tip off

Mayne: are Bolt and McCrann writing Rinehart’s Fairfax lines?

As each day passes, it looks increasingly like New York-based News Corporation was involved in an attempt to conspire with certain conservative politicians and a rogue staffer in the independent speaker’s office to try and prematurely bring down an elected minority government. And if you think the James Ashby affair looks bad for News Ltd, what about the ongoing performance of that rogue cell embedded in its Melbourne office, best mates Andrew Bolt and Terry McCrann?

This duo have long argued that the government should fall and are now openly destabilising their main media competitor, which happens to be a more moderate contributor to the national conversation.

McCrann and Bolt have become self-appointed chief leaders in Gina Rinehart’s attempt to seize board and editorial control of Fairfax Media in a move that would be an absolute disaster for the owners of 81% of the company and a huge boon for News Ltd.

It goes like this. On June 19, McCrann claimed Fairfax chairman Roger Corbett had “made a catastrophic mistake in trying to close the board door to Gina Rinehart” and predicted he would now be booted out just like the way James Packer disposed of Echo Entertainment chair John Story. On Tuesday, he wrote the following:

To the extent that Fairfax has a future, it is now a Gina Rinehart future. It is now very clearly, to use a modified old ockerism, Gina or the knackery.”

All the while, McCrann has been deriding Fairfax’s editorial independence and yesterday we got some specifics with this:

In 2008 then Age CEO Don Churchill wrote to staff thanking “everyone who has been involved in organising, promoting and writing about tomorrow night’s big event, Earth Hour.”

There was also a reference to Andrew Bolt’s various Earth Hour jibes. Apart from this Media Watch piece in 2008, few people are seriously pushing the line that Earth Hour has somehow compromised 150 years of independent journalism at Fairfax. It wasn’t the board that directed any journalists, but rather management as part of a marketing partnership that proved highly successful.

While Rinehart no longer has a spokesman — Alexander Downer’s business partner Ian Smith found her too strange to handle — Hancock Prospecting’s John Klepec released an extraordinary statement yesterday, which included the following:

We are prepared to acknowledge the Fairfax Media Board Governance Principles exist … we note that the FMBGP has been repeatedly over-ridden in the past — for example by ordering journalists to support Earth Hour.”

Bolt and McCrann are clearly helping write Rinehart’s lines in a cack-handed attempt to destabilise their biggest competitor. Doesn’t that look similar to Steve Lewis’ inappropriate dealings with James Ashby and various political opponents of Peter Slipper?

Then you have the extraordinary situation at Ten Network Holdings, one of the three employers of millionaire Bolt along with News Ltd and John Singleton’s 2GB. Bolt has previously denied Gina Rinehart was instrumental in delivering him Australia’s first Fox News-style national platform on a mass-market commercial television network, despite what fellow traveller Gerard Henderson said on Insiders last week. Indeed, Bolt wrote the following on February 8:

I’m not sure what Rinehart plans with Fairfax, but a score of grim journalists has warned that she’s got shocking form. Didn’t she force Channel 10 to give me my own show when she joined its board?”

What tosh. I worked with Ten before Rinehart bought into it, and was signed up for The Bolt Report by then acting CEO Lachlan Murdoch, once my chairman here at News Ltd.”

That may be true, but The Bolt Report has performed poorly and should have been axed months ago, just like Alan Jones’ ranting efforts on Channel Ten were cut after just a few weeks in 1993.

So why isn’t Ten taking a commercial approach to Bolt’s failures, along with its disastrous new breakfast show fronted by controversial right-wing Kiwi Paul Henry? Could it be because a cabal of right-wing billionaires have taken control of the company without making a full takeover bid?

That’s certainly what McCrann was implying when he wrote the following on June 20 in predicting that James Packer would team with Gina Rinehart to also take control of Fairfax:

Rinehart is the perfect partner for any such move on Fairfax. And especially as Corbett — and CEO Greg Hywood — have all but, if unintentionally, laid out the red carpet.

Corbett could have brought Rinehart into the boardroom. Rejecting her on the ground that she would not sign the ‘non-interference’ charter was not just silly but an invitation to war.

She has put serious money into the company, and ideology aside, is perfectly entitled to decline to be shackled, in terms of ensuring the company is not mismanaged.

The very exercise of so arrogantly antagonising her invited not just her move to near 20 per cent, but invited other players like Packer to join the game. At a very simple level, didn’t Corbett notice what happened at Ten?”

Indeed Terry, we all have. The story of Network Ten is minority shareholders getting completely screwed as a gaggle of billionaires collaborated to take control without paying a premium.

