11 ms·

Bezos is one thing, but I'm not sure if Murdoch is a great example: he perhaps refused to spike specific articles, but his entire media empire is built around p

Bezos is one thing, but I'm not sure if Murdoch is a great example: he perhaps refused to spike specific articles, but his entire media empire is built around promulgating his (increasingly revanchist) politics. His success is attributable not to "staying out of it," but to having a receptive audience that he (to waxing and waning degrees) has successfully influenced for the last 30 years. Besides, I don't think Twitter is what did Elon's reputation as a "savior" in. The current affair is more reaffirming than opinion shifting, for everyone I've talked to.

jasode 4y ago
>, but his entire media empire is built around promulgating his (increasingly revanchist) politics. Yes, I understand that and we know that WSJ leans more conservative than New York Times. Murdoch's empire reflects his worldview. I mean "stay out of it" as in micro-managing day-to-day newspaper stories or writing constant op-eds to respond to his critics. That's the type of distracting minutiae that Elon has sucked himself into with hyper-reactive Twitter bans and incoherent replies with juvenile statements.
- femto 4y ago
  Murdoch is the worst possible example, being in it up to his eyeballs. It's especially the case in Australia, where his empire started and still dominates. This article is one of many, its headline and opening line being: "Special report: Rupert Murdoch, a hands-on newspaperman" "To illustrate the extent to which Rupert Murdoch used to micro-manage his newspapers,..." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newscorp-murdoch-papers-idUSTRE76I1IT20110719 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newscorp-murdoch-papers-i... The article is past tense, but there's no reason for it to have changed. The difference between Musk and Murdoch is that Murdoch lets other people do the talking, even if they are his words.
  - jasode 4y ago
    >"To illustrate the extent to which Rupert Murdoch used to micro-manage his newspapers,..." The 2011 article you linked emphasizes his activity with tabloid newspapers. I'm unfamiliar with those. From what I've read, he doesn't meddle with his "prestige" newspaper like WSJ. Maybe that's why the WSJ didn't censor itself on negative Theranos stories even though he invested $125 million in it and Elizabeth Holmes asked him to kill the articles.
    - elliotto 4y ago
      I can't speak to the WSJ, and perhaps it's a good example of the owner not meddling, but using Rupert Murdoch as an example of someone who doesn't meddle in their media empire invites a lot of questions. Rupert Murdoch's influence is a very hot topic in Australia, with 2 former prime ministers from opposite sides teaming up to try to push a royal commission into his media monopoly, and in particular his influence on elections. Some of the commission is directed at the actions of his properties, but a lot of it is directed at his specific meddling as an individual. There have been many claims of directives and squashed stories coming straight from the top, whether that's from him or Lachlan Murdoch.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      Even though I don't agree with the WSJ I trust their reporting to the extent that if someone used it as a source I would accept it without debate. Rupert Murdoch on the other hand is quite possibly the biggest piece of shit in the entire world outsides of dictators, the tailban , etc. You should read how he meddled in UK politics and played king maker https://www.businessinsider.com/gordon-brown-rupert-murdoch-destroy-2012-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/gordon-brown-rupert-murdoch-... I can't wait until he dies
      - justatdotin 4y ago
        As of 12/19/2022 he is very much alive.(https://isrupertmurdochdead.com/ https://isrupertmurdochdead.com/)
      - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        I assume you hate everyone who worked at Twitter on the "Trust and Safety" team, the FBI, mainstream media outlets, etc, and want them to die as well? They meddled in USA politics to throw the presidential election.
        themitigating 4y ago
        4y ago
  - rprwhite 4y ago
    I think Murdoch is an excellent example to compare against Musk, right now. Not because he’s an exemplar of the non-interventionist, but because he’s all business. He will buy businesses, that are profitable, that present ideas against his current, perceived, goals. This is hedging his bets, somewhat. Musk, on the other hand, buys business, regardless of profitability, that suit his personal goals. Then make managing decisions based on whim. The difference isn’t that Murdoch lets others do the talking and Musk does his own, for better or worse. It’s that Murdoch makes business decisions and Musk makes emotional decisions. To be clear - I’m not trying to suggest one is better than the other. Just that they are a very interesting comparison.
- kyrra 4y ago
  The editorial pages of WSJ are definitely conservative. The news side tends to lean center left. As a conservative and subscriber to Wall Street journal for the past 6 years, the news side regularly butts heads with editorial side.
  - HEmanZ 4y ago
    When you get far enough right, everything is left (and vise versa)
    - trashtester 4y ago
      When we get far enough left, there's nothing left....
  - mjmsmith 4y ago
    I don't think even the WSJ leadership would agree that that news side has a "center left" leaning. https://newsliteracy.wsj.com/news-opinion/ https://newsliteracy.wsj.com/news-opinion/
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    > The news side tends to lean center left. Thanks for the laugh.
  - neycoda 4y ago
    Exactly. The opinion pages are what craft thought far more than news. Those can be where the owners have impact without touching news.
  - acdha 4y ago
    How are you defining “center left”? The only way I could see that working is if you’re defining that as acknowledging climate change is real or something similar.
- FormerBandmate 4y ago
  Outside of the absurdly conservative WSJ opinion pages, I wouldn't even say that. The Wall Street Journal is the paper of Wall Street, it has a slight inherent pro-business bias but besides that it reports the news fairly and accurately. The rest of Murdoch's business empire is nothing like it, compare WSJ.com to FoxNews.com at any given point and you'll see a drastic difference.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    In the context of politics, I think Murdoch's other American holdings (namely Fox and the NY Post) are arguably more important and relevant.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Outside of the absurdly conservative WSJ opinion pages, I wouldn’t even say that. The Wall Street Journal is the paper of Wall Street, it has a slight inherent pro-business bias but besides that it reports the news fairly and accurately. The WSJ had a right-wing political bias (beyond just a vague pro-business bias) under Dow Jones (in the news, not just the–even then–absurdly right-wing opinion pages), and it got stronger under Murdoch (I haven’t read it as much in recent years, but I did regularly around and for a while after the takeover.) It’s not strident in tone (outside of the opinion pages) the way that Fox News is, but its notable both in story selection and focus.
    - neycoda 4y ago
      News reporting is one thing, opinion reporting is its own beast, and I think a lot of people are not considering the difference much if at all. Murdoch and Bezos and others like that can craft a narrative through opinion reporting decisions without touching the news. The discussion seems to mix the two when the opinion pieces craft thought far more than news story selection.
- gordon_freeman 4y ago
  I would put WSJ to more of a centre than either left or right of political ideology assuming we can ignore their conservative leaning Opinions writers.
FormerBandmate 4y ago
