Rupert Murdoch is the big, bad media mogul who meets secretly with presidential candidates and might want to buy the New York Times. He's also the billionaire behind STAR India, the media giant there that's closing a deal to acquire a majority stake in Asianet Entertainment. But is it just business as usual, or Murdoch's Machiavellian attempt to execute a secret agenda? CONTINUED »
Because what an industry of navel gazers needs is another profile of Rupert Murdoch, Vanity Fair's Michael Wolff obliged and produced this piece of journa-schism. Its side effect was a discussion about where the (almost certainly false) rumors of Michael Bloomberg wanting to buy the New York Times began, but more amusing is the brief re-telling of how Murdoch stole the Wall Street Journal away from the Bancroft family with a giant false promise: CONTINUED »
For helping Fox News continue pulling in more viewers than any other cable network, Roger Ailes was rewarded $19.9 million in the last twelve months, double what he was paid in the year prior. His pay package includes a measly $5 million salary, plus a $1 million bonus and, from Fox News alone, a $4.5 million bonus. How are things looking farther up the ladder, though, where Rupert Murdoch sits? Still healthy, but not such year-over-year largesse. In fact, Murdoch's pay slipped last year. Fourteen percent lower, Murdoch's total compensation rang in at $27.5 million; $17.5 million of that was a cash bonus. As for Democrat-loving COO Peter Chernin? He beat the bossman, with pay of $28.8 million; even still, his award dropped a full 15 percent.
You are looking at a Wall Street Journal headline from yesterday's newspaper. What you might not get from the headline is that instead of posting a $8.86 billion loss, Wachovia will post a $9.11 billion loss. Pennies, right? But there's a reason you didn't get a sense of peril — we're talking a $250 million difference — from the headline: the Journal didn't want you to. When Rupert Murdoch launched the Fox Business Network last year, he promised a "more business friendly" (than CNBC) financial network. And having gobbled up the Journal, it appears Murdoch might be spreading that policy to newsprint. Otherwise, this headline might've read the less wordy, less vague, "Wachovia Admits to Even Wider Loss." [Naked Shorts]
Oh noers, MySpace is teaming up with MSNBC to hold a "citizen journalist" contest, with the prize being a trip to either the DNC or RNC (depending on which party your Top Eight friends are voting for) and continuing exposure on MSNBC. The submission deadline was mid-July, so unfortunately you missed out on this once-in-a-blogtime opportunity. Again, most bloggers/people on the internet do not have the credentials to do objective reporting, but hey, it's MSNBC so luckily that's not a requirement. But cranky Keith Olbermann won't agree to having xxxSEXYJESSY82xxx or whomever on his program. Is this because MySpace is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the older and grouchier media kingpin? Olbermann's reps have said that the conditions of the contest only extend to the winner appearing on Morning Joe, but Keith has heard of the phenomena of MySpace-face and doesn't want to be upstaged by a sixteen year old with better hair.
Still bitter about losing his wedding ring, media baron and newspaper shaman Rupert Murdoch has suddenly found himself hedging his bets, rather than expanding his empire anywhere you can translate American Idol. While he has no problem doing big business with human rights running joke China and sinking $100 million into India, there is one place he isn't keen on dealing with: the Kremlin. Because they steal! CONTINUED »
A year ago this month, wedding ring misplacer Rupert Murdoch had set his sights on Dow Jones & Co. and its Wall Street Journal newspaper, successfully clearing the bid with shareholders and leading up to the December closing. At the time, media speculators trashed Murdoch, accusing him of looking to the Journal not to improve its credentials, but to add it his enormous empire of political and business influence. But Wall Street wasn't on board with that scenario; instead, they nudged Murdoch on.
It's a very difference scenario today.
The press is defending Murdoch; even Jack Shafer has nice things to say about his stewardship of the Journal. Meanwhile, Wall Street has trounced News Corp.' stock; it hovers around $14, or 40 percent less than its 52-week high. Something about the instability of the print media market, and Murdoch's insistence on subsidizing any losses with big gains made elsewhere. And then there's the whole Dow Jones part of the equation; where does that thing fit in with, say, MySpace? And what about Murdoch's tendency to treat financial weaknesses in other media companies as a chance to snap 'em up on the cheap? So, so many concerns, this deserves an exposé! CONTINUED »
"Over the weekend, the Washington Post reported that FBN averaged 8,000 viewers during daytime programming and 20,000 viewers in primetime in the first three weeks of July. That's a little better than the numbers reported at the start of the year, when the channel was reaching 6,000 viewers during the day and 15,000 in the evening. But at that rate of growth, it will be another 3,588 weeks, or 69 years, before FBN matches CNBC's daytime audience of 284,000. By then, Murdoch will be 146 years old, and on his seventh wife, if current trends hold (and assuming no growth in CNBC's numbers)." [Portfolio]
"There is no bad Murdoch. There is no good Murdoch. And [Wall Street Journal managing editor Paul] Steiger knows it. There is only Murdoch." —Jack Shafer, discussing a certain somebody
Roger Ailes, the Fox News head earning $11 million a year whose job description is loosely phrased as "perform Rupert Murdoch's bidding," did something most would expect from his boss: He bought a newspaper. It's the 3,000 circ Putnam County News and Recorder, the 142-year-old paper of Ailes' hometown. And like a good Murdoch minion, Ailes is taking care of the whole nepotism thing: He's hired his wife, Elizabeth, to be its publisher. Also like Murdoch, there are promises that nothing about the paper will change. Heh. [NYT]
Rupert Murdoch's third wife Wendi Deng is going to have his balls handed to him if he doesn't find the wedding ring he managed to lose at the annual Allen & Co. media orgy in Sun Valley. The News Corp. mogul had a few too many at the Lodge bar and, en route to losing his sobriety, also lost his wedding ring. A 15-minute reporter-fueled search — must obey The Man's orders! — failed to turn it up. Forbes's 73rd richest man in the world … laughing stock of the upper echelon. [Reuters]
Rupert Murdoch is upset that his BSkyB has to compete in Britain with the BBC on bids for American programming, and wants the publicly funded channel to be banned from the practice. [Variety]
It must've been a bitter pill for Jack Shafer to swallow when his editor showed him the headline of his column published Friday: "Is the Journal Getting … Better?" To be sure, that's exactly what Shafer is arguing, pulling a 180 after what seems like endless columns where he railed against Rupert Murdoch from the first whispers of his trying to buy the paper from the Bancroft family to his first days as its new owner. But might the biggest foe to balanced journalism actually have made the Wall Street Journal a better paper through his stewardship? CONTINUED »
With his $28,500 contribution, the maximum legal amount, to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the News Corp. chief once again sends onlookers into a tizzy trying to figure out his political leanings. His deputy, COO Peter Chernin, donated less than half that amount in November to to Democrats' committee, which is charged with electing constituents to the Senate.
On last night's Countdown, Keith Olbermann named Rupert Murdoch his "Worst Person in the World" for the inside baseball decision of firing HarperCollins chief Jane Friedman, supposedly because she quashed the O.J. Simpson book and fired Judith Regan, despite Murdoch wanting the book out.
But maybe Friedman's fate was sealed much earlier? Like, three years ago? When her ally Lachlan Murdoch, son of Rupert, left the company, and she had to begin reporting to COO Peter Chernin? And had to start meeting certain financial targets? Which would've meant layoffs? That Friedman would've had a problem with?
Editorial Director
