Murdoch's testimony: a human drama
There is great wealth involved, but the storm surrounding Rupert Murdoch's media empire is basically a tale of people. For someone who has known Murdoch, there is cause for sympathy.
An attempted pie-in-the-face assault on Rupert Murdoch in London, during a parliamentary hearing on Tuesday (July 19), might have stopped for the time being a plunge in News Corp.'s stock price and bought that news baron time to save his vast international media empire. It certainly will not be long until a rival tabloid speculates that the pie-thrower was, in fact, hired by Murdoch to gain sympathy for him during investigations of phone-hacking and bribery by his highest-circulation but now defunct British newspaper, the News of the World.
I did feel sympathy for Murdoch, I must admit, as I watched the aging lion fight for his own and his empire's standing and reputation. More on that a bit later in this piece.
The pie-throwing episode itself was tailor-made for the kind of coverage for which Murdoch's tabloids are famous. The 80-year-old was nearing a closing statement when a spectator rushed at him and threw a pie which missed his face but hit his jacket. Murdoch's wife, Wendi Deng, who had been sitting behind him, leapt to hit the pie-thrower in the head. Murdoch's son James, sitting next to him at the table, expressed facial shock and also rushed to his dad's defense. After a brief recess, Rupert Murdoch returned to the table, sans jacket, delivered an impassioned statement, and refused a suggestion that he resign.
No, I don't think the Murdochs hired the pie thrower. But I continue to watch the parliamentary and other investigations because they are both fascinating and part of a continuing saga in which family-owned media empires fall as first- and second-generation leaders give way to younger family successors. That trend has accelerated as the old model of an eight-column daily newspaper, dominating its market, has given way to new media of all forms and persuasions.
There are several aspects of this story to consider.
Rupert Murdoch the person: As chance would have it, I got to know Murdoch during the period 1998-2000 when I was running an economic-policy institute for financier Mike Milken in Santa Monica. Milken had refused to settle a federal securities-law case against him, had gone to trial, and subsequently had to pay a $1 billion fine and go to federal prison. On release, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Milken decided to devote himself thereafter to cancer research and to philanthropy, which included the think tank. He was accepted and welcomed back in the Los Angeles community. But many old friends deserted him. Murdoch was not among them.
Over the course of two years I met and talked with Murdoch on a number of occasions. I met one of his sons (not James) and his then-fiancee, Wendi Deng. I had no business or financial dealings with him. But, on a personal level, I found him to be candid, without pretense, and likeable. He maintained his Aussie accent and often as not wore rumpled suits and non-matching ties. If he liked a dessert after dinner, he would have a second helping. I found his views on major issues to be sometimes unformed but generally populist. (In his testimony Tuesday morning, he mentioned his pride that his journalist father had made his mark by exposing the scandal of Gallipoli, in which Down Under troops were sacrificed in great number during a Winston Churchill-sponsored World War I British expedition in Turkey). He never pretended to know what he did not know.
Murdoch one evening attended an economic-policy seminar at the Milken Institute, accompanied by his fiancee. During the cocktail hour, he mentioned that it was his birthday. Attending a think-tank seminar to celebrate his birthday? He could think of no better way to use the time, he said, and he was embarrassed by celebratory occasions.
Then there are the violations to look at: Both before and during James Murdoch's stewardship of British and European Murdoch properties, things clearly were out of hand. There was phone hacking, bribery of police to gain information, and an unhealthy relationship between the Murdoch empire and many leading British political and police figures. Murdoch-media alumni were generously scattered among political and police ranks. Common practice among British tabloids? Perhaps so, perhaps not. But, in any instance, there were inexcusable and in some cases flagrant violations of law. Senior and mid-level executives have walked the plank. No matter how they might distance themselves from the practices, both James Murdoch and his father must bear responsibility for them.
Will all of this be fatal to the Murdoch constellation, including The Wall Street Journal and Fox News in the United States? That seems unlikely — unless new and damaging disclosures are made beyond those involving News of the World.
The Bancroft family, longtime owners of the Journal, had run it into the ground financially. Murdoch's purchase of the property was viewed suspiciously by many media folk, who feared Murdoch would meddle with editorial policy at the paper. But there is little evidence that he has done so. The editorial-page editor, Paul Gigot, is a person I have known for many years for his integrity.
Occasionally you can spot an op-ed on the page by a Murdoch executive but it always is clearly labeled as such. Overall, Murdoch has strengthened the Journal, widened its coverage, and quite possibly saved it. During the period of Murdoch ownership, the Journal and rival New York Times have traded some unseemly editorial shots but nothing sufficient to terminally tarnish either paper's credibility.
