Category: Rupert Murdoch

Pre-Dominion, a young Rupert Murdoch faced the ‘poison pen’ trial

Rupert Murdoch leaves US District Court in New York, 1977 (Image: AAP/AP/STR)

in late January 1960, when the 28-year-old fronted a courtroom in Adelaide, South Australia. Upon arrival, Murdoch gave his occupation as “journalist” to the court stenographer, but when the Crown lawyer asked if had also been performing the role of News Limited’s managing director in August and September the previous year, Murdoch declined to answer — “on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me”.

Source: Pre-Dominion, a young Rupert Murdoch faced the ‘poison pen’ trial

Rupert Murdoch has a wicked problem

Pictured is Rupert Murdoch

The Dominion defamation case makes one wonder if Rupert Murdoch has been advised to try the Alan Bond defence of early onset dementia or mental incapacity as we once saw him try to do in the UK 20 odd years ago? Is his on-and-off recent engagement a step in that direction one wonders?

In love one moment and ” I didn’t know what I was doing the next”? What benefit would such a claim be? Maybe to escape being called to testify due to his age and mental ill health? It served him well during the UK investigations when he was only in his 70s and being investigated for his involvement in the criminal practices of his media in the UK.

Rupert Murdoch has a wicked problem. Many of the politicians who bent, or even grovelled, when his News media outlets blew on them are no longer scared.

On the other hand, News – particularly Fox – is showing signs that it is scared of its own audiences.

A growing number of journalists and eminent Australians are fearlessly pushing back against the Murdoch Australian empire.

Source: Rupert Murdoch has a wicked problem

Rupert Murdoch has a wicked problem – Pearls and Irritations

Rupert Murdoch

Newspoll has shown time and again that Australians don’t believe or trust the prick. When Murdoch has a problem the nation benefits.

Rupert Murdoch has a wicked problem. Many of the politicians who bent, or even grovelled, when his News media outlets blew on them are no longer scared. On the other hand News – particularly Fox – is showing signs that it is scared of its own audiences.

Source: Rupert Murdoch has a wicked problem – Pearls and Irritations

Is Rupert running out of political clout and financial luck? – Pearls and Irritations


Rupert Murdoch may be running out of political clout and financial luck.

For decades Murdoch has been a pernicious influence on journalism, politics, climate policy, progressive ideas and whether nations go to war or not.

Source: Is Rupert running out of political clout and financial luck? – Pearls and Irritations

Rupert Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch forced to give evidence under oath in the US. Will they perjure themselves? We all know the answer!Kangaroo Court of Australia

Rupert Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch, who are both well-known international criminals who have committed crimes such as tax evasion and phone bugging, have been forced to give evidence under oath in the US.

Source: Rupert Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch forced to give evidence under oath in the US. Will they perjure themselves? We all know the answer!Kangaroo Court of Australia

Murdoch empire turns its back on Donald Trump

The only truth to be found here is “it seems” The Murdochs like Trump are prepared to turn 180 degrees on a coin if they see the opportunity to improve their ratings. As far as they are concerned they aren’t in the business of news, information or truth but profit and power.

Suddenly Murdoch goes from lead Trumpeter to Camp Follower. The harvest of ratings his only Corporate concern the corrupt British East India Company his only role model. It may have gone bankrupt but the system it gave birth to still exists

It seems the Murdoch empire is done with Donald Trump, as the media giant celebrates his rival’s win.

Source: Murdoch empire turns its back on Donald Trump

Rupert Murdoch is leading Australia to climate ruin: FLASHBACK 2019

Yes, Murdoch is heavily invested in Fossil Fuels and is on the board of Genie Oil. Exploring for black gold illegally in the Israeli occupied territories of Syria

The UN has issued a dire warning at the start of COP27 that our world is speeding down a “highway to climate hell”.

Australia is prone to devastating natural disasters, from the current flooding to the recent Black Summer bushfires. In this article from 2019, Dr Norm Sanders examined how the Murdoch media is fuelling the flames of climate change denial.

