The text message arrived from ABC News 24 at 6.58am.
“Any chance you could come to the studio to do an interview on James Murdoch’s resignation?”
Cripes, what a bombshell. This was going to be a huge day, a bit like when Lachlan Murdoch walked with a $10 million payout in 2005.
Alas, what News Corp announced this morning was nothing more than confirming what was announced on March 30 last year.
James Murdoch is moving to New York to be News Corp’s global 3IC, sporting the title deputy chief operating officer.
He is formally severing responsibility for the British newspaper operation and it is important that today’s announcement confirmed that News International’s new CEO, former Paul Keating adviser Tom Mockridge, is reporting directly to Rupert’s deputy, Chase Carey.
But don’t for a moment believe that James Murdoch has been appropriately sanctioned or punished for his role in the huge cover-up operation deployed to deny massive phone hacking and illegal payments to public officials. He’s even staying on as chairman of BSkyB.
You’ve got to hand it to the Murdochs — their undying commitment to nepotism above and beyond any normal notion of accountability is something to behold.
While every other senior News Corp executive connected to UK newspaper illegality has been thrown overboard, the Murdochs refuse to take meaningful responsibility.
Given the scale of what is unfolding at the Leveson inquiry, I very much doubt this is a sustainable strategy and still believe James Murdoch faces the serious prospect of being charged in the UK. Charges in the US are also in prospect and the move to New York will make James a bigger target for US authorities.
Similarly, I’ll be very surprised if Rupert is still executive chairman at the time of this year’s AGM in October.
What the Murdochs are refusing to accept is that almost 80% of the independent votes at last year’s News Corp AGM went against James and Lachlan Murdoch.
Lachlan Murdoch came a cropper when he moved to New York, so today’s comments by Murdoch’s most insightful biographer Michael Wolff, are instructive:
“James Murdoch does not have a role at News Corp. He is the shadow man. Nobody talks to him — not even, at least not meaningfully, his father. (They once spoke two or three times a day, managing the affairs of their world.) His siblings shun or pity him. He has not existed as a force, and hardly as presence, since the meltdown of the News of the World last summer.
And, to say the least, there is no possibility that he will inherit the top job.
The reality is stark: everybody in the company blames James for the terrible things that have happened in London. They blame his father for falling under James’s sway — but blame James more for swaying him.
In a way, it’s even starker than that: since he left the top job at BSkyB at his father’s behest and took over News Corp’s operations in Europe and Asia, James has become the most disliked man in the company. This is partly because, for all the obvious reasons, Murdoch’s entitled children would breed a predictable resentment. But additionally, it is because James is an extraordinarily cold, abrasive know-it-all.”
That is pretty savage commentary and you need to know the history. Like most journalists, Wolff’s observations are skewed to promote the interests of his sources, several of whom are sacked News Corp executives.
One of the biggest mistakes Rupert Murdoch made was giving Wolff carte blanche to the family and various News Corp executives.
It was Gary Ginsberg who recommended this and after the strategy went pear-shaped, he was and should have been fired.
Peter Chernin was the biggest loss and this happened after the crazy $US5.6 billion purchase of Dow Jones in 2007, something which the whole board should have prevented.
Lead independent director Sir Rod Eddington once told me that Lon Jacobs used to be very aggressive in the way he dealt with Rupert.
That’s fine, but he also made some big blunders, most notably the News America Marketing stuff-ups that resulted in a $US500 million settlement last year.
The result of this is that Rupert and James have burnt through some of their best executives and very few people remain who can stand up to them. Tactically, the family has played the UK newspaper scandal appallingly, but for mine that is more to do with Rupert than James.
If the company had any moral compass or sense of decency, both would completely resign as executive directors. But for that you’d need some independent directors with spine, which is still sadly lacking at News Corp.
14 thoughts on “Mayne: James Murdoch’s resignation means nothing”
Frank Campbell
March 1, 2012 at 8:23 pm“their undying commitment to nepotism”
Correct. They’re a global Mafia family.
Arrest Murdoch.
Charge: Sleaze and corruption
Sentence: Cleaning public toilets for the rest of his unnatural life. Long live Rupert.
Aaron F
March 1, 2012 at 11:16 pmPrior to having her voice mails hacked, the singer Charlotte Church agreed to perform free at RM’s wedding because favourable media reporting in RM media had allegedly been offered in return. (A commitment they reneged on as it turns out). It makes me wonder how many other people, in walks of life where public opinion is important – eg politicians – have been offered similar deals…? Of course this issue has the potential to be greatly exacerbated in Australia due to the concentration of media ownership.
Schnappi
March 1, 2012 at 11:37 pmYes AARON F
It shows how far up the corruption and influence went,murdoch had to know what such a prize as Charlotte Church at that wedding meant and what the reneged deal was.
With murdoch taking control of his Australian assets,and openly endorsing abbott,one can only assume murdoch is in complete control,however he denies any wrong doing or knowledge of being in control of the dealings in the UK.
After the UK, and investigations in the USA ,find it hard to believe we have not had any wrong doing,makes no sense.
.
AR
March 2, 2012 at 7:26 amDF – re Mudorc’s citizenship. At the time he became an amerikan citizen, in order to expand his empire there (only US citizens could have such control – would that we had the same rule!), Australian law was very clear – a natural born Oz who become a citizen of another country MUST give up their Australian citizenship.
The anomaly that erstwhile immigrants who became Oz could retain their previous passports (in fact some countries do not allow their citizenship to be shed, as many young blokes going back to the roots discovered in Greek & Italian draft laws) irked many, esp the Diaspora in old Blighty such as Greer, James, Robertson et al.
The law was changed in the mid 90s (by Keating, if memory serves, rather than the Rodent as one might assume but I’m open to correction on that point) to allow Mudorc to reapply for his Oz p/p which he uses whenever he visits his satrap. The kids would thus also have Oz nationality.