Investors Campaign To Oust Murdochs From News Corp 150
Hugh Pickens writes "Alan Mutter writes that the California Public Employees Retirement System, the nation's largest pension fund, has become the latest investor to say it would vote against the re-election of Rupert Murdoch and his sons to the company's board of directors, joining several other institutional investors opposed to the tenure of not only the Murdoch trio but also most of the rest of the leader's hand-picked board. 'The company appears to have devolved into a free-wheeling, cut-throat and paranoid culture that reached its logical conclusion in the phone-hacking scandal at The News of the World, where deceit and naked ambition trumped common decency, good judgment and even simple compliance with the law,' writes Mutter... Further proof of the anything-goes atmosphere at News Corp was supplied last week when the Guardian reported that ... the European edition of the Wall Street Journal evidently sold access to its news columns and created back-channel payment networks to lift the otherwise sagging circulation of the paper... 'It's not clear whether the outside shareholders have the votes to change anything at a corporation where Murdoch effectively controls 40% of the shares,' concludes Mutter, 'But adult supervision most certainly is in order, because News Corp. seems to be operating with only the sketchiest of business plans and no effective executive oversight of his many far-flung initiatives. '"
Oh I understand their business plan (Score:5, Insightful)
It's to terrorize a modern democracy into giving over control of our every institution to unelected morons with a bare-knuckled agenda of self-enrichment.
Fuck Fox News. Fuck Everyone Who Listens To Fox News. Fuck Everyone Who Opens Their Dumb Fuck Mouth On Fox News. Fox News Should Be Pulled Apart By Wild Weasels.
I've about had it with these vandals. Fucking freaks!
Undeserved hostility (Score:5, Funny)
Fox News Should Be Pulled Apart By Wild Weasels.
What did wild weasels ever do to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News Should Be Pulled Apart By Wild Weasels.
What did wild weasels ever do to you?
Probably blew up all his SAM batteries [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News Should Be Pulled Apart By Wild Weasels.
What did wild weasels ever do to you?
Ripped his flesh?
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you,
Now you got me wondering on who will win... the Fox or the Weasel...
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck Everyone Who Opens Their Dumb Fuck Mouth On Fox News.
One of the professors in my graduate department, who is highly liberal, was invited and paid to appear on Fox news because her research found a liberal bias in state bar (law, not booze) organizations (which was not at all what she expected to find). So not everyone who appears on Fox News is an idiot who wants to turn the US into the Fascist States of Christ, as you seem to believe.
Ironically enough, she was subsequently attacked by many liberals for having a conservative bias and agenda due to the findin
Re:Oh I understand their business plan (Score:4, Insightful)
However, the organization is intended as such.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
One of the professors in my graduate department, who is highly liberal, was invited and paid to appear on Fox news because her research found a liberal bias in state bar (law, not booze) organizations (which was not at all what she expected to find).
So what if she's "highly liberal"? The only reason she was invited to appear is because she published research that could be spun to support a standard Republican talking point, which is that the Democratic Party is bought and paid for by trial lawyers. She should have realized this, but she took the money and appeared on the show anyway, because she decided that her own selfish interests outweighed her principles -- in other words, she acted exactly like any other corrupt right-wing stooge that appears on
Re: (Score:2)
Another way to see this is that unlike "any other corrupt right-wing stooge that appears on Fox News", she showed integrity and reported what she found without falsifying the data or running multiple studies looking for the one that backed her beliefs. Who knows?
Or, maybe what you are really seeing is that Fox News picks their own stories and thus draws upon stories of a certain bent (market share/shill) without regards to the source. That I find very plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, maybe what you are really seeing is that Fox News picks their own stories and thus draws upon stories of a certain bent (market share/shill) without regards to the source. That I find very plausible.
That's pretty much what I said. She got invited by Fox and they paid her for the appearance. That shows they aren't reporting news, they're doing an entertainment/opinion show. News-gathering organizations do not pay for interviews with newsmakers. But despite being "highly liberal," she did it anyway, because she wanted to promote her research to further her own career. So rather than being an outlier case of Fox News allowing "equal access" to people who are "highly liberal" (as the GGP seems to suggest),
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY: "The company appears to have devolved into a free-wheeling, cut-throat and paranoid culture that reached its logical conclusion as The Fox News Network,"
Who cares (Score:2)
Would It Change? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why I'm voting my 11% shares to keep Murdoch. Sorry guys!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
NPR has its own skeletons in the closet. Look up Juan Williams. I think it's better to just assume that every news source has its junk, whether its well-known or not, and to just read any news source with a grain of salt, and then cross-reference it with other news sources. I think this is more realistic than to assume X is biased, and Y is not.
