Rupert Murdoch To Step Down as Chair of Fox and News Corp After Seven-Decade Career (wsj.com) 167
Rupert Murdoch is stepping down as chair of Fox and News Corp, after building a media empire over seven decades that revolutionized news and entertainment and made him one of the world's most influential and controversial tycoons. WSJ: Murdoch, 92 years old, will exit his roles atop each company as of November, when they hold annual meetings, the companies said. He will be appointed chairman emeritus of each company. His eldest son, Lachlan Murdoch, who has served as co-chair of News Corp, will become sole chair of that company and will continue as Fox Corp executive chair and CEO. "For my entire professional life, I have been engaged daily with news and ideas, and that will not change. But the time is right for me to take on different roles," Rupert Murdoch wrote in a memo to staff.
His decision to step back solidifies Lachlan Murdoch as his successor. He called Lachlan a "passionate, principled leader" who can take the companies into the future. Murdoch is one of a handful of media barons, along with the likes of John Malone, Ted Turner and Sumner Redstone, who shaped the modern era of media. He has wielded influence in political and financial capitals, earning credit from his boosters and blame from his critics. Murdoch has remained active in his later years, pursuing big deals to reshape his companies. Murdoch is stepping back at an important moment for both wings of his media empire, as they confront fundamental challenges in the media landscape. Fox, a relatively small player in an entertainment industry now dominated by titans, is wrestling with the profound implications of cable cord-cutting and the growth of streaming. News Corp, owner of The Wall Street Journal, Times of London and other publications, is trying to find the right formula for digital growth amid a fierce battle for subscribers and online-ad dollars.
His decision to step back solidifies Lachlan Murdoch as his successor. He called Lachlan a "passionate, principled leader" who can take the companies into the future. Murdoch is one of a handful of media barons, along with the likes of John Malone, Ted Turner and Sumner Redstone, who shaped the modern era of media. He has wielded influence in political and financial capitals, earning credit from his boosters and blame from his critics. Murdoch has remained active in his later years, pursuing big deals to reshape his companies. Murdoch is stepping back at an important moment for both wings of his media empire, as they confront fundamental challenges in the media landscape. Fox, a relatively small player in an entertainment industry now dominated by titans, is wrestling with the profound implications of cable cord-cutting and the growth of streaming. News Corp, owner of The Wall Street Journal, Times of London and other publications, is trying to find the right formula for digital growth amid a fierce battle for subscribers and online-ad dollars.
Hard to imagine... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hard to imagine... (Score:4, Insightful)
And it sure ain't for a lack of trying.
Disney ... (Score:2)
Disney
Re: (Score:2)
... any media outlet doing more damage to the liberal world.
Fixed it for you. Ruins the liberals world to tell the truth. That's why they spend so much energy trying to silence dissenters.
Re:Hard to imagine... (Score:4, Informative)
Is there a source for that CNN story in regards to the Fairness Doctrine because the Wikipedia article doesn't mention CNN at all? It's just something I have not heard before. Was there a court case? Congressional hearings? The Wiki article makes it seem like a Reagan Era goal to eliminate it and that's the story I've always understood.
On August 4, 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4–0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision,[35] which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989, though the court stated in their decision that they made "that determination without reaching the constitutional issue."[36] The FCC suggested in Syracuse Peace Council that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:
Re:Hard to imagine... (Score:5, Informative)
The FCC opinion [fcc.gov] (missing the second page of the document, oddly) doesn't seem to mention CNN that I can find (it's not searchable, but the cases involved are Meredith Corp. v. FCC and Syracuse Peace Council v. Television Station WTVH). In the list of commenting parties (16th page), neither CNN nor anyone from Turner is mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah same, also I know while CNN existed in 1987 they weren't really "mainstream" until around the early 90's with the Gulf War. Not that I couldn't be mistaken and they did have some part to play but just news to me.
