The Murdoch Empire's Greatest Test

[Stavros]

Rupert Murdoch inspires, for some it's admiration, for others hate, whichever way you look at it, he has created an Empire from small beginnings in Australia.

The 'phone hacking' scandal here in the UK, which seems to deepen every day, alleges collusion of the News of the World with private investigators bribing the police to get access to the mobile phone numbers, home addresses and personal details of:
abducted teenager Milly Dowler,
the parents of abducted girls Holly Wells and Jessica Simpson,
the families of the7/7 bombings in London;
families of servicemen and women who saw action in Iraq and Afghanistan -and, crucially
the police detective investigating the links between the News of the World and a private investigator, Jonathan Rees whose trial for the murder of his former partner Daniel Morgan in 1987 collapsed earlier this year.

Murdoch owns four newspaper titles in the UK and the largest share of cable tv -he wants now to buy up the rest. Is his Empire facing Imperial Overstretch? Has it grown so big that he cannot control its constituent parts, even with his son James in charge of the European Branch -?

The reputation of Murdoch's firm is taking a hammering now, and I note the share price has fallen on the NYSE -however, at the moment this makes them attractive to buy, with the prospect of him getting his hands on the share of the UK cable market he doesn't yet own looking like a good long term investment -BUT, the full revelations of what News International has been doing, and its links to criminal actvities, may yet damage the share price further -there comes a point where an attractive buy becomes a liability.

Has Murdoch, whose UK best-sellers, The Sun and the News of the World, are famous for being trash, met his come uppance, using grubby methods to print lurid trash?

[Prospero]

Cynical move by Murdoch in closing News Of The World - making 200 people redundant but sparing those at the heart of the scandal. It's reported Rebekah Brooks offered to resign last night but Murdoch refused. What kind of hold does she have over him?

News Corp journalists should strike in support of those losing their jobs.

[hippifried]

News Corp journalists should strike in support of those losing their jobs.

Oh? Against whom? Why would anybody care if people who are out of work are refusing to go to work. How much solidarity do you think they can garner?

[robertlouis]

Cynical move by Murdoch in closing News Of The World - making 200 people redundant but sparing those at the heart of the scandal. It's reported Rebekah Brooks offered to resign last night but Murdoch refused. What kind of hold does she have over him?



Rebeka clearly has the photos of the Dirty Digger and the under-age wallaby.

[robertlouis]

Oh? Against whom? Why would anybody care if people who are out of work are refusing to go to work. How much solidarity do you think they can garner?

The print unions in the UK were a byword for militancy and restrictive practices until Murdoch took them on during the 80s and pretty much kicked off the revolution in print media we've seen ever since.

It will be interesting to see if there is any residual power or will in the NUJ, for example, among the journalist staff on the other Murdoch UK titles - The Times, The Sun and The Sunday Times. That said, industrial law in the UK has shifted to the extent that it is now possible for industrial action against the same employer by similar staff in circumstances like these can be construed as secondary action and therefore, with the appropriate qualifications, illegal.

Anyway, The Sun on Sunday will almost certainly be launched within the next two months, and the sensation-seeking lemmings amongst the newspaper buying public will no doubt be only too eager to forgive and forget so that they can regain access to celebrity scandals.

Cynical, moi??? :whistle:

[Prospero]

My view - 1. Rebekah has been left in place as the last line of defence (and possible future scapegoat if needed) to guard direct family involvement.
2. There will be a new lower cost sunday paper. News Int already losing money and there will be cuts at Sunday Times soon (sections to vanish. Already being planned)
3. The key to it all is the biggest prize - ownership of the rest of BskyB... with Murdoch wanted to have seemed to have acted decisevely to root out evildoers from the News Of The World. Tories can now with clear conscience (HAH!) allow this appalling deal to go through.

The BskyB deal, with the eventual mortal damage it can inflict on the BBC, plays into a wider Tory vision - a plan to destroy two of the greatest creations of 20th century Britain, the BBC (already suffering deaths from a 1,000 cuts and perceived as a bastion of Liberal-left ideas) and the NHS - which the Tories want to see privatised. They are already well on the road to destroying the state education system.

[Edwoodwoodwood]

Lex Luther v Rupert Murdoch one & the same. Where the fuck is Superman when you need him?



http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQd8Mxuwj_9Qzf3nv0C5WXJnvP6kdNYA t3w5KOohWNMM3865uef



http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4Cbm4IdjSCvg58kgM6BBJB5X12Suk4 vD8e-GSU5jXPI5FpUbAeUYsvQzu

[Stavros]

a plan to destroy two of the greatest creations of 20th century Britain, the BBC (already suffering deaths from a 1,000 cuts and perceived as a bastion of Liberal-left ideas) and the NHS

On the one hand I am disappointed that the scandal has not generated much discussion on some hugely important topics about modern communications, the moral depravity and simple criminality that can accompany the search for 'truth' and so on. On the other hand, there are deeper issues that can slip people's notice. The problem for me is that the glories of the BBC lie in its past, and often in its position as the 'university' of broadcasting producing outstanding technicians and even journalists. I think the world of communications is changing in so many ways that it is heading into a future much more diffuse than the world in which there was either the BBC or ITV and nothing else.

I buy a newspaper once a week, on Saturday, whereas I used at one time to buy a newspaper every day -I rely on the web for my access to papers; online information has made hard print almost redundant and I think Murdoch understands this. I also now resent the licence fee, as I no longer regard the BBC as a centre of excellence in broadcasting, even if I agree it might just be going through a bad period. Even Radio 3 is not what it used to be, too much of it is barely different from classic fm, if I wanted to listen to that I would; I don't.

Its about the raison d'etre of this organisation in a world where tv is just one part of the communications cosmos and no longer the most important part. If it goes, it will probably be replaced by a BBC that is privately owned and probably still feeds the public dancing competitions, cooking competitions, news programmes and wildlife shows. The question is, does it matter? And, if it had to survive from subscriptions and advertising revenue, what of the BBC as it is now would indeed survive?

[Prospero]

I think that your jaundiced view of the BBC stems from the vulgarisation that has been inherent in its jiggling for ratings in the modern media firmament. I agree it is no longer the centre for excellence it once was. The Reithian vision has long since become unacceptable to post-modernists who can't see any value difference between a toasted t-cake and a Mondrian. So that the notion of "high culture" with all its dubious elitism is wholly repugnant. However a properly funded BBC slimmed won to a core of quality documentary making, news and high end music and drama would still be better than allowing mere market forces to dominate. The slippage from grace of C4 for instance - after Jeremy isaacs' founding vision - has been profound. On ITV now, unless you want police drama, quiz games or soaps, there is virtually nothing to see. You resent the licence fee - but if the BBC vanishes you'll pay a lot more for Sky. It is also worth remembering the range of good radio provided by the BBC - Radio 4, Radio 3 - and the world service. let the BBC die and we lose much that is irreplaceable.

[Stavros]

It is also worth remembering the range of good radio provided by the BBC - Radio 4, Radio 3 - and the world service. let the BBC die and we lose much that is irreplaceable.

Your defence of the BBC is absolutely right, and I agree with it. I can't get a signal for most channels where I live and would not subscribe to Sky even if I did, and had the money for it. We did not have a tv in our house until I was I think 9 years old; and I went for years without a tv in the 1970s and again in the 1990s and it made no difference to my life, but I admit in those years I listened to the BBC radio constantly, even The Archers for a while, though that didn't survive and in retrospect I can't believe I even did it.

The question remains, can a broadcaster like the BBC survive in a world where communications is changing so radically, particularly if it had to rely on subscriptions? I think if the BBC for example, broadcast major sporting events like the World Cup Football, Wimbledon and so on it would, if it lost those it would struggle.
But is the generation of people coming after me going to rely on the BBC for news and entertainment?

[Prospero]

Will people reply on BBC for news and entertainment? Not for entertainment for sure and - probably not for news. The web does it so swiftly. But for good drama, good documentary films... I hope so. Who does it better. In the US the last bastion of documentaries is HBO and PBS - and you pay for one and the other spends days every few months appealing for cash to keep going. It just like they said TV would kill radio and it didn't and i don't think e-books will kills real books. There is a widening horizon and some thing will fall away. But TV will be needed also for things like sport - though if Sky are allowed to expand their huge spending power will overwhelm the BBC. When your favourite sportgoes to sky you bite the bullet. (I have no favourite sport I'd pay for so i'm not bothered) But a mate just said he would now have to pay for sky because it has acquired Formula One. And so it goes.

[Stavros]

For anyone who is interested, Peter Oborne -a well-informed conservative- in todays Telegraph makes some interesting claims:
Tony Blair called Gordon Brown when the latter was Prime Minister, asking him to stop a Labour MP (Tom watson) from pursuing Murdoch in the House of Commons over phone hacking;
That the Conservatives are split into two camps: George Osborne, Chancellor is heavily pro-Murdoch and was instrumental in getting a cool David Cameron to warm to Murdoch and hire Andy Coulson;
Cameron's gut has always turned away from the Murdoch machine, his need for their endorsement in The Sun forced him to seeks its radiation; he is contaminated and can't get out of the situation;
fundamentally, Murdoch's 'values' run counter to the boring old values of old England -respect for the monarchy and the law, a belief that people with famly problems (as in footballers, actors, 'celebrities') should be allowed to sort them out in private...

I am trying to think of a greater political crisis to engulf this country since I was born -this is far bigger and more comprehensive than Blair's transparent lies over Iraq.

Oborne's article is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8626421/Phone-hacking-David-Cameron-is-not-out-of-the-sewer-yet.html

[Prospero]

This is excellent stuff. The founder of the Independent writes in today's paper warning that he believes this could led to Rupert Murdoch being extradited from the US to face trial.

[Stavros]

I wonder what Murdoch thinks he can do by flying in to the country. It would be naive to think that any seriosly incriminating emails and documents have not by now been shredded or destroyed, my guess his real motivation is not to appear contrite to the 'general public' but to have private conversations with Cameron and Osborne to make sure his attempt to buy the rest of BSkyB is not delayed or denied. The most toxic issue is the collapse of the trial of Jonathan Rees and the ramifications of News International colluding with the police to spy on the detective who tried to move it forward on Crimewatch a few years ago, before the trial was halted. Its big because its not just about News International's contempt for the law, but the Metropolitan Police's contempt for it also, and because Cameron was aware of these issues -and none of this would even be in the public domain had the News of the World not reported on Prince Williams' strained knee...how curious that some of the most toxic scandals begin with a bland, almost pointless story....but I'm still watching the share price, that's where the crisis for Murdoch will deepen, particularly if he doesn't get the BSkyB deal -as the other deep throat said: Follow the Money....

[robertlouis]

I wonder what Murdoch thinks he can do by flying in to the country. It would be naive to think that any seriosly incriminating emails and documents have not by now been shredded or destroyed, my guess his real motivation is not to appear contrite to the 'general public' but to have private conversations with Cameron and Osborne to make sure his attempt to buy the rest of BSkyB is not delayed or denied. The most toxic issue is the collapse of the trial of Jonathan Rees and the ramifications of News International colluding with the police to spy on the detective who tried to move it forward on Crimewatch a few years ago, before the trial was halted. Its big because its not just about News International's contempt for the law, but the Metropolitan Police's contempt for it also, and because Cameron was aware of these issues -and none of this would even be in the public domain had the News of the World not reported on Prince Williams' strained knee...how curious that some of the most toxic scandals begin with a bland, almost pointless story....but I'm still watching the share price, that's where the crisis for Murdoch will deepen, particularly if he doesn't get the BSkyB deal -as the other deep throat said: Follow the Money....


And let's not forget The Guardian's honourable role in sticking with the story when others had been intimidated or bought off. The paper was denigrated by none other than the Press Complaints Commission a few years ago for its dogged pursuit of a case which the PCC had declared to have no foundation - and if News International and the Met have serious cases to answer, so does that disgraced quango.

Yes, the diffusion of media and the immediacy of the net have certainly transformed the production, reception and interpretation of news, but we must not lose the longer-term work that dogged and principled print journalists perform in all of our best interests. Well done Alan Rusbridger and his team for keeping one light shining in an otherwise stygian and filthy gloom.

Am I a Guardian reader? Yes, I get the paper on subscription, and its Sunday sister, the Observer. And I have never bought a single Murdoch product either, whether in print or on TV.

[robertlouis]

I broke for coffee, as I do every Saturday lunchtime, to listen to The Now Show on Radio 4, and enjoyed an impassioned speech by John Finnemore (who, incidentally writes and stars in one of Radio 4' s finest comedies, Cabin Pressure), in which he made the point that this could be one of the sadly few occasions in which those who rule us actually listen to what we are saying, and taking it seriously. He then urged everyone to keep the noise alive for as long as it takes for fundamental changes to occur in the relationships between the media, politicians and the police. I hope we follow his advice.

It's available on the Now Show podcast, by the way.

As for Murdoch flying in, for once he's on the floor, and it's in the interest of a free press and a continuing broadcasting polity in the UK that we keep kicking him till the old bastard cries "Enough!", because if NI does gain total control of BskyB, make no bones about it, one of the touchstones of Britain's well-earned reputation as an independent voice in the world, the BBC, could be silenced for ever.

I'm now listening to the repeat of Any Questions from Friday night, which is devoted entirely to the NoW/NI scandal.

Oh, and Rebeka Wade is still in place. *SMH*

[Stavros]

RLS your praise for The Guardian on this story is more than deserved, it could be as historically important as the Washington Post's determination to get to the core of the Watergate Scandal in the 1970s. I turned against The Guardian some years ago because of the lies Suzanne Goldenberg told about the Palestine/Israel conflict when she reported from there, and also another story which featured a company I worked for which was full of factual errors a simple search on Google could have corrected -a fault mostly, I admit, of commentators presumably freelance journalists: I also turned to The Independent to follow Robert Fisk but generally feel British print journalism leaves a lot to be desired.

However, in this case, The Guardian has regained my respect, if not my money, for both its determination, and the scope of its coverage. The Times, by contrast, is quite simply a disgrace. These days I read The Daily Telegraph with more interest than The Times -even five years ago I would never even have glanced at it.

[robertlouis]

RLS your praise for The Guardian on this story is more than deserved, it could be as historically important as the Washington Post's determination to get to the core of the Watergate Scandal in the 1970s. I turned against The Guardian some years ago because of the lies Suzanne Goldenberg told about the Palestine/Israel conflict when she reported from there, and also another story which featured a company I worked for which was full of factual errors a simple search on Google could have corrected -a fault mostly, I admit, of commentators presumably freelance journalists: I also turned to The Independent to follow Robert Fisk but generally feel British print journalism leaves a lot to be desired.

However, in this case, The Guardian has regained my respect, if not my money, for both its determination, and the scope of its coverage. The Times, by contrast, is quite simply a disgrace. These days I read The Daily Telegraph with more interest than The Times -even five years ago I would never even have glanced at it.

Thanks for that, Stavros. These days I tend to tolerate the Torygraph a little more - it has become less slavish over the years.

The paper in the UK that I despise more than any other, however, is the Daily Mail. Still owned and run by the family that openly supported Hitler and the fascists right up to the break of war, and with an agenda out to demonise every minority in the UK and terrify its readership. What the NoW did behind the scenes was beneath contempt, but for its editorial and general content, the Mail is in a disreputable class of its own.

[Stavros]

The paper in the UK that I despise more than any other, however, is the Daily Mail

It remains to be seen how wide the hacking scandal goes and what media outlets in addition to Murdoch's used tainted goods. What would really hit Murdoch would be evidence of hacking into the phones of American politicians or celebrities, in America or the UK...Murdoch may have a soft spot for newspapers, but his empire is built on tv (if not TV's ha-ha) and a threat to the American market would truly rock his world...who and or what was in the frame in America from say 2001-2007?