James Packer was the chief conductor at the start when he bought 18% and then provided financial support to his mate Lachlan Murdoch to take half. The lads paid more than $1.40 a share and after  gross mismanagement, including the hiring of Bolt, the stock is now at 50c. Almost $1 billion of value has disappeared.

Seeing as Lachlan personally owns radio stations and is on the board of News Corp, the dominant newspaper and pay-TV company in Australia, he appears to be in breach of Australia’s cross-media ownership laws. ACMA is currently investigating this complaint lodged by Avaaz last month.

This hasn’t stopped the Murdochs and their mates on the Ten board who yesterday announced that the CEO of Lachlan’s private company Illyria, Siobhan McKenna, had been appointed a director, representing the combined Packer-Murdoch interests. Clearly this was approved by Rinehart and her fellow Ten director and Fairfax strategist, Hungry Jack Cowin.

Based on all the disasters unfolding at competitor Ten, the Fairfax board should firmly tell Rinehart to stay away with her value-destroying strategies. If she wants control she’d better line up an additional $2 billion debt facility and launch a full bid, which would immediately trigger a “fit and proper” test for media owners from the federal Parliament.

Rinehart would struggle to pass such a test given all her controversial dealings down the years, not to mention suing media outlets to force source disclosure, oppressing her children and spending up big to keep open-court proceedings hidden from the public.

As The AFR pointed out today, it would also be good if she finally shelled out cash to some of the families who lost loved ones digging up asbestos for her father at Wittenoom before he sold out to CSR in 1943.

Wittenoom was the original source of the family’s wealth, not that you’d ever read that in a column by Bolt or McCrann, the only two senior journalists in Australia who are seriously arguing this oddball media novice would be a good and suitable Fairfax proprietor.

20
  • 1
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 28 June 2012 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Child’s Play”, Chucky”? Ian Smith “found her too strange to handle”, but Blot and McCrann think it’s “money for old rope”?

  • 2
    jennatilz mckrackin
    Posted Thursday, 28 June 2012 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    This shows either direction from the board, or more likely the implied fear of having someone like Rinehart around a company.
    http://www.pedestrian.tv/entertainment/features/channel-ten-puts-the-muzzle-on-dan-ilics-gina-rine/80235.htm

  • 3
    John Newton
    Posted Thursday, 28 June 2012 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    Good on you Stephen - someone knows where the bodies are buried - apart from the victims of mesothelioma

  • 4
    NeoTheFatCat
    Posted Thursday, 28 June 2012 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    If she doesn’t like what Fairfax is doing, why doesn’t she just start up her own media company instead of whingeing? That would really mean putting her money where her mouth is.

  • 5
    Rohan
    Posted Thursday, 28 June 2012 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    How come we see so much of Twiggy and Clive, yet Gina all but never ventures into the public spotlight?

    Strikes me as bizarrely coy behaviour for a self-made billionaire and I find it much harder to trust her as a result.

  • 6
    zut alors
    Posted Thursday, 28 June 2012 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

    Quite a cesspool of nasty facts to paddle through. The Rinehart brand appears to be toxic.

  • 7
    Son of foro
    Posted Thursday, 28 June 2012 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    Maybe Crazy Hands McCrann and Crazy Head Bolt were applying for a job at The Australian, now that Murdoch may have to sell it.

  • 8
    Recalcitrant.Rick
    Posted Thursday, 28 June 2012 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

    I keep on hearing about all this money she has put into Fairfax and that she’s some kind of “White Knight” Unless I’m missing something all she has done is bought shares that someone else owned anyway and therefore has added nothing of value to the company. In fact during this period the share price has dropped, does that mean it’s worth less now that she is involved? Can some one explain to me that I’m wrong?

  • 9
    jeff holland
    Posted Thursday, 28 June 2012 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    Great article, and got to say I didnt mind the Hancocks, but finding out the original source of their wealth, well they deserve all the unhappiness that that evil mine has wrought on others.

  • 10
    khtagh
    Posted Thursday, 28 June 2012 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    @ Rohan
    I think the hint is in the clip on the telly where you see miss Piggy swanning around in a white sheet with a spinnaker thru her hair, & no-one other than her daughter talking to her. She is more right wing than the starboard wing light on a 767, mad as a hatter.

    Very interesting about the Wittenoom link, I would have thought something that controversial would have come up in the recent 4 corners story, hummm interesting.

  • 11
    Hamis Hill
    Posted Thursday, 28 June 2012 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

    Yes, apparently Gina’s mother died from asbestos exposure, negligence which could be laid at her father’s door since the health implications were understood pre-WWII.
    It has all the hallmarks of a Greek Tragedy.
    Who is going to write the book?
    What a saga!

