5 ms·

He gets credit for not doing something extremely unethical that would have been quite risky, probably stupidly so (because it would bring him into the controver

by cowpig 8y ago

He gets credit for not doing something extremely unethical that would have been quite risky, probably stupidly so (because it would bring him into the controversy)?

1024core 8y ago
Since when has ethics ever stopped Rupert Murdoch?
monkeypizza 8y ago
If you don't give him credit for that, what would you give him credit for? If he stopped Carreyrou, you'd obviously blame him. Therefore in order for your judgement to be meaningful, you have to admit that him allowing Carreyrou to go ahead and topple the house of cards was a good action. Otherwise no matter what he does you judge him negatively - and in that case, your decision is predetermined and not of informational value for anyone.
- spurcell93 8y ago
  .... Uh. Yeah. That's why the poster did give him credit.
- shub 8y ago
  Refraining from being horrible is not the same thing as doing something good.
  - zeth___ 8y ago
    Look at all the people I have not murdered today. Yes yesterday was a bit of a bad day with that school and everything but I should get some credit for today.
    - Cthulhu_ 8y ago
      It's almost like the nice guy thing. My times I respected women stamp card is almost full!
  - mseebach 8y ago
    No, but refraining from taking an action that's well within your power to take, possibly with minimal consequences, and which you have a strong incentive to take, is sign of integrity. I don't know if that's "getting credit", but having integrity is clearly a good thing. On the other hand, it could simply be shrewd businessmanship. It's not like it was the reporting that made Theranos unviable. The tech would never work, it's just a question of time before the walls come crashing down. It's probably illegal for Murdoch to sit on this information while trying to sell his investment on to someone else (at the very least, inviting some nasty lawsuits). Murdoch might very well have thought "Oh well, the investment is gone, I'll be damned if it isn't my newspaper to be the one to break this juicy news".
    - mhneu 8y ago
      Murdoch had a short term incentive but a very large long term disincentive. If he tried to suppress this story he would have gotten caught because FDA and Walgreens care about facts. Not to mention that the story itself would drive readership. Looks to me that Murdoch acted exactly according to his long term goals.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  You don't give people credit for what should be normal. You give them credit for doing something over and beyond normal.
tptacek 8y ago
I don't know if he gets credit for it (I'm disinclined to give him credit for anything, ever), but since a reporter in his employ came pretty close to singlehandedly ruining that investment, he makes a really bad example of how Theranos investors subverted the media. As Carreyrou reports, Theranos definitely tried to pull strings with Murdoch, and apparently got nowhere with it. The WSJ timed the story to hit right before Holmes was set to appear at a major WSJ business conference.
- jlj 8y ago
  Were his losses insured or recovered somehow after the collapse? Or was the investor money all gone by then?
  - sjburt 8y ago
    Not publishing the story wouldn't have saved Murdoch's $125m. The story just reflected the truth of the matter, which was that the company had nothing and never did.
    - jlj 8y ago
      Speculating that he might have lost less than $125 million by publishing the story. How much of the investment was recovered or it's that still TBD? Once the fraud was exposed and the company began winding down, spending would quickly slow down and that might have put investors in a better position to recover something, versus loosing everything.
- mhneu 8y ago
  Carreyrou wrote a book. This story was going to get out anyway. Murdoch is a very skilled propagandist. He knew that trying to suppress this story would have backfired on him. Especially because the machines don’t work and because Walgreens would have soon learned the truth. Nothing hurts a propagandist more than being really caught in an obvious lie. To protect his ability to slant the WSJ, Murdoch couldn’t have gotten caught suppressing this story. And he would have gotten caught if he tried.
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
Would controlling the media to influence an investment you hold stock in be considered illegal? Similar to insider trading?
- tragic 8y ago
  I believe so: consider the City Slickers case[0]. Those guys were journos, not proprietors, but I'm pretty sure that if you could prove that a proprietor put heavy manners on the journos to do that, they would certainly be up for a criminal conspiracy charge, at least in Britain. Of course, that is typically a pretty big 'if'. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hipwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hipwell
- mhneu 8y ago
  Unless you’re in the US Congress, where profiting from stock movements was made explicitly legal - by an act of Congress.

by cowpig 8y ago

He gets credit for not doing something extremely unethical that would have been quite risky, probably stupidly so (because it would bring him into the controversy)?