[Prospero]

Twitterati today posting this 07900675949 as the mobile number for News Int chief Rebekah Brooks.

Sunday Times cyncically say the whole furore is a plot by Lab, Lib Dems and the wider media to attack the sainty Rupert and that he has been the greatest and most important force for good in british media in recent years.

And they try to spread the blame - claiming that the misdeeds of the news of The World are surely common among other papers.

That's the blurring being pursued also by the Conservatives.

[Stavros]

To say 'they were all at it' is missing the point: the Telegraph exposed the scandal over MP's expenses by printing data that had been, in effect, stolen from the House of Commons by the ex-military researchers/aids who worked there. Wikileaks published in The Guardian and the Telegraph are not documents released under the Freedom of Information Act -my wonder is that we could not have got the MP's expenses details legally under the FOI although it would have been a fight: also, is this why some of these scandals don't take place in the USA where the Freedom of Information Act is more robust?

However, hacking into the phones of murder victims -there comes a point when the difference between Murdoch and the rest is separated by clear blue something, and it isn't water. Apparently a lot of the evidence from Glen Mulcaire's stash was in bin bags in Scotland Yard and nobody seemed to know what was in them...

Murdoch could of course sell off all his newspapers and wouldn't lose much money: he is ruthless enough to do it, but has to receive a guarantee from Osborne and Cameron that he will get BSkyB -if he doesn't then the next week or so will be interesting...I have no respect for The Times or its Sunday sister.

[Miss Aeryn]

It most definitely is going to be a very interesting upcoming week, both for the UK and also globally, given Murdoch's bid here in Australia with Sky News.

It's also been fascinating to watch all the politicians come out from under their hardened desk table structures, no longer afraid of being the next scandal headline and uniting against Murdoch Empire to get a quick boot in on the temorarily immobilized form before they scurry back under again in due course.

Just fascinating :)

[Stavros]

Australia also has a vibrant Freedom of Information Act that makes it harder to peddle scandals the truth of which can be found out with an application under the Act; but certainly you are right about the svengali-like hold this man has had over our feeble politicians. Is Ms Gillard his bird, anyway? As in cheep-cheep...

[zocco]

the shadow of Murdoch hangs very darkly over Australia as well
his influence over politicians here is huge
the only ones unaffected seem to be the greens who are pilloried daily in the Murdoch papers
bringing the News Ltd empire down will be no bad thing

[robertlouis]

It most definitely is going to be a very interesting upcoming week, both for the UK and also globally, given Murdoch's bid here in Australia with Sky News.

It's also been fascinating to watch all the politicians come out from under their hardened desk table structures, no longer afraid of being the next scandal headline and uniting against Murdoch Empire to get a quick boot in on the temorarily immobilized form before they scurry back under again in due course.

Just fascinating :)

We seem to share the same level of cynicism, Aeryn! :)

What's going to be most interesting here in the UK is just how many knots Cameron and Osborne tie themselves into to ensure that the BskyB deal goes through as as clearly been promised; deals have been done.

And if it does, is it the beginning of the end for Cameron? And if it doesn't, is it also the end for Cameron? Murdoch is in a class of his own when it comes to dirty tricks, and possibly has it within his power to destroy the entire political class in the UK, with the exception, ironically, of the Lib Dems, simply because he has consistently ignored them since the 1960s.

My sister and brother-in-law are flying in from Sydney tomorrow, so it will be interesting to get their perspective on the Australian end of things. I'll keep you posted.

[Prospero]

It most definitely is going to be a very interesting upcoming week, both for the UK and also globally, given Murdoch's bid here in Australia with Sky News.

It's also been fascinating to watch all the politicians come out from under their hardened desk table structures, no longer afraid of being the next scandal headline and uniting against Murdoch Empire to get a quick boot in on the temorarily immobilized form before they scurry back under again in due course.

Just fascinating :)

Miss Aeryn.... you refer to Murdoch's bid "here in Australia with Sky News." is there a Sky Australia or does his british service show out there? if there is is he trying to extend his empire there too?

Today Murdoch is in London and when asked by a reporter what he was defending he pointing to Rebekah Wade and simply said "her." Now what DOES she have on the dirty digger

[Stavros]

I don't know what it is about Rebekah Brooks that seems to send men into a frenzy, even I have a personal fetish for women with flowing red hair like hers - for reasons I prefer not to be frank about.

Anyway, some snippets from the press:

BSkyB's share price is falling as I speak: that complicates the share purchase -in fact if it falls far enough it will be in crisis, and if the Govt does delay the Murdoch bid and I think it has to now, this could make BSkyB an attractive buy for someone else -the remaining shares ares still there to be bought by a predator, it doesn't have to be NewsCorp -I wonder if the Qatari's are interested in it?

James Cameron, according to today's Indepenent used to have a life size cardbour cut-out of Darth Vader outside his office.

The same article quotes someone from the govt who is furious with Murdoch for persisting with the BSkyB deal:
We always knew we were going to have to eat a shit sandwich over the BSkyB deal," said one. "We didn't know it would turn into a three course dinner."

The volume of lies and cover-ups on this story give it the Watergate dimension: what did Vaclav Havel say when the ancien regime collapsed in 1989?
Lying can never save us from another lie...

[Prospero]

A Qatari purchase of Sky would be interesting and out them in direct competion with their own operation Al Jazeera - which is limbering up for a Middle eastern tussle against Sky Arabia, due to launch next spring. That'd be interesting. Al-Jazeera is an excellent news service. The Qatari royals do not meddle - and it has won its spurs by being called biased by both the Palestinians and israel. So its coverage myst be striving to be as objective as any news operation can be. Hugh Miles book on the creation and early years of al-Jazeera is a must-read for those interested in whole global media works.

[Stavros]

I think also that the volume of print and broadcast media owned by one company in the UK should also be an issue -it seems odd that Thatcherites (albeit damp ones) have not called for more competition in this market -except of course Osborne is in the Murdoch camp; I guess there are not many corporations with the cash to buy BSkyB anyway...unless it ends up at £1 a share....thanks for the Hugh Miles ref, I will get onto that subito...

[Prospero]

Hot off the press... gov just issues this - a Statement from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.


"The consultation on undertakings in lieu offered by News Corporation in relation to their proposed merger with BSkyB closes at midday today. The Secretary of State has always been clear that he will take as long as is needed to reach a decision.

The Secretary of State will consider carefully all the responses submitted and take advice from Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading before reaching his decision. Given the volume of responses, we anticipate that this will take some time. He will consider all relevant factors including whether the announcement regarding the News of the World’s closure has any impact on the question of media plurality."

[Stavros]

According to the BBC's Emily Maitlis there will be a news 'bombshell' at 5pm, I have also seen a rumour that Murdoch is getting rid of News International -all of it! In other words he will dump newspapers for TV...situation at 3.22pm

[Prospero]

Announcement on News Int due at 4.30 according to BBC twitters
My own inside knowledge from a few weeks back already revealed that S Times is in deep financial turd and planning to close or merge certain sections, so Murdoch could be about to sell the whole thing off - making him simply a TV magnate in the UK. Harder to complain or stop that part of his plan then, eh

[Prospero]

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/07/08/influence-explored-murdochs-money-media-influences-politics-the-world-over/

[robertlouis]

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/07/08/influence-explored-murdochs-money-media-influences-politics-the-world-over/

Latest on Radio 5 - The Sun and The Sunday Times hacked into Gordon Brown's phones and other personal media when he was Chancellor, and Brown is in the chamber of the House ready to speak, with full commons privilege, if the need arises. Good - this spreads the shit river away from the lonely scapegoat of the NotW and deeper into the heart of the Murdoch empire.

If at the end of this he comes away owning all of BskyB it will be a craven acceptance that he actually rules the UK, not the democratically-elected government. Heady times.

[robertlouis]

Chris Bryant MP in the house right now - Brown's sons' medical records have also been hacked. Milly Dowler territory. Bastards

[Miss Aeryn]

Latest on Radio 5 - The Sun and The Sunday Times hacked into Gordon Brown's phones and other personal media when he was Chancellor, and Brown is in the chamber of the House ready to speak, with full commons privilege, if the need arises. Good - this spreads the shit river away from the lonely scapegoat of the NotW and deeper into the heart of the Murdoch empire.

If at the end of this he comes away owning all of BskyB it will be a craven acceptance that he actually rules the UK, not the democratically-elected government. Heady times.

I like the way you think too lol :)

All that needs to happen is that poo river to hit News Ltd here and :party: time

[Stavros]

I could write a very long and hostile message about Gordon Brown's political career in the last 15 years or so, but there are limits and it doesn't matter to me who it is, Sarah Palin or Sarah Brown, sick children, murdered schoolgirls: this is depraved, offensive, and takes the scandal into the areas of the Murdoch empire they didn't want it to reach. It also makes the police enquiries look even worse than they were, and we still haven't heard the last of these revelations. Can News International survive this week? At some point soon the main investors must start to ask serious questions about the financial security of their shareholding, and even the ethical dimension of owning this cess-pit of lies and criminality.

[robertlouis]

I like the way you think too lol :)

All that needs to happen is that poo river to hit News Ltd here and :party: time

I could write a very long and hostile message about Gordon Brown's political career in the last 15 years or so, but there are limits and it doesn't matter to me who it is, Sarah Palin or Sarah Brown, sick children, murdered schoolgirls: this is depraved, offensive, and takes the scandal into the areas of the Murdoch empire they didn't want it to reach. It also makes the police enquiries look even worse than they were, and we still haven't heard the last of these revelations. Can News International survive this week? At some point soon the main investors must start to ask serious questions about the financial security of their shareholding, and even the ethical dimension of owning this cess-pit of lies and criminality.
1 Hour Ago 07:12 PM



Crikey Aeryn, you're up early (or very late!). It's moving by the minute over here, and Stavros' latest post suggests the possibility of News Int going down the tubes totally because of shareholder jitters.

Mind you, the govt got themselves off the merger hook by referring, at Murdoch's request (hah!), the proposed sale to the Competition Commission which effectively does away with the "fit and proper persons" test and leaves it down to the lawyers. Add in that the closure of the NotW actually reduces NI's percentage holding of the total UK media market, and the possibility of the deal being nodded through increases, at least in the narrow context of competition law.

Bloody hell!

[Prospero]

Well Murdoch is a sly one. By withdrawing offer to spin off Sky News has forced the Government to refer the whole thing to Competition Commission. That'll take a year or so to decide which effectively cools things for him on that front - and if he has to shut the papers, well he will. Big bucks from TV not much from depleted paper empire. Murdoch is such an operator I bet he'll get what he wants eventually. Bastard.

[Stavros]

So far the news has focused on Brown and now the involvement of The Sun and The Sunday Times, expanding rather than contracting the scandal. But at some point we have to face the most explosive issue: the police had the evidence that the law had been broken, and insisted they had prosecuted the 'rogue' journalist -Clive Goodman- and the private investigator, Glen Mulcaire. It is now obvious that either this was an expedient way to 'deal with Murdoch' without destroying News International, or our boys in blue are not just useless at police work, but are on the take even when they are 'guarding' the Head of State and her Family! If its the former, maybe someone said at one time -'we can't do this, hundreds of people will lose their jobs and the courts will be showered with lawsuits' but Murdoch sacks them anyway...he is a ruthless businessman which is why if the main shareholders of NewsCorp get the jitters, he has to take action -but his biographer Michael Wolff on Channel 4 tonight thinks its all over for the Quiet American...

[zocco]

i am sure this will spread even further
it may be bye bye for Murdoch in England and with luck other places as well

[tsdvdman]

What's interesting is that the American media over-exposed and consumed us with every little detail of the "royal wedding", but the coverage on this is quick and "spotty" at best. I can understand why Fox News isn't covering it , but these other major news organizations (The few Rupert doesn't have his hand in) should be covering this as ongoing breaking news.

[robertlouis]

Great exchange on Radio 5 the other day, where they had a call between a bereaved father from the 7/7 bombings who had been told that his family's voicemails had been hacked, and on the other end, News International's hapless official spokesman.

Spokesman: " I can only apologise for what happened. It was deplorable and inexcusable. If you give me your number......"

Father: "You've already got my bloody number - that's what this is all about. Just how stupid are you?"

[robertlouis]

Your overnight reporter signing off for the time being......

In the middle of all the turmoil, it seems likely that for at least some of today (Tuesday), the spotlight will be turned on one senior Metropolitan Police officer in particular, John Yates, for admitting yesterday that his "review" of the 2007 investigation amounted to no more than a cursory look at brief summaries which were already available, without any recourse to the actual documentation for the case.

It was on that basis and on his recommendation that the case was closed.

Once again, thank goodness for the Guardian's persistence.

The senior end of the Met is up to its grubby little elbows over this, whether they were in receipt of largesse from News Int, were possibly being blackmailed for personal indiscretions (already documented affairs), or were being leaned on by even more senior individuals to stay in good relations with the Murdoch empire.

Whatever the reason, it stinks, and for once, let's hope heads roll at the right level.

[Stavros]

I think in this case the corruption is pervasive and reaches into such top levels a shake-down is inevitable, John Yates is living on borrowed time. The revelations on Brown's son also put Rebekah Brooks more squarely into the frame as editor of The Sun at the time -how did The Sun get the boy's medical records? Did she never ask her journalist for the source? Its as disgusting as the time they tried to get a photo of Russell Harty when he was dying of an Aids related illness.

Anyway, some of the smaller shareholders are suing NewsCorp in Delaware (where most corporations in the US are registered for tax purposes) -but their influence as shareholders is minimal -Murdoch owns rougly 30% of the shares of NewsCorp, the second biggest shareholder, Kingdom Holding Company (owned by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal al-Saud) has 7%. But this also means that as the share price falls so does Murdoch's personal stake -nevertheless, its the 2nd biggest media company after Disney, raking in $25bn+ a year; my guess is that if it gets worse, Murdoch will abandon the UK altogether.

[Prospero]

I was talking last night to some friends who live half the year in Australia and Murdoch's holdings there are bigger than I knew - two TV networks and many,many newspapers. Yet he is also something of a local hero - even though he dumped his citizenship years ago to annex America. His mother, still alive though now past 100, is often asked by reporters about Rupert and fends them off. On her hundredth birthday party it is said that Rupert was about to leave when, in front of hundreds of the assembled high and mighty of Australia, his mum called across the room - come back Rupert, you haven't kissed your mother goodnight. So he does kowtow to someone.

I share your expectation that at some point soon Murdoch will probably choose to divest himself of his press interests in the UK. That will cut the ground away from all suggestions he has too many media interests here. But OFCOM could still judge him unfit - which media commentators yesterday suggested would mean him selling SKY in the UK.

Interesting to see his tie up with the Saudis. His new service Sky Arabia, due in the spring, has backing from the royal family of the UAE. Now why didn't he get the Queen on board for Sky UK. Maybe THAT"S why his hench people needed her number.


"Yeah though i walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I will fear no evil - for I'm the biggest bastard in the valley." Rupert.

"It's the end of the world as we know it, but I feel fine" REM - a song for Rupert and rebekah

[Stavros]

There is a fairly comprehensive list of assets, including those obscure little Australian things, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#Shareholders

Ironically, the Queen banks with Coutts, I don't know what brokers they use but I wil assume she has unit trusts, and that one or more of Murdoch's interests are in the basket, as it were. Something about hands and biting comes to mind...

[robertlouis]

Messrs Yates and Clarke from the Met in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee live right now on Radio 5. For once, riveting stuff.

[Prospero]

It's all fine and good for all three parties to agree to "call upon" Murdoch to withdraw his bid for BskyB... but that actually has no impact in law. And if he does divest himself of the rest of NI then it might well be that the competition commission won't be able to reject his bid.

