What happens to Moonie-ism without Reverend Moon?

"As the amount of subsidies makes clear, the Washington Times served for three decades as a vanity publication of the Rev. Moon. And when the funders of vanity publications die or simply move on, the zeal of the heirs for propping up their babies may wane."

-- WaPo media blogger Erik Wemple, in "As the
Rev. Moon goes, so goes the Washington Times?"

by Ken

So Rev. Sun Myung Moon has passed on to the higher spiritual realms. The reverend was 92, and understandably doesn't seem to have made much news in the last decade or so; what news has come out of his Unification Church has mostly concerned apparently vicious infighting among warring family members and other internal factions. Still, you have to wonder what happens now that the far-right-wing loon has been officially and permanently removed from the equation.

Erik Wemple focuses on the future of the Washington Times, into which, he reminds us, Reverend Moon poured vast sums of church money (reportedly $1 billion) in the decade following its founding in 1982, apparently for the privilege of controlling a propaganda outlet in our nation's capital. By rights the Moonie Times should have been a giant joke. It's a sign of the divorce between the Right and reality, which came to overtake much of our public discourse, that the paper was actually often taken seriously. (In fairness, when right-wingers turned on one another in its pages, the paper did offer insights not readily available elsewhere. After all, who knows more about felonious right-wing thugs than other felonious right-wing thugs?)

Wemple notes that the Washington Times has published "a wide-ranging obituary" of its founder which "spans six Web pages," and yet omits any mention of "the enduring financial difficulties of the paper." (Note: There are lots of links onsite.)

Reports from the early 2000s suggested that the Washington Times lifetime subsidy from Moon’s worldwide business holdings was approaching the $2 billion mark. And according to a departed Washington Times executive, annual subsidies of late have clocked in at around $30 million.

Another bit of Moon biography that doesn’t get its due in the official Washington Times obit is the nasty and embarrassing 2010 intra-family dispute over funding of the paper. Without diving too deeply into Moonology, feuding branches of the family bickered over the ownership and subsidies to the paper, and a faction including Moon intimate Douglas Joo reacquired the newspaper. The deal restored subsidies to the paper, which had been cut off for about a year.

Perspectives on whether the money will flow don’t line up. A former Times official punditizes: “As long as the old man was alive, they’d keep subsidizing it, but the impression was that once the old man died, they’d find a way to unwind this thing.”

Larry Zilliox, an opposition research expert and observer of the Unification Church, professes greater sunnyism about the prospects of continued funding. “I think they’re in position to maintain the subsidies,” says Zilliox, noting that those left in charge of the Unification movement “know the value” of the Washington Times. . . .

Perhaps if Moon and his deputies had realized what they’d stumbled upon back when they founded the Washington Times in 1982, we wouldn’t be obsessing about these subsidies. Nineteen eighty-two was six years before Rush Limbaugh would take his conservative talk radio show to a national listenership, making ungodly amounts of money. It was also 14 years before Fox News launched its brand of conservative -leaning television; it is said to be on track for $1 billion in profits this year. And long before the Internet presented another opportunity to cash in on the plume of national interest in conservative politics.

The Washington Times watched all of those luxury liners pass by, thanks to the spirit in which Moon had launched it. “They ran it as more an extension of the movement than as an enterprise,” says Zilliox.

POSTSCRIPT: THE HARMAN HEIRS STOP POURING $$$
DOWN THE NEWSWEEK DAILY BEAST $$$ SINKHOLE

To drive home his point that "when the funders of vanity publications die or simply move on, the zeal of the heirs for propping up their babies may wane," Erik Wemple points out: "Just look at the summer’s headlines regarding Newsweek."

The link is to a late-July Reuters piece, "Exclusive: IAC takes control of Newsweek Daily Beast from Harmans," which begins:

The family of late billionaire stereo magnate Sidney Harman has stopped investing in the Newsweek Daily Beast Co joint venture that it co-owns with Barry Diller's IAC/InterActiveCorp, according to representatives of both companies.

IAC said it continues to subsidize Newsweek Daily Beast's operations, and as a result its initial 50 percent interest in the joint venture has grown into a controlling stake.

The Harman family confirmed its ownership stake has been diluted by its decision to cap contributions to the loss-making venture, but would not give a figure. The family plans to maintain a minimum level of ownership in the venture, according to a source familiar with the situation.

Jane Harman, the former Democratic congresswoman from California [one of DWT's least favorite Dem congresscritters -- Ed.] who has overseen the estate's interest since her husband's death in April 2011, will remain on the company's board and participate in conferences and other media events it organizes, according to the family.

"The Harman family remains supportive partners in the business of Newsweek Daily Beast, including service on the Board by Jane Harman and family participation in various informal roles," the Harman family said in a statement to Reuters.

"However, given the death of Sidney Harman, who was actively involved in the Newsweek Daily Beast business, the Harman trust has indicated that it does not intend to make further capital contributions to the venture." . . .

Although the cause is far from lost (insiders point to all sorts of financially positive-ish developments), Newsweek Daily Beast is looking like yet another spectacular media whiff for Mistress Tina.

#