Source: Rupert Murdoch is leading Australia to climate ruin: FLASHBACK 2019

Rupert Murdoch’s wild week: Jerry Hall, Trump and parties

Rupert Murdoch and Jerry Hall are reportedly going their separate ways.

When the king of “alternative facts ” Isn’t one himself

Last week, three news stories broke that are set to prove consequential for nonagenarian media billionaire Rupert Murdoch and his News and Fox media empire.

Source: Rupert Murdoch’s wild week: Jerry Hall, Trump and parties

Albanese victory signals sunset on Murdoch era

Murdoch won’t change his whole global business model relies on competing for money due to the imbalance of the distribution of wealth in capitalist societies. They rely on supporting those governments that maintain the system of inequity. There might be some occasional criticism of personalities and strategies but when push comes to shove at election time the world knows who the Murdochs support. Their message is certainly not to inform the electorate or support any notion or ideal of a publicly owned media.

Founder and publisher David Donovan explores the significance of the new Labor Government for Rupert Murdoch’s stranglehold over Australia’s media.

Source: Albanese victory signals sunset on Murdoch era

Fox News hires former Trump official and far-right 2024 presidential contender Mike Pompeo | Media Matters for America

Murdoch at 90 runs America his poll; ratings and bank balance. GOP is his fund raiser

Fox News has signed Mike Pompeo, former U.S. secretary of state, as its latest network contributor. Pompeo joins a growing list of ex-officials who have been recruited to the network since former President Donald Trump left office, further cementing Fox’s status as not so much a news organization but a sort of Republican administration-in-exile, working to promote the party’s agenda in future campaigns.


Source: Fox News hires former Trump official and far-right 2024 presidential contender Mike Pompeo | Media Matters for America

Rupert Murdoch Gets Early Vaccine, Still Runs Anti-Vax Programming | Crooks and Liars

Rupert Murdoch Gets Early Vaccine, Still Runs Anti-Vax Programming

On December 18th, before nearly anyone else was eligible, billionaire Murdoch got his COVID shots. Now he rakes in the Billionaire Bucks from Fox News suckers who watch their top stars discourage vaccination.

Rupert Murdoch Gets Early Vaccine, Still Runs Anti-Vax Programming | Crooks and Liars

After Rupert Murdoch slams ‘woke orthodoxy’ & social media censorship, critics lambast tycoon’s own ‘malign influence’ — RT World News

After Rupert Murdoch slams ‘woke orthodoxy’ & social media censorship, critics lambast tycoon’s own ‘malign influence’
The American declared an Australian by a UK Foundation.

What’s missing is the the UK in identifying the award accurately. Australia Day Awards are awarded to Australians which Murdoch isn’t. They aren’t awarded by foreign organizations intending to boost the image of foreigners. Particularly when the title of the said organization is a false flag. (ODT)

Rupert Murdoch has accused social media platforms of creating an ideologically driven atmosphere of conformity, garnering applause as well as accusations that his vast media empire is guilty of the same crime. In a pre-recorded acceptance speech thanking the Australia Day Foundation for honoring him with a lifetime achievement award, the Fox News owner expressed dismay over a “wave of censorship that seeks to silence conversation, to stifle debate and ultimately stop individuals and societies from realizing their potential.”

After Rupert Murdoch slams ‘woke orthodoxy’ & social media censorship, critics lambast tycoon’s own ‘malign influence’ — RT World News

Kevin Rudd courted Rupert Murdoch when it suited him, says ex-News chief Les Hinton

Les Hinton pictured with Rupert Murdoch in London in 2005.
Hinton smiling like the sycophant he still is for Rupert

That’s why Rudd is in the best position to inform us today of how Murdoch manipulates our political system (ODT)

Les Hinton, who became Murdoch’s most trusted official during a five-decade career at News Corp, took aim at the timing of Mr Rudd’s intervention and said he had witnessed firsthand the former prime minister’s courtship of the company when it was politically convenient.

