in the aftermath of James Murdoch's broadside against the corporation, the family has become increasingly obsessed with curtailing the BBC's "chilling" expansion.

Under Cameron's leadership, the Tories have already demonstrated their willingness to challenge the successive licence-fee increases the world's largest broadcaster has enjoyed under Labour. In May, parliament voted on a Tory proposal to freeze the licence fee, with Cameron arguing that during the recession the BBC needed to do "more with less".

The proposal made little political impact and was easily defeated by 334-156 votes, but it set an important precedent.

Even more significant is Cameron's pledge to abolish Ofcom. On 26 July the media regulator announced that it would force the Murdoch-owned BSkyB to cap the cost of its premium sports and film channels, potentially making them available on new platforms such as BT Vision. Sky retaliated by promising to use all legal avenues available to challenge the ruling.

Just ten days later, in a surprise speech, Cameron promised that, under a Conservative government, "Ofcom as we know it will cease to exist".

Finally, it is clear that it was James Murdoch, who oversees the European and Asian corners of his father's empire, who pushed hardest for the declaration in favour of Cameron. Lord Mandelson may not have been far from the truth when he claimed last night that Murdoch Sr "was a little surprised and disappointed" by the decision.

As Wolff wrote in 2008: "[T]hen there is James's infatuation with David Cameron, the Tories' cool, glam former PR guy, whom Murdoch knew he was, however begrudgingly, going to have to accept."

It's no coincidence that the Sun's endorsement of Cameron was notably more qualified than its declaration for Blair. The Conservative leader is likely to have to offer further guarantees to keep the paper onside.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

White supremacists are embracing genetic testing - but they aren't always that keen on the results

Users of far-right site Stormfront are resorting to pseudo science and conspiracy theories when DNA tests show they aren't as "pure" as they hoped.

The field of genomics and genetics have undergone almost exponential growth in recent years. Ventures like the Human Genome Project have enabled t humanity to get a closer look at our building blocks. This has led to an explosion in genetic ancestry testingand as of 6 April 2017 23AndMe, one of the most popular commercial DNA testing websites, has genotyped roughly 2 million customers.

It is perhaps unsurprising that one of the markets for genetic testing can be found among white suprmacists desperate to prove their racial purity. But it turns out that many they may not be getting the results they want. 

Stormfront, the most prominent white nationalist website, has its own definition of those who are allowed to count themselves as white - “non-Jewish people of 100 per cent European ancestry.” But many supremacists who take genetic tests are finding out that rather than bearing "not a drop" of non-white blood, they are - like most of us a conglomerate of various kinds of DNA from all over the world including percentages from places such as sub Saharan Africa and Asia. Few are taking it well.

Dr. Aaron Panofsky and Joan Donovan, of UCLA’s Institute for Society and Genetics and the research institute Data and Society respectively, presented a research study (currently under peer review for publication) at the American Sociological Association a week ago, analysing discussion of GAT on Stormfront forums. Panofsky, Donovan and a team of researchers narrowed down the relevant threads to about 700, with 153 users who had chosen to publish their results online. While Panofsky emphasised that it is not possible to draw many quantitative inferences, the findings of their study offer a glimpse into the white nationalist movement's response to science that doesn't their self perception. 

“The bulk of the discussion was repair talk”, says Panofsky. “Though sometimes folks who posted a problematic result were told to leave Stormfront or “drink cyanide” or whatever else, 'don’t breed', most of the talk was discussion about how to interpret the results to make the bad news go away”.

Overwhelmingly, there were two main categories of reinterpretation. Many responses dismissed GAT as flimsy science – with statements such as a “person with true white nationalist consciousness can 'see race', even if their tests indicate 'impurity'".

Other commentators employed pseudo-scientific arguments. “They often resemble the critiques that professional geneticists, biological anthropologists and social scientists, make of GAT, but through a white nationalist lens", says Panofsky. 

For instance, some commentators would look at percentages of non-European DNA and put it down to the rape of white women by non-white men in the past, or a result of conquests by Vikings of savage lands (what the rest of us might call colonialism). Panofsky likens this to the responses from “many science opponents like climate deniers or anti-vaxxers, who are actually very informed about the science, even if they interpret and critique it in idiosyncratic and motivated ways".

Some white nationalists even looked at the GAT results and suggested that discussion of 100 per cent racial purity and the "one drop" rule might even be outdated – that it might be better to look for specific genetic markets that are “reliably European”, even though geneticists might call them by a different name.

Of course, in another not totally surprising development, many of the Stormfront commentators also insisted that GAT is part of a Jewish conspiracy, “to confuse whites by sprinkling false diversity into test results".

Many of the experts in the field have admitted to queasiness about the test themselves; both how they come to their results and what they imply. There are several technical issues with GAT, such as its use of contemporary populations to make inferences about those who previously lived in different places around the world, and concerns that the diversity of reference samples used to make inferences is not fully representative of the real world. 

There are other specific complications when it comes to the supramacist enthusiasm for GAT. Some already make a tortous argument that white people are the “true people of color" by dint of greater variation in hair and eye color. By breaking up DNA into percentages (e.g. 30 per cent Danish, 20 per cent German), Panofsky says GAT can provide a further opportunity to “appropriate and colonise the discourse of diversity and multiculturalism for their own purposes". There's is also, says Panofsky, the simple issue that “we can’t rely on genetic information to turn white nationalists away from their views."

“While I think it would be nice if the lesson people would take from GAT is that white nationalism is incoherent and wrong. I think white nationalists themselves often take the exact opposite conclusion."