This outcome could - actually - be bad for journalism and plurality. If Murdoch's News Corp board intervene and, as is suggested, get their way and compel him to sell off his remaining UK papers - including The Times and Sunday Times which he has degraded, but kept alive through troubled loss-making times. Cut loose from his global billions they simply might not survive - I think that would generally be a loss - whatever your political views.

Murdoch is a smart player. he my yet get exactly what he wants.

Oh and I see that this is now beginning to spill over in the US - with the NY Times leading on it and News Corp shares taking a real hit on the US Stock Exchange.

[Stavros]

Years ago we were told computing was sending us to a paperless society -the police yesterday admitted they have literally thousands of documents to go through, and have yet to identify all of the 4,000 people whose phones were hacked. It was on the news yesterday evening also, that its possible taps were put on land-line phones, and homes broken into as part of the News International campaign -and so far noone has mentioned hacking into computers which I would expect....this isn't a rotten barrel, its a coal mine of dirt...

[robertlouis]

Years ago we were told computing was sending us to a paperless society -the police yesterday admitted they have literally thousands of documents to go through, and have yet to identify all of the 4,000 people whose phones were hacked. It was on the news yesterday evening also, that its possible taps were put on land-line phones, and homes broken into as part of the News International campaign -and so far noone has mentioned hacking into computers which I would expect....this isn't a rotten barrel, its a coal mine of dirt...

STOP PRESS. News International has withdrawn its bid for BskyB. Where that leaves Murdoch's strategy for his empire is anyone's guess - given that it seems to have been pretty well predicated on seizure of all of Sky's revenues as it moves into serious profit.

So he's lost the best-selling Sunday newspaper, plus its profits, withdrawn from this attempt to get hold of the jewel in the crown, the UK's politicians seem to have grown their balls back, and for what?

Saving a red-headed editor and gaining the wrath of shareholders on both sides of the Atlantic.

It doesn't look good, Rupe.

[Prospero]

Ahh but Rebekah does have a gorgeous head of hair, doesn't she. it would be a shame if she ended up as just another presenter on Britain's Got Talent or something.
But Rupert - yep I reckon the knackers yard beckons. Who is that tapping on his shoulder wearing a dark robe and armed with a scythe?

[Miss Aeryn]

it ain't over till the fat lady sings lol

[Stavros]

I don't think the full force of the reputation issue has hit NewsCorp in the USA yet, although some of the smaller shareholders are taking their own company to court over the Shine deal, NewsCorps share price rallied after the news. If there are issues that matter in American that will make it worse for Murdoch, its: the bribing of police officers: if proven in court here, that will make NewsCorp liable to US law.
Murdoch has 'saved' $8bn not buying BSkyB but spent $5bn of it on a share buy-back -ultimately its his control of the Company and his inability or refusal to change the journalistic 'practices'/dark arts at the top level in News International that could see his Empire fall to pieces. I doubt he will remain in the UK to go before a Parliamentary committee.
BP was considered 'too big' to fail, is the same true of NewsCorp? If it collapsed, it would surely just mean other players taking up those assets -?

I also note that our American friends don't seem to have much to say on this story.

[robertlouis]

Steve Bell in today's Guardian.

Perfect.

[Stavros]

What would we do without Steve Bell's cartoon terrrorism? Brilliant!

Now we have to suffer the embarrassment of watching the moral guardians of the universe throw shit at Ms Brooks and whichever of the Murdochs bothers to turn up to the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee -after her gaffe a few years ago when she said 'We have paid the police for information' which the same committee failed to follow up (as in, having Ms Brooks arrested) we now expect these people to do what? Are these people going to incriminate themselves? What about seeing them in a court of law -that's where people who break the law should go -if they have indeed done this. What should be a serious investigation is becoming a circus...I want the truth, but not this way.

[Miss Aeryn]

Oh please, o please yes...

The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/national/push-on-for-media-inquiry-20110714-1hg7n.html)


THE fallout from the Murdoch phone-hacking scandal in Britain could reach Australia, where there is a growing push from politicians for an independent inquiry into the media.

The government is considering backing a Greens move for a Senate or independent inquiry that would include media ownership laws, newspaper self-regulation, journalist ethics and opinion masquerading as news.

[robertlouis]

What would we do without Steve Bell's cartoon terrrorism? Brilliant!

Now we have to suffer the embarrassment of watching the moral guardians of the universe throw shit at Ms Brooks and whichever of the Murdochs bothers to turn up to the Culture, Media, and Sport Committee -after her gaffe a few years ago when she said 'We have paid the police for information' which the same committee failed to follow up (as in, having Ms Brooks arrested) we now expect these people to do what? Are these people going to incriminate themselves? What about seeing them in a court of law -that's where people who break the law should go -if they have indeed done this. What should be a serious investigation is becoming a circus...I want the truth, but not this way.

I agree, Stavros, to the extent that they will take the UK equivalent of "pleading the fifth" and sit silently as questions are thrown at them. The Murdochs are, of course, flag-of-convenience US citizens, so the committee's scope for dealing withe them is limited. Not so Ms Brooks, who could be challenged further both within and beyond the remit of the committee.

Some interesting US input on Newsnight this evening which suggest that the FBI's interest in the affair is likely to develop pretty quickly, which could serve further to put the skids under Rupe's personal control of News Corp.

And Aeryn is helping to keep us up to date with events down under as well, where it appears that he is just as unpopular in his homeland as everywhere else.

[Stavros]

I have a suspicion that the FBI probe is a case of Democrats baiting NewsCorp for political capital at a time of maximum pressure over the debt negotiations. I am not sure when the hacking culture began, and here it was reliant on complicity with the police, I don't know if they were or would have been able to do it in the US in 2001. I am also now sceptical about Gordon Brown's rage in the commons, given Allison Pearson's claims in yesterday's Telegraph, not that I consider he a reliable witness to history. His personal relations with Brooks and Murdoch don't seem to have nose-dived when they made him cry...I think we are rapidly getting to a stage where some hard evidence in court needs to be proven, we are sinking in a blizzard of allegations, and ultimately, its the Metropolitan Police who are looking like the most vulnerable part of this.

[robertlouis]

I have a suspicion that the FBI probe is a case of Democrats baiting NewsCorp for political capital at a time of maximum pressure over the debt negotiations. I am not sure when the hacking culture began, and here it was reliant on complicity with the police, I don't know if they were or would have been able to do it in the US in 2001. I am also now sceptical about Gordon Brown's rage in the commons, given Allison Pearson's claims in yesterday's Telegraph, not that I consider he a reliable witness to history. His personal relations with Brooks and Murdoch don't seem to have nose-dived when they made him cry...I think we are rapidly getting to a stage where some hard evidence in court needs to be proven, we are sinking in a blizzard of allegations, and ultimately, its the Metropolitan Police who are looking like the most vulnerable part of this.

It's also been suggested that it's a Democrat tactic to gag or put a leash on the excesses of Fox News before the 2012 election. Is that credible?

Leaving aside one's opinions of Gordon Brown and his seeming reticence till this week, what sort of unspeakable arrogance was it that allowed Rebekah Brooks to think that she was the person who could decide when, where and how to announce to the world that the Browns' son had cystic fibrosis? And where the hell is the "public interest" element in that? Despicable beyond words.

[robertlouis]

Just announced - Rebekah Brooks has resigned.

And the whole saga creeps inexorably closer to the source.

[Prospero]

Excellent - the lightning conductor has been removed. Roll on the showdown next week.

[robertlouis]

Excellent - the lightning conductor has been removed. Roll on the showdown next week.

And Murdoch is coming to the commons to refute all the "lies" that have been told about his company. Sounds like the old bastard has finally lost it.

[Prospero]

Ho o ho... I'd not put it past the old fella to survive all of this and still emerge with the whole of BskyB in a few months.

[Stavros]

The second largest shareholder, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal was on Newsnight and stated categorically she had to go -and now she's gone, surely no coincidence. It was also pointed out in the Telegraph that hacking into a phone of someone who has melted in the World Trade Center is not going to succeed, presumably the argument will be that voicemails are stored and are not just on the sim card, but there were no reliable communications into New York that day, and how would a hacker of known who to hack other than any names that appeared in the news reports after the event. Barbara Boxer on Newsnight waffled on about the law, but so far there is no evidence of it being broken in the US -there, its politics pure and simple until someone comes up with hard facts, which we are still waiting to have tested in a court of law.

[robertlouis]

Ho o ho... I'd not put it past the old fella to survive all of this and still emerge with the whole of BskyB in a few months.


With it being Roop, I'd give it a 20% chance at best - anyone else 5%.

But against an odds-on certainty a month ago, it's shifted just a little.....

[Stavros]

I wonder what would have happened if Rupert Murdoch had retired when he was 65...

[gmercer]

I just saw this Fox & Freinds clip that really fucking pisses me off. These lying scumbag fuckers are claiming this NOTW hacking scandal is the same as all those other recent hacking scandals like what happened to Citicorp, and Bank Of America, so we should just move on. The only difference is those companies were HACKED INTO, and News of The World was DOING THE HACKING!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtC4gT-_Nj0&feature=player_embedded

This channel always pulls this type of bullshit because they know many of their viewers are too lazy to look things up for themselves and will accept this muddied version of reality that Fox presents as the truth.

[Ben]

The Blood on Murdoch's Hands

By DAVID SWANSON

Nailing Rupert Murdoch for his employees' phone tapping or bribery would be a little like bringing down Al Capone for tax fraud, or George W. Bush for torture. I'd be glad to see it happen but there'd still be something perverse about it.
I remember how outraged Americans were in 2005 learning about our government's warrantless spying, or for that matter how furious some of my compatriots become when a census form expects them to reveal how many bathrooms are in their home.
I'm entirely supportive of outrage. I just have larger crimes in mind. Specifically this:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

The Fox News Channel is endless propaganda for war, and various other deadly policies. As Robin Beste points out,
"Rupert Murdoch's newspapers and TV channels have supported all the US-UK wars over the past 30 years, from Margaret Thatcher and the Falklands war in 1982, through George Bush Senior and the first Gulf War in 1990-91, Bill Clinton's war in Yugoslavia in 1999 and his undeclared war on Iraq in 1998, George W. Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Tony Blair on his coat tails, and up to the present, with Barack Obama continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and now adding Libya to his tally of seven wars."
In this video (http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/iraq/621-rupert-murdoch-gotcha), Murdoch confesses to having used his media outlets to support the Iraq War and to having tried to shape public opinion in favor of the war. That is the very definition of propaganda for war.
The propaganda is, also by definition, part of the public record. Although that record speaks for itself, Murdoch has not been shy about adding his commentary. The week before the world's largest anti-war protests ever and the United Nation's rejection of the Iraq War in mid-February 2003, Murdoch told a reporter that in launching a war Bush was acting "morally" and "correctly" while Blair was "full of guts" and "extraordinarily courageous." Murdoch promoted the looming war as a path to cheap oil and a healthy economy. He said he had no doubt that Bush would be "reelected" if he "won" the war and the U.S. economy stayed healthy. That's not an idle statement from the owner of the television network responsible for baselessly prompting all of the other networks to call the 2000 election in Bush's favor during a tight race in Florida that Bush actually lost.
Murdoch's support for the Iraq War extended to producing support for that war from every one of his editors and talking heads. It would be interesting to know what Murdoch and Blair discussed in the days leading up to the war. But knowing that would add little, if anything, to the open-and-shut case against Murdoch as war propagandist. Murdoch had known the war was coming long before February 2003, and had long since put his media machine behind it.
Murdoch has been close to Blair and has now published his book -- a book that Blair has had difficulty promoting in London thanks to the protest organizing of the Stop the War Coalition. Yet Murdoch allowed Mick Smith to publish the Downing Street Memos in his Sunday Times. Murdoch's loyalty really seems to be to his wars, not his warmakers.
John Nichols describes three of those warmakers:
"When the war in Iraq began, the three international leaders who were most ardently committed to the project were US President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John Howard. On paper, they seemed like three very different political players: Bush was a bumbling and inexperienced son of a former president who mixed unwarranted bravado with born-again moralizing to hold together an increasingly conservative Republican Party; Blair was the urbane 'modernizer' who had transformed a once proudly socialist party into the centrist 'New Labour' project; Howard was the veteran political fixer who came up through the ranks of a coalition that mingled traditional conservatives and swashbuckling corporatists.
"But they had one thing in common. They were all favorites of Rupert Murdoch and his sprawling media empire, which began in Australia, extended to the 'mother country' of Britain and finally conquered the United States. Murdoch's media outlets had helped all three secure electoral victories. And the Murdoch empire gave the Bush-Blair-Howard troika courage and coverage as preparations were made for the Iraq invasion. Murdoch-owned media outlets in the United States, Britain and Australia enthusiastically cheered on the rush to war and the news that it was a 'Mission Accomplished.'"
Bribery is dirty stuff. So is sneaking a peak at the private messages of murder victims. But there's something even dirtier: murder, murder on the largest scale, murder coldly calculated and played out from behind a desk, in other words: war.
Murdoch is a major crime boss being threatened with parking tickets.
I hope he's brought down, but wish it were for the right reasons.
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee chased Richard Nixon out of town for the wrong reasons. The full House impeached Bill Clinton for the wrong reasons. And the worst thing the U.S. government has done in recent years, just like the worst thing News Corp. has done in recent years, has not been spying on us.
It's no secret what drove public anger at Nixon or what drives public anger at Murdoch. But, for the sake of historical precedent, it would be good for us to formally get it right.
Charge the man with selling wars!

David Swanson is a writer in Charlottesville, Va.

[hippifried]

I wonder what would have happened if Rupert Murdoch had retired when he was 65...
Olberman would be news director at FOX & O'Reilly would be preaching Marx.

[Stavros]

Hippifried your answer reveals an important difference: the dominance of TV in the USA, the enduring role of newspapers in the UK, even though they are facing circulation problems and people under the age of 25 are less likely to have any brand loyalty to a paper. Indeed it goes further as today's Guardian runs an article that claims the kind of tabloid sins we believe Murdoch's papers have committed (belief at the moment not confirmed by a court of law) could not happen in the USA where regulations are more rightly adhered to but, crucially perhaps, where newspapers are no longer on the front line of major breaking news stories -the article is linked below.

It makes me wonder how many Americans here read a newspaper -either online, or through purchase of hard copy -? I have gone from buying a paper every day to buying one once a week, and not the bloated Sunday's -I can't see the point of paying for 100 pages of newsprint if I am only going to read 30, if that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/15/rupert-murdoch-now-phone-hacking

[Prospero]

Stavros wrote: "I have gone from buying a paper every day to buying one once a week, and not the bloated Sunday's -I can't see the point of paying for 100 pages of newsprint if I am only going to read 30, if that."

Lot of people I know re now doing that. The trouble is how do you know which 30 pages you want to read. i get two papers every day and three on a saturday... and skim through to find the material I want to read. old habits die hard.

These days all the talk in the upper echelons of newspaper management is of diverting resources to build the on-line identity or brand in anticipation of the demise of the paper version. The Guardian in the UK plans to a 30-70 split of resources in favour of on-line. As more as more people get tablet computers and when electronic paper finally arrives, the old tree guzzling newspaper will die IMHO. But the e-readers haven't yet killed books. (Even if Amazon says sales of e books now out distance real books.)

[hippifried]

Hippifried your answer reveals an important difference: the dominance of TV in the USA, the enduring role of newspapers in the UK, even though they are facing circulation problems and people under the age of 25 are less likely to have any brand loyalty to a paper. Indeed it goes further as today's Guardian runs an article that claims the kind of tabloid sins we believe Murdoch's papers have committed (belief at the moment not confirmed by a court of law) could not happen in the USA where regulations are more rightly adhered to but, crucially perhaps, where newspapers are no longer on the front line of major breaking news stories -the article is linked below.