Kevin Rudd courted Rupert Murdoch when it suited him, says ex-News chief Les Hinton

Clown of the Week: Rupert Murdoch had a particularly Murdoch week

Tips and Murmurs Even by his usual standards, Rupert Murdoch had a particularly Murdoch week Our very first Clown of the Week is none other than Rupert Murdoch. Charlie Lewis Nov 20, 2020 1 Rupert Murdoch (Image: AP/Josh Reynolds) Crikey always goes out of its way to recognise people who have gone above and beyond in making the world just a little worse — and why should we limit our awards in this area to the end of the year? With that in mind, welcome to our new weekly item: Clown of the Week.

Clown of the Week: Rupert Murdoch had a particularly Murdoch week

The wealthy benefactors and beneficiaries of Tucker Carlson’s “class war” | Media Matters for America

Tucker Carlson and his billionaire benefactors

Distortion of reality in the English speaking world is a formula and formula built on size no information and the power to be able to Just Do It (ODT

For all his paens to the middle class, Carlson’s show is propped up by its symbiotic relationships with a handful of extremely wealthy men. Fox honchos Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch have his back because they agree with his toxic rhetoric. Mike Lindell, the CEO of My Pillow, subsidizes the program with ads in order to build his own right-wing brand. And President Donald Trump turns to Carlson for advice while receiving political support from him. The Murdochs oversee a global media empire that has an outsized impact on the political dealings on three continents. The family made billions by selling parts of Fox’s parent company to Disney last year. Fox founder Rupert has owned an array of mansions along with a private plane and luxury yacht, while heir to the company Lachlan recently purchased a 25,000-square-foot Los Angeles estate for a record-breaking $150 million. Carlson is the Murdochs’ biggest star, garnering the largest audience in the history of cable news. And he does it by pushing the sort of hard-edged white nationalist messages they want. Rupert hand-picked Carlson, who had failed as a host on several other networks, for a prime-time Fox slot. And Lachlan reportedly wants Fox to be “unabashedly nationalist.” He also believes “Carlson’s overarching message on immigration [is] worth protecting,” according to CNN’s Brian Stelter’s new book Hoax: Donald Trump, Fox News, and the Dangerous Distortion of Truth.

The wealthy benefactors and beneficiaries of Tucker Carlson’s “class war” | Media Matters for America


Rupert Murdoch says ‘no climate change deniers around’ – but his writers prove him wrong | Environment | The Guardian

Rupert Murdoch

“There are no climate change deniers around I can assure you,” Rupert Murdoch said last month at News Corp’s annual general meeting.

His declaration that the publisher of the Daily Telegraph, the Australian and owner of Sky News was free of climate deniers was widely greeted with mirth.

The next day the geologist Ian Plimer proved Murdoch’s doubters correct when he published an opinion piece in the Australian claiming the major pollution in western nations was “the polluting of minds about the role of carbon dioxide”.

“There are no carbon emissions,” he wrote. “If there were, we could not see because most carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many claims.”

That piece of commentary attracted the usual round of applause from pundits certain they knew better than climate scientists. Where once ignoring scientists and experts would result in a failing subject grade, in some sectors it’s now considered an “opt-in” belief.

via Rupert Murdoch says ‘no climate change deniers around’ – but his writers prove him wrong | Environment | The Guardian

Murdoch strikes at democracy – » The Australian Independent Media Network

When a Corporation controls the State you have Mussolini’s version of heaven (ODT)

Going after Labor leaders is one of Rupert’s favourite pastimes. Rather than hunting lions in Africa or tigers on the Punjab – That’s way too dangerous and way too hard and goes nowhere towards right wing corporate control and exploitation of society.