I mean CNN is shitty enough that there is plenty to criticize without having to make things up.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, there isn't and there won't be because that's not what happened [snopes.com]. It's a bit convoluted, but essentially, the FCC got rid of the doctrine as it applied to terrestrial tv. i.e. The Big Three. The doctrine did not apply to cable, such as CNN, because that is not how the doctrine was written.
However, it is true that Reagan vetoed codification of the doctrine before the FCC's ruling, claiming "the doctrine chilled the speech o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" Also, while CNN and Fox News both have news departments with journalists who are expected to display professionalism, most of the programming is opinion pieces that are expected to be highly biased."
If most of what they air are biased opinion pieces, does it really matter what their news departments produce?
You're leaving out something important (Score:5, Interesting)
They won with two arguments. The first, is that they're just entertainment, but should still be allowed to call themselves News, and the second that no serious person would take any of the nonsense they spew seriously, and that it was all just fun & games.
That's what really opened the door to the anti-vaxx, tan suit hating, Obama Birth Certificate & Great Replacement Theory election deniers at Fox News we all know and hate.
I can tell you this, I've known several boomers & older Gen Xers radicalized by Fox News ("The Brainwashing Of My Dad" style) who got their start as centrists and just found the channel "entertaining". More than once I've asked one of 'em "why you watching that, it rots your brain" and been told "Meh, it's entertaining".
Re: (Score:2)
With the assumption that you do not know the 600+ involved in Jan 6, what are the boomers and older Gen Xers you know doing that is worthy of calling them radicalized?
Re: You're leaving out something important (Score:4, Insightful)
Radicalized is a tricky word to define. To some it means driven to violence. Others could mean to perpetuate lies. I believe people who repeat the lies of the "leaders" have been radicalized.
I desperately want an independent candidate to emerge and call out both parties for being full of shit. At this point it is just big business, the party more important than the people. Unfortunately the only thing that would unite DNC and GOP is squashing a legitimate independent.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If the party requires absolute fealty or throws you under the bus, they are full of shit. The GOP requires signatures in blood and your first born as part of the fealty pact while DNC simply writes angry letters.. but both require loyalty. We're in a situation where a very vocal minority in both parties control most of the power.. and that is very dangerous.
Re: You're leaving out something important (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The GOP simply cuts off any straying opinions much earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
what are the boomers and older Gen Xers you know doing that is worthy of calling them radicalized?
Giving their money to a man has orders of magnitude more wealth than they will see in their lifetime. Rallying behind this man who is the subject of four criminal trials and 91 counts while belonging to the so called "party of law and order".
Re: You're leaving out something important (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You're leaving out something important (Score:5, Insightful)
More than once I've asked one of 'em "why you watching that, it rots your brain" and been told "Meh, it's entertaining".
It isn’t even entertaining these days. It’s just angry and anxiety inducing. It used to be entertaining, I remember getting stuck watching it when I wound up in the Emergency Room back in the late oughts, and I’ll confess, it was amusing AF. Like reading the National Enquirer. It felt like a TV version of that.
Today though, it’s just anger 24/7. The world as we know it is ending. It’s no wonder their audience views every election as the Flight 93 election, we win or we die. I’m not sure why people tune to "entertainment" that leaves them feeling like shit afterwards. I’ve opted out of dark entertainment that doesn’t masquerade as news and lament the trend in Hollywood (looking at you modern Star Trek) towards dark and gritty. Entertainment should leave you feeling uplifted, IMHO, not depressed, anxious, and melancholy.
Re: (Score:2)
Today though, it’s just anger 24/7. The world as we know it is ending. It’s no wonder their audience views every election as the Flight 93 election, we win or we die.