It makes me wonder how many Americans here read a newspaper -either online, or through purchase of hard copy -? I have gone from buying a paper every day to buying one once a week, and not the bloated Sunday's -I can't see the point of paying for 100 pages of newsprint if I am only going to read 30, if that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/15/rupert-murdoch-now-phone-hacking
US newspapers are local. There was no national newspaper till the '80s. & that was the ever sucky USA Today. Since then, there's been a huge rush to swallow up the locals in large & major markets, & to get the big papers distributed nationally, but all the nationals suck. Same goes for the cable news channels.

Lots of people read newspapers. There's over 300 million people here, in a country that's 3000 by 1500 miles. They just don't read the WSJ or the New York Times. Why should they? Most people in the US don't live in New York & don't give a shit about it. There's a whole lot more going on than you ever hear about on the networks or the internet.

[Prospero]

Hippiefried... "most people in the US don't live in New York and don't give a shit about it." It's not about New York though, is it? But The New York Times, now sold coast to coast, seems to this Brit who is a regular visitor to "obscure" bits of the USA to be the only American daily that even attempts to cover politics and current affairs from a global rather than local perspective. It's not about caring about what happens in NYC - for the met section of the paper isn't sold in Arizona or Nebraska - but the ret of the paper is a good read and widens the perspective of people. I suppose the WSJ used to do that well before it was guzzled down by Murdoch). Yes there are lot and lots of local city papers which may well do a good job in covering local politics. but The Baltimore Sun or Patriot ledger or even such old worthies as the Boston Globe or the Washington Post ...whatever ....certainly have to rely largely on agencies or syndicates for foreign news - in which there seems to be precious little interest among Americans outside of the wast Coast unless American boys are killing and getting killed someplace. When was the last time your local paper in Idaho or Utah carried stories about Burma, Brazil or Bangladesh?

[hippifried]

It's not about New York though, is it?

Yes. The NYT & WSJ are a New York perspective. That's not necessarily an American perspective or a global perspective. It's just what the rest of the world sees from America. Turner was the first to base TV networks outside of New York, & they're still strictly cable. CNN's been bought out since then, & they've been shifting their center from Atlanta to New York. It's a different perspective. & yes, I get national & international news from the local paper because everybody with a web press is subscribed to the same wire services. That's where the NY Times gets most of theirs too. A chunk of the locals use them the same way, along with the other big syndicated newspaper conglomerates. The times & WSJ are actually local papers themselves. Why would anybody else subscribe unless they have some connection to that particular perspective, or they've bought into the hype about the "brand"? The idea that the rest of the country is disinterested in anything outside their own little corner of the world is simply untrue. If the national media drew the maps, you'd see New York & LA, with Chicago sticking out of the vast wasteland in between. The reason nobody really takes the national or international media (both print & electronic) seriously, is because they're so out of touch & snidely haughty at the same time.

[Stavros]

The reason nobody really takes the national or international media (both print & electronic) seriously, is because they're so out of touch & snidely haughty at the same time

Janet Daley -an American ex-pat who lives and writes opinion pieces in London for the Telegraph, writes her usual 'the BBC is left-wing' piece today, her point being that in the UK we have no choice because we are legally obliged to pay a licence fee to receive tv signals into our homes and the fee goes exclusively to the BBC (as a whole, which means the fee is used to fund tv, radio, the web service, orchestras and so on).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8642161/Phone-hacking-The-BBC-Left-is-using-hacking-to-get-revenge.html

In the UK the BBC has a sort of 'national' profile as 'the nation's voice', in what is obviously a smaller place than the USA. Murdoch owns Sky which has a small share of the viewing public. All tv in the UK is supposed to be 'politically neutral' which means that Daley gets into a lather because she detects a bias against the centre-right just as elements in the Labour Party think the BBC is soft on the centre and the Tories, and don't even get started on Israel and the Palestinians.

The charter of the BBC obliges it to 'inform, educate and entertain' and I can't think of three more compelling reasons to set up a tv station, but not so difficult if the money for it is effectively an extra tax. Fox News, or MSNBC could not happen here, I googled Olbermann and O'Reilly because I had never heard of them, and was amazed at the vitriolic rhetoric of the former against the latter on the Malmedy issue-unthinkable in the UK and something which I think a lot of British people would actually find offensive.

I am not suggesting that our media is not 'out of touch and snidely haughty at the same time', if we had a referendum in the UK on hanging, a simple majority would probably vote for it, but the issue is not discussed because 'it has been decided' it is not to be discussed, the debate on capital punishment is over -the same kind of editorial decision-making that gives more air time to some parts of the world and not others; and also the effects theory which suggests a broadcaster like the BBC or its main rivals in ITN and SKY (and in effect the whole population here who watches news watches one of these 3) can set the tone and the content of debate -if broadcasting standards have slipped in recent years its because newsreaders can sometimes give an emotional/moral slant to a story about which they are supposed to be neutral -9/11 and our own 7/7 atrocities being a case in point.

The question then becomes, not just about the future of newspapers, but of broadcasting and, crucialy -where will the news come in the next 50 years, how will it be packaged/presented, how will fidelity to the 'truth' be maintained? Is Huffington in effect now, a rival 'news' outlet on the web?

As you and Prospero suggest, news agencies already form the source for a lot of stories, and I am not too worried by the David Icke's of this world or other independent bloggers whose opinions are not news.

I also think it is a bigger problem for the USA because of the size of the country, the diversity of its languages and cultures and interests -OR is this in fact a benefit, meaing that no one corporation can dominate broadcasting and mould the news to its own ideology -and, if Murdoch's imprint on Fox/SKY goes, as he and his family leave the stage; or if the Empire is dissolved into new companies, will this change the landscape of American broadcasting? Does the replacement for FOX become less right wing? More right wing? Speculation, I know, but the world doesn't stand still, not even for Rupert Murdoch.

[hippifried]

The size of the country is only a problem to those who would monopolize control over content. There's been a concerted effort for the last 3 decades to shrink the pool of media ownership, while increasing the number of outlets into niche markets. Personally, I don't like it. I'm not a niche. The cable "news" networks are practically all punditry nowadays. FOX news likes to tell everybody that they lead in the ratings, & that's true within their niche, but all the news networks combined don't add up to the numbers of a lame game show or reruns of even lamer sit-coms. The reality is that hardly anyone pays attention to any of it. Why bother, since almost everything of any news value on any or all of them in the last 24 hr cycle can be summed up during the half hr local news at 10 PM, & you get the local news weather & sports too? I'm sure the NY Times bumped up their subscriber base by going national. But does the rest of the country add up to what they already had locally? Stats are too easily skewed to make something's importance seem more than it really is.

Prospero asked:
When was the last time your local paper in Idaho or Utah carried stories about Burma, Brazil or Bangladesh?The answer is most likely: Today (if there were any stories about those places on the services). I would turn that around & ask: When was the last time a national or international paper had anything to say about Idaho or Utah? It's not like those places are devoid of activity. They're just not New York. All potatoes & Mormons, right?

[Stavros]

I would turn that around & ask: When was the last time a national or international paper had anything to say about Idaho or Utah?

First, Rupert Murdoch was in Sun Valley when the scandal broke, though what Sun Valley is didn't make it into the coverage...Second, if anything, there are people here who complain we get too much coverage of the US in the British media. The Murdoch press issue in The Guardian has meant that its creepy obsession with Sarah Palin has (mercifully) disappeared; we have had reasonable, if not extensive coverage of the Presidential contenders in the GOP but no, I don't suppose other than lurid crime stories the domestic US gets a fair press here. Also, those of us who are interested in politics surf far and wide for news and information, whereas I doubt most people in this country could name a single Republican contender for President, and I doubt most Americans have heard of Ed Miliband...and I am not sure they should bother to find out...

[Prospero]

Stavros wrote:"I doubt most Americans have heard of Ed Miliband...and I am not sure they should bother to find out..." Ae we letting slip a little of the mask here to reveal a Tory bias lol?

[robertlouis]

Stavros wrote:"I doubt most Americans have heard of Ed Miliband...and I am not sure they should bother to find out..." Ae we letting slip a little of the mask here to reveal a Tory bias lol?

Hmmm. It's easy to dislike/despise both of the major parties.

I've got little time for Cameron and his Eton cronies, but Ed Miliband
leaves me stone cold. He's finally found a voice and an issue with the News International scandal, but otherwise he sounds like a typical new labour apparatchik, no matter how far he tries to protest to the contrary.

And as a lifelong Liberal, I feel horribly disenfranchised these days. :(

[hippifried]

Well, we get more coverage than y'all because we're infinitely more interesting. :D

As for Murdoch: I predict that the only way to stop the hemorrhage is for him to retire & divest himself from the business. Even that might not work as long as it's controlled by the family. It's not just over there. There were already a slew of broadcast licence challenges to the FCC on grounds of "moral turpitude" before the scandal ever broke. There's a story breaking that they were doing the same thing over here, & it doesn't matter who the targets of the hack/taps were/are. The News Corp stock is dropping like a rock. I wouldn't be surprized to see the WSJ & maybe even Dow Jones on the auction block if the slide continues. I don't think tossing some underling scapegoat under the bus is going to work if the stockholders get any more panicky.

[robertlouis]

I thought that this article by Marina Hyde in Saturday's Guardian had an interesting slant on the current state of the scandal.

Without a constitution, we are once again left in Clusterfakia

The phone-hacking scandal shows us where power really lies. A written rulebook is the only way to stop this cycle of squalor

For an industry built on words, Her Majesty's press hasn't half found itself short of vocab this week. Thrice-minutely, we hear the crisis engulfing the Murdoch empire is "deepening". Deepening? It's already like the Mariana trench. At this rate, it will be akin to deep space by tomorrow, while the latest buzzphrase to crack under the burden is "uncharted territory". We have been in uncharted territory for almost a fortnight now. No cartographer has mapped this place, though naming rights are presumably up for grabs by whichever explorer has the chutzpah to plant the flag first. I'm suggesting Clusterfakia.

Try to imagine recent events as that brilliant shot in The Truman Show when Jim Carrey's boat literally bumps up against the painted-on horizon and he suddenly realises reality was not as it seemed. Yup, the creepily cosy bubble of Murdochvision that nurtured and narcotised us has been burst, and it's a brave new world out there. Brave and deepening. And uncharted.

Yet the first question isn't how we're coping. It is: is there a "we", for all Ed Miliband's talk of victory for "the people"? I'd suggest that people have been coping in at least two very distinct ways – and later, why this disconnect should ring alarm bells.

A popular way of coping has been to carry on as normal. Public disgust at the News of the World manifested in the paper selling more copies last weekend than it had for 13 years. The souvenir factor counted, obviously, and the Sun did drop a quarter of a million sales last Saturday, but the public had inhaled sufficient smelling salts by Monday for sales to rally to near-ish normal levels. The Sun continued the week slightly down, though given it's July and the major push for their £9.50 holidays promotion was last week, a dip might have been expected.

Meanwhile, tabloids that may or may not have judicial questions of their own to answer are preparing increased print runs, even as the Sunday Sun prepares to launch in time for the football season. Let's reserve judgment on quite how meaningfully revolted by the scandal the "public" really are.

And so to the second means of coping, adopted by the group who have got all the airplay. Indeed, they are the airplay, because we're talking about the politicians and the media. They – or rather we, given I'm of their number – are not carrying on as usual. We are in week zero, anno non-domini, and no one knows the rules. Thursday saw senior parliamentarians wondering if the deputy serjeant-at-arms could technically drag Rupert Murdoch to parliament. Would he have to wear tights? The Speaker hadn't a clue.

Someone recalled the Commons cell (no longer in use). The chairman of the committee Murdoch will face admitted: "We are in territory that has not been explored for 50 or 60 years." Since 1880, someone else said. Clouds of dust were blown stagily off Erskine May, the parliamentary bible governments have long ignored.

I kept thinking of Chris Morris's Day Today news anchor bellowing "Peter! You've lost the news!" at hapless reporter Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan. We've lost the rulebook! Where the hell did power lie, if not somewhere in Murdoch's core, which accounted for the many expeditions of the great and good sent burrowing up his backside these past few decades?

You could almost have been listening to dispatches from a country that had recently overthrown an entrenched dictatorship and emerged blinking into the unfamiliar light of democracy. Now, some optimists will shriek that is exactly what we have done – in which case, perhaps the international assistance offered to states struggling to make the transition might be afforded to us.

I'm afraid we will need it, because the one thing that you can never underestimate is Britain's potential to lapse back into another version of the same dysfunction that brought it to whichever pretty pass it has come to. If the wasted anger over MPs' expenses taught us anything, it is that things can always proceed much as they were before if nothing material changes.

And so, yet again, to the only way to break this cycle of squalor and begin rebuilding this country's self-worth – a written constitution. Along with Israel and New Zealand, we remain one of only three countries in the world without a written constitution. During the chaotic limbo that followed the election last year, it was suggested the best authority on how to proceed was a 1950 letter to the Times, penned pseudonymously, but believed to be from one of George VI's private secretaries. And people wonder why it is that abuses of power just keep happening to us.

So, if David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband really want to do something in the name of "we the people", they could enshrine the golden rulebook for ever. Any other solution to the Clusterfakian messes in which we keep finding ourselves will be a short-termist failure, a sop thrown to us by an elite in whose eternal interest it is to preserve the lack of rules. Surely we've finally, finally been done over enough now?

[Stavros]

Ae we letting slip a little of the mask here to reveal a Tory bias lol?

No, Prospero, far from it, and I don't know any of my posts have been close to Tory thinking! But this is a thread on the Murdoch empire, not my Labour Party past....

[robertlouis]

Rebekah Brooks has been arrested.

Is James Murdoch going to be next?

[Prospero]

Why not go direct for Rupert? We could transport him to Australia? Oh wait a imnute....

[robertlouis]

Bloody Nora! Sir Paul Stephenson, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has resigned.

Who's next? The Queen????

[Stavros]

Stephenson has basically said News International lied to the police, he either doesn't know if John Yates and Andy Hardy kicked the evidence into touch and colluded with News International, or he does and isn't saying -but for once, someone at the top has done the honourable thing and stepped down, which can't be said for Brooks, Murdoch J or Murdoch R, but I still think this ought to be settled in the courts and not in front of a parliamentary committee. Also, if Sue Akers is still going through thousands of pages of Glenn Mulcaire's notes, we still don't know the full extent of this scandal.

I don't think the Queen is next, but in a month's time, the only people left in Government could indeed be the Queen... and the Archbishop of Canterbury....

[Prospero]

Cameron's head to roll maybe... this gets better and better and better

[Stavros]

Yes I have been wondering about Cameron -the problem with the hubris of the Murdoch enterprise over the years, is that instead of being called to account they got away with it but drew so many into the net: Alex Salmond is now nin the frame; Gordon Brown is desperately trying to save his arse/ass by going on the attack: Ed Balls and his petite wife are in the frame; Blair can't be far behind: without yet knowing the full list this looks like some kind of political version of a nuclear meltdown -at least we do have Our Noble Majesty, and His Grace The Archbishop to save us from Armageddon....I wonder, are they any good at banking?

[zocco]

Rebekah Brooks has been questioned for 13 hours
wonder what she had to say or didn't say
this just gets deeper every hour

[Prospero]

Is the Archbishop implicated yet? I see he had to fire his publicity man because he made rather crude jokes about the prelate "roughly taking" Chistina Odone (a roman catholic journalist and broadcaster) in a debate. Surely they must be able to discover that the Archbishop had dinner with Rebekah or rupert?