Finally, there is the family business: Newspapers in the United States have traditionally been family businesses. The Sulzbergers, Grahams, Pulitzers, Chandlers, Hearsts, Binghams, McCormicks, et. al. have been well known as publishing czars. But other newspapers, such as The Seattle Times, owned by the Blethens, have begun and stayed family-owned and managed.
How is it going for these families? Recently, not well. Not only have daily newspapers had tough going in recent years, given rapid changes in the media landscape, but new-generation managers have not always had the successes of their family elders. This is a familiar syndrome in many industries, not just newspapering. The New York Times, for instance, has made some disastrous publishing and non-publishing investments in recent years and its present leader, "Pinch" Sulzberger, is frequently compared unfavorably with his father "Punch."
Even if the Murdochs weather the present storm, and maintain control of the Journal, will they be up to its successful management once Rupert passes from active leadership? Given his octogenarian status, that time will come soon.
Political, financial, publishing, show-business, high-tech, and other dynasties are, after all, populated by people who are not greatly different otherwise from people in ordinary families. There are the same sibling rivalries, marital tensions, soap-opera episodes, triumphs and embarrassments, and other human stories that in varying degree fill the lives of the rest of the us.
I think of Rupert Murdoch, for instance, forced at this stage of career to defend in crisis both himself and his son, and his wife leaping to bash physically an intruder threatening her husband. Human beings — granted, powerful and wealthy human beings — nonetheless reacted in a quite human way to their situation. This is a good tabloid story meriting continued attention.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Jul 20, 10:17 a.m. Inappropriate
I think of Mr. Murdoch as a human being with no moral compass. Sorry. I guess guys who cheat people out of billions, Milken deserve to still have friends, and it makes total sense that another guy with no moral compass would stay his friend.
Fox News has the same corrupt relationship with the Republican Party that News Corp has with the British government officials. No stranger that the disease would travel to both sides of the Atlantic.
The crimes that News Corp. committed are finally being paid for, and it's way late. May he rot in hell.
Posted Wed, Jul 20, 10:33 a.m. Inappropriate
Oh in case anyone thinks my anger is misplaced, you can easily find a list of the things gone bad at News Corp without even turning on Fox News to watch political slander at it's worst.
http://www.salon.com/news/rupert_murdoch/index.html?story=/news/feature/2011/07/20/eu_britain_phone_hacking_15
http://www.alternet.org/media/151694/the_12_nastiest_villains_in_the_murdoch_phone-hacking_scandal/?page=entire
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/20/bskyb-david-cameron-news-international
If we are truly lucky this fiasco will bring down the English government.
Posted Wed, Jul 20, 10:42 a.m. Inappropriate
You should not allow your personal contacts with Murdoch to influence your analysis. I know that encountering someone so rich and powerful who is not also an unbearably egotistical jerk is a relatively rare event, but that does not tell us whether what the man did (or permitted to be done under his authority) was itself good or bad.
Posted Wed, Jul 20, 11:18 a.m. Inappropriate
Little evidence that Murdoch has meddled with the editorial content of the WS Journal??? TVD, you've got to be kidding. What about how the Journal has covered (or not covered) the hacking scandal in both its news and editorial pages? Didn't you read Joe Nocera of the Times recently apologize for his previous endorsement of the Murdoch takeover?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/opinion/16nocera.html?_r=1
I thought that Murdoch’s resources would stop the financial bleeding, and that his desire for a decent legacy would keep him from destroying a great newspaper.
After the family agreed to sell to him, Elisabeth Goth, the brave Bancroft heir who had long tried to get her family to fix the company, told me, “He has a tremendous opportunity, and I don’t think he’s going to blow it.” In that same column, I wrote, “The chances of Mr. Murdoch wrecking The Journal are lower than you’d think.”
Mea culpa.
-------------
Also this Columbia Journalism Review article, which says Murdoch's ownership has not been as bad as Nocera says:
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/murdochs_journal_nocera_and_fo.php
But the idea that the Journal’s news pages are anything approaching Fox News is just unfair. It’s true that the paper, which used to be as balanced as any newspaper, has perceptibly tilted to the right under Murdoch. We’ve noticed Fox-like stuff showing up where it wouldn’t have pre-2008, though it’s hardly pervasive. It’s hard to quantify, of course, but I get a sense reading it that stories with right-wing-friendly storylines have an easier path to prominence in the paper than they did before. In other words, we’ve seen troubling instances of Fox-iness and maybe even some Fox-iocity, but hardly a wholesale Fox-ification of the paper, which is the impression Nocera leaves.
