Is this the beginning of the end of Rupert Murdoch's media empire?

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

"There was no meeting of independent directors. This board totally supports the top management. We're united behind him," the board member said.

The second person said the board has had a succession plan in place for some time and it regularly reevaluates those plans. "Suggestions that a plan is being accelerated or implemented are inaccurate," the person said.

Well of course they'd say that.
What else would they say at this point in time? :

"We're ditching Rupert & replacing him with someone else because he's affecting the profit margins of our share holders" ? Smile

1 Reply

@msolga,

Quote:

Well of course they'd say that.
What else would they say at this point in time?

Given the make-up of the board it is for all practical purposes impossible for Murdoch to lose control of the empire, though their is speculation that he will publicly semi-retire and run it from behind the scenes. There is also a lot of speculation that he will switch kids. I doubt very much that Murdoch will hand over the public leadership role to anyone other than a kid, at this point presumed to be his daughter. Murdoch is about to become Putin, but he is not losing control of the empire till he croaks.

The report you linked is wrong, which makes it rich that Izzy was just complimenting you for your good information....he who clearly does not know his ass from a hole in the ground.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Given the make-up of the board it is for all practical purposes impossible for Murdoch to lose control of the empire ...

If he's so on the nose that he's losing money for shareholders, of course it's possible.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Quote:

If he's so on the nose that he's losing money for shareholders, of course it's possible.

It is not at all unusual for the outside stockholders to not control the board, and Murdoch controls 40% of the shares, he personally chooses 40% of the board, and the other 60% have allegiance to him to some degree or another. Stockholders can whine, but they cant change anything.

EDIT: stockholders can sue, in fact one was filed yesterday alleging that Murdoch is responsible for the loss in stock price, but shareholders who bring these kinds of suits normally have slim chances of winning in court.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

So you're saying that the board is so pro-Murdoch that they will blithely disregard the (likely) impact on on shareholders?

That would go down really well, wouldn't it? Wink

(gotta go out now. Back later on.)

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

You have demonstrated total ignorance of what's going on in my country. There is no way I'd pontificate on American politics the way you do about British politics. By the way I live in the city, I don't have an ass because it would need stables.

This is from Wikipedia,

Founded in 1821, it is now owned by the Scott Trust, via the Guardian Media Group. The paper identifies with centre-left liberalism and its readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion. A political and cultural phenomenon referred to in Hansard, the paper is also influential in design and publishing arena, sponsoring many awards in these areas.

Do you still insist the Guardian is an 'Upper Class' paper? You're confusing broadsheet and tabloid. The distinction is not a class distinction, it is a distinction between 'hard' and 'soft' news and reading age. The Daily Mirror, a left wing tabloid has also joined in the assault on Murdoch. You still seem to think we're a nation divided between castle dwellers and chimney sweeps. London stopped being foggy once all the heavy industry was forced to relocate. Try reading something relevant before you post another load of old bollocks.

0 Replies

@msolga,

Quote:

So you're saying that the board is so pro-Murdoch that they will blithely disregard the (likely) impact on on shareholders?

That would go down really well, wouldn't it?

They will unless they think they might get held personally liable for damages to the stockholders in by way of lawsuits...Which in the US almost never happens. I dont know where this corporation is registered, so I dont know the likelihood of that coming to pass.

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

So you're saying that the board is so pro-Murdoch that they will blithely disregard the (likely) impact on on shareholders?

That would go down really well, wouldn't it?

(gotta go out now. Back later on.)

I don't want to comment on the boards of any of the Murdoch companies outside the UK. However, regarding Sky, a lot of people invested because of Murdoch. His track record of making a healthy profit was a major selling point. A lot of Sky shareholders were anticipating a healthy return on their investment when Murdoch bought them out. Now that's not going to happen, (for the forseeable future at least).

Sky boardmembers are pro-profit. Profit and Murdoch were synonymous, not any more. I think they're more like headless chickens than anything else. If Murdoch can't give them a healthy return who can?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

NoW whistle-blower Sean Hoare found dead in Watford

Seriously, Sean Hoare was the only NOTW willing to tell the truth. NI did it's best to discredit him, he was an alcoholic. What I think is one of the most shameful episodes in this affair is that the Met arrested him they interviewed him as a suspect not a witness, thus dissuading other whistle-blowers to come forward. This smacks of police corruption and cover up, (the arrest of Hoare, not his unexplained death.)

