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???

[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?

[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?