The thing that makes Fox extra fun is that they admittedly spend only about 6 hours a day being a "news source" (and it's not in the timeslots you think it is)... Guess which category Juan's little crymeafuckin river rant was aired in? Tune out 100% of the prime time talking heads and their anything-for-ratings antics and you MIGHT get enough information from Fox to make it worthwhile, but you won't see Juan or any of the other "familiar faces" on during those hours.
Re: (Score:2)
I never meant to say that Fox doesn't have it's biases, I'm only saying that they're not alone.
Pithy comments like "oh well Fox is biased like every other news outlet" are so far off the mark you might as well get your news from papyrus rolls. Its amazingly disingenuous to merely say that "Fox has it's biases" when 75% of its "news" content is actually opinion/editorial and only slants one direction... Thinking that if you spend 50% of your news-gathering with Fox and 50% with say CNN will get you anywhere close to middle ground is total nonsense. Watch Fox if you are a conservative who wants to be
Re: (Score:3)
Really? You're comparing the sale of news articles and circulation fraud with firing a news analyst for making an utterly moronic statement while representing NPR?
I agree that every news source has issues, that all stories should be cross-checked for accuracy. But there is getting some things wrong on occasion, and having a corporate policy to flat-out lie for profit and propaganda purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was that he was on air as an NPR news analyst, being asked for an analysis of the situation. At that point, he was on the job, representing NPR. That is not the time to put out personal opinions that are politically incorrect and wrong. If he does, he is a lousy news analyst, and deserves the firing for that reason alone. The fact that he was essentially promoting racism as a valid approach to dealing with people while representing NPR was just icing on the cake.
Re: (Score:2)
In the first place, NPR is not the anti-Fox. It is just another news outlet. How does a failure at NPR relate in any way to bad behavior at Fox? Your argument implies complete contempt for the concept of "fair and balanced" and assumes that all news is propaganda and intentionally biased.
In the second place, you are saying that as long as the "opposition" does something wrong, it justifies bad behavior on your si
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
So now NPR is now required to employ racists?
If you made those sorts of comments where I work you would be fired too.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet your employee handbook has a similar section about not saying racist stuff at work. It is not understandable to be uncomfortable around people of a different faith or race, that is just racism. I am more nervous on the drive to the airport than on the plane, I realize I am far more likely to die in my car.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
9/11 happened because of our policies in the middle east. We backed the Saudis and the nuts against the Soviets.
Re: (Score:2)
So are you racist against cars then? Not wanting to get blown up in a plane is not racism. Neither is refusing to ignore why 9/11 and the like took place simply because it doesn't it doesn't fancy the politically-correct idealists. Being racist would be being uncomfortable around them for their own sake, and he clearly was not saying that at all.
Ok then, my understanding is that a lot of terrorism on US soil has been carried out by people with white skin and Christian beliefs (Timothy McVeigh, various anti-abortionists). Therefore, if I am on holiday in the US, should I be suspicious of and act nervously around any white Christian people I meet, perhaps refuse to make eye contact or talk to them, as they may be terrorists?
Put the shoe on the other foot and see how it feels.
Re: (Score:3)
FYI, Racism is the belief that another race is inferior, to another.
1) Muslim isn't a race
2) Fearful that someone could be succeeded at a difficult task is not indicating a belief of inferiority (at least not in my book.)
We were all told by the Al Quida, that it is a muslims job to kill Americans, most understand that listing to Al Quida is a mistake, and you can call Juan stupid for listing to them, but the Al Quida are the ones to blame the most.
As a counter example, Do you believe if a black man was scar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which has nothing to do with the statement by Juan, he never said he was afraid of all Muslims.
So if you are honest about being a racist (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That in no way was being racist. That was admitting an honest and understandable feeling at the expense of being politically correct. And if I worked at such a place I would quit.
I looked this up because I'd never heard of the man (I'm not American). What he said was "When I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
Technically, it's not racist as "Muslim" isn't a race.
But it is paranoid illogical xenophobic garbage, which anyone with half a brain should be embarrassed to let vomit out of their mouths.
