297
‘We’re clearly heading towards collapse’: why the Murdoch empire is about to go bang
(www.theguardian.com)
Lached out.
this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
297 points (99.3% liked)
World News
41190 readers
2792 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
Most of MSM is now mostly right wing, and younger cons have been looking for further right wing sources and listening to grifters. There really isn't al left wing media at all, on top of my head the closest is one that is more like interviews, that isn't on any of the main channels. It's a lady that owns that channel? Or segment late night
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.
I think if it’d stayed, we’d have been talking about applying it to cable, rather than just forgetting it existed in the first place.
There’s certainly no direct link, but I think it indirectly changed the conversation around what society deemed acceptable in news media.
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.
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 don't think that's how it works, but I am not a lawyer.
Initially, I reached the same conclusion, but by the sounds of it, once the trust expires it simply means that the kids can now sell the stocks or do whatever they want freely. I think they don't lose control of the stocks and if anything, they actually start to enjoy more control or at least freedom.
But again, I am not a lawyer.
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.
And not a minute too soon.
Fuck Murdoch to hell and back with a rusty wire brush.
He wanted the other 2 children out of their will, because they dint share the right wing views that Lachlan had.
1 Kid, James.
Murdoch is a misogynist old dinosaur, Prue and Elizabeth were never up for consideration.
"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?
Where family matters are decided? Also Europe here, you don't have such a tihng? Not even specialised judges/procedures at an ordinary court? When people get divorced or sue each other for alimony, child support etc. you're dealing that like a theft or company merger or something?
And in its place Musk has his own now. :\
Finally some good news