This isn't exclusive to Fox. It seems every election cycle both the Dems and the Republicans go all out with the rhetoric. "This is the most important election of our lifetimes!" "DO OR DIE!" "STOP THE FASCISTS!" "STOP THE RADICALS!" Except, switching the channel gets you exactly the same rhetoric bouncing back to the other side. And we wonder why people can't have a civilized conversation anymore. Most seem to lack the ability to filter what they're hearing through reality, if such a thing even exists anym
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we were talking about GWB I’d agree with you. Problem is, Trump actually IS a radical, who believes democracy and election results are optional. When the Republican Party (whom I once voted for, FYI, not a left wing partisan here) defeats the illiberalism streak that has taken over the party I’ll be the first to join you on this hill. Until then......
Re: (Score:2)
I’m not sure why people tune to "entertainment" that leaves them feeling like shit afterwards
Crazy timing, two days ago was just talking to a conservative coworker who I know watches Fox and he specifically mentioned how watching the news makes him feel shitty and yet he keeps watching.
Depends on what you watch (Score:4, Interesting)
So to them it's just a funny little circus. They don't know anyone who's trans and fearing for their lives and certainly aren't trans themselves. They're often so close to retirement they don't fear layoffs from gov't shut downs or the like, etc, etc,. They're fat and happy.
And some are just bigots, and it can feel good to have your buttons pushed. But my experience is that most don't start out that way. It's a pipeline into bigotry. And when they do meet the object of their bigotry in person that one is always "one of the good ones" and they continue to imagine whatever Trans Drag Queen cutting off children's genitals or Welfare Queen in a Cadillac eating steak & lobster gives them that rush of anger that gets 'em through the day.
And don't forget, old folks are often in pain all the time (drugs & PT can only do so much) and that makes you cranky and vulnerable to getting your buttons pushed.
Re: (Score:2)
TV is a great format for reporting news. It has visual aids that newsprint could only dream of. But it's only useful in 5-10 minute chunks and TV channels run for 24 hours these days. It's inevitable that any attempt to make a news channel is going to end the same way. They want to drive engagement and depth doesn't work for the masses. Just look at the Weather Channel these days.
Nothing is likely to ever supplant written news unless every last bit of it becomes paywalled. Because much like the stream
Re: (Score:3)
It's true that MSNBC tends to use actual facts to support unsound arguments where Fox tends to use alternative facts to support invalid arguments but the style is the same.
I tend to think MSNBC is more tolerable because at least you get some idea of what's actually going on (the fact density is high despite the poor e
Re:You're leaving out something important (Score:5, Interesting)
MSNBC is trash, you'll brook no argument from me, but the equation fails, because:
the "other guys" are on a course to cause our entire civilization to collapse
They fucking are dude! When election results no longer matter, even when the elections were run by members of your own team, like this guy [ga.gov], and you can find redeeming things to say about a white supremacist rally (these two [vox.com] didn't find it difficult to condemn), you've moved pretty fucking far outside what used to be the mainstream of American politics. We aren't talking about tax policy. We aren't talking about social wedge issues like abortion or guns. We're talking about small 'd' democracy for heaven's sake.
If you want to condemn MSNBC for something, condemn them for crying wolf in the past, when the other side wasn't actually on course to cause our entire civilization to collapse.
Re:You're leaving out something important (Score:5, Informative)
Fox News was challenged in court because they were calling themselves "News" when they weren't, they weren't reporting news, they were only ever making commentary (nice way to say a propaganda network).
They won with two arguments. The first, is that they're just entertainment, but should still be allowed to call themselves News, and the second that no serious person would take any of the nonsense they spew seriously, and that it was all just fun & games.
This claim has been knocked down several times in its various versions. Anyone can call themselves just about anything. No station has to register itself as a news provider with any official US body.
And Fox News never said that they never report news. The "entertainment" bit comes (most recently at least) from a 2019 slander suit made against Tucker Carlson. A judge found that Carlson himself spoke in ways such that the "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.'" While I detest Tucker Carlson, he and Fox News were being sued over a statement that he made saying that Karen McDougal, who claimed to have had a year-long affair with Trump and sold the rights to the story to the parent company of The Enquirer, had extorted Trump for the money. The whole story isn't the point here (and it gets mildly complicated), but Carlson's statements, while reprehensible, didn't rise to the level of slander, which has a high bar.