Logic 101. Even if all
Re: (Score:3)
This is modded flamebait, but it's pretty close to the truth. Investors in Fox have to know that they're not investing in a journalistic enterprise. They're investing in propaganda for profit. If they replace Murdoch (big if), expect someone just even worse to replace him.
Re: (Score:2)
The America that Fox represents as real does not actually exist. It is an America full of people terrified of the boogey man. Whoever the boogey man of the month happens to be. They are not a news organization, they are a fiction organization.
So what is reality? Go figure that out for yourself. Everyone has their own axe to grind. Compare several views of the world for a while and it gets to be pretty easy to spot what each individual organization's axe is. NPR's seems to be "Ev
Re: (Score:2)
The America that Fox represents as real does not actually exist. It is an America full of people terrified of the boogey man. Whoever the boogey man of the month happens to be. They are not a news organization, they are a fiction organization.
Trying to fit this into a UK context, Fox News sounds like The Daily Mail. 'Nuff said.
Re: (Score:3)
Fox not-News(I refuse to repeat a lie), is basically a news organisation target at two groups, psychopaths and narcissists. Not surprising as it is run by psychopaths and staffed by narcissists. They are the greed and ego network, they run adds by the greedy to sell products to the greedy and truth, well, truth is just to darn unprofitable.
It is "Insanity TV" and the only real saving grace is, it is pretty much a bug loser on the internet and is dying a slow but sure inevitable death. In the meantime do
Tech news? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know stories like this generate a lot of traffic but what does this have to do with tech news?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
stuff that matters
"stuff that matters"
'Nuff said...
Re: (Score:3)
And this matters? No it is News for Nerds this is News for bankers and stock brokers.
Heck it is even tagged Business!
Slashdot is dead.
Re: (Score:3)
yes, a possible change in the leadership of a company that is very influential in politics, news and entertainment matters -- at least to me, and probably most nerds who care about government or entertainment, which is probably ~100%.
/me checks poster's id
cry me a river, kid. people have been complaining about /. going downhill since forever. if you don't like it, quit bit
Re: (Score:2)
It is news for people for whom "technology" might mean something a bit more than "gadgets".
If you really dislike the site that much, WTF are you doing here? There's the door. Try not to trip too badly over your own smug anti-intellectualism as you exit.
(Protip: You seem to think that mocking others to compensate for your own wilful ignorance makes you look clever. It does not.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea really. Sorry but no. I would have no problem with this on MSNBC, BBC, or even NPR. I didn't say this wasn't news I said it wasn't news for nerds.
This is an example of mainstreaming, manipulation, and and frankly the politics of Slashdot.
I would complain if it was on Scientific American, MotorTrend, Sports Aviation, or Sky and Telescope.
And exactly how is who runs News Corp in anyway technology? I would even give it to you if was about their pay walls.
"Try not to trip too badly over your own smug anti-
Re: (Score:2)
You've never heard of News nerds/geeks?
Re: (Score:2)
The Only Constant Is Change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a Slashdotter masturbation frenzy. Everyone will get in with a comment about how they're so smart for not believe anything on Fox news, and they'll try to top each other in contests of cleverness by substituting "Faux" for "Fox" because nothing impresses the ladies like snide misspellings.
Re: (Score:2)
I know stories like this generate a lot of traffic but what does this have to do with tech news?
News foir Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
The tagline is not "tech news only with no reference to the real world".
I know Murdoch is crooked... (Score:2, Insightful)
But CA Public Employees Retirement System sounds left wing already, and if I were a worker, I'd be pissed that they're using my pension $ to play politics instead of simply focusing on good companies and divesting themselves of bad ones.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Uhhh, see, it is clearly bad for the long-term benefits of their members that fox continues to exert any influence at all on American politics. So their move is in fact good economic policy.
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (Score:4, Insightful)
Better policy would be to not invest in News Corp at all.
News Corp. seems to be operating with only the sketchiest of business plans and no effective executive oversight of his many far-flung initiatives
Then why are they, or anyone else seeking a successful investment, owing part of the company? If no one wanted the stock it would devalue itself and the rest of the owners, including the Murdochs, would lose money.
Re: (Score:1)
FTFY
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please. Public Pension systems are one of the last bastions of Good left in this country. And, I'm not talking about the pension system itself, I'm talking about some very, very responsible fund managers who run them (not just CALPers, but most state's public pension systems). These folks are paid significantly less than equivalent ones on Wall Street, and they put in a huge effort to get good returns for their funds. Part of that effort is to be more pro-active than a typical Wall Streeter, and not just game the system, but FIX the system.
