Rupert era effectively over … new Murdoch leader most unlikely
|
The News Corporation News of the World scandal has taken another lurch with the publication of documents, including a letter from News of the World royal correspondent Clive Goodman, alleging that the paper’s leadership knew and approved of telephone hacking. No surprises there for anyone who has worked in a newsroom. It would not have been possible for editors Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks to have both been doing their job, and to have been in ignorance about hacking and blagging. There are certain routine questions that editors always ask when faced with a decent news story. They include: is it true, and how did we get it. But the real significance of these simple facts about a working newsroom is that the Murdoch family, particularly Rupert, know them too. Unlike many newspaper managements these days, they understand how the business works. None better. So in other words, Brooks must have known. And Rupert and James must have known that she must have known. And yet they continued to back her and say publicly that they believed her denials. Now, I am not the only one who thinks this. Readers of The Australian’s media section will have seen Mark Day’s account of a Wheeler Centre event last week in Melbourne at which he and I both spoke. Day describes his role as having been to “put a contrarian, pro-Murdoch view”. And by and large, he did. And as he acknowledges he and I agreed on at least some things. Including, for those who advocate the fall of the Murdoch press “be careful what you wish for”. But what he does not say in his column is that he also agreed with me that Brooks must have known, and the Murdochs must have known that she knew. I described them as “culpable”. He used the word “responsible”. And the other thing we agreed on is that the era of Rupert Murdoch is effectively over, and that the succession of another Murdoch to the head of the company is now extremely unlikely. With the Murdochs now to be quizzed again over their fairly dubious evidence to the British parliamentary committee last month, anyone who is paying attention can seriously doubt those conclusions, I would suggest. Be careful what you wish for? Without Murdoch, we will probably soon lose The Australian. Meanwhile Fairfax is weak. Those who care should begin to think about what Australia will be like without any broadsheet newspapers. And I am not talking only about their print iterations, but about the journalistic capacity they represent. Time to stop gloating, lefties, over what is happening in the UK, and get to grips with the emerging civic crisis at home. Or at least mix the gloat with some plans for action. |
|
|
|
14 Comments
News media is not unprofitable. Its print crisis is that the product is not satisfying consumers and its profit is shrunk. The crisis for its participants is that their work is much more contestable and the pay is not going to be so good in the future.
The obvious gap is in management. But it seems equally obvious that the failure of managements is creating the opportunity for a better generation. In new companies with a discipline built around news and without the endlessly turgid commentary and PR and slagging.
I agree with you totally. Although the Australian is totally biased, it does contain some of the best journalists in the country and if it should fail, where would they go? Maybe to the tabloids in the News stable but heaven help the quality as those tabloids are, in my opinion, about one step better than their English News Corporation stable mates which isn’t saying anything good about them at all. Murdoch’s original idea of having a nationally based broadsheet is still good but for it to be a true national paper, it must represent all strands of our society fairly and objectively, not what it is doing right now. If Fairfax should also fall, something which is not beyond reason given their current travails, then we as a nation are left with some of the poorest examples of journalism remaining in the shape of the tabloids. We will certainly be the losers then.
I agree with you totally. Although the Australian is totally biased, it does contain some of the best journalists in the country and if it should fail, where would they go? Maybe to the tabloids in the News stable but heaven help the quality as those tabloids are, in my opinion, about one step better than their English News Corporation stable mates which isn’t saying anything good about them at all. Murdoch’s original idea of having a nationally based broadsheet is still good but for it to be a true national paper, it must represent all strands of our society fairly and objectively, not what it is doing right now. If Fairfax should also fall, something which is not beyond reason given their current travails, then we as a nation will be left with some of the poorest examples of journalism remaining in the shape of the tabloids. We will certainly be the losers then.
The Murdoch era is over? The profits say otherwise.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/murdoch-firmly-in-control-as-news-corporation-lifts-profit/story-fn91v9q3-1226113412031
In any case, there’s nothing to say a hypothetical Murdoch-free Australia would be a better or worse place. The Australian doesn’t represent “journalistic capacity”. It is a brand. If people want journalism and there’s no broadsheets then they’ll pay for an upstart rival.
Why should we care about the death of The Australian again Margaret? I’m genuinely interested in a substantive answer beyond the glib response that even an toxic broadsheet is better than none.
The fact of the matter is that the Oz cannot survive without being cross subsidised by more profitable businesses, and the only reason any proprietor would do that is for political influence — which is driven by ideological and commercial concerns.
So, the reality is that by defending the Oz you’re basically endorsing that influence as collateral consequence of the primary benefit you see in having a national broadsheet. But the point is many of us don’t accept those ostensible benefits as a given. IMHO the nominal benefit of having an additional broadsheet presence is outweighed by Murdoch’s commensurately over-sized influence over the Australian political landscape, and even the entries on the positive side of the ledger are almost “colourless and odourless and weightless” given the paper deterioration in recent years under the direction of Chris Mitchell.