1024core 8y ago

Since when has ethics ever stopped Rupert Murdoch?

monkeypizza 8y ago

If you don't give him credit for that, what would you give him credit for? If he stopped Carreyrou, you'd obviously blame him. Therefore in order for your judgement to be meaningful, you have to admit that him allowing Carreyrou to go ahead and topple the house of cards was a good action. Otherwise no matter what he does you judge him negatively - and in that case, your decision is predetermined and not of informational value for anyone.

spurcell93 8y ago
.... Uh. Yeah. That's why the poster did give him credit.
shub 8y ago
Refraining from being horrible is not the same thing as doing something good.
- zeth___ 8y ago
  Look at all the people I have not murdered today. Yes yesterday was a bit of a bad day with that school and everything but I should get some credit for today.
  - Cthulhu_ 8y ago
    It's almost like the nice guy thing. My times I respected women stamp card is almost full!
- mseebach 8y ago
  No, but refraining from taking an action that's well within your power to take, possibly with minimal consequences, and which you have a strong incentive to take, is sign of integrity. I don't know if that's "getting credit", but having integrity is clearly a good thing. On the other hand, it could simply be shrewd businessmanship. It's not like it was the reporting that made Theranos unviable. The tech would never work, it's just a question of time before the walls come crashing down. It's probably illegal for Murdoch to sit on this information while trying to sell his investment on to someone else (at the very least, inviting some nasty lawsuits). Murdoch might very well have thought "Oh well, the investment is gone, I'll be damned if it isn't my newspaper to be the one to break this juicy news".
  - mhneu 8y ago
    Murdoch had a short term incentive but a very large long term disincentive. If he tried to suppress this story he would have gotten caught because FDA and Walgreens care about facts. Not to mention that the story itself would drive readership. Looks to me that Murdoch acted exactly according to his long term goals.
jacquesm 8y ago
You don't give people credit for what should be normal. You give them credit for doing something over and beyond normal.

tptacek 8y ago

I don't know if he gets credit for it (I'm disinclined to give him credit for anything, ever), but since a reporter in his employ came pretty close to singlehandedly ruining that investment, he makes a really bad example of how Theranos investors subverted the media. As Carreyrou reports, Theranos definitely tried to pull strings with Murdoch, and apparently got nowhere with it. The WSJ timed the story to hit right before Holmes was set to appear at a major WSJ business conference.

jlj 8y ago
Were his losses insured or recovered somehow after the collapse? Or was the investor money all gone by then?
- sjburt 8y ago
  Not publishing the story wouldn't have saved Murdoch's $125m. The story just reflected the truth of the matter, which was that the company had nothing and never did.
  - jlj 8y ago
    Speculating that he might have lost less than $125 million by publishing the story. How much of the investment was recovered or it's that still TBD? Once the fraud was exposed and the company began winding down, spending would quickly slow down and that might have put investors in a better position to recover something, versus loosing everything.
mhneu 8y ago
Carreyrou wrote a book. This story was going to get out anyway. Murdoch is a very skilled propagandist. He knew that trying to suppress this story would have backfired on him. Especially because the machines don’t work and because Walgreens would have soon learned the truth. Nothing hurts a propagandist more than being really caught in an obvious lie. To protect his ability to slant the WSJ, Murdoch couldn’t have gotten caught suppressing this story. And he would have gotten caught if he tried.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

Would controlling the media to influence an investment you hold stock in be considered illegal? Similar to insider trading?

tragic 8y ago
I believe so: consider the City Slickers case[0]. Those guys were journos, not proprietors, but I'm pretty sure that if you could prove that a proprietor put heavy manners on the journos to do that, they would certainly be up for a criminal conspiracy charge, at least in Britain. Of course, that is typically a pretty big 'if'. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hipwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hipwell
mhneu 8y ago
Unless you’re in the US Congress, where profiting from stock movements was made explicitly legal - by an act of Congress.