[Stavros]

Its not His Grace we should be concerned about now; David Cameron as far as I can see has made poor judgements, and I am assuming that Clegg has consulted with his colleagues to work out what happens if they decide this situation is not just a crisis for the Murdoch press and the Metropolitan Police, but the Governance of Britain. I am assuming that Cameron can resign as Prime Minister and remain leader of the Party in which case Parliament nominates a new PM; or Cameron can resign both positions and the Conservatives nominate a new leader and PM -only it can't be George Osborne because his links to Murdoch are deeper than Cameron's. Neither in the coalition will want an election, given the hammering the LibDems got last time; also, it is not clear how far the general public care about any of this beyond the specific cases of Milly Dowler, the 7/7 families and the service personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. Labour's problem is that most of the alleged crimes took place when it was in power and thus Blair, Brown and people like Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper can't just walk away from it or join the shoot. As the New York Times put it today, Murdoch has tended to buy its way out of problems, in the US as well as the UK, but this time money doesn't put out the fire, it just burns...NewsCorp has now lost $10bn in value in the last 2 weeks. The various lawsuits NewsCorp silenced with cash are referred to here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/business/media/for-news-corporation-troubles-that-money-cant-dispel.html?pagewanted=2&hp

[Ben]

‪Vanden Heuvel on Murdoch 'The sky has fallen on him'‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z1v1IX65vI)

[Ben]

Congress: Investigate Rupert Murdoch:

http://act2.freepress.net/sign/investigate_murdoch/

[Ben]

For those who are interested:

‪Rupert & James Murdoch Testimony To Parliament pt.1‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcPwwMMbx0M)

‪Rupert & James Murdoch Testimony To Parliament pt.2‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJn6Hb0MPK8)

[nonnonnon]

love the pie in the face haha

[SammiValentine]

Quite disappointing questions really, aside from Tom Watson of course - who was fantastic :)

The foam in the face was moronic really, yea lets do as much as we can to assist this "poor 80 yr old fella" to appear the victim, or leave it till the last question (?) so that people can quickly forget all the questions prior... amazing lack of intelligence for giggles there. What a wanker that chap was.

[robertlouis]

Quite disappointing questions really, aside from Tom Watson of course - who was fantastic :)

The foam in the face was moronic really, yea lets do as much as we can to assist this "poor 80 yr old fella" to appear the victim, or leave it till the last question (?) so that people can quickly forget all the questions prior... amazing lack of intelligence for giggles there. What a wanker that chap was.

Well put, Sammi. It was always going to be a bit of a show trial without much purpose beyond the symbolic, once judicial proceedings got kicked off - interesting timing by the Met there, don't you think?

As for the foam - the guy must have got a tin of the stuff past security, presumably metal. If it had been a gun????

And finally, yes, fuck the Sun, forever and a day.

[SammiValentine]

And finally, yes, fuck the Sun, forever and a day.

Horrible rag. The NOTW was the sunday sun anyway. good riddance.

[Ben]

This YT clip w/ Hugh Grant shows the utter nexus between government and corporations. They are two peas in a pod. (Albeit the difference between government and a corporation is, well, government has a flaw. The "flaw" is they're potentially democratic.
Corporations, of course, aren't democratic. But corporations, on the other hand, do not tolerate corruption. Whereas corruption is the basis of government -- :))

‪Question Time - Hugh Grant - Were You Not At Murdoch's Party Three Weeks Ago? [07.07.2011]‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIHtUlfqZnc)

‪Yes, Minister - The moral dimension(I)‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4EdtiqSm_4)

[Prospero]

And the fragrant Rebekah was all over the place, evasive and very non effervescent really. its going to be hard to keep the pressure up now. I think Cameron is off the hook somehow.

Do you think Rupert is really that doddery - or was it an act to win sympathy?

[SammiValentine]

he started off on the old senile act, an old mafioso trick in court. he soon perked up and by the end before the shaving foam party - he was a chirpy fucker, cracking puns, arguing the toss. a lot of desk banging , nothing wrong with the fella.

[Prospero]

Yep... well there is a LOT wrong with him in the moral sense

[robertlouis]

he started off on the old senile act, an old mafioso trick in court. he soon perked up and by the end before the shaving foam party - he was a chirpy fucker, cracking puns, arguing the toss. a lot of desk banging , nothing wrong with the fella.

News Corp shares are up. Well done Roop - your act worked.

[SammiValentine]

yup thats why he was there :)

[SammiValentine]

News Corp shares are up. Well done Roop - your act worked.

now that will leave a lot of people foaming at the mouth. irony!

[Prospero]

They may still retire the sad old fuck

[robertlouis]

They may still retire the sad old fuck

Not sure, I think Condom Dave will keep his job.....

[Stavros]

I think I said in an earlier post it would be a circus, but I didn't expect a clown with a foam pie to make an entrance! The evasive responses and denials from the witnesses were as expected ''Don't know', 'No', 'It wasn't me it was other people' -did anyone think either Rupert or James would say they nobbled policemen and politicians to look the other way when bad things were happening? I recall BP's ex CEO in the US being grilled by Senator Waxman -I mean what was Hayward going to do, make himself and BP liable for years of litigation?

As I have said, beyond the baiting of Murdoch for his political views, which I am opposed to but which he has a right to express, it is for the Courts of Law to determine what law has actually been broken, by whom and for what purpose. My guess is that the Jonathan Rees trial which collapsed this year when the Prosecution conceded that after 24 years, and with 750,000 pages of evidence the Defence could not be mounted reasonably, provides the most serious problem for News International and the Metropolitan Police -even though morally, the Dowler's and other families must take precedence over a cheap and squalid 'Private Detective' whose former partner had an axe buried in his skulll...

Predictions: Murdoch will retire with effusive praise from the Board of NewsCorp, James Murdoch will leave NewsCorp to 'explore new business ventures'; NewsCorp will 'refresh' its Board over the next 5 years which means that it will be, in terms of personnel, more or less unrecognisable from what it is today. If these changes do not take place, NewsCorps current security could be undermined by allegations in Court.

Finally, a pithy assessment from Simon Jenkins in today's Guardian:

Newspaper ownership has always been crazy and eccentric, dominated by ego and a yearning for glory. It seldom has to do with profit. If it had, the recent history of British newspapers would have been a miserable one. Murdoch's influence on tabloid journalism has been dire, though he is hardly alone in this. His influence on the media industry in general has been that of a serial innovator – confronting unions, lowering production costs, pay-for-view TV and now paywalls. All newspapers have benefited from this, loathe though they may be to admit it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/19/murdoch-story-berlin-wall-hysteria

[Faldur]

Just curious, do the same people that handle security at Parliament watch over the airports? Scary thought..

[Prospero]

First time I've agreed with you Faldur. It is indeed scary - but then these same police people were also in the diplomatic protection corp and the royal protection corps and were, allegedly, selling contact details of various royals and other high-ups in politics to journalists. So you can tell just how important their work is as opposed to our safety.

[Stavros]

I have been to a few Committee rooms (but not in Portcullis House where the Murdoch incident took place) as well as the Stranger's Gallery, you can't even make notes in the Gallery without being hauled out; my guess is that the clown managed to conceal a paper plate and a can of foam somewhere, or he was outside the room and dodged inside when someone wasn't looking, but I would have thought visitors were not allowed to carry bags into the room, so it puzzles me -also after that raid in the Commons chamber a few years ago and Murdoch being a 'prize target' you would expect extra vigilance. I didn't see if Wendi Murdoch had a handbag with her -not that she needed one...

[hippifried]

& a fun time was had by all...

[Ben]

‪Question Time - Hugh Grant - MP's Were Terrified of News International [07.07.2011]‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2QmCYYBjH4)

‪Question Time - Hugh Grant - Were You Not At Murdoch's Party Three Weeks Ago? [07.07.2011]‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIHtUlfqZnc)

[Miss Aeryn]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out in the wash that the whole pie foam stunt was indeed a planned, orchestrated stunt designed to distract attention and steal oxygen.

Very sunday paper-ish material fodder indeed.

[Prospero]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out in the wash that the whole pie foam stunt was indeed a planned, orchestrated stunt designed to distract attention and steal oxygen.

Very sunday paper-ish material fodder indeed.

Miss Aeryn, You're very cynical - but that thought crossed my mind too Not so much a distraction as a way of getting the vulnerable old fella some sympathy - and showing him to be dignified enough to carry on regardless.

[robertlouis]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out in the wash that the whole pie foam stunt was indeed a planned, orchestrated stunt designed to distract attention and steal oxygen.

Very sunday paper-ish material fodder indeed.


Whatever, but Wendi Murdoch has to be a shoo-in for the next instalment of Kill Bill....

[Prospero]

Oh I love Wendi... but read the profile in today's Independent and realise what a calculating person she is. Rupert is husband number 3 - part of her own campaign for global domination. I think she is a sleeper for the people's republic.

[hippifried]

‪Bruce Lee - Kung Fu Fighting‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ9e3Dy7obA&NR=1)

[zocco]

was mentioned on a current affairs opinion show last night that she might be the one to take over running News Corp

[Dino Velvet]

Whatever, but Wendi Murdoch has to be a shoo-in for the next instalment of Kill Bill....

That's a helluva woman. No White broad has ever offered herself up as a human shield for me like that.

[hippifried]

That's a helluva woman. No White broad has ever offered herself up as a human shield for me like that.
Hmmmm... & that tells you, what?

[Stavros]

Dino is afraid of cream pies...I think that is the issue. I note that few people have given acknowledgement to Janet Nova, News Corporations Interim General Counsul, sitting next to Wendi M, and the first one to intervene physically. Curious symmetry here: the assailant was a comedian called 'Johnny Marbles'; in 2003 it was the 'comedy terrorist' Aaron Barshak who dressed up as Osama bin Laden and successfully gatecrashed Prince William's 21st birthday party at Windsor Castle. It seems the best way to get within killing distance of the Great and the Powerful is to become a comic...

[Prospero]

Yep - Jackie mason was on the grassy knoll when Kennedy rode by, but his water pistol wouldn't reach the President.

[Stavros]

Jackie Mason? Sounds more like Jerry Lewis...one day we will know the truth...

[robertlouis]

Jackie Mason? Sounds more like Jerry Lewis...one day we will know the truth...

And apparently John Wilkes Booth was a laugh a minute too.....

[robertlouis]

Back on topic - James Murdoch is sticking to his story about the phantom internal email which he is alleged to have seen indicating that the original hacking scandal extended much wider than a single rogue reporter. He's either correct or desperate.

Here's the possible scenario. Tom Crone and Colin Myler have obvious axes to grind with their former masters. Nevertheless, if the police (or the select committee or has that been closed down for the summer recess?) find the NoW men's side of it to be true, James Murdoch would be finished - lied to parliament, perjured himself and liable to arrest as well as disbarred from future office.

News Corp would survive, but as a Murdoch-free environment.

[Ben]

Hacking scandal compared to Watergate:

‪Hacking scandal compared to Watergate [CNN 7-16-2011]‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbxQniAVJi4)

[Stavros]

News Corp would survive, but as a Murdoch-free environment.

I said before I expect Murdoch to retire, if that is the case he will want to see his family firm make the transition as he wants it, assuming he realises it can't go on like this. An alternative option would be to separate the positions of Chairman and Chief Executive, Murdoch is currently both. It is still more common in the US for one man (and usually it is a man) to occupy both seats, whereas in the UK and Europe businesses see the benefits of the separation. This would enable Murdoch to stay on as King of the Castle, but without executive control over decision-making. However, my guess is NewsCorp would also want a re-structuring of the shareholding, which is split between the family-owned voting rights which give the Murdochs a simple majority over all executive decisions, and ownership: in democratic America, you would think this archaic way of protecting the family investment would have gone long ago.

Anyone in the UK interested in BBC TV's coverage and Robert Peston's role in undermining Vince Cable's position in government may want to read this from today's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/world/europe/23telegraph.html?_r=1&hp

[Stavros]

The Murdoch show continues to roll on, and so far nobody has appeared in court on any charge or found guilty of lawbreaking, though time will tell. In my earlier post I speculated that Murdoch might be challenged by his own Board and agree to step down as CEO and become Life President or something like that, whereas the Board today have endorsed his leadership and rejected the Select Committee conclusion.

The Select Committe on Culture, Media and Sport has issued a divided report, with a controversial late additional remark which claims Rupert Murdoch is not a 'fit and proper person' to run an international company, a conclusion which a member of the committee, Labour MP Tom Watson had already mentioned in advance in his book, Dial M for Murdoch. Peter Oborne has delineated the way in which both political parties have sucked straws at Murdoch parties, while also showing which ones were 'refuseniks', but for me the key issues are the conduct of the police and it remains to be judged by successful prosecution.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9241162/The-Murdoch-and-News-Corporation-scandal-wasnt-about-Conservative-Party-sleaze-but-it-is-now.html

However, I think there is an interesting, and deeper issue here, and it is not about the press at all. Murdoch did not just want a full takeover of BSkyB for the money -it is one of the largest ISP in the UK, and what Murdoch wants is an end to 'net neutrality'. What enrages Murdoch most of all is that people like us, having paid a nominal fee to an ISP, can browse our way through multiple websites without paying a dime. Just as he has locked his online papers behind firewalls, and bought rights to major sporting events which force viewers to pay extra to see them, so he wants internet access locked behind a firewall. This blog on Dale&Co from last year to me spells out the dangers inherent in allowing Murdoch to expand his empire, but I suspect with hard copy newspapers on the slide, the long term firewall strategy is the reason why he has backing from his Board. Whether he can survive any prosecutions, or legal investigations into computer and phone hacking in the USA I don't know. But for now, he is secure.
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/murdochs-critics-are-their-own-worst-enemy

[Prospero]

Have to say that while I may share the judgement that Murdoch is "unfit etc"... the Press rather buried the fact that this was contested by the Conservatives on the panel. This statement made good hedlines and the fact that Mensch and her Tory colleagues all voted against it's inclusion in the final report was buried in the text. Not the most shining of moments for the rest of the media - with only the BBC's daily Politics Show highlighting this crucial and deep divide.

[robertlouis]

Have to say that while I may share the judgement that Murdoch is "unfit etc"... the Press rather buried the fact that this was contested by the Conservatives on the panel. This statement made good hedlines and the fact that Mensch and her Tory colleagues all voted against it's inclusion in the final report was buried in the text. Not the most shining of moments for the rest of the media - with only the BBC's daily Politics Show highlighting this crucial and deep divide.

The Guardian had two pages on it on Tuesday.

[Prospero]

They did indeed have two pages on the report - but the fact that the line about Murdoch being disowned by all the Conservatives o the panel was somewhat buried. I'm all for fair play.

[robertlouis]

They did indeed have two pages on the report - but the fact that the line about Murdoch being disowned by all the Conservatives o the panel was somewhat buried. I'm all for fair play.

And seeing Louise Mensch doughnutting every interview and TV opportunity to distance the Tories from the report's statement about Murdoch is both unedifying but sadly all too predictable.

Personally, I can well understand Tom Watson's antipathy towards Murdoch and his cohorts after what they put him and his family through - and almost certainly breaking the law several times in doing so, by the way - but a select committee report was simply the wrong vehicle for continuing his own personal crusade.

[Stavros]

The trial in London of Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson is under way and I think this succinct piece from the New York Times is worth reading, although I think Brooks is in deeper shit than the Times thinks.

Incidentally, did anyone notice the claim that Tony Blair had been 'visiting' Wendi Deng without Rupert's knowledge? Where and when? Maybe he is just comforting her through the torture of her divorce from Rupert. I wonder who gets the Park Avenue Apartment--?