Politifact has dealt with similar claims at least a couple of times:
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps a channel that purports to call itself news shouldn't be playing fictional programming without a disclaimer.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a channel that purports to call itself news shouldn't be playing fictional programming without a disclaimer.
All news organizations do the same, in the opinion columns and segments. Fox does take it further than most, though.
Wrong lawsuit (Score:2)
There's older stuff I can't find now because it was FCC rulings rather than lawsuits so they're harder to track down, but Fox has been relying on being "entertainment, not news" to get away with outright lies for ages.
There are laws about false advertising. If you call yourself a News network and 99% of your content can charitably be called "commentary" you are violating those laws. But, well, regulators don't have much power in America. The courts are packed and the laws have bee
Re: (Score:2)
Your link points to exactly the lawsuit that I was talking about. My description and your link are about Karen McDougal's slander case that was filed in 2019 and dismissed in 2020.
There are no laws and no regulations preventing Fox News from calling themselves a news outlet. False advertising laws don't enter into it, either. The Weekly World News published for almost 30 years, and its content was often clearly fictional despite them never saying so.
Fox News also has reporters (some of them very well respec
Re: (Score:2)
> They won with two arguments...the second that no serious person would take any of the nonsense they spew seriously
That judge made a big mistake. She assumed the vast majority of people are rational. But roughly 30% readily believe BS, if it tells them what they want to hear. There should have been an appeal, with a requirement by Fox to show a low % actually believe them.
Re: (Score:2)
It was never the case that the network was sued because it had "News" in the title but because Tucker Carlson said of Karen McDougal that her actions "sounds like a classic case of extortion." The argument from Tucker's lawyers [justia.com] were "The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non
That's not true (Score:2)
...it's important to realize the full history of what happened. CNN was challenged because they didn't follow the fairness doctrine [wikipedia.org] and they argued they shouldn't have to follow it because the doctrine was based on the idea that there was only a limited amount of over-the-air bandwidth.
I'm not sure if you just remembered things incorrectly or what but but not only does your cited link not support you claim but I cant find a single ounce of support for it searching the internet.
Re: That's not true (Score:2)
Even if CNN had challenged it and won, it doesn't make them responsible for what Fox News chose to do.
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm saying is that as far as I can tell CNN had nothing to do with the repeal of the fairness doctrine though.
Re: That's not true (Score:2)
Why do you keep mentioning TYT, 90% of the population has no idea who that is. They are no where near the same league as Fox, MSNBC or CNN.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you could be right that I'm misremembering something.
It happens, hardly the end of the world.
This all makes me wonder what effect the ending of it had on ABC, NBC, and CBS. Did their coverage change?
As I understand it did a bit but you'll have to do a search online to get specifics as I dont remember details.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, while CNN and Fox News both have news departments with journalists who are expected to display professionalism, most of the programming is opinion pieces that are expected to be highly biased.
That used to be true but most of the real journalists got the hell out of Fox. Chris Wallace is the highest profile example of this. Behind the scenes, even the opinion guys knew what they were peddling was BS, they were just too afraid of their audience to tell them the truth.
In any case, the equation with CNN is a bogus one. CNN’s issue is sensationalism mixed with a need to fill airtime, not political bias. This is why every single story is "Breaking News" while a bunch of talking heads make i
Re:Hard to imagine... (Score:5, Informative)
Fox is only one of News Corp.'s arms in the US, but Murdoch's empire has also been causing notoriety in both the UK and Australia since the 80s. Looooong before CNN got into editorials.
Re: (Score:2)
Sky News is big in both countries and syndicated from Fox News: Both countries have a local rich, white, middle-aged person telling the country that what's bad for him, is bad for poor people. The rhetoric extends to praising Trump as a messiah (because he's anti-socialist and socialism, big in both countries and preventing the government conceding to corporate needs, is despised by Sky News): Remember, these are people that can't vote for Trump, don't benefit from his policies and have never been acknow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Red Herring - a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also important to get the facts straight and not misrepresent a complete fabrication as actual history. CNN had nothing to do with the fairness doctrine.