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

I hadn't heard of Sean Hoare until today, when his death was in the news. He was described here (in Oz) as the initial "whistle blower"

Quote:

What I think is one of the most shameful episodes in this affair is that the Met arrested him they interviewed him as a suspect not a witness ...

(Without asking for too much time & effort to explain, I hope) how did he come to be arrested when he was offering information?

1 Reply

Hooray for hackers, from the BBC

Lulz Security hackers target Sun website
The Lulz Security group has used Twitter to draw further attention to itself. A group of computer hackers has tampered with the website of News International-owned the Sun's website.

At first, readers were redirected to a hoax story which said Rupert Murdoch had been found dead in his garden.

A group of hackers called Lulz Security, which has previously targeted companies including Sony, said on Twitter it was behind the attack.

Visitors to the Sun website were then redirected to the group's Twitter page, before News International took it down.

News International said it was "aware" of what was happening but made no further comment.

Readers trying to access thesun.co.uk were taken to new-times.co.uk and a story entitled "Media mogul's body discovered".

It suggested that Mr Murdoch had been found after he had "ingested a large quantity of palladium".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attack on the Sun website is in line with LulzSec's "hacktivist" ethos. Although it claims to do what it does for laughs, the group usually has a point to make.

Often it is trying to raise awareness of the poor security measures put in place by large organisations.

However, some of its hits have been more overtly political. In one case, LulzSec broke into the website of US broadcaster PBS after it showed a documentary that was critical of Wikileaks.

The attack on the Sun website has LulzSec's fingerprints all over it, with the combination of a mischief-making news story, and a target that is seen as being involved in corporate wrongdoing.

Clearly this is not the most significant development in the scandal currently engulfing News International. But the turning of the hacking tables is, at least, curiously ironic sideshow.
After that site stopped working, the Sun's address was re-directing to LulzSec's Twitter account, which claimed to be displaying "hacked internal Sun staff data" in one entry.

In another, the group said: "Arrest us. We dare you. We are the unstoppable hacking generation..."

It is thought the Times website and the News International corporate website were taken down by the company as a precaution on Monday evening.

BBC technology reporter Iain MacKenzie said the attack on the Sun website was in line with LulzSec's "hacktivist" ethos, with the combination of a mischief-making news story, and a target that is seen as being involved in corporate wrongdoing.

He said: "Clearly this is not the most significant development in the scandal currently engulfing News International. But the turning of the hacking tables is, at least, curiously ironic sideshow."

Last month the hacking group announced it was disbanding.

Lulz Security made its announcement through its Twitter account, giving no reason for its decision.

A statement published on a file-sharing website said that its "planned 50-day cruise has expired".

The group leapt to prominence by carrying out attacks on various high-profile companies.

The first came in May 2011 when the hackers targeted Fox.com in retaliation for calling rapper and entertainer Common "vile" on the Fox News channel.

A month later, they turned their attention against Sony, taking data from thousands of people including names, e-mail addresses and dates of birth.

The group has also cyber-attacked broadcaster PBS, the CIA, and the United States Senate.

As a parting shot, it released a selection of documents apparently including confidential material taken from the Arizona police department and US telecoms giant AT&T.

0 Replies

Lance Price, a former media advisor to Tony Blair, interviewed on last night's LateLine (ABC television, Australia) about the connection between Blair's government, Rupert Murdoch's ambitions, NOTW & elections.
He describes Murdoch as "the 24th member of Blair's cabinet", with more influence on Blair than the cabinet members themselves.
He also talks about Murdoch's influence on David Cameron's (current British) government.:

Quote:

VIDEO: Politicians versus the media in the UK

Former BBC political correspondent Lance Price was Tony Blair's director of communications and saw Rupert Murdoch having easier access to Tony Blair than did junior cabinet ministers.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

I hadn't heard of Sean Hoare until today, when his death was in the news. He was described here (in Oz) as the initial "whistle blower"

Quote:
What I think is one of the most shameful episodes in this affair is that the Met arrested him they interviewed him as a suspect not a witness ...

(Without asking for too much time & effort to explain, I hope) how did he come to be arrested when he was offering information?

The story broke in America, in the New York Times. When Hoare returned to the UK he was arrested as a suspect and interviewed under caution. He was not treated as a witness. This was when the Met and NI thought it would all go away.