So, you're strategy is "cut and run"? Where? Oh, to another company where the culture sucks so bad because the stockholders are sheep. The pension funds are right - they have to fight, since there's no where to move their money that isn't in some way corrupted by the current international "corporate culture standard".
There have been some major efforts by public pension systems (just in the past year, I can remember efforts from Louisiana, Wisconsin, New York, and even South Carolina) to reform the way companies are run. This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with maximizing the pension's ROI - after all, that $100 million the board just paid the CEO comes right out of stockholder's pockets. Public pension systems are at the forefront of the reform movement, and it's all in very much self interest.
In the Murdoch's case, fighting to oust them can only HELP the ROI - NewsCorp is incurring massive losses (legal, circulation, etc.) directly due to the Murdoch-installed culture. Replace that culture with a more sane one, and the ROI goes back up.
It's not politics, folks, it's money. Pure self-interest, just it happens to be wielded for Good this time.
-Erik
Re: (Score:3)
You are thinking of social security (State Pensions, which is mandatory and managed by the feds (SSA)), the parent is taking about Employment-based pensions (or retirement plans) managed by various private and public entities.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (Score:4, Insightful)
But CA Public Employees Retirement System sounds left wing already, and if I were a worker, I'd be pissed that they're using my pension $ to play politics instead of simply focusing on good companies and divesting themselves of bad ones.
If large, institutional investors don't take an active hand in steering public corporations, who will? Do you honestly think that if we posted about it to Facebook enough, all the individual investors would take time to fill out their shareholder ballots and vote the Murdochs off the board? If CalPERS was responsible for my retirement security, I not only would expect it to wield as much influence as it could over its holdings to secure long-term growth, but I would also expect it to steer those organizations in a direction that does not send them down the path of graft, corruption, and criminal misconduct. You seem to advocate CalPERS taking its ball and going home. I say it's far better for American workers and the U.S. economy for CalPERS to help keep corporations like News Corp accountable, responsible, forthright, upstanding, and most of all legal.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem with American capitalism right now and the single biggest reason CEO salaries are going up at 100% per year is exactly because investors have abrogated their responsibility to the company they are owners of. This is the reason the boards of most companies are comprised of friendly CEO's from other companies and no one running the company actually owns any significant stock. If you need an example look at HP, other than the Hewlett and Packard relatives with minority ownership there isn't
Re: (Score:2)
But CA Public Employees Retirement System sounds left wing already, and if I were a worker, I'd be pissed that they're using my pension $ to play politics instead of simply focusing on good companies and divesting themselves of bad ones.
Maybe if you were a worker you'd be left wing yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Robert Maxwell also decided peoples' pension funds were his to play with. He's now living in hiding, or fell off a boat, which ever you choose to believe.
Considering his body was found by a fishing boat [guardian.co.uk] on the same day he went missing, and that he would now be 88 if he were still alive, the "living in hiding" supposition seems rather far fetched. :)
Not Far Enough (Score:1)
Then maybe we can get rid of FOXs other owner, the known terrorist bankroller Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.
Fraud. (Score:2)
And why, exactly, don't they just ask police in all involved countries to investigate the papers and board for fraud? 40% means jack shit if RICO and similar laws are applied to the board.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But they can't get Murdoch and his cronies out any other way, so there isn't really a choice.
I'm a little confused here (Score:3)
I thought Rupert's website paywalls were going to fix all their problems.
Re: (Score:2)
The complex web of the phone hacking scandal has many threads to yet unwind. James - Herr Flick - Murdoch was the heir apparent. But when the complete truth is ironed out and he is found to have lied to the UK parliament select committee on what he knew then his corporate career is over. Where that leaves the "empire" given the age of it's king, is anyone's guess - but a family dynasty to control all far into the future is looking increasingl
Another slow news day.... (Score:2)
Hurm... how many want to bet that absolutely none of this will make Fox News at 11 tonight?
The Other Vader (Score:1)
If Dick Cheyney is the Darth Vader of government, then certainly Rupert Murdoch is the Darth Vader of Industry. I hope he gets spanked hard!
Good luck with that (Score:2)
Stock holder revolts rarely work. Stockholders are second class citizens (maybe even 3rd or 4th). If it looks like it might have a chance the board will amend the charter making it even more difficult to revolt. If sued, they will use the assets of the company, in other words the stockholders, to fend the stockholders off.