Short of us finding some more benevolent tycoon to come along and subsidise the paper, or restructure it under a Scott-trust type arrangement, such that the paper actually carries out a legitimate journalism, what possible reason could justify the existence of the paper? Your answer appears to be little more than a defence of the status quo, presumably because you cannot imagine other non-tabloid forms of journalism arising or the few genuine journalist who work there finding other avenues to contribute. That strikes me as an incredible failure of imagination.
The Oz having to return to a strictly commercial operation would be a great thing for the public. The return of normal commercial pressures would have a moderating influence on a paper that is out of control, and if it was unable to find a genuinely profitable market it would likely disappear. Sounds exactly like how capitalism is meant to work.
If - or is it when? - the Australian is closed the Age and Sydney Morning Herald may be slightly more profitable. But even if Fairfax’s newspapers close and Australia has no more broadsheets I doubt there will be many problems.
First, broadsheets are surely read by only a small minority of the population. That they are wealthy and enjoy high cultural capital doesn’t make them more important. They will get their news and current affairs from the ABC since presumably the broadsheets’ readership overlaps with the ABC’s audience.
Secondly, people will still investigate and report public life. Perhaps not as frenetically as professional journalists, but much of what is published in the broadsheets is too preoccupied with the moment and with personalities to be worth much.
Thirdly, it is good that news and analysis isn’t funnelled thru a few dominant channels. The fragmentation of audiences reduces the power of those who control the channels.
This is not a civic crisis but a crisis of a tiny part of capitalism which is what the left predicts, not fears.
Why would anyone be “gloating” over the U.K. riots and aftermath? I really don’t understand that statement, Margaret. I can only speak for myself, but I am very much concerned at that situation AND at threats to freedom of expression (Article 19 of the UDHR) here and elsewhere.
Actions: learn about what’s happening, advocate for and support effective change.
@ William Fettes
I agree. Even if the end of the Australian/all broadsheets brought an end to democracy as we know it, that may well be an improvement.
Lefties and many others are not gloating at the UK riots, but at Murdoch’s problems in the UK.
I agree with W Fettes’ sentiment.
It’s not my job to save Australian newspapers and not my fault that they are crap.
I do my bit by subscribing to Crikey.
Not up to your usual standard Margaret.
What W.F. & Ruprecht said.
Firstly, I would definitely be pleased if The Australian folded, but not as a “Lefty” as you so originally label me, Margaret: as a scientist, as a person who values the truth over editor-driven bias, and as someone who feels smug arrogance needs to be taught a lesson. The good journalists on The Australian ( a pitifully small crew) will find new positions; the rest can go and piss up a rope.
“Those who care should begin to think about what Australia will be like without any broadsheet newspapers. And I am not talking only about their print iterations, but about the journalistic capacity they represent.”
I guess I wasted my money subscribing to Crikey recently then. Because apparently there is nowhere for the “journalistic capacity” to go at all - except for the hundreds of sites online like this one of course.
The days of getting every piece of news from a single source are over. People will build their news feeds from multiple places - opinion pieces from sites A and B, news wires from site C, etc. Go create investigativejournalism.com.au and have fun Margaret, and if it is good it may end up being my site D.
Once the broadsheets die, journalists will be freed from having to slant every story so as to please their masters or to not tick off the advertisers. They can focus on their niche without compromising the content for unrelated business goals. That can only be a good thing.
I’m with the William Fettes crowd. I used to have The Australian home delivered during its early years but when Murdoch sacked Adrian Deamer over an editorial criticising apartheid and the Springboks tour of Australia I realised the paper was a personal political tool for Murdoch and switched to Fairfax. Occasionally I buy the Weekend Aust if I can’t get the Age or SMH, but otherwise I assiduously avoid any Murdoch papers and websites.
There are plenty of excellent sources for news, info and opinion - Crikey, Grogs Gamut, the Failed Estate, Huffington Post, ABC, PBS.org etc and these all have links to others. Not to mention the Grauniad, Independent, UK Telegraph, NY Times and on it goes, and let’s not get started on the magazines, news weeklies, think tanks, reviews, journals etc. Just go to drudgereport.com and check out the myriad links he provides as a starter.
All that said, I’d still rather read a newspaper than a screen and if The Australian were to reinvent itself as a paper of record and balance rather than propaganda pulp, I’d buy it again. For sure be careful what you wish for but sometimes change can be positive.
What is a big concern, is how (until recently) News Ltd has avoided scrutiny in this country because many journalists do not want to bite the hand that feeds or eliminate an employment path.
One reason this organisation has managed to get to its present dominant position unscathed.
As mentioned above, without input from the public this story would easily have been ‘managed’. Some dynastys gain power by stepping on a few toes, it appears the toe owners are now happily kicking back.