When some of the mind games and manoeuvres that turned a Murdoch family “retreat” into an ordeal appeared in Succession, the TV drama about squabbling family members of a right-wing media company, members of the real-life family started to suspect each other of leaking details to the writers. The truth was more straightforward. Succession’s creator, Jesse Armstrong, said that his team hadn’t needed inside sources – they had simply read press reports.
Future screenwriters have been gifted a whole load of new Murdoch material in the past few days, after two astonishing stories in the New York Times and the Atlantic lifted the lid on the dysfunction, paranoia and despair at the heart of the most powerful family in global media.
The stories followed the end of the secret trial involving the fate of the Murdoch family trust. The mogul’s four eldest children – Lachlan, James, Elisabeth and Prudence – were set to inherit the family firm following Rupert’s death. But four years ago, just after turning 90, Rupert had tried to cut James, Liz and Prue out of their inheritance and hand the businesses over to Lachlan, his favoured heir who also happens to share his increasingly right-wing politics.
The lawsuit was brought by the three errant offspring, and in December a Nevada commissioner ruled in their favour, accusing Rupert and Lachlan of acting in “bad faith”. The trial took place in secret, but the fallout – thanks to the New York Times investigation and a 13,000-word Atlantic interview with James – has been anything but.
It says if he lives to be 99, in 2030 when the trust expires, he can then again cut the other kids out. May his health fail quickly for everyone’s sake
I wish nothing but pain for this fuckhead. May he develop dementia and circle the drain for years, living in a puddle of his own mess, then die alone and sobbing the day before he would get the power to dissolve the trust.
A couple weeks or months would be better, that way they can’t pretend that he lived just long enough to sign it over.
Reagan removing the fairness doctrine and Murdoch setting up Fox News rank among the biggest blows in democracy and prosperity IMO.
I acknowledge that many left and center-left news organizations will also push agendas, tell partial truths, etc. (Fairness doctrine would help reign them in as well).
edit: Fairness doctrine didn’t cover cable only radio. That’d still help cut down some misinformation but in an ideal world IMO it’d apply to most forms of media.
I write about the Fairness Doctrine all the time.
Someone commented that they thought it was a terrible idea, because a Flat Earther would be given time.
People today are so used to propaganda that they can’t even imagine what a level playing field looks like.
If it is interpreted in malicious intent, that is indeed how a fairness doctrine can be abused.
For instance during Covid in German public broadcasters, far right politicians and conspiracy theorists were given disproportionately much screen time and often not followed by fact checking. So if you have 70% science based and 30% lies and deceptions, at the end the lies will make up 70% of what the audience receives.
The original laws were written in broadcast days. Even if we had it today, so many people get their news from privately produced videos that there’d always be a huge number of deliberately uninformed people.
This is one of the most level headed comments on Lemmy I’ve seen.
Never before, have I been so offended by something I agree with 100%
Fairness Doctrine (wikipedia)
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine.
ok, i get it now.You might want to look up a movie called "Network.’
It went from cutting edge satire to staid docudrama in real time.
Reading the plot of the film on Wikipedia reminds me i might have seen it once. This film ends on : “This was the story of Howard Beale: the first known instance of a man who was killed because he had lousy ratings.”
While removal of the fairness Doctrine was a horrible thing. It would not have impacted Fox News in the slightest. It may have had some impact on am talk radio, or Sinclair propaganda. Which would have been a good thing. But zero impact on OANN or similar ilk. Not even CNN or MSNBC or any of the others would have been affected either. It was strictly broadcast only.
Interesting. Well I stand corrected. I’ve seen people, including in the media and the like, apply it to cable. Can’t help but wonder if some of the misinformation was deliberate and meant to manipulate.
In this case, A I think fairness doctrine should be reinstated and B should apply to more forms of media.
I think a lot of people assume that had it stuck around it would have eventually been applied to cable. But cable was a big new thing at the end of the 1970s early 1980s. Specifically because it didn’t have a lot of the regulation and restrictions that broadcast did.
I think a lot of people would have also assumed that the ERA would have been ratified by now. Or that a woman’s right to abortion would have been enshrined in law by now. But that didn’t happen either. So it’s never good to assume.
And then the real rub, what actually constitutes a Viewpoint worthy of being heard. Yes the fairness Doctrine was supposed to give other viewpoints air time. And it did. But not all of them. Fox News in fact was really good with this formula. Early Fox News often tried to provide the appearance of that sort of balance. Toe-headed Sean Hannity did not have his own show for a long long time. Granted the show was his in all but name. But for a long time he was saddled with a limp wet noodle Democrat. Who was little more than a foil for Sean to stomp over. But Alan Combs did provide some token Democrat views and pushback.
The equal representation was only as good as the honesty and the sincerity of the people behind allowing it. Which was often quite dubious itself.
Great write up. The Fairness Doctrine on its own definitely wouldn’t solve everything. It’d be a step in the right direction, but the journey would be far from over. edit: and there’s probably no “perfect” solution.
I think we would have been better off had it stuck around as well. But I also think that we’ve somewhat arrived at the best of all situations. Where access to Media is much more democratized. You don’t have to rely on a big wealthy owner Etc allowing your Viewpoint to be heard. The modern problem is AI generated fire hoses of disinformation. They can output so much more misinformation through seemingly so many more Outlets than an actual person can. So it’s going to rely on a lot more word of mouth and Trust. People finding good journalists and presenters like coffee Zilla for instance and sharing them with others to help build up trusted networks of Representatives.
And not a minute too soon.
Fuck Murdoch to hell and back with a rusty wire brush.“It is irrevocable, but it includes a provision that gives Rupert the ability to make changes as long as he is acting solely in the best interests of his beneficiaries.”
:D
Outside of blatant corruption Murdoch probably isn’t getting out of that.
I’m not a lawyer, but the penalties alone over the 2020 election BS among many other things, arguably prove the the current editorial environment and management is bad for both the kids personally and the company as a whole. Damage to the company is ultimately damage to the kids, and Murdoch dug his own grave with that.
How can a public trial be held in secret? I can understand that any agreement can also include NDAs but I wasn’t aware that any US court could adjudicate in secret.
It was family court. Meaning theres privacy to internal family matters
Europe here, what’s a family court?
And in its place Musk has his own now. :\
Finally some good news