1 Reply

@msolga,

The thing is, most politicians were scared of Murdoch. NI had the power and resources to totally trash someone's reputation, and it did. In the run up to the 1997 election, Paddy Ashdown, the Liberal leader found that his solicitor's offices had been broken into. Documents detailing an affair which had ended a long time ago had been stolen. The NOTW came into possession of these documents. Someone was charged with receiving stolen property, but not anyone associated with NOTW.

NOTW published the documents under the headline Paddy Pantsdown. I like to think that Labour would have won the election with a landslide anyway, but it did mean that the Liberals were very badly damaged, and that the only real opposition to the Tories was New Labour under Blair.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

The story broke in America, in the New York Times. When Hoare returned to the UK he was arrested as a suspect and interviewed under caution. He was not treated as a witness. This was when the Met and NI thought it would all go away. This was when the Met and NI thought it would all go away.

Thanks for more details.
That is outrageous.
I can only imagine how much courage it would have taken for him to speak up, as an early whistle-blower, against the might of Murdoch's power.
I won't ask about what exactly he was a "suspect" for.
How incredibly sad, the timing of his death. Just at the time he would have been vindicated. Just at the time he should have been celebrated for his bravery in making such a principled stand.
The Met & Murdoch should be ashamed of how this man was treated.

1 Reply

@msolga,

He had admitted to being involved in phone hacking, but he was a small cog.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

The thing is, most politicians were scared of Murdoch. NI had the power and resources to totally trash someone's reputation, and it did.

Oh you don't have to tell me that, izzy!
I live in Australia, where he controls 70% of our daily newspapers & more! And is attempting to expand.
Our politicians have been petrified of him!
His "news"papers have made & broken governments.
He is biggest of the big two media owners in Oz. The others being the Packer family.

Quote:

A long line of Australian politicians have had unhealthy relationships with the Murdoch and Packer families through the decades.

The connections, deals, endorsements, donations and cross-fertilisation should now be retrospectively examined. ..

... It was Keating's 1986 media ownership changes which cleared the way for News Corp to develop its ridiculous 70 per cent Australian newspaper market share courtesy of its 1987 takeover of the Herald and Weekly Times.

The Murdoch press backed Keating at key moments in his subsequent war of attrition against Bob Hawke, yet Keating has never given a full account of his dealings with Murdoch, let alone admitted the HWT takeover was a disaster for Australia's democracy.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2798930.html

Does that sound familiar? Neutral

Recently, Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens called for an inquiry into media ownership regulations in Australia.

This is the response he's received from Murdoch's Herald Sun columnist, Andrew Bolt. <shudder>

Quote:

Beware of Bob Brown's totalitarian media view

WOULD you trust Bob Brown to control what you read? I didn't think we lived in a country where that question had to be asked.

Yet the Greens leader on Thursday proposed laws to stifle the freedom of newspapers to publish articles like this. Articles by conservatives.

"I think there's quite a bit of concern I'm being fed from within the media ... about the narrow range of media opinion and the intrusion of opinion into news columns in sections of Australian media," Brown declared.

"And it's a good thing that we have a look at that."

To be clear: "Maybe we do need to lift out of the gutter some of the stuff that's appearing as opinion or news commentary in Australia."

Be very clear about this threat - this first step to totalitarianism. ...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/beware-of-bob-browns-totalitarian-media-view/story-e6frfifx-1226095601737

Take a look at Bolt's other "political commentaries" & you get the picture.

The Gillard Labor government has opposed Murdoch's expansion of television rights into China (at the expense of the ABC, the national broadcaster) & Bob Brown has dared question Murdoch's media monopoly. No surprises as to which politicians Andrew Bolt attacks.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/andrew-bolt

The Herald Sun (otherwise know as "the Hun") is Murdoch's biggest selling tabloid newspaper in Oz.

But the Herald Sun & Andrew Bolt are just the tip of the Murdoch media iceberg here. You should see the rest! Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@msolga,

I hadn't seen that Olgs - not surprising considering I studiously ignore Murdoch press - and Bolt in particular

Andrew Dolt wrote:

WOULD you trust Bob Brown to control what you read?

More than I'd trust Rupert Murdoch Andrew, you clueless ******.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Hey, asshole, which of the three parties (and there are more than three) constitute the "two major parties," a question i've asked you before and which you have dodged--likely because you don't have a clue.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

Amen to that.

0 Replies

Is this the beginning of the end of Rupert Murdoch's media empire?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know