If there’s one man in the world who might ever possibly build a device to control the weather and freeze us all unless the governments of the world pay him several hundred billion dollars and recognize Fox News’s copyright of the phrase “Fair and Balanced,” it would be Rupert.

via Murdoch strikes at democracy – » The Australian Independent Media Network

Kevin Rudd is right to call Murdoch a cancer – The Pen

These are changes, which Rupert Murdoch has been trying to bring about and recent governments have been obediently trying to put into place. Last week’s stunt by Peter Dutton, had the shadow of News Corp’s boss behind it. What else was it, but an attempt to lift he realisation of Murdoch’s dream another notch. It might not have quite worked out this time. He did out a prime minister though, and reminded his successor, Scott Morrison of who is still in charge.

via Kevin Rudd is right to call Murdoch a cancer – The Pen

An evil, self-serving tyrant – » The Australian Independent Media Network

By Kathryn Byrne This malignant despot is the most dangerous non-Australian in the country – an evil, self-serving tyrant whose toxic influence over the LNP is so undemocratic and so malevolent that it negatively impacts on so many facets of our lives. The horrendous and totally fascist LNP/Murdoch/IPA ‘Alliance’ is destroying freedom of speech, freedom…

Source: An evil, self-serving tyrant – » The Australian Independent Media Network

“Baa, baa, black sheep …” – » The Australian Independent Media Network

By freef’all852 (Warning: This article contains words and language that may offend the LNP and the “genteel class” who claim the right to rule over us all). This simple nursery rhyme portrays so succinctly the relationship between the expectations of the ruling orders and the serf, the presumed rights and satisfaction of the needs of…

Source: “Baa, baa, black sheep …” – » The Australian Independent Media Network

Rupert Murdoch’s US empire siphons $4.5b from Australian business virtually tax-free

Rupert Murdoch’s media empire in the US has siphoned off $4.5 billion of cash and shares from his Australian media businesses in the past two years, virtually tax free.

Source: Rupert Murdoch’s US empire siphons $4.5b from Australian business virtually tax-free

“Oh, Boy”: Media Matters Bill O’Reilly Ad In The Hollywood Reporter

One week after Fox News was forced to fire Bill O’Reilly after advertisers boycotted his show because of reports of serial sexual harassment, Media Matters for America released its first ad emphasizing that companies must be mindful about where they spend their advertising dollars. This ad is running on page 67 of issue 13 of The Hollywood Report

Source: “Oh, Boy”: Media Matters Bill O’Reilly Ad In The Hollywood Reporter

Rupert Murdoch’s axing of Bill O’Reilly shows his defiance turn to pragmatism

Rupert Murdoch prizes loyalty and profits, both of which Bill O’Reilly brought him in droves, but Murdoch has also proved he is a pragmatist at his core.

Source: Rupert Murdoch’s axing of Bill O’Reilly shows his defiance turn to pragmatism

Day to Day Politics: Rudd Vs Murdoch – » The Australian Independent Media Network

Author’s note: Today I have given over my daily post to a repudiation by Kevin Rudd of the Murdoch press. At the end I have included the AUSTRALIAN PRESS COUNCIL REGULATIONS. ANOTHER MURDOCH TABLOID WHOPPER With all the recent coverage of Turnbull’s telephone encounter with Trump, I missed a story run on 1 February 2017…

Source: Day to Day Politics: Rudd Vs Murdoch – » The Australian Independent Media Network

Rupert’s Australia – » The Australian Independent Media Network

There was a time when Rupert Murdoch was not all powerful in Australia.  There was a time when politicians weren’t scared to speak up and journalists had some integrity.  Hawke and Keating changed all that. Back when truth still mattered, in the midst of the 1975 election, 109 Murdoch journalists went on strike. Murdoch’s overt…

Source: Rupert’s Australia – » The Australian Independent Media Network

Piss off ya nasty old bludger – » The Australian Independent Media Network

According to a 2015 headline in Rupert Murdoch’s rag, The Australian, “No, the rich don’t pay a ‘fair share’ of tax. They pay all of it.” The hypocrisy of a Murdoch-owned entity discussing tax is overwhelming. In 1999 the BBC published an article clearly setting out Murdoch’s well-known strategy for tax avoidance. “in the four…

Source: Piss off ya nasty old bludger – » The Australian Independent Media Network

Murdoch and Rothschild violate International Law for Oil in Syria AnonHQ

Just when we think that the Syrian crisis can’t get any bigger… An American-based oil and gas company will soon be drilling in Syrian territory that has been illegally occupied by Israel since 1967 – the Golan Heights. The company, Genie Energy, has major investors …

Source: Murdoch and Rothschild violate International Law for Oil in Syria AnonHQ

Rupert Murdoch Has ‘More Impact Than Any Living Australian’ Says Tony Abbott – New Matilda

The former Australian PM also praised British leader David Cameron for school privatisations, and quoted a favourable editorial about himself.