Fates of Brooks and Coulson in Tabloid Hacking Case Are Diverging

By SARAH LYALL (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/sarah_lyall/index.html)

Published: December 2, 2013

LONDON — Once they were friends and colleagues who reveled in the heady world of British news, politics and intrigue. Together they rose from the scrappy newsrooms of London’s tabloids to the heights of establishment power, she as head of Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper empire, he as Prime Minister David Cameron’s chief spokesman. For six years they were lovers, carrying on their affair even as each married someone else.

Andy Coulson has lost more.


Now Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson are together again, this time in the dock at the Old Bailey, London’s main criminal court, facing charges of illegally intercepting voice messages and other crimes in connection with their work for Mr. Murdoch’s now-defunct News of the World tabloid.
Since their arrests, their lives have sharply diverged.
Though they sit side by side in court, it is not by choice; their seats are assigned. Nothing about their body language suggests their history of intimacy. They bid each other good morning and good evening, but there is little more than that. When the prosecution read out a steamy letter from Ms. Brooks to Mr. Coulson as evidence of their affair, she looked uneasily down at her lap; he stared straight ahead.
Ms. Brooks, 45, a Murdoch darling who worked as chief executive of Mr. Murdoch’s News International before resigning when the phone hacking scandal engulfed her in the summer of 2011, never lost the support of the man who was her boss, friend, mentor and protector.
She walked away with a $17.6 million severance package that incorporated “compensation for loss of office” and various “ongoing benefits.” These have not been specified but are believed to include the car and driver that bring her to court each day. She has houses in London and in Oxfordshire.
But from appearances at least, she is a changed woman. Her clingy, look-at-me clothes have been replaced by functional skirts and blouses; she wears little makeup. She sees a small circle of close friends, no longer goes to the glamorous parties she used to love, and is devoting her time to the legal case and to the baby she had via a surrogate.
“She’s doing as well as can be expected, which is not great,” a friend said.
Still, she is rich. And she is in better shape than Mr. Coulson, 45, who resigned twice over different phases of the phone hacking scandal: once as editor of the News of the World in 2007 and again as director of communications for Mr. Cameron in 2011. Cut loose by the Murdochs, shunned by his old government friends, short of cash and out of work for nearly three years, he has had to sell his expensive London house and move out of town with his wife and three children.
Mr. Coulson appears unchanged physically, and still wears the same nondescript business suits he always did, He commutes to the trial from his new home in Kent or stays overnight in modest hotels or friends’ houses. The Murdochs washed their hands of him long ago, rightly concluding that his employment at Downing Street made the hacking scandal far more combustible by implicating the government and the Conservative Party.
“My feeling is that he has paid a much higher price than anyone else,” said Roy Greenslade, a professor of journalism at City University here. “He didn’t get a massive payoff, he didn’t get Murdoch standing behind him, and he had to fall on his sword twice.”
A journalist from a competing news organization said, “He has lost everything, basically.”
While Ms. Brooks’s legal expenses have been paid by her old employer, Mr. Coulson — whose bills have passed the $400,000 mark and will inevitably climb much higher — has had a different experience. Despite negotiating an exit package in which the company was obliged to pay his legal bills should he be charged in connection with his work as editor, Mr. Coulson has had to take the company to court to obtain the payments.
Even though it lost the case, the company is still paying only grudgingly, Mr. Coulson’s friends say.
“To this day, they’re making it supremely difficult for him to get his bills paid,” said an acquaintance of Mr. Coulson’s who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke anonymously to comment on a pending case. “They’re going through his bills with a fine-tooth comb, and the big problem is that they’re delaying payments. He has a big team, and it makes life very difficult.”
Both Mr. Coulson and Ms. Brooks are likely to have to pay back at least some of the money to the company if they are found guilty. (Both have pleaded not guilty to the hacking charges.)
The trial is expected to run for several more months. It is now in its second month, and the prosecution is still presenting its arguments. This is a complicated undertaking, in part because of the multiple defendants and multiple charges relating to phone hacking, computer hacking, paying off public officials and perverting the course of justice.
In addition to Mr. Coulson and Ms. Brooks, there are six other defendants, among them Charlie Brooks, Ms. Brooks’s husband, who has been accused of conspiring with her to destroy evidence.
More trials are expected to follow. What began as an investigation into the illegal interception of voice mail messages has grown into a sprawling octopus of a case, with law-enforcement strands stretching in many directions and involving more than 160 police officers and staff members; at least 1,000 likely victims from politics, sports, show business and the media; and millions of emails and other documents.
It is far too early to say how the case will end; the defendants’ lawyers have not started presenting their arguments. But on the surface, at least, Mr. Coulson looks to be in a worse position than Ms. Brooks. While prosecutors have already introduced email and voice mail messages that they say directly link Mr. Coulson to phone hacking, they have not yet presented similar evidence in the case of Ms. Brooks.
She and her husband seem more vulnerable to the charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. The prosecution contends that they illegally removed files from the office and tried to discard a laptop that potentially contained evidence in the case.
As for Mr. Coulson, even when this case is finished, his woes will not be over. Whether or not he is convicted, he faces a second trial in Scotland, which has a different legal system from England’s and a reputation for being tough on English journalists. He stands accused there of committing perjury while testifying in the trial of a Scottish politician who, among other things, claimed his phone had been hacked.
In that trial, Mr. Coulson repeatedly declared that there was no phone hacking going on at the News of the World.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/world/europe/fates-of-brooks-coulson-in-british-tabloids-hacking-case-are-diverging.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0

[Stavros]

I have lost count of the millions of pounds the Murdoch empire has forked out in recent years to settle legal cases arising from the criminal and dirty practices of the 'journalists' he employs in the UK, yet he continues to operate a business which has a large stake in the UK media. It remains to be seen if the revelations about yet more millions paid out to settle suits, in the latest case involving sex-pest Bill O'Reilly, will undermine Murdoch's attempt to purchase the remaining shares in SKY to give his family firm full control of yet another media outlet in the UK. Murdoch appears to preside over companies which employ crooks, sex-pests, liars, and con-men for whom truth is an elastic band wrapped around a firework. And yet, he survives. Proof that there is no justice in this world, or just not yet.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/oct/22/tom-watson-refuse-murdochs-sky-bid-after-32m-oreilly-cover-up

[Stavros]

The news in recent days has been about Murdoch selling assets to Disney-

Under the terms of blockbuster deal, Fox is selling scores of assets to Disney, including its 20th Century Fox movie and TV studios, cable networks and other international operations.
If the deal goes through, Disney will be the new owner of Fox’s FX and National Geographic cable channels, India’s main network Star, and its stake in Sky, which of course is listed here in the UK.
It is also buying Fox’s stake in Hulu, a video streaming service.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/disney-21st-century-fox-deal-takeover-sky-rupert-murdoch-explanation-what-does-it-mean-future-a8110166.html

Less well reported has been the ongoing probe into corruption in the governing body of football, FIFA and the revelation that Fox Executives have been implicated in bribes-

Senior executives at Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox (https://www.theguardian.com/media/21st-century-fox) corporation are alleged to have agreed for millions of dollars in bribes to be paid to South American soccer officials to secure major broadcast deals, according to US prosecution documents unmasked by sworn testimony.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/dec/14/fox-alleged-bribes-tv-soccer-copa-libertadores

If true, and there seems to be strong evidence that it is, does it not prove yet again that there is in the Murdoch Empire a culture of indifference to the law, wherever it takes place, be it the UK or Latin America? When is Rupert Murdoch and his clan going to be held responsible for the 'dirty deals' done under their noses by their -well-primed?- executives? Or is law breaking so common in the corporate world that nobody cares?

[broncofan]

Edit: My post doesn't make sense now that I read Fox News won't be sold.

[Stavros]

Edit: My post doesn't make sense now that I read Fox News won't be sold.

I didn't see the post before you edited it, but the point might be that Murdoch retains his so-called 'News' outlets because they feed his colossal ego as a political agitator who can walk into the White House of Downing Street any time he wants and expect to be listened to, to even have his ideas put into practice -such as his persuading Ronald Reagan -via the Federal Communications Commission- to drop the Fairness in Broadcasting in 1987. One wonders why it is even called 'news' when Murdoch has established a media culture in which so-called journalists are expected to invent the news that doesn't exist, or distort the news that does, all in the name of some vague libertarian idea of 'freedom' which enables Murdoch to be mates with Bill Clinton and Tony Blair (godfather to one of Murdoch's children) and the con-man sitting in the Oval Office today. A nasty piece of work. But that's not news.

[filghy2]

Surely Tony Blair is no longer a mate, given all the reports about his relationship with Murdoch's ex-wife.

[Stavros]

Surely Tony Blair is no longer a mate, given all the reports about his relationship with Murdoch's ex-wife.

You may be right, they were certainly close at one time, have not looked into it closely enough these days to know. I guess it depends on how useful they might be to each other.

[broncofan]

I didn't see the post before you edited it, but the point might be that Murdoch retains his so-called 'News' outlets because they feed his colossal ego as a political agitator who can walk into the White House of Downing Street any time he wants and expect to be listened to, to even have his ideas put into practice -such as his persuading Ronald Reagan -via the Federal Communications Commission- to drop the Fairness in Broadcasting in 1987. One wonders why it is even called 'news' when Murdoch has established a media culture in which so-called journalists are expected to invent the news that doesn't exist, or distort the news that does, all in the name of some vague libertarian idea of 'freedom' which enables Murdoch to be mates with Bill Clinton and Tony Blair (godfather to one of Murdoch's children) and the con-man sitting in the Oval Office today. A nasty piece of work. But that's not news.
The post basically said that if he unloads his news empire, there is a chance over time that the culture would change. Disney would be paying partly for its right-wing customer base but its only imperative would be to deliver news with a right wing slant to satisfy that base.

The way Murdoch runs things is not just based on making money through sensationalism but also seems deeply personal. As you point out there's also a lot of vanity and ego-gratification involved. I was just thinking with new ownership it might over time develop some standards of decency and be an outlet for conservative talking points but require its commentators to steer clear of conspiracy theories and outright lies. That is all mooted by the fact that Murdoch really does want to hold onto it...probably for the same or similar reasons he runs it the way he does.

[Stavros]

You may or may not be aware that Murdoch has been trying for some years to purchase the remaining interest in the Sky network in the UK he doesn't already own. The deal is being investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority but with the sale of 20th Century Fox to Disney there are hints that if Murdoch doesn't get Sky he will sell it, and that the Sky News Channel will either fold or be put up for sale. His original bid floundered because of the revelations and trials around the phone hacking scandal, but in any case Murdoch has never been able to transport his poison into tv news, retaining newspapers like The Sun for that. I don't get Sky News on my tv but I have seen it on other people's boxes and it is nothing like his papers and is a fair and sound broadcaster, though that may also be due to the laws on balanced reporting we have in the UK which do not exist in the US. We also have an issue here with market share and the view that Murdoch already owns enough with regard to news print and broadcast journalism, or too much from where I sit.
There is an article on the Sky bid here-
http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-11-08/sky-news-at-risk/

It is even possible that Murdoch is not that much interested in the UK as he used to be. He was at The Times victory party on election night earlier this year and allegedly stormed out when the exit poll revealed his relentless attacks on Corbyn and the Labour Party had failed. He does not have as close a relationship with Theresa May as he had with David Cameron and Tony Blair, though that is probably because nobody has a close relationship with her, other than her husband. He may see the prevarications over Brexit as an important fight, being a keen leaver, but he can't compete with the hysterical Daily Mail which has become the primary voice of angry Britain, or angry Paul Dacre, its absurd and often nasty editor.

Murdoch is said to have deep emotional ties to newsprint, because he inherited his father's business, and it seems his outfit has missed the boat on new developments in streaming which is why he doesn't see 20th Century Fox as worth competing with Netflix and the new kids on the block, but newsprint is no longer lucrative -or influential- as it was in the days of Citizen Kane so it remains to be seen how he manages his businesses -in Asia as well as in the US-, as well as who gets what out of the various children he has had from three marriages.

[Stavros]

Here is a cute irony -the most effective challenge to Murdoch's media empire may take place and be most effective where it all began: in Australia.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/nov/22/ex-pms-unite-in-australia-in-bid-to-curb-power-of-murdoch-empire

From a purely business perspective, it is hard to deny that Murdoch has been one of the most successful businessmen of the 20th century, considering both the global scale of his businesses and the shareholder value that underpins the success of business in monetary terms. To what extent the newspaper segments have suffered in recent years is not clear, given the diversiity of his titles, but to some it may not be the fact that Murdoch is successful, but the means whereby he achieved it, and what he did with it.

Here, there are some emerging trends which may challenge Murdoch, apart from the enquiry in Australia.

The first is that within his own family, James Murdoch has all but jumped ship owing to a disagreement with the parent company's dismissal of/denial of/ critique of climate change. Whether this means he loses his inheritance or sells his shares, I don't know. He can consider himself a lucky man for escaping prosecution over the phone hacking trials that took place in the UK when he was CE of News International.

The second, perhaps the most remarkable, is the position Fox News in the US has taken on the outcome of the 2020 election, where even an extremist like Tucker Carlson could not stomach the outragous drivel peddled by Sidney Powell, even though she remains Michael Flynn's lawyer, and it is clear she has been dumped for media reasons, whereas it would be quite typical if the President believed Hugo Chavez, Bill Clinton and George Soros denied him a second term. For a man who regards loyalty as one of his most nobel values, the dis-loyalty of Fox News has unleashed a fury once associated, prosaically, with jilted lovers.

But the significance is not so much commercial -Murdoch's empire can survive without Fox News, but political. For Murdoch has used his media influence for over 40 years to make a link betweeen what 'the man in the street' thinks with government policies in the UK, the US and his native Australia. From this perspective, Murdoch has been the classic libertarian businessman, a man who believes markets are better than goevernment, who has promoted low taxation and low-to-non existent regulation of business, and who has opposed what he sees as 'cartel' like market manipulation by the European Union.

For the US in particular, he played a key role in persuading Ronald Reagan in 1987 to abandon the Fair Broadcasting principle that has meant the emergence of a vicious sectarian media.

In the UK he is associated with a culture of vulgarity and gossip replacing news, but also a racist reporting of the news, not as fact, but as opinion, often supplied without any journalistic investigation, by the police. When a policeman was murdered in a gruesome manner during the Broadwater Farm riots in London in 1985, it wasn't long before The Sun had identified the killer and embarked on a campaign of accusation and vilification, even though some years late it was proven the man targeted wasn't even in Tottenham when the policeman was killed. As for the notorious Page 3 girls, it has rarely been reported in the US, I think, that the feature more than once used topless 16 year old girls, this being the kind of soft porn that would land Murdoch in prison in much of the US, and forced to register as a sex offender.

Losing his political influence with the US President, be it the 45th of the 46th might not matter to a man who can't be far away from reporting directly from eternity, yet just as important to me is how, so many years after he was an adviser to Reagan and Thatcher, their legacy is being trashed, but by Conservatives, so called, rather than by wicked Socialists or Communists, whether they arrived in his native land as Convicts, or chose to become so because they live there.

After all, Thatcher was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the Single Market or the European Union. She campaigned in favour of the UK remaining in the EEC as it was in the 1975 Referedum, and for all her scepticism about 'Ever Closer Union' and monetary union in particular, I doubt she would have voted Leave. Yet the Leave campaign has relied on depicting the EU in terms which are almost opposite to hers, while Boris Johnson's use of Brexit as the ideology that identifies who a Conservative is -leading to the expulsion from the party of so many life-long Conservatives, would I think have at least puzzled her. For in reality, she was more pragmatic than idealist. And as a manager, her leadership of the Party for 16 years is unlikely to be repeated, while her almost obsessive attention to policy detail sits in complete contrast to Boris Johnson, whose ignorance and indifference to the detail has often made him look stupid in public.

