|
|
Post by rookie on Jul 15, 2011 10:24:22 GMT -5
Rupert Hurdoch is taking a lot of heat here. But I wonder about a couple things.
First, Newscorp is a pretty big company. Well, it's freaking huge. And CEOs do very little in the way of day to day operations. I am not letting him off the hook, please don't infer that. He is at the top. He gets praise for good things, punishment for bad things. But I wonder how much of this latest scandal is him and how much was being kept from him.
The Fox family consists of more than Fox News. I think everyone here knows that. The Fox Broadcast Network (the one who airs The Simpsons, Married with Children, Family Guy, House, et al) is one of the more liberal broadcast networks. I enjoy watching Fox Sports sometimes. And Fox Business isn't that evil. It worries me a little that anything serious with Newscorp would end up with these babies (and other non evil interests) would get tossed out with the Fox News and British scandal bathwater. Now someone please reassure me that this won't happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Jul 15, 2011 10:41:02 GMT -5
Rupert Hurdoch is taking a lot of heat here. But I wonder about a couple things. First, Newscorp is a pretty big company. Well, it's freaking huge. And CEOs do very little in the way of day to day operations. I am not letting him off the hook, please don't infer that. He is at the top. He gets praise for good things, punishment for bad things. But I wonder how much of this latest scandal is him and how much was being kept from him. The Fox family consists of more than Fox News. I think everyone here knows that. The Fox Broadcast Network (the one who airs The Simpsons, Married with Children, Family Guy, House, et al) is one of the more liberal broadcast networks. I enjoy watching Fox Sports sometimes. And Fox Business isn't that evil. It worries me a little that anything serious with Newscorp would end up with these babies (and other non evil interests) would get tossed out with the Fox News and British scandal bathwater. Now someone please reassure me that this won't happen. I don't think most News Corp arms will be affected. And you're right a conglomerate that big has the ability to shield the rest of itself from scandal in one arm. At the same time I don't think anything will happen to most of its US operations, including FOX News, unless something illegal comes up. Mostly its probably gonna be the New York Post's possible emulation of their British cousins' tactics. Similarly, major papers like The Times Of London are probably not going to be affected much in the UK; the papers that did nothing wrong will survive. That said, the loss of NotW and BSkyB represents a not-insignificant loss for the company, one that rolls back years of planning and definitely sets the company in crisis mode. At this point, Murdoch's 80; the reality of having to continue the company when he's gone is very real and will happen soon, and with James Murdoch likely facing jail time, that's thrown into disarray. Also the revenues from the full BSkyB chunk had it been completed would've been more than all its paper holdings twice over. Considering how certain the deal had been the loss of the deal now and the potential further loss of their stakes in BSkyB would leave any company in tatters, even with so many other stakes. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/14/business/media/rupert-murdochs-empire.html?ref=europeI will also say this; I believe that how leaders act influence how their subordinates act. Murdoch implanted a aggressive culture of deception and control starting with News Of The World; his news organizations especially tend towards the sensationalist, the sleazy, and the deliberate. FOX, NoW and NYPost's directed attacks are no accident, and neither is the fact all his properties suffer from the same accusations of bias. Murdoch is a moralless man who will demolish others to get his way, and his subordinates, his son, Coulson, Brooks on down who see him as a moral compass will follow his footsteps. He may end up free from the side of the law but that doesn't make him innocent. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Jul 15, 2011 14:13:28 GMT -5
I think that what is going to actually happen is that one or two high-profile people will be sacked or put into a minor area of Newscorp's various outlets. Then, after a short purdah, they'll come back. One who probably will be out of the game altogether will be Brooks herself - after her resignation, she'll probably either end up at one of the other tabloids or, are at most, a couple of months in prison, or more likely, given an electronic tag and curfew. The reason? Well the politicans may all blow hard right now, but in the end they all want Murdoch's backing if they want to win at an election.