Scumbags.
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately, CALPers seems to get into this "politics is more important than fiduciary responsibility to our members" mode these days.
The people they don't like, Murdoch, makes money to support their member's pension. The people they like, New York Times et. al., don't.
The problem is, and I have friends in CALPers (and CALStrs for teachers) and if it rolls over, it is so big, no one even the U.
S. Treasury could save it.
This is probably the most serious and ignored issue in the Country.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:CALPERS (Score:4, Insightful)
They've been doing this for years. When it was fashionable to disinvest in South Africa, CalPers was there. There has been debate off and on about disinvesting in tobacco firms and other forms of social ills. What they're asking for here is new.
The structural problems have been ignored because, like the remainder California budget, nobody in the Legislature wants to take on a problem that can't easily be expressed in a sound bite. Every new year sees new smoke and mirror schemes pushing problems into the future in the vain hope the economy will get better. Then everybody can go back to ignoring deep structural problems in how pensions are funded in favor of short term things that will annoy no one and help them stay in office.
Re: (Score:2)
Divesting from South Africa was required by state law. I believe that tobacco company divestiture was also required by state law. But Tea Party gots ta think anything dats da state govmint is da Pinko. Frankly I'd rather have CALPERS managing my money than Lehman Brothers. Just imagine who the Tea Party would turn that $236 billion over to, at a cool 2% a year management fee no less.
What they're doing here is not different from standard practice. Every year they make a "focus list" of companies that ar
Re: (Score:1)
Well hey, smuggling drugs makes a lot of money, so is the responsible fiduciary measure to invest heavily in Mexican drug cartels?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Smuggling drugs makes a lot of money, but investing in people who smuggle drugs does not.
That doesn't make any sense. Drugs don't autonomously smuggle themselves, so some people are making money out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Drugs don't autonomously smuggle themselves, so some people are making money out of it.
And how do you turn that into an investment? There are several problems you don't recognize here. Let's suppose CALPERS put a billion dollar investment into cocaine smuggling from Columbia. The first problem is getting the smugglers to honor your stake. There are no laws to enforce the normal rules of business for a black market. The second problem is the high risk of asset seizure and imprisonment. If one of many governments catches you, then your assets are gone and somebody, perhaps you, is in jail.
Th
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, CALPers seems to get into this "politics is more important than fiduciary responsibility to our members" mode these days.
It's a good thing they don't put anonymous cowards in charge of large pension funds. You do realize that if Murdoch isn't managing News Corp properly and is encouraging nepotism and law breaking as corporate policy, then it is only right that they should push hard for a management change. This might not be as political as you think. Go to the CALPERS wikipedia page and read about the "focus list".
BTW, I seem to recall that divesting from South Africa was required by state law, and not volunteered by C
Re: (Score:1)
Politically motivated: outing the Murdochs is very likely to be value destructive.
CALPERS' fiduciary duty is to maximize the value of fund assets - not to take political postures.
A fairly major breach of ERISA regulations if they go ahead with this.
Re: (Score:3)
Because supporting a media which itself funds a campaign against the retirement benefits which they are supposed to provide makes sense?
Re: (Score:2)
You can try to spin this whatever way you want, but facts are facts. CALPers is trying to tank a stock it owns, to the financial detriment of the people CALPers represents.
Re: (Score:2)
You can try to spin this whatever way you want, but facts are facts. CALPers is trying to tank a stock it owns, to the financial detriment of the people CALPers represents.
Your argument is that the News Corp stock will go down if the Murdochs are ousted... Do you think the decline and scuttling of News of the World was good for the share price? The share price tends to disagree (it has been markedly below average recently).
Re: (Score:2)
A founder in charge is usually good for the company. Murdock might not be a nice guy, but he cares about the future of his empire. Closing News of the World made them lose a source of revenue, but he probably had a good reason - it lets every other journalist in his empire know that if they get caught making a scandal, they will lose their jobs, and so will all their co-workers. This will plug leaks (because if you leak, your whole paper will be nuked), and prevent unethical behavior.
I think it was Sun Zi w
Re: (Score:2)
A founder in charge is usually good for the company.
Not if he's a fucking crook.
Re:CALPERS (Score:5, Insightful)
You can try to spin this whatever way you want, but facts are facts. CALPers is trying to tank a stock it owns, to the financial detriment of the people CALPers represents.