Re: (Score:2)
*Citation needed
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
They did exactly that in 2016.
No they didnt. All they did was complain about the electoral system not representing the majority of voting Americans in that election which is a fair complaint to have even if you dont agree with it. I have never heard of anyone on either network state that the election was fraudulent though.
I'm not saying that Foxnews is better. I'm just saying they are all lying sacks of shit, I mean they are all capable of distorting the truth for a narrative or agenda.
And I'm not saying that CNN and / or MSNBC are pinnacles of virtue but Fox is absolutely the worst and the rampant and completely unfounded election denial on that channel confirms it.
Re: (Score:2)
If they engaged in anything as significant as what Fox news did for the 2020 election then you should be able to very easily cite a source. In fact, you should be able to cite dozens of sources quite easily after searching the internet for only a few minutes but I'll settle for one.
Re: (Score:2)
No they didnt.
Yes they did. I heard them do it. Look, I'm not going to argue with you on this because really it's not important who gives a fuck at this point? They are bias and just as bad.
No, they didn't. I heard them NOT do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, they did also claim that Russians influenced the 2016 election but that was confirmed by our intelligence agencies so not really the same thing at all.
Sorry for the double reply.
Re: (Score:2)
So I don't know what you're specifically referencing with each item on your little list but if anything on it is real proof that there was meaningful levels of fraud in the 2020 election why can't even a single one of them be proven in a court of law? I mean, video of a counter being changed sure sounds pretty air tight to me and yet judges appointed by every one of the last 4 or 5 presidents including Trump himself and the Trump stacked Supreme Court found zero validity to any claims brought to them in reg
Succession! (Score:2)
I hope all his 6 kids with 3 wives are AOK with the eldest son taking over...
s/revolutionized/fuckedup (Score:2)
Yeah, nice work Rupert
The Simpsons will end when he dies wait diseny own (Score:2)
The Simpsons will end when he dies wait disney owns that
Re:The Simpsons will end when he dies wait diseny (Score:5, Insightful)
The Simpsons will end when he dies. Walt Disney owns that.
The Simpsons will end. When he dies, Walt Disney owns that.
The Simpsons will end. When he dies, wait... Disney OWNS! That!
He must return... (Score:2)
95 is the new 65 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Buffett can still string words together in a coherent and informative sentence....
Biden...not so much.
His chief concerns are shitting himself on a visit to the pope, and getting lost on stage trying to shake hands with invisible people.
Trump just called Biden impaired and said Biden would start WW2. https://nymag.com/intelligence... [nymag.com]
World War 2.
Re: (Score:3)
And hey, I give anyone in the public eye a pass to make a few mistakes/gaffes....hell, I think Obama did with how many states there are or something?
But there's a difference with a brain fart while speaking...and just losing it.
and Biden is in the latter group.
Biden only has moments of clarity these days, and I have to wonder what they are shooting him up with for those brief moments of clarity and ener
Re: (Score:2)
Obama said there were 57 states. There *are* 57 states *and* territories. He was tired at the end of a whirlwind campaign tour, and he made a gaffe that, if anything, paid rare honor to places like Guam and Puerto Rico that a lot of Americans tend to forget are even America.
I have several beefs with the man - as someone who voted for him in 2008 and against him in 2012 - but sometimes a guy just has a brain fart.
Biden has gone well beyond that. Between his apparent diminished capacity and the Hunter Biden p
He called Lachlan a "passionate, principled leader (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe both. The company that just lost three quarters of a billion dollars to Dominion for promoting things they knew were outright lies, and is now facing an investor revolt for their actions relating to their lack of principles. That company, Lachlan?
Can't make this shit up - oh...wait... they did.