Source: Rupert Murdoch Has ‘More Impact Than Any Living Australian’ Says Tony Abbott – New Matilda

Rupert Murdoch Is Already Destroying National Geographic

Australian media magnate Rupert Murdoch is already meddling in his recent acquisition;

Rupert Murdoch Takes Over National Geographic, Then Lays Off Award-Winning Staff
Murdoch’s got plans for National Geographic.

Rupert Murdoch Takes Over National Geographic, Then Lays Off Award-Winning Staff

Murdoch’s got plans for National Geographic.

The memo went out, and November 3rd 2015 came to the National Geographic office. This was the day in which Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox took over National Geographic. The management of National Geographic sent out an email telling its staff, all of its staff, all to report to their headquarters, and wait by their phones. This pulled back every person who was in the field, every photographer, every reporter, even those on vacation had to show up on this fateful day.

As these phones rang, one by one National Geographic let go the award-winning staff, and the venerable institution was no more.

The name now belongs to Rupert Murdoch, and he has plans for it. The CEO of National Geographic Society, Greg Knell, tried to claim back in September that there “there won’t be an [editorial] turn in a direction that is different form the National Geographic heritage.” Murdoch’s move today only served to prove Knell’s words hollow, with hundreds of talented people now served their pink slips. And with the recognition that Murdoch’s other enterprises do not reflect the standards held by National Geographic, and with Murdoch’s history of changing the editorial direction of purchased properties, today’s move indicates that we can expect a similar shift for National Geographic.

National Geographic‘s weakness has been its cable channel. While it does feature many pieces on scientific endeavors, it also has featured shows such as Doomsday Preppers and Chasing UFO’s which lacked much of the respectability of the print magazine. They have since been removed from the schedule, but the damage to the channels reputation remains, and reflects poorly upon National Geographic itself.

The National Geographic Society has long stood for science, research, and investigation. Murdoch’s companies have long stood against all three. The two positions would be in conflict, save Murdoch’s company is firmly in control. The editorial changes will therefore be severe, and erode the 127 years of publication excellence. For the men and women who brought National Geographic to worldwide prominence, the termination of employment is a tragic end both for hard-working people, and for National Geographic itself.

I hope Rupert is happy – » The Australian Independent Media Network

There was a time not so long ago when Australia’s future looked bright. In 2008, Rudd apologised to the Stolen Generation and COAG agreed to a definitive strategy to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage. We had successfully negotiated the global financial crisis with continued growth and relatively low unemployment. We were world leaders in…

Source: I hope Rupert is happy – » The Australian Independent Media Network

Why Rupert Murdoch can’t be stopped The political empire of the News Corp chairman

Rupert Murdoch, 2012 © Jessica Rinaldi / Reuters

In late July, Robert Thomson, the suave chief executive of News Corp – the recently separated and financially challenged publishing branch of the Murdoch media empire – announced that Col Allan, the editor-in-chief of Rupert Murdoch’s favourite tabloid, the New York Post, was coming home to Australia on a two- to three-month assignment. Unless Allan’s visit had some political purpose, the return of the native was difficult to explain. Under his editorship, the New York Post has reportedly lost several hundred million dollars since 2001. In the letter to Australian colleagues, Thomson defined the mission, with studied vagueness, as “providing extra editorial leadership for our papers”. “It will be invaluable for our papers in Australia,” he continued, “to have the benefit of his insight, expertise and talent.” Col Allan’s most famous insight is the fear that an editor might instil in his underlings by conspicuous acts of apparent derangement, like pissing in the office sink. His most famous expertise is bare-knuckled political combat and character assassination. His most famous talent is for the brazen front-page banner headline.