More broadly the Libertarian project Murdoch has championed has been, if only temporarily, felled by Covid-19 with the UK and US Governments spending other people's money without any concern for the long-term repayment of such staggering borrowing, though UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak has hinted we will have to pay more income tax to pay off the debts.

And that is where Thatcher came in, when in 1979 her election campaign pivoted on a promise to cut taxes, same as with Reagan in in the 1980 campaign, in both cases, with Murdoch's full approval.

Where are they now, we ask? In the dustbin of history. And for Murdoch, perhaps the bin men are on their way to his home.

[Stavros]

Crikey! It's all going down, down under. Rumoured to be the laziest businessman in America, Lachlan Murdoch has decided his and his dad's firm should be allowed to broadcast verifiable lies on the grounds that free speech means giving air time to lies even when it may have defamed another commercial firm -making one wonder, did Fox Executives ever consider the consequences of broadcasting lies when it led not just to illegal attempts to overturn a democratic election by Trump (for which the Georgia investigation may be his nemesis), but the violence of Jan 6-?

Crikey, indeed!

‘What game is he playing?’: Lachlan Murdoch, Trump’s election lies and the legal fight against a small Australian website | Australian media | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/aug/27/what-game-is-he-playing-lachlan-murdoch-trumps-election-lies-and-the-legal-fight-against-a-small-australian-website)

[Stavros]

"A Fox spokesperson responding to Insider's queries about Hannity and Ryan accused Dominion of trying to "publicly smear" the company just for reporting the news."
Rupert Murdoch said Sean Hannity was 'privately disgusted' by Donald Trump for weeks after the election: court filing (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/rupert-murdoch-said-sean-hannity-065144469.html)

If only it were that simple. To begin with Fox, as with other of Murdoch's outlets around the world, is often more concerned with creating the news than reporting it, which is what Tucker Carlson is there for.
Second, the denial of Biden's victory in the election was relentless, made day after day even though the people making such claims never believed it -so the news they were reporting was the bogus news, but not the news that as journalists, they could have investigated. One can assume journalists ask the day-to-day questions of people in public life, to find out what they think, or in events, to find out what happened. None of the journalists investigated claims of vote rigging, they didn't need to because they knew it was rubbish.

Can Fox and Murdoch get away with it again, as Murdoch did over phone hacking in the UK which has cost millions with some cases still in litigation? I am biased and don't think Murdoch is fit to run a business in the Uk, but he seems to do what he wants and get away with it. And he was central to the repeal of the Fair Broadcasting Doctrine in 1987 -but wouldn't this very Doctrine have prevented Fox News from reporting only one side of the story?

[filghy2]

The greatest test for the Murdochs now seems to be whether they can deliver the Republican nomination for De Santis. It's clear they see him as a more reliable vehicle for delivering their policy objectives, but as always they are afraid of alienating the Trump fans in their audience.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/03/01/rupert-murdoch-fox-trump-voting-00084839

[Stavros]

Given that at the height of his Hacking crisis, Murdoch shut down the News of the World newspaper, is it so far fetched to believe that the Fox News brand is now so tainted -and a financial liability- that Murdoch will just shut it down? He can do as he likes, and he has done so in the past -but is the potential for Fox News to cost more than its worth a good reason?

In the meantime this article exposes what a worthless hypocrite Tucker Carlson is, though probably no surprise to Americans here.

So Tucker Carlson secretly hates Donald Trump … is anybody surprised? | Arwa Mahdawi | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/09/so-tucker-carlson-secretly-hates-donald-trump-is-anybody-surprised)

[filghy2]

I'd say they were willing to sacrifice down News of the World because they still had other media outlets to advance their political agenda in the UK. There's no such alternative for Fox News. They will want to keep it going as long as it advances their political agenda, and what matters from that perspective is whether it is tainted with the target audience.

I'm not sure how Tucker Carlson's exposure will affect his audience - will they even know about it if they rely on Fox for their info? If your primary criteria for accepting something is whether it fits your prejudices, does it matter whether someone believes their lies or only how effectively they are performed?

[Stavros]

Can Fox be sued for not telling the truth? If it is a News organization, is it not also the case that it can invent the news rather than report it; or report whatever it is that people say because they say it?

One thing that puzzles me is that if a journalist wants to be taken seriously, is it not a basic function to ask a counter question to a politician when he or she says, for example 'policy x is a great success' -not to ridicule or demean the politician, but to obtain through questions more detail as well as being critical?

It would mean that if someone, Y says the Earth is Flat, the journalist would ask for proof and so on. So if Giuliani or Trump says the election was 'rigged', ought not the journalist to ask for proof, and maintain an inquisitive stance?

But there is no law against it; unless by reporting a statement it knows to be false, that causes violence, and an insurrection against the US Congress, as defined by the Constitution. But then I assume there must be a proven link between the report on Fox News and the insurrection.

This aside from the defamation case, a matter in law that I cannot judge.

[filghy2]

I think what Fox News provides is more entertainment than journalism - if entertainment is the right word for pandering to the audience's negative emotions. The question that is often asked in Australia is why do politicians and the rest of the media continue to treat the Murdoch media according to the standard journalism conventions when much of what they do looks more like partisan advocacy.

On another note, I see that Rupert is reported to have called off his latest engagement because he discovered that his fiancee was too much of a right-wing religious nutter. Talk about reaping what you've sowed.

[filghy2]

The political influence of the Murdoch media definitely seems to be declining in Australia, probably because their partisanship has become too blatant. The Labour party was won a string of federal and state elections over the past year, despite strident opposition from the Murdoch media. The conservative Liberal/National parties now govern only in Tasmania. They have lost a bunch of previously-safe urban seats because well-educated middle class voters have become disenchanted with their negativity on issues like climate change, 'culture wars' and government integrity.

One similarity with the US is that neither the conservative parties nor their media backers show any sign of listening to the voters and changing their ways. Both seem too afraid of alienating their support base to stop pandering to their grievances. Unfortunately for them this doesn't work so well in Australia because we have an impartial electoral system and judiciary, so it's impossible to gain power without appealing to the majority.

[blackchubby38]

We have a settlement:

Dominion, Fox News settle defamation suit for stunning $787M, averting trial

http://www.yahoo.com/news/dominion-fox-news-settle-defamation-suit-for-stunning-787m-averting-trial-205038134.html

[Stavros]

We have a settlement:

Dominion, Fox News settle defamation suit for stunning $787M, averting trial


I don't think anyone is that surprised, as Murdoch is a coward and has done this before, mostly with the phone hacking scandals in the UK, where cases are still going through the Courts. I wonder if Dominion didn't just go for the money, but require Fox to make a statement that cannot be buried in the middle of a programme at 3am. I even wonder, though I guess its a fantasy, if Murdoch will sack Carlson and Hannity. He did shut down the News of the World as noted above, but also as noted above I guess Fox News is too close to his American heart. But will be interesting to see what unfolds over the next few days. That said, there are the other cases, Smartmatic, for one.

This show ain't over yet, folks...

[blackchubby38]

I don't think anyone is that surprised, as Murdoch is a coward and has done this before, mostly with the phone hacking scandals in the UK, where cases are still going through the Courts. I wonder if Dominion didn't just go for the money, but require Fox to make a statement that cannot be buried in the middle of a programme at 3am. I even wonder, though I guess its a fantasy, if Murdoch will sack Carlson and Hannity. He did shut down the News of the World as noted above, but also as noted above I guess Fox News is too close to his American heart. But will be interesting to see what unfolds over the next few days. That said, there are the other cases, Smartmatic, for one.

This show ain't over yet, folks...

If Murdoch is going to make a blood sacrifice and fire one of the on-air personalities, I think its going to be Maria Bartiromo. I don't think the recent stories about her coming out is a coincidence. She also is probably the least popular of the 4 (Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham being the other 3) and their wouldn't be push back from Fox News viewers if she was let go.

Personally, I would love to see Carlson and Ingraham be the ones to be made an example of.

But if someone is going take the fall, I thinks its going to be the CEO of Fox News, Suzanne Scott. I think this is from Rupert Mudoch's deposition:

"I appointed Miss Scott to the job and delegate everything to her".

That sounds like someone who is about to be walked up to the metaphorical gallows.

[filghy2]

We have a settlement:

Dominion, Fox News settle defamation suit for stunning $787M, averting trial

What puzzles me is why they didn't settle earlier, before all the damaging revelations came out.

[Stavros]

And if Dominion were in so strong a position, could they have got closer to the $1.6bn they originally wanted? The shareholders, which includes funds owned by the States of Wisconsin and Alaska, don't seem too bothered, so I assume that unless the share price takes a tumble, victims in this will be the individuals, of the kind blackchubby has identified above. After all, consider how much the value of Twitter has taken a dive since Musk took over, but it is still there.

[filghy2]

And if Dominion were in so strong a position, could they have got closer to the $1.6bn they originally wanted?

Historically, these cases have been hard to win, and Fox could have strung it out for a long time with appeals. Dominion exists to make profits, not to perform a public service, and they literally decided a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush.

That said, it's a pity they didn't insist on an on air apology/retraction as a condition of the settlement. They will probably be more careful about egregiously damaging another business, but Fox will just go back to gaslighting its audience, as they are doing on this settlement.

[filghy2]

In related news, Lachlan Murdoch has decided not to pursue a defamation case against an Australian news site that described the Murdochs as an unindicted co-conspiritor in the January 6 riot. No doubt they were worried the case might lead to further embarassing exposures.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/apr/22/crikey-how-a-little-australian-website-stared-down-murdoch-mighty-news-corp

[Stavros]

If Murdoch is going to make a blood sacrifice and fire one of the on-air personalities, I think its going to be Maria Bartiromo. I don't think the recent stories about her coming out is a coincidence. She also is probably the least popular of the 4 (Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham being the other 3) and their wouldn't be push back from Fox News viewers if she was let go.

Personally, I would love to see Carlson and Ingraham be the ones to be made an example of.

But if someone is going take the fall, I thinks its going to be the CEO of Fox News, Suzanne Scott. I think this is from Rupert Mudoch's deposition:

"I appointed Miss Scott to the job and delegate everything to her".

That sounds like someone who is about to be walked up to the metaphorical gallows.

Two down, how many more to go? If not precisely as you predicted.

It is claimed that the lawsuit being brought by the producer of Tucker Carlson Tonight, Abby Grossberg is a prime cause. If her revelations about Carlson are aired in Court, I guess Rupert can at least claim 'he no longer works for us' -but I also read that Carlson was close to Lachlan Murdoch so that suggests a rift in the family, but also a vice-like grip on decision making from the Dirty Digger. There have been rumours that Elizabeth and James are not as right-wing as Rupert or Lachlan, but until the old man is dead and his will is read, if it confers title on his successor that aspect of this is just not clear -will Fox continue to support Trump if no other strong candidate emerges this year?
Tucker Carlson was abruptly fired from Fox News on Monday morning in direct order from Rupert Murdoch (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/tucker-carlson-fox-news-part-153834446.html)

[filghy2]

It's interesting that Carlson has gone so quietly. Maybe the Murdochs have some really damaging information on him. A lawsuit over sexism and a hostile work environment doesn't sound enough to cause them to dump their most popular presenter.

[broncofan]

Edit: I'm gonna wait to offer an opinion. I'm actually at a loss over the Tucker situation. Glad he's gone though.

[filghy2]

Strangely, on his various webpages it's as if nothing has happened
https://www.foxnews.com/shows/tucker-carlson-tonight
https://twitter.com/tuckercarlson
https://tuckercarlson.com/

[Stavros]

It's interesting that Carlson has gone so quietly. Maybe the Murdochs have some really damaging information on him. A lawsuit over sexism and a hostile work environment doesn't sound enough to cause them to dump their most popular presenter.

Call me old fashioned, but I cling to the belief that in a robust, open, liberal democracy, accountability for those in the public sphere maintains the system. What Murdoch has is lots of money, and uses that money to shut down any exposure of his business practices and ethos, the irony being that a man who believes Markets are more important and effective than Governments, doesn't want to spook the Markets when the truth of his shabby practices is revealed.

Thus the Carlson sacking allied to the Dominion lawsuit has attempted to squash any open exposure of election lies; just as it is claimed Murdoch paid off the Royals to avoid any detailed scrutiny of his company breaking the law on a daily basis to report the private lives of people who do, in spite of their titles, have a right to privacy.

Markets =Money=? Reputation? Murdoch, in the end, is a coward who uses all and any ruthless measures to get what he wants for his own benefit, but then attempts to Buck the Market, thus exposing his own creed as a fraud.

What do 'The People' prefer: Markets in Command; or Democratically Elected Government?

Murdoch firm ‘paid secret phone-hacking settlement to Prince William’ | Prince William | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/25/prince-william-murdoch-phone-hacking-claims-court-filings-prince-harry)

[blackchubby38]

It's interesting that Carlson has gone so quietly. Maybe the Murdochs have some really damaging information on him. A lawsuit over sexism and a hostile work environment doesn't sound enough to cause them to dump their most popular presenter.

It was enough to get rid of Bill O' Reilly.

[broncofan]

I think it's a combination of many of the above. Fox got rid of Glenn Beck because he was a crackpot and while Murdoch doesn't mind making money off of crackpots Beck spooked people with his unhinged racist conspiracy theories. Fox got rid of Bill O'Reilly after multiple sexual harassment suits and claims. The first one was in 2004 by Andrea Mackris where those embarrassing transcripts were released. Fox News paid something like 9 million dollars to her yet O'Reilly didn't leave until after 2017 after multiple claims I think.

There's also the new lawsuits about the election lies which are costly and damaging. I think Murdoch knows that while Tucker is popular, he's a liability to them. He will pick up any lie, rumor, or conspiracy theory and it can get them sued. There's the sexual harassment suit. He is also the most active in promoting great replacement theory at Fox and while Murdoch will do what's popular, I think maybe he sees a chance to reset a tick away from such obvious and overt racism. I'm not trying to be cynical but there is a feeling among some Republicans (and frankly anyone who wants to maintain the appearance of condemning racism while engaging in it) that racism in some forms is okay but they want to be able to deny it and the people Tucker defended and whose views he parroted made it obvious enough that it wouldn't surprise me if this were a factor. How obvious is obvious you might ask? Well, they can dogwhistle racism but they can't defend people whose entire lives are committed to using the N word, threatening black people, trying to rehabilitate Hitler (Nick Fuentes etc.). It's not a matter of morals but a matter of optics for Murdoch. But by itself that might not have been enough for them to fire Tucker. He's also getting them sued.

[blackchubby38]

It's interesting that Carlson has gone so quietly. Maybe the Murdochs have some really damaging information on him. A lawsuit over sexism and a hostile work environment doesn't sound enough to cause them to dump their most popular presenter.

Actually, you maybe on to something:

Fox Has a Secret ‘Oppo File’ to Keep Tucker Carlson in Check, Sources Say

//www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/fox-news-tucker-carlson-secret-dossier-oppo-file-1234723855/

[filghy2]

There has also been speculation about the redacted portions of his emails in the Dominion case.

Broncofan is probably right that it's the combination of various things. Another factor putting him offside with the Murdochs may be that he was getting too big for his boots in thinking that he was bigger than Fox rather than a cog in the machine.

[filghy2]

He's now posted a short video complaining about powerful people on both sides of politics colluding to suppress the truth, which I guess includes the Murdochs.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/other/tucker-carlson-breaks-silence-tells-viewers-to-stay-tuned/ar-AA1aoRUc

Perhaps he sees himself as the leader of some kind of third force political movement.