Re:He called Lachlan a "passionate, principled lea (Score:5, Funny)
"Can make this shit up" is the corporate motto
Re: (Score:2)
Now Lachlan has to deal with the $2.7 billion Smartmatic lawsuit. Maybe they can settle that one for half too.
Re: (Score:2)
Now Lachlan has to deal with the $2.7 billion Smartmatic lawsuit. Maybe they can settle that one for half too.
Can you imagine being a shareholder? I don't have any FOX stock, but if I did I'd sell it ASAP. It's at 29.24 at the moment.
They are going to be unstable for a while at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this irony, or sarcasm?
Given his age, dementia is more likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this irony, or sarcasm?
Given his age, dementia is more likely.
Could be. Like some of their commentators. They seem to have trouble understanding that while they have free speech rights, everyone else does, and we can react to them too.
Re: (Score:2)
What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that they may have the right to speak, but I'm under no obligation to listen to their bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that they may have the right to speak, but I'm under no obligation to listen to their bullshit.
Though it is fun to ridicule it on occasion. Those so inclined to believe that free speech os a one way street can get pretty big rageboners when you curbstomp them.
Re: (Score:2)
Who doesn't enjoy debunking a Flat Earther? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Who doesn't enjoy debunking a Flat Earther? :)
The Flat Earth Society has members all over the globe, and the only thing they have to fear is sphere itself
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so gonna steal that one for the next Flat Earth Friday.
Re: (Score:2)
And they still have more lawsuits to battle, and I suspect the losses from the 2020 "stolen election" will be well in excess of $1 billion before it's done. While Murdoch and his family hold the largest bloc of voting shares in Newscorp and Fox News, there are other shareholders as well, so I imagine there are so pretty grumpy people out there. There's little doubt that the firing of Anderson Cooper wasn't merely a sort of quid quo pro with Dominion, but likely to ease restive shareholders. The theory being
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And they still have more lawsuits to battle, and I suspect the losses from the 2020 "stolen election" will be well in excess of $1 billion before it's done. While Murdoch and his family hold the largest bloc of voting shares in Newscorp and Fox News, there are other shareholders as well, so I imagine there are so pretty grumpy people out there. There's little doubt that the firing of Anderson Cooper wasn't merely a sort of quid quo pro with Dominion, but likely to ease restive shareholders. The theory being thrown out there now is that some of the other Murdoch kids are no fans of Lachlan, and there may be more intrigue to come. Lachlan is the natural heir of Rupert, if everyone wants News Corp to keep doing what it's doing now, but the other shareholders, and indeed some of the other Murdochs may have other ideas.
There's a whole new war being fought here, and I doubt very much that News Corp and Fox News are going to come out of this intact.
Did you mean Tucker Carlson? Anyhow, it couldn't happen to a nicer company. They are merely using the Joseph Goebbels playbook:
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.
Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will.
But they forget what he also noted - talk about irony
There will come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, and truth will again triump
Re: (Score:3)
Is this irony, or sarcasm?
It's neither. He's passionate and principled. His principles just don't align with yours and mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this irony, or sarcasm?
It's neither. He's passionate and principled. His principles just don't align with yours and mine.
Inasmuch as principled can be a lack of principles I can suppose. 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lachlan is certainly not as worthless as djt jr.
Yah, Junior has the market cornered on worthlessness.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess my memory is a bit fuzzy but I thought I'd find more Slashdot articles about Dominion regarding the quality of their machines. Here's what I did find. https://politics.slashdot.org/story/16/10/09/0020210/one-us-election-system-vendor-is-using-developers-in-serbia [slashdot.org] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/19/03/27/2031238/senators-demand-to-know-why-election-vendors-still-sell-voting-machines-with-known-vulnerabilities [slashdot.org] I often like to say, if Americans care about the integrity of the voting processes, voting machines would be as secure as slot machines.