Elon is not a savior because no one is purely a savior. He is a genius at hardware who badly needs to shut the fuck up and have people rein him in sometimes. Twitter has always been his weakness, and he needs to have emotional maturity and hire a new CEO, then stay off of it entirely for two weeks
- woodruffw 4y ago
  "No one is purely a savior" is a truism. Elon Musk is not a savior for simpler reasons, like all the lying, cheating, and general mishegas he's responsible for.
- nkozyra 4y ago
  > He is a genius I realize this is part of his narrative but I struggle to find the genius. As best i can tell he's a generally successful businessman.
  - PenguinCoder 4y ago
    Way more being born lucky, and abusing lucky timing to abuse positions with enough money. No where near a genius level anything.
  - FormerBandmate 4y ago
    It's hyperbole. Tesla and SpaceX were insane accomplishments in moribund industries (the first successful auto startup in 80 years, and pretty much singlehanfedly revitalizing space travel which was basically dead, people with way more resources tried and failed at both of them). That being said, the Twitter acquisition is the work of a petulant child
    - AlotOfReading 4y ago
      Do Kia (reborn in 1986), Tata, and Saleen not count as successful? Tesla has had an impressive rise, but it's not like nothing happened between 1923 and 2003 in the automotive industry.
julianeon 4y ago
Maybe OP's statement should be revised from "staying out of it" to "giving the appearance of staying out of it." You are undoubtedly right that Murdoch's political influence is everywhere in Fox News and his other, very profitable, properties. But have you ever heard a single juicy sound bite by Murdoch about Hillary Clinton, or Obama, or "wokeness?" I just checked: turns out he's made a handful of comments, all of which basically qualify as obscure. He stays out of the way, despite running what is maybe the most politically impactful business of our times. Compare to Musk, who, just a week or two ago, tweeted "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci."
mcv 4y ago
I've never been and still am not a big Washington Post reader, but I have seen a lot of very pro-billionaire headlines from the Washington Post. I can't help but wonder if Bezos might be directly or indirectly a factor in that. Murdoch is of course well known for using his media empire to promote his own political interests. His British tabloids were ridiculously strongly pro-Brexit because Murdoch was a respected guest at Downingstreet, but didn't have any meaningful influence in Brussels.
- PaulRobinson 4y ago
  How do you explain The Times being vehemently Remain?
  - mcv 4y ago
    Good question! I had to look this up, but apparently The Times had legally protected editorial independence as part of the deal that allowed Murdoch to buy it. Unfortunately, that independence ended last January: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2021/jun/24/rupert-murdoch-seeks-to-remove-editorial-independence-rules-at-the-times https://www.theguardian.com/global/2021/jun/24/rupert-murdoc... https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/10/ban-on-rupert-murdochs-interference-in-times-and-sunday-times-ended https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/10/ban-on-rupert-...
PaulRobinson 4y ago
Actually, there is evidence this is overplayed. In the U.K. there are multiple newspapers owned by Murdoch. During the Brexit referendum campaign, one came out pro-Remain (The Times), and one pro-Leave (The Sun). Which one did Rupert want to win? In truth his media has perfected the echo chamber: they echo back to the audience what they already believe. It’s for this reason a middle class paper and working class paper can be so divided and why his US operational flagship (Fox News) can be vehemently politically opposed to his UK operational flagship (The Times). He’s not schizophrenic - he knows to play his hand very, very lightly and the rest of it is all based on audience research these days.