Posted Wed, Jul 20, 12:03 p.m. Inappropriate
Here's another little something about the Murdoch operations to ponder while we picture TVD's charming little scene of the rumpled Rupert having a second serving of dessert.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/business/media/for-news-corporation-troubles-that-money-cant-dispel.html
Posted Wed, Jul 20, 2:53 p.m. Inappropriate
Oh and it looks like the acorn didn't fall all that far from the tree:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/20/james-murdoch-gordon-taylor-payoff
Looks like they were willing to pay any price to keep other victims from knowing about the hacking.
Wonder what the FBI will dig up on the families of the 9-11 victims, whether they too were hacked. In which case this becomes a USA criminal problem.
Posted Fri, Jul 22, 7:21 a.m. Inappropriate
Gee, thanks for the piece Ted. I always thought of Murduch as a vicious, power-hungry, right-wing, take-no-prisoners, control freak. It's good to know he's really just a doddering old pussycat who saved the print world; the leader of a family just like mine or any other. Wait till I tell my kids. Oh and Ted, please get the word out just in case: I prefer apple, rather than shaving cream pie.
Posted Fri, Jul 22, 8:49 a.m. Inappropriate
Hey, Swifty, Rupert also was the model for the father in the Brady Bunch series. You probably did not know that.
Murdoch has been tough minded and demanding in his business/financial dealings. I have found, by the way, that most people successful in those realms possess exactly those qualities. As to his politics, I found in discussion with him that he was more populist than conservative, although many of his properties do pursue a conservative line. (He was quite close, though, with former British Labor PMs). He seems to have left management of those properties pretty much to those who run them---which, in the case of Fox News, for instance, has resulted in an aggressively conservative tilt---just so long as they remain profitable. His origins, of course, were in highly competitive, colorful tabloid journalism.
No necessary contradiction between hard-edged competitiveness in professional life and a softer, even likeable persona in private life.
Quite common. You may be familiar with the term: "It's just business." Explains the mindset of many who live that way.
I make no apologies for illegal or unethical conduct anywhere in the Murdoch empire. Rupert Murdoch must take responsibility for any and all of it, as I pointed out in my piece.
Posted Fri, Jul 22, 9:32 a.m. Inappropriate
I should have added a word about Mike Milken, who drew comment as well.
He violated securities laws and paid for it. Contrary to the comment made, above, no one lost billions because of Milken's conduct. There was no insider trading or other conduct cheating investors. He is a hero to many in the financial and business communities because he provided financing, in particular, to new-economy enterprises (including Seattle-based entities) which previously had been unable to find it. Economic and job growth resulted. Time magazine ranked him in the late 1990s as
one of the three leading financial figures of the previous 100 years.
I worked for Milken after all this happened. He no longer had anything to do with the securities business. I did find him to have a moral compass.
He was truly devoted to philanthropy and genuinely cared about people.
(Rudy Giuliani, for example, prosecuted Milken; but, when Giuliani was diagnosed with prostate cancer, he immediately called Milken for help with his treatment). He went far out of his way to help even the lowest-level former employee or acquaintance. As you might expect from his background (son of a small independent accountant in the San Fernando Valley; raised in a liberal Jewish family; Berkeley undergrad in the 60s, etc.) Milken's general orientation was toward causes and people on the liberal and Democratic side. He was a reflexive defender of the underdog---and of small and fledgling businesses.
This is not to glorify Milken. He broke the law and paid the price.
But there was and is more to his life than that---and more to his person than that.
Posted Fri, Jul 22, 9:53 a.m. Inappropriate
I could not care less about the personal side of Murdoch. As we well know, lots of people are charming in person with others, or in private, while displaying another side or sides otherwise. Yes, human beings are complex. We can be nice to our cats, but abandon any moral authority in our work or other relationships. That includes men who abuse their wives and children but are oh so kind to the workers in their factories, mass murderers, and corporate psychopaths. Murdoch gets to reap what he sowed, yet he appears unable to acknowledge that he was in any way responsible for what others did in his name. In his testimony and his PR barrage, he has proven himself, at least in his public persona, to be what I think he perhaps fears most in himself -- a coward who will blame others for his own lack of oversight. You are right about Milkin: prison and cancer can do that to you. He seems to have genuinely "repented," at least in his public persona. I won't hold my breath for Mr. Murdoch. I hope that at least he's nice to his dog.
Posted Fri, Jul 22, 11:20 a.m. Inappropriate
Sorry Ted, but I stand by my comment about the pre-prison Mr. Milkan, as I understand it he issued Junk bonds which enabled people who had no cash to buy things that had to appreciate in value, or have their pension funds raided to fund the business and pay back those bonds.
The people who lose in this case are the workers whose business fails because the people who now "own" it don't have the operating capital to run it. Especially if things turn sour. And he didn't go to jail for jaywalking.
I'm glad he had a "come to Jesus" moment and has repented. But IMO that he had any cash left was due to the fact that the fine was too low.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.