What is worse - Those machines have a lot of Chinese components - you know, the people who invented the GLobal warming hoax? You agree with trump that he won every state? The interesting thing is the only voter fraud was in states he lost, and when combined, would put him in as president, over sleepy old Joe, the senile man who is also a criminal mastermind.
The Republican plan to eliminate voter fraud is to eliminate voting.
The bait is a free handjob from Lorn Hobert, their ideological leader.
nope (Score:2, Informative)
hard to be a leader when you have zero experience in leadership or what "work" is, its not like they rose through the company over decades based on hard work and determination, nepotism got them there.
Re: nope (Score:2)
What do you mean no experience? His brilliant leadership at One.Tel ... well, lost 5 billion dollars, but you know, that's what passionate leaders do right? Now he has experience losing lots of money. I'm sure if he puts his mind to it he can lose even more!
Good (Score:2, Informative)
Good riddance, twat. Thanks for helping fuck up the world way more than it already was.
Career Highlight (Score:2)
For whatever else he's done I'll always look back with fondness at the time he dumped his fiancee and then cancelled her favourite TV show [wikipedia.org].
Shaped the modern era of media (Score:2)
It's hard to imagine anyone that could be said to have "shaped the modern era of media" being proud of what they have done.
The only step down I'd like to see (Score:2, Insightful)
...is his, when the trap door opens on the gallows he's on, for treason, incitement to commit murder, and more.
Purge it with fire (Score:2, Insightful)
The entire Murdoch gene pool, any companies they've run, and any people supporting the Murdochs, should be purged from the face of the Earth. They have provided no value to anything in society.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire Murdoch gene pool, any companies they've run, and any people supporting the Murdochs, should be purged from the face of the Earth. They have provided no value to anything in society.
All of them? Children, too? Are you asking to be allowed to murder them all with your own hands?
Do people actually think about what they post? I hope not. Otherwise... you need to be locked up.
I'm no fan of Murdoch, or Fox, or anything associated with him, but "purged from the face of the Earth"? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. In my post above with the statement of what should happen, I clearly asked to be allowed to do it myself.
But yes, purged. Trump, Putin, and their gene pools, too. I don't care how extreme it is. I don't care how callous it sounds. I don't care about the what ifs. If it were at all possible to remove them from the timeline so that they never existed, that would be even better.
Kendall Roy will be most pleased /s (Score:2)
Good riddance (Score:2)
His "Retirement" is a scam (Score:3)
It's a publicity stunt. The sole purpose is to get his ass out of the line of fire during the current slew of lawsuits. Nothing will change at any company he controls in any way. [politico.com]
He's a degenerate liar and this is just one more example. The media empire he founded reflects who he really is and what he really believes. He's a diehard fascist and if this was the 1930's he'd be the mouthpiece for Mussolini, Franco and Hitler. That's why Fox pumped up Trump, even if Murdoch personally despised him. He figured out how to gain immense personal power and make vast profit by promoting international fascism, and he won't give that up until his last dying breath.
Evil empire has a new face. So compelling. (Score:2)
Re:MSM Jumped the shark years ago (Score:5, Informative)
MSM is a funny term. Mainstream would imply it's something watched by the majority of people, correct? Well would you take a wild guess at what is by far the most popular cable news channel? https://www.adweek.com/tvnewse... [adweek.com]
Hey what do you know, Fox is the number one cable news channel. Wouldn't that make them mainstream?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They are one of the only right news networks in the US
Sure, if you only count cable 24/7 networks but it's not the 90's/00's anymore. Now you have;
OANN, Newsmax, Daily Caller, Epoch Times, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, NY Post, Gateway Pundit, NRO, WSJ, Washington Times and so on...
and a whole gaggle of smaller alternative media sites as well as having a strong presence in local TV (Sinclair Broadcasting) and the decades long dominance on local radio.
Conservatives can finally drop this kabuki theater of acting like they have no media representation or being silen
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's hardly possible that fossil could marry an older woman, is it?
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't have a big willy then you need a really big wallet.