jasode 4y ago

>, but his entire media empire is built around promulgating his (increasingly revanchist) politics. Yes, I understand that and we know that WSJ leans more conservative than New York Times. Murdoch's empire reflects his worldview. I mean "stay out of it" as in micro-managing day-to-day newspaper stories or writing constant op-eds to respond to his critics. That's the type of distracting minutiae that Elon has sucked himself into with hyper-reactive Twitter bans and incoherent replies with juvenile statements.

femto 4y ago
Murdoch is the worst possible example, being in it up to his eyeballs. It's especially the case in Australia, where his empire started and still dominates. This article is one of many, its headline and opening line being: "Special report: Rupert Murdoch, a hands-on newspaperman" "To illustrate the extent to which Rupert Murdoch used to micro-manage his newspapers,..." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newscorp-murdoch-papers-idUSTRE76I1IT20110719 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newscorp-murdoch-papers-i... The article is past tense, but there's no reason for it to have changed. The difference between Musk and Murdoch is that Murdoch lets other people do the talking, even if they are his words.
- jasode 4y ago
  >"To illustrate the extent to which Rupert Murdoch used to micro-manage his newspapers,..." The 2011 article you linked emphasizes his activity with tabloid newspapers. I'm unfamiliar with those. From what I've read, he doesn't meddle with his "prestige" newspaper like WSJ. Maybe that's why the WSJ didn't censor itself on negative Theranos stories even though he invested $125 million in it and Elizabeth Holmes asked him to kill the articles.
  - elliotto 4y ago
    I can't speak to the WSJ, and perhaps it's a good example of the owner not meddling, but using Rupert Murdoch as an example of someone who doesn't meddle in their media empire invites a lot of questions. Rupert Murdoch's influence is a very hot topic in Australia, with 2 former prime ministers from opposite sides teaming up to try to push a royal commission into his media monopoly, and in particular his influence on elections. Some of the commission is directed at the actions of his properties, but a lot of it is directed at his specific meddling as an individual. There have been many claims of directives and squashed stories coming straight from the top, whether that's from him or Lachlan Murdoch.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Even though I don't agree with the WSJ I trust their reporting to the extent that if someone used it as a source I would accept it without debate. Rupert Murdoch on the other hand is quite possibly the biggest piece of shit in the entire world outsides of dictators, the tailban , etc. You should read how he meddled in UK politics and played king maker https://www.businessinsider.com/gordon-brown-rupert-murdoch-destroy-2012-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/gordon-brown-rupert-murdoch-... I can't wait until he dies
    - justatdotin 4y ago
      As of 12/19/2022 he is very much alive.(https://isrupertmurdochdead.com/ https://isrupertmurdochdead.com/)
    - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
      I assume you hate everyone who worked at Twitter on the "Trust and Safety" team, the FBI, mainstream media outlets, etc, and want them to die as well? They meddled in USA politics to throw the presidential election.
      - themitigating 4y ago
      - 4y ago
- rprwhite 4y ago
  I think Murdoch is an excellent example to compare against Musk, right now. Not because he’s an exemplar of the non-interventionist, but because he’s all business. He will buy businesses, that are profitable, that present ideas against his current, perceived, goals. This is hedging his bets, somewhat. Musk, on the other hand, buys business, regardless of profitability, that suit his personal goals. Then make managing decisions based on whim. The difference isn’t that Murdoch lets others do the talking and Musk does his own, for better or worse. It’s that Murdoch makes business decisions and Musk makes emotional decisions. To be clear - I’m not trying to suggest one is better than the other. Just that they are a very interesting comparison.
kyrra 4y ago
The editorial pages of WSJ are definitely conservative. The news side tends to lean center left. As a conservative and subscriber to Wall Street journal for the past 6 years, the news side regularly butts heads with editorial side.
- HEmanZ 4y ago
  When you get far enough right, everything is left (and vise versa)
  - trashtester 4y ago
    When we get far enough left, there's nothing left....
- mjmsmith 4y ago
  I don't think even the WSJ leadership would agree that that news side has a "center left" leaning. https://newsliteracy.wsj.com/news-opinion/ https://newsliteracy.wsj.com/news-opinion/
- jacquesm 4y ago
  > The news side tends to lean center left. Thanks for the laugh.
- neycoda 4y ago
  Exactly. The opinion pages are what craft thought far more than news. Those can be where the owners have impact without touching news.
- acdha 4y ago
  How are you defining “center left”? The only way I could see that working is if you’re defining that as acknowledging climate change is real or something similar.
FormerBandmate 4y ago
Outside of the absurdly conservative WSJ opinion pages, I wouldn't even say that. The Wall Street Journal is the paper of Wall Street, it has a slight inherent pro-business bias but besides that it reports the news fairly and accurately. The rest of Murdoch's business empire is nothing like it, compare WSJ.com to FoxNews.com at any given point and you'll see a drastic difference.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  In the context of politics, I think Murdoch's other American holdings (namely Fox and the NY Post) are arguably more important and relevant.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Outside of the absurdly conservative WSJ opinion pages, I wouldn’t even say that. The Wall Street Journal is the paper of Wall Street, it has a slight inherent pro-business bias but besides that it reports the news fairly and accurately. The WSJ had a right-wing political bias (beyond just a vague pro-business bias) under Dow Jones (in the news, not just the–even then–absurdly right-wing opinion pages), and it got stronger under Murdoch (I haven’t read it as much in recent years, but I did regularly around and for a while after the takeover.) It’s not strident in tone (outside of the opinion pages) the way that Fox News is, but its notable both in story selection and focus.
  - neycoda 4y ago
    News reporting is one thing, opinion reporting is its own beast, and I think a lot of people are not considering the difference much if at all. Murdoch and Bezos and others like that can craft a narrative through opinion reporting decisions without touching the news. The discussion seems to mix the two when the opinion pieces craft thought far more than news story selection.
gordon_freeman 4y ago
I would put WSJ to more of a centre than either left or right of political ideology assuming we can ignore their conservative leaning Opinions writers.