[Stavros]

If he thinks AOC and MTG, Rand Paul and Elizabeth Warren are members of the same party, he is even less intelligent than he wants you to think. This is cynicism taken to a new low, shaped only by his personal resentment at the way he has been treated, given that he has inherited wealth from a frozen fish company. I believe this is the third time he has been fired. And yet I guess someone will give him a platform. But as with the post I am about to write on Twitter, all these people do is SHOUT! If he was seriously interested in debating political issues, the issues would be dealt with analytically, calmly, and be informative of different positions, rather than his shouty ridicule and demeaning, often hysterical distortions of fact. This is not debate, it is just noise.

[filghy2]

I seems to be characteristic of the populist right that they complain about the wealthy and powerful when it suits them, but they never propose to do anything about the structural factors that lead to accumulation of wealth and power.

[Stavros]

The problem with Capitalism is similar to that with Socialism. When you start to dismantle its corpus of ideas, you find within them contradictions. I see no contradiction in Socialism between individual liberty and the collective good, some think it is irreconcilable; in Capitalism there are 'One Nation Conservatives' who think Government can use the best of Capitalism -its surplus wealth- to ameliorate the worst of it, ie Poverty, and those who think Government is the problem not the solution, and think Markets are the only guarantor of freedom.

At least with Murdoch you know he hates Govt in all its form, and is as committed to Market Forces as Rothbard and people like him. With Trump I am not even sure he believes in Markets, given that most of his wealth comes from tax breaks, tax remittances, building loans and the money he has laundered for various Russian crime syndicates through his Atlantic City casinos and multi-national golf clubs. In this sense, he is a tool for the 'big boys' whose Billions out-count him. And they can manipulate him because he is so dumb at real politics.

But I don't see any serious debate on Capitalism in the US, maybe Elizbeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, but someone like Noam Chomsky has failed at it over many years. As for Socialism in the US....well...it had a moment with the Wobblies but by the end of the 1930s they had been floored by a mixture of good old American violence, and FDR, of whom an American once told me with trembling voice, 'he was a Communist'.

[broncofan]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tucker-carlson-s-text-messages-were-so-damaging-fox-didn-t-think-it-was-survivable-times-reporter/ar-AA1arDIM?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=6276f1c81ab24c3c988c87024e462a76&ei=21

This is a story I've seen reported and hinted at a few times. Basically that in complying with discovery obligations in the dominion suit, Fox's lawyers had possession of Tucker Carlson text messages that were so bad that it would have severely damaged Fox to be accused of knowing about them and not firing him. When they were forwarded to the board, they felt they had no choice but to fire him. What could be that much worse than what he said on air? I'm not going to even speculate because I have no clue but I really hope we eventually find out.

Edit: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/26/business/media/tucker-carlson-dominion-fox-news.html

[broncofan]

There has also been speculation about the redacted portions of his emails in the Dominion case.


I checked back to see if anyone had said anything. I think we're talking about the same thing and I've now seen a couple of articles that make it sound more concrete. None of them report what Fox News executives saw, but there are multiple reports that what they saw motivated their decision. I'm not sure.

[Stavros]

Hard to know until we do know. Some have argued Carlson would not have been fired merely because he called Sidney Powell a 'lying fucking bitch' or another woman, or multiple women in Fox News the C-word. Murdoch worships money and the power it gives him, so I suspect he was given a legal overview of the litigation and where it is going, and is most concerned that the share price will fall as the details of Fox News campaign of lies is exposed, with Carlson a leading figure who knew it was all lies. The simple truth is that there are no good outcomes for Fox News as far as the 2020 Election and January 6th are concerned, and Murdoch is thus at the moment saving his investment, given that Fox News earns him money not Carlson, who may have decided he was too important to be fired.

[Stavros]

Is this it? Does it surprise anyone? Seems the issue was not what he wrote, but that the court case might expose it to public viewing.

New York Times Obtains Tucker Carlson Text That Contributed To Removal From Fox News (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/york-times-obtains-tucker-carlson-030326264.html)

[filghy2]

On a lighter note, this is good indication of the intelligence level of Fox News presenters.
Fox host claims Messi should 'learn English like Beckham did'
https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/football/fox-host-claims-messi-should-learn-english-like-beckham-did/ar-AA1cnWti?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=19265bdefc6b462e93b793b1dc90f471&ei=12

[Stavros]

Given that Spanish is the second language of the USA, why should Messi learn English? He might be learning some, and the Argentinian player Carlos Tevez claimed he would not learn English as a protest at the UK's 'occupation' of Las Malvinas [Falkland Islands]. Sergio Aguerro is another Argentinian whose commitment to learning English wasn't great.

Makes one wonder how many English players learned Italian, German or Spanish when moving there, Gary Lineker, of course, being the exception. He probably speaks Japanese too.

[Stavros]

Since the weekend the Media has been in hysterics over a claim in The Sun, that a famous TV presenter shared sexually explicit photos with a teenager, 17 at the time it started, but now 20 years old. It has claimed the mother of the person, who became addicted to crack cocaine funded, she claims by the thousands of pounds given to her child by the presenter, complained to the BBC in May this year but went to The Sun when the BBC did not respond.

The media has been torching the BBC every day, the name of the person concerned has been bandied about in social media even though I can think of at least one other person whom it could be. But the BBC receives allegations from the public of improper conduct by its staff every day and its bureaucracy might not have taken the allegations seriously. Moreover, to complicate the story, the young person at the centre, or is it the sidelines? of this story, has through his or her lawyer denounced The Sun story as rubbish, indeed, told The Sun before the story was first printed it was rubbish, but they published anyway, and later today (Tuesday) it's headline will read 'Dad: The BBC are Liars', though in fact he is not the Dad but a Step-Dad.

Disregard for the moment the so-called meat in this story, the photos nobody has seen, indeed, a story now bereft of facts. Consider this: Rupert Murdoch owns The Sun and hates the BBC. He wants the licence to end, and the Corporation smashed to pieces in a market place Murdoch wants to grow for himself. Given the negative coverage of this story it doesn't matter to him if it is true or not, he has succeeded in exposing the BBC to severe criticism, and thus it is 'Job done'.

Now the sick irony of it all: until the law changed in 2003, The Sun, legally, published topless photos of 16 year olds, one of whom appeared on its notorious Page 3. The hard copy dropped page 3 in 2015 and in 2017 on its online editions, yet now is fomenting a national scandal over alleged photos of a 17 year-old. Since when did a newspaper that has ruined people's lives over 40 or more years with its lies and vicious attacks, become the country's Moral Guardian?

And, given that you can see the topless 16 year old in the National Archives, or online if you register, doesn't this pose the problem that it might be illegal to do so? And where does this leave Rupert Murdoch -the publisher of what today is classed as Child Porn?

If the BBC is damaged goods and must go, what of Rupert Murdoch, whose newspapers not only ruined people's lives with lies, not only published topless photos of 16 year-old girls, but broke the law again and again through its phone hacking exploits still being prosecuted in the Courts?

The truth will come out, but will those who need to be, be held accountable -not just in the BBC, but in The Sun?

[filghy2]

Less than a year ago we were told the Murdoch media empire were going to back away from climate change denialism and support the goal of net zero emissions.
https://www.businessinsider.com/rupert-murdoch-climate-change-news-outlets-australia-policy-change-2021-9

So how have they responded to the recent news about the highest global temperatures on record? You guessed it - the same old denialism. They will never change because their business model depends on appealing to a certain audience by telling them what they want to hear.
https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/climate/102641590

[Stavros]

The greatest test is about to come: the survival of the Empire without the Emperor. The Children circling each other in the shadows. It might be consequential for the Empire's Legions and Slaves, and lead to a structural if not tonal shift in the media landscape populated by the anti-Govt, Markets-Know-Best. We wait and see.

The assessment in the UK that Murdoch played a key role in the transformation of the print industry is rubbish. Everyone knew the print newspapers were about to undergo a technological change, but while Mrs Thatcher urged Murdoch to take on the Unions which he was keen to do, and the Wapping confrontations made the headlines, the Mirror Group negotiated redundancy agreements with the Unions and made their transition to the digital world without a single strike or confrontation, which Murdoch could have done -but why choose peace when you can have war, a war he knew he was going to win?

Hence the Mantra to be Chanted when you want to undermine freedom, democracy and Government:

Where there is Balance, let there be Bias.
Where there is Celebrity, let there be Cheats.
Where there is Decency, let there be Dirt.
Where there is Honour, let there be Humiliation.
Where there is Innocence, let there be Indictment.
Where there is Sensible, let there be Sensation.
Where there is Truth, let there be Trash.
Where there are Values, let there be Vulgar.

[filghy2]

The old gnome is putting Lachlan in charge, and will still be pulling strings behind the scenes, so I don't think anything much will change until he dies.

Clearly no sense of irony in these comments in his statement:

"Self-serving bureaucracies are seeking to silence those who would question their provenance and purpose. Elites have open contempt for those who are not members of their rarefied class. Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth."

[Stavros]

The old gnome is putting Lachlan in charge, and will still be pulling strings behind the scenes, so I don't think anything much will change until he dies.

Clearly no sense of irony in these comments in his statement:

"Self-serving bureaucracies are seeking to silence those who would question their provenance and purpose. Elites have open contempt for those who are not members of their rarefied class. Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth."

A more elaborate version of your post! Interesting angle on the Australian dimension to Mudoch's permanent 'anti-elitism'...

Rupert Murdoch’s toxic legacy? The powerful can now blame the world’s ills on ‘the elite’ | Jonathan Freedland | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/22/rupert-murdoch-legacy-power-blame-elite-fox-donald-trump-russell-brand)

[filghy2]

There's a recent book on Murdoch's early career in Australia, which I haven't read. It seems he may have been genuinely anti-establishment back then, although ruthless pursuit of his own interests was always the priority.
https://theconversation.com/from-the-earliest-years-of-his-career-the-young-rupert-murdoch-ruthlessly-pursued-his-interests-207829

As with Trump, I think much of his antipathy toward educated elites stems from resentment that they have never given him the respect he felt he deserved.

[Stavros]

There's a recent book on Murdoch's early career in Australia, which I haven't read. It seems he may have been genuinely anti-establishment back then, although ruthless pursuit of his own interests was always the priority.
https://theconversation.com/from-the-earliest-years-of-his-career-the-young-rupert-murdoch-ruthlessly-pursued-his-interests-207829

As with Trump, I think much of his antipathy toward educated elites stems from resentment that they have never given him the respect he felt he deserved.

The critical point being he has never deserved it. I don't know for sure, but I think there was an arid intellectual climate in Australia in the 1950s which may explain why the most famous Australians we know in the UK spent most of their lives here rather than there, although I believe this changed when Bob Hawke was PM. I don't rate either Barry Humphries or Clive James, the former being an insult to the intelligence, the latter trading in his for a trashy tv sbow, though he was a great admirer of Philip Larkin, a poet of the most uninteresting poetry who has the highest reputation, based on what I don't know. As for Germaine Greer and Robert Hughes, both have, or did produce books worth reading, notably the book Hughes wrote on Goya.

The riposte to all this clever thinking is some thick-jawed Aussie crushing a can of Castlemaine in his hands before reaching for another and passing judgment in crude language on a passing Sheila. Crocodile Dundee syndrome, and one to which Murdoch has remained loyal ever since, presumably admiring the ruthless manner in which crocodiles snatch their prey and swallow them.

Why report the news when you can create it? And always kick your best mate in the balls to remind him who has the power.

[blackchubby38]

The greatest test is about to come: the survival of the Empire without the Emperor. The Children circling each other in the shadows. It might be consequential for the Empire's Legions and Slaves, and lead to a structural if not tonal shift in the media landscape populated by the anti-Govt, Markets-Know-Best. We wait and see.

The assessment in the UK that Murdoch played a key role in the transformation of the print industry is rubbish. Everyone knew the print newspapers were about to undergo a technological change, but while Mrs Thatcher urged Murdoch to take on the Unions which he was keen to do, and the Wapping confrontations made the headlines, the Mirror Group negotiated redundancy agreements with the Unions and made their transition to the digital world without a single strike or confrontation, which Murdoch could have done -but why choose peace when you can have war, a war he knew he was going to win?

Hence the Mantra to be Chanted when you want to undermine freedom, democracy and Government:

Where there is Balance, let there be Bias.
Where there is Celebrity, let there be Cheats.
Where there is Decency, let there be Dirt.
Where there is Honour, let there be Humiliation.
Where there is Innocence, let there be Indictment.
Where there is Sensible, let there be Sensation.
Where there is Truth, let there be Trash.
Where there are Values, let there be Vulgar.

This podcast I usually listen to had an episode a couple of weeks ago previewing the following book, "The Fall: The End of Fox News and the Murdoch Dynasty", by Michael Wolff. One of the things they talked about was the succession plan once Rupert passes away and supposedly it breaks down like this. I'm paraphrasing the transcript of the episode, so there may be errors.

Upon his death, the power ownership of the company, the voting majority of the company passes to his four children in equal amounts and there is no tie breaker.

At this moment, Lachlan is the CEO of Fox and the executive chairman of News Corp. Apparently the newspaper side of the Murdoch holdings wants him to keep the job.

His brother, Jamie wants to take the job from him. Mainly for political reasons since he is a liberal and believes Fox is a cancer on the American political body and wants to turn into a force for good.

Their sister, Elizabeth sides with her brother Jamie. But also believes that its cable television, its not going to get any more valuable, and maybe they should just sell it.

The older sister, Prudence who has never been part of the company, lives in Australia, and tends to side with whatever the majority is.

Its Wolff belief that within a couple of years after Murdoch's death he can see either the end of Fox News or it being sold. He believes there is no way for Lachlan to maintain control of a US right wing network and that Jamie will win control of the company. But at the same time, Jamie doesn't want to sell it because of his desire to make it a force for good.

But by trying to turn Fox News into a force for good, all Jamie would be doing is turning a billion dollar grosser into CNN and this will eventually lead to showdown with the shareholders. A battle that most likely the Murdochs will win since its a family controlled company.

My two cents is this. Given how uncertain the future of linear television is, I would side with Elizabeth Murdoch and say the time is right to get out and sell. Having said that, the thing you worry about is the selling to the wrong buyer. The last thing you want is the network to fall in the hands of someone like the Saudis.

When it comes to James Murdoch's plan to turn the Fox News into a force for good. I really don't see what good he is going to do by having Fox News became a liberal network, just to wind up in third place in the ratings behind MSNBC and CNN. I also don't think having all three of the major cable news networks be left leaning, with the the right wing ones (OAN and Newsmaxx) on the fringes is a good idea either.

Now if James wants to turn the network into a place where the news is just being reported, with no commentary from either side of the aisle, (sort of like a 24 hour version of a 6:30 P.M. nightly news broadcast), that would truly be doing some good. Of course, the network would still probably come in third place behind MSNBC and CNN. But at least his conscience would probably be clear.

[filghy2]

I haven't read the book, but what is the evidence that James Murdoch would want to take Fox News in liberal (rather than more centrist) direction? Objecting to their one-sided propaganda doesn't necessarily imply wanting to go in the opposite direction. Apart from his objection to them publishing disinformation, I can't recall reading anything about his political stances.

I think the idea that you can be neutral by publishing only news and no commentary seems like a chimera. The selection of which news gets published always involves some value judgements. Facts are often not clear-cut or self-explanatory, so there has to be some analysis and interpretation. What people on both sides are saying is arguably news in itself.

Rather than avoiding commentary, maybe we need to go back to something like the fairness doctrine, although there are obviously big questions about how this could be enforced in the current political climate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

[blackchubby38]

Here is a link to the podcast if anybody is interested. Its less than a 30 minute interview. Its the episode entitled, The End of Fox News and the Murdoch Empire from September 21st.

pod.link/1612131897