  • 12
    whoknows
    Posted Friday, 29 June 2012 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    …a cack-handed attempt…” As a leftie, I take exception to that, Hmmph…(storms off)

  • 13
    whoknows
    Posted Friday, 29 June 2012 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    “She has put serious money into the company, and ideology aside, is perfectly entitled to decline to be shackled, in terms of ensuring the company is not mismanaged. Terry McCrann.

    Define “mismanaged” Mr McCrann. Does it mean “ensuring the company expresses her viewpoint at any given time?”

  • 14
    barfiller
    Posted Friday, 29 June 2012 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    Gotta love the people who claim Gina has done it all by sheer hard work. From Wikipedia: “Lang Hancock was born in Perth, Western Australia, to one of that state’s oldest land-owning families. He spent his early childhood on his family’s station at Ashburton Downs and moved to Mulga Downs in the north-west after his father, George Hancock, bought a farming estate there.” He owned all, then part, of an asbestos mine for a decade, and discovered iron ore in the Pilbara. “In the mid-sixties Hancock turned once more to [old friend and colleague E.A.] Wright and the pair entered into a deal with mining giants Rio Tinto Group to develop the iron ore find. Hancock named it “Hope Downs” after his wife … Wright and Hancock walked away with annual royalties of A$25 million, split evenly between the two men. In 1990, Hancock was estimated by Business Review Weekly to be worth a minimum of A$125 million.”
    So, when her father died, Gina got off to what might be called a good start.

  • 15
    c d
    Posted Friday, 29 June 2012 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    Old Bolta’s come a long way, hasn’t he?

    I still remember one of his early columns bemoaning his average bloke staus when his old EA falcon was broken into, of course society was going to pot, but the underlying theme was dissatisfaction.

    He was always the guy not invited to the rich peoples’ party, left with his nose pressed up against the glass wondering how he could get in. As has been evidenced, he was cunning enough to find a way in.

    Brown nosing and being a soldier for the cause was a small price to pay.

  • 16
    Frank Campbell
    Posted Friday, 29 June 2012 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    a gaggle of billionaires collaborated to take control”

    Well they would, wouldn’t they? Jurassic monsters howling over media carcasses…

    We all know newspapers are an indulgence of the super-rich. “The Australian” has always run at a loss, for instance. It exists only because Murdoch wants political influence to favour his commercial interests. And to add a shred of respectability to the unsavoury lineage of the tabloid Dirty Digger.

    Billionaires buy out millionaires: Murdoch has just purchased Kohler et al. Crikey detests Murdoch, so it’s an interesting contradiction…

    Modest millionaires buy what they can afford: Beecher sold a pile of magazines to hapless Fairfax for $20 million and then bought Crikey-in-the-garage for a million from middle-class battler Stephen Mayne…

    But the internet model is remarkably similar to the old newspaper hierarchy. Just cheaper. The vaunted “independence” lasts only until the next fat chequebook arrives, or the proprietor tires of the sport. And that “independence” is also compromised in small internet operations like Crikey and the plethora of Right and Leftwing sites by tight ideological lines. Crikey is anything but transparent or accountable, there is no “conversation”, national or otherwise. Journalism is limited by tiny size and Crikey’s politics. Limitations also derive from its narrow inner-urban base, both class and geographic. Being a creation of minor media players, it has an understandable if irritating obsession with big media. On the environment Crikey is barren- everything is subordinated to global warming orthodoxy. Propagandists such as Hamilton are promoted relentlessly. There is no admission that a Left/Green critique of “climate change” and its policies exists. On the contrary, the tone is pure Bolt: derision.
    Consequently Crikey is blind to its modest share of responsibility for the collapse of progressive politics in Australia.

  • 17
    Charon
    Posted Friday, 29 June 2012 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    So, Rupert’s rottwoodles are going into bat for dumb rich grown-ups and other fellow travellers. Nothing new there. I generally find that it’s best to exercise my democratic right to read/watch something else. Why give more oxygen to oxygen thieves?

  • 18
    klewso
    Posted Friday, 29 June 2012 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    And where would all that “hard work” have led if China catches cold?

  • 19
    Owen Gary
    Posted Saturday, 30 June 2012 at 1:31 am | Permalink

    What a headline, “Bolt sacrifices left nut for membership of the big club”

    Bolt, a man of the people who speaks for truth, justice, wisdom, freedom and a lump sum payment!!

  • 20
    Owen Gary
    Posted Saturday, 30 June 2012 at 1:41 am | Permalink

    Watching this soul less thing in action void of any expression & spouting his excrement is reminiscent of the nazi propaganda machine Lord Haw Haw during WW2. These people surely need lots of sleeping pills, he is a disgace to the species.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...