Bullshit. They point out several major problems that have cropped up at News International recently. Illegal activity that appears to have been approved (or at least knowingly ignored) at the highest levels, selling access to supposed news columns, and little or no oversight from the board. These issues have the potential to very rapidly destroy the company; CalPERS, along with other institutional and private investors, are looking for a way to bring some oversight to the top-level executives, which happen to be Murdoch and family (among others). Yes, Rupert Murdoch has been very effective in building value over time - but recent events have shown that, whether through a failure to properly oversee operations or willing participation in these activities, they are taking much greater risks than some investors are comfortable with. It isn't the ideology espoused by the News Corp outlets that is at issue - that hasn't changed since CalPERS and the others invested, and frankly most of them probably don't care as long as the returns are good - it is the policies of the corporate leadership that they see as trending towards corruption.
That isn't to discount the fact that CalPERS members are likely to be largely opposed to the ideological viewpoint espoused by many of the News Corp properties. CalPERS has, in the past, moved out of industries it has ideological problems with (or specific companies) on numerous occassions. But to say that they would intentionally destroy the value in a stock they plan on (apparently) continuing to hold is just letting your own ideology color your view of events. News Corp seems to be out of control, from the perspective of some of the investors. They want more oversight of executive activities and decisions in order to reduce the risk of being blindsided by continued negligence (or criminal activity), which means removing or diluting the Murdochs' presence on the board.
But yeah, more fun just to yell and scream that the evil liberals are trying to silence the voice of conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
In the long term if they are shown to be a bunch on gangsters they will slowly lose influence and
Re: (Score:2)
But yeah, more fun just to yell and scream that the evil liberals are trying to silence the voice of conservatives.
They're not? What world do you live in?
The real world, I would imagine, unlike you.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"No, this is a good thing. Hopefully people wake up to this new form of democracy."
It's not a "new form of democracy", it's a legal owner exerting its right to have a say in how its investment ought to be managed. Why are all the crazed shills against shareholder rights and shareholder value now?
If this owner believes that doing sleazy unethical things are bad for its investment or just because they're immoral, then so what? It's not "fox news", it's the phone hacking and the falsifying the european circul
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is a good thing. Hopefully people wake up to this new form of democracy. Where if you don't act morally and for the benefit of employees, customers, and the earth then we pull our umpteen millions or billions out of your company now. Government has been dysfunctional for over thirty years in America. William Greider covered this in The Soul of Capitalism where he predicted this very thing. He said that people would start to act through their enormous pension funds to affect change in the world because government simply can't get it done, and it is easier to do this than to change government. Awesome. Get it done.
I can't vote to decide who runs a pension fund, and it is absurd to believe that most of them are interested in morality, employee/customer rights or the fucking environment, unless it earns them a higher rate of return.
Obviously there are exceptions, but in general it is simply untrue that pension funds are run by people I politically agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Politically motivated: outing the Murdochs is very likely to be value destructive.
If the Murdochs keep on running News Corp like fucking gangsters, they're going to destroy its value all by themselves.
The whole point is that if you have criminals running companies, eventually they will be found out and the corporation will become worthless. Look at Enron.
So it is financially prudent for pension funds to consider the strategic risk of investing in stocks with potentially zero value. This is quite separate from any moral or political issues.
Re: (Score:2)
I swear, this place is turning into another Huffington Post. Filled with limp dicked liberals who can't take any criticism.
Always good to hear from the huge swinging dick ACs.
No, that's their point. (Score:3)
Murdoch is becoming a liability, not a core asset to the company.
Re: (Score:2)
Anon and luzsec and hell even wikileaks don't get this kind of condemnation as this instance of organized hacking has received in the media and on the forums. What's going on guys? Liberal can hack, but conservatives can't?
If you're referring to the phone-hacking scandal...
Anonymous and Lulzsec don't pretend to be news organisations. WikiLeaks doesn't do any hacking.
Re: (Score:2)
No one really cared about the NOTW hacking celebrities' phones, but they crossed a line of vileness.
Re: (Score:2)
you need to remember this is Slashdot so, to see any conservative views, you need to make it a point to read all of the posts that have been scored -1.
NOTE: This alert should be posted on all politically sensitive topics!!!
Yes, because there are no conservatives on slashdot. This site is a teeming hotbed of GODLESS COMMUNISM and MUSLIM TERRORISM.