FormerBandmate 4y ago

Elon is not a savior because no one is purely a savior. He is a genius at hardware who badly needs to shut the fuck up and have people rein him in sometimes. Twitter has always been his weakness, and he needs to have emotional maturity and hire a new CEO, then stay off of it entirely for two weeks

woodruffw 4y ago
"No one is purely a savior" is a truism. Elon Musk is not a savior for simpler reasons, like all the lying, cheating, and general mishegas he's responsible for.
nkozyra 4y ago
> He is a genius I realize this is part of his narrative but I struggle to find the genius. As best i can tell he's a generally successful businessman.
- PenguinCoder 4y ago
  Way more being born lucky, and abusing lucky timing to abuse positions with enough money. No where near a genius level anything.
- FormerBandmate 4y ago
  It's hyperbole. Tesla and SpaceX were insane accomplishments in moribund industries (the first successful auto startup in 80 years, and pretty much singlehanfedly revitalizing space travel which was basically dead, people with way more resources tried and failed at both of them). That being said, the Twitter acquisition is the work of a petulant child
  - AlotOfReading 4y ago
    Do Kia (reborn in 1986), Tata, and Saleen not count as successful? Tesla has had an impressive rise, but it's not like nothing happened between 1923 and 2003 in the automotive industry.

julianeon 4y ago

Maybe OP's statement should be revised from "staying out of it" to "giving the appearance of staying out of it." You are undoubtedly right that Murdoch's political influence is everywhere in Fox News and his other, very profitable, properties. But have you ever heard a single juicy sound bite by Murdoch about Hillary Clinton, or Obama, or "wokeness?" I just checked: turns out he's made a handful of comments, all of which basically qualify as obscure. He stays out of the way, despite running what is maybe the most politically impactful business of our times. Compare to Musk, who, just a week or two ago, tweeted "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci."

mcv 4y ago

I've never been and still am not a big Washington Post reader, but I have seen a lot of very pro-billionaire headlines from the Washington Post. I can't help but wonder if Bezos might be directly or indirectly a factor in that. Murdoch is of course well known for using his media empire to promote his own political interests. His British tabloids were ridiculously strongly pro-Brexit because Murdoch was a respected guest at Downingstreet, but didn't have any meaningful influence in Brussels.

PaulRobinson 4y ago
How do you explain The Times being vehemently Remain?
- mcv 4y ago
  Good question! I had to look this up, but apparently The Times had legally protected editorial independence as part of the deal that allowed Murdoch to buy it. Unfortunately, that independence ended last January: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2021/jun/24/rupert-murdoch-seeks-to-remove-editorial-independence-rules-at-the-times https://www.theguardian.com/global/2021/jun/24/rupert-murdoc... https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/10/ban-on-rupert-murdochs-interference-in-times-and-sunday-times-ended https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/10/ban-on-rupert-...

PaulRobinson 4y ago

Actually, there is evidence this is overplayed. In the U.K. there are multiple newspapers owned by Murdoch. During the Brexit referendum campaign, one came out pro-Remain (The Times), and one pro-Leave (The Sun). Which one did Rupert want to win? In truth his media has perfected the echo chamber: they echo back to the audience what they already believe. It’s for this reason a middle class paper and working class paper can be so divided and why his US operational flagship (Fox News) can be vehemently politically opposed to his UK operational flagship (The Times). He’s not schizophrenic - he knows to play his hand very, very lightly and the rest of it is all based on audience research these days.