Business

Dec 15, 2017

Murdoch goes back to the future to distract from his declining legacy

Rupert Murdoch's spin is in overdrive as he tries to justify the Fox-Disney sale as anything but what it is: a necessary deal to save a falling company.

Glenn Dyer — <em>Crikey</em> business and media commentator

Glenn Dyer

Crikey business and media commentator

Rupert Murdoch says he is “pivoting at a pivotal moment” in the US$52.4 billion (A$68 billion all paper) carve up of 21st Century Fox and asset sale to rival Disney. “We are paving the way for a new Fox and a transformed Disney to chart a course across a broad frontier of opportunity,” he said. “I know a lot of you are wondering: Why did the Murdochs come to such a momentous decision? Are we retreating? Absolutely no, we are pivoting at a pivotal moment.”

Gobbledygook from a master of spin and double speak. Remember, this is the second split in the empire in four and a half years. We all remember the Murdochian enthusiasm for the brave new world of 2013 dismemberment. The reality is that this split is a retreat — a sort of back-to-the-future moment for the family and its 86-year-old patriarch. 

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

6 comments

Leave a comment

6 thoughts on “Murdoch goes back to the future to distract from his declining legacy

  1. Leigh Copeland

    “Are we retreating? Absolutely no, we are pivoting at a pivotal moment.” Is Murdoch channelling Colonel Franks, on the army’s retreat at Multan, India, in 1848: ‘You are mistaken, sir! This is a brilliant retrograde movement’

    1. AR

      Or possibly just a bit of doggerel, ricocheting around his senile head looking for brain cells, about the Grand Old Duke of York.

  2. klewso

    Will Disney do a remake of Nosferatu?

  3. Administrator

    It is the value of Murdoch’s empire that is declining, relative to the communications industry. This article recognises that the cause is the “tech giants”. What it fails to recognise is the reasons the “tech giants” are growing at the expense of the News/Sport/Gossip empires. You got it… they know more about their customers. It is illicit knowledge, gained by tricky “privacy” clauses while regulators were asleep at the wheel. But now these giants have the money and the revenue streams, they can influence legislators to avoid/delay/minimse change. Notice M’soft is not among the list?

    1. AR

      Not many would choose to live without the Intertube but, intrinsic to its continued free (as in ‘costless’ – ha!) existence, is as you say, having all our information.
      Often in excess and a great deal more detail than we know ourselves.
      Surely, the only thing we have is our self – it must be copyright.
      We have to have total access to everything held on us as individuals, if only to fact check etc.
      A failure to comply & supply would incur the onus of proof & tort.

      1. Administrator

        Would you give Ancestry.com your DNA? Not if you understood their Terms and Privacy, including their preserved freedom to change their minds unilaterally (as they have done many times already). Not even your exclusive identity is protected.
        Would you be content with a Westminster remedy in tort, against an identity infringement in say Afghanistan or Columbia?

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...