And one other thing..... does not exist beyond the realms of Hollywood screenwriters, it's simply known as The Times. Sorry, just a bugbear of mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadowpanther on Jul 15, 2011 15:08:12 GMT -5
And one other thing..... does not exist beyond the realms of Hollywood screenwriters, it's simply known as The Times. Sorry, just a bugbear of mine. It sounds more refined and gentlemanly to my ears. On that basis I'm prepared to let this particular Americanism slide. Of course the question of whether one can refer to a Murdoch paper as 'refined and gentlemanly' is another matter entirely. To which the answer is 'no it cannot'. |
|
|
|
Post by chad sexington on Jul 15, 2011 15:30:35 GMT -5
I completely forgot about the Saudi angle. Source |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jul 15, 2011 18:22:00 GMT -5
Rupert Hurdoch is taking a lot of heat here. But I wonder about a couple things. First, Newscorp is a pretty big company. Well, it's freaking huge. And CEOs do very little in the way of day to day operations. Murdock is famously hyperactive when it comes to the day-to-day operation of his empire. He certainly would have been aware of the use of illegal methods, especialy after a 2007 internal report into them. The problem is, he then covered the use of these methods up. Fox is actually the least likely to fold. Fox is the big profitmaker of the Murdock Archepelago. Newspapers like the NY Post, the Wall street Journal and the Australian, which have never made any money, are likely to simply close down in case of imperial collapse. Fox might even be more profitable, severed from those moocher-papers. Assuming no change to media regulation* Roger Ailes will be allowed to continue his campaign against good sense, truth and liberalism- the only change will be that he'll be officially independent. However, I still think it a good thing that lie-papers like the Post are destroyed. They're a boil on the arse of the world. *And that's a certainty in the US. Reform is an impossibility, the political system is too broken. Well the politicans may all blow hard right now, but in the end they all want Murdoch's backing if they want to win at an election. That's exactly why he'll be crushed. He's a political player who works entirely on fear. Now that he's been temporarily weakened, politicians will (rightly) use this opportunity to destroy a challenge to their (legitimate, elected) power. If he doesn't wind up in jail, I'd be very surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Jul 16, 2011 5:09:32 GMT -5
And one other thing..... does not exist beyond the realms of Hollywood screenwriters, it's simply known as The Times. Sorry, just a bugbear of mine. It sounds more refined and gentlemanly to my ears. On that basis I'm prepared to let this particular Americanism slide. Of course the question of whether one can refer to a Murdoch paper as 'refined and gentlemanly' is another matter entirely. To which the answer is 'no it cannot'. In their defence, they make excellent fish and chip wrappers. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Jul 16, 2011 5:11:28 GMT -5
Well the politicans may all blow hard right now, but in the end they all want Murdoch's backing if they want to win at an election. That's exactly why he'll be crushed. He's a political player who works entirely on fear. Now that he's been temporarily weakened, politicians will (rightly) use this opportunity to destroy a challenge to their (legitimate, elected) power. If he doesn't wind up in jail, I'd be very surprised. I'm not so sure - I think after a short purdah, Murdoch will be back where he always was, probably with a new team to front him. |
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Jul 16, 2011 5:28:37 GMT -5
This all depends how tinfoil hat you want to get.
The most obvious scenario is that as noted above, a few prominent-ish members of the corp will take the fall for this and then subsequently worm their way back in when the heat dies down.
OR
Someone inside the political establishment got hold of some damaging information on News Corp and decided it would be a good way to get rid of Murdoch's influence on things...
OR
News Corp engineered the whole thing to throw rival journos/governments/conspiritards/everyone off the scent while they [insert some other wicked plan that results in extra revenue/influence here]
OR
Something bad came to light while they were performing due diligence on the books at bSkyb and they engineered the situation to pull out while saving face
OR
aliens/reptilians
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jul 16, 2011 6:26:49 GMT -5
That's exactly why he'll be crushed. He's a political player who works entirely on fear. Now that he's been temporarily weakened, politicians will (rightly) use this opportunity to destroy a challenge to their (legitimate, elected) power. If he doesn't wind up in jail, I'd be very surprised. I'm not so sure - I think after a short purdah, Murdoch will be back where he always was, probably with a new team to front him. I think we can both agree to hope you're wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Jul 16, 2011 8:16:36 GMT -5
I'm not so sure - I think after a short purdah, Murdoch will be back where he always was, probably with a new team to front him. I think we can both agree to hope you're wrong. We can. It'd be nice to think it would be the end of Murdoch and his rotten organisation, but I feel that this is exactly what he's going to do: Wait until everthing has died down then emerge with a new team. It's interesting to note that the latest one to resign was already old enough to have been pensioned off and Brooks was too high-profile to survive any longer. I'd say that it's safe to say that there's probably a sub- or deputy-editor somewhere who's right now getting primed for a position as the editor for the replacement for NoW. Now there is a depressing thought. |
|
Dan
Full Member
Posts: 228
|
Post by Dan on Jul 16, 2011 12:40:28 GMT -5
Since they announced their intention buy the remainder of Sky at £7 per share, the share price was going up. But since the excrement hit the air-circulation device, the Sky share price has been dropping again.
I'm sure they didn't plan it this way, but it is possible that as a result of the NotW scandal they could come back in ~6 months and buy up Sky for a lower price.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meshakhad on Jul 16, 2011 14:11:07 GMT -5
I think that this is nothing short of divine retribution for canceling Firefly.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadowpanther on Jul 16, 2011 16:12:05 GMT -5
I think that this is nothing short of divine retribution for canceling Firefly. Preach it brother! |
|
|
|
Post by chad sexington on Jul 17, 2011 9:08:29 GMT -5
|
|