Allan arrived in Australia on 29 July, a week before the announcement of the date of the 2013 federal election. Almost instantly, News Corp’s three most influential Australian tabloids – the Sydney Daily Telegraph, the Melbourne Herald Sun and the Brisbane Courier-Mail – began what looked to the outsider like a front-page headline competition for Allan’s approval in what was by now News Corp’s main game – to get Kevin Rudd.

On 2 August, the Courier-Mail put in an early bid: “KEV’S $733m BANK HEIST”. The reference was to new taxes on beer, cigarettes and “your savings”, with Rudd pictured in a beanie and a mask grasping a sack of money. The next day the Herald Sun responded with “IT’S A RUDDY MESS”. As the paper explained, “Debt soars, unemployment to hit 11-year high, revenue crashes and boats bill blows out”. Two days later, when the election was announced, the Daily Telegraph upped the ante with its instantly notorious “Finally, you now have the chance to … KICK THIS MOB OUT”. It was on a roll. The next day, it followed with a Hogan’s Heroes catchphrase, “I KNOW NUTHINK!”, and caricatures of Kevin Rudd and Anthony Albanese as Nazis. The Courier-Mail was not to be outdone. After the prime minister announced the candidacy of former Queensland premier Peter Beattie, it answered the Tele with “SEND IN THE CLOWN”. And so it went. “DEAD KEV BOUNCE” (Courier-Mail, 10 August). “RUDD’S BULLY BOY” (Herald Sun, 10 August). “KEVIN DEADLY SINS” (Sunday Mail, 11 August). “DOES THIS GUY EVER SHUT UP?” (Courier-Mail, 22 August). By the final week of the campaign, it was clear that Tony Abbott would win the election handsomely. The headlines followed. “THE LONG GOODBYE” (Courier-Mail, 2 September). “RUDD FREE ZONE” (Courier-Mail, 5 September). “TONY’S TIME” (Herald Sun, 6 September). “THE CIRCUS IS OVER” (Courier-Mail, 6 September). Throughout the campaign there were scores of anti-Labor front-page items in the three critical Murdoch tabloids and not one that could be considered pro-Labor.

The most influential of the News Corp columnists – Piers Akerman, Andrew Bolt, Janet Albrechtsen and Miranda Devine – if anything outdid in venom their headline-composing colleagues, no doubt under Col Allan’s approving gaze. According to their collective portrait of the prime minister, Rudd’s government was “chaotic” and “dysfunctional”. He had left the nation with a “Budget shambles” and had “squandered billions”. He now had “no policies to talk of” except “back-of-the-beer-coaster nonsense” and was, as a result, conducting “the dirtiest, the lowest campaign ever run by a major political party”. Rudd’s rhetoric was “pompous” and “verbose”. He tried to win arguments by “bullying not persuasion”. Under him Labor had been “flushed away in a sewer of hate” with his “blatant appeal to … class warfare”. Rudd’s (partly apocryphal) personal history was supposedly all too revealing. He “had been kicked out of a New York ‘gentleman’s club’ for behaving weirdly with topless dancers”. He was the man “whose abuse had made an RAAF stewardess cry”. He had even pulled “a hissy fit in Afghanistan over a missing hairdryer”. He was nothing more than “a foul-mouthed backstabber”.

The News Corp columnists explained Rudd’s character like this. He was “venomous”, “a volatile, nasty man”, “a selfie-addicted, twittering Facebook junkie”, who thought that “rules are for other people”. Not only during the campaign had he “trashed the Bible” and “slimed his faith” but also “trampled on the lowly”. As a typical “class clown”, “the more Rudd tries to be like us, the less he is”, and “the more you know him, the more you detest him”. He was a “fake”, “a narcissist”, “hubris on steroids”, “callous and manipulative” with no capacity for “empathy” and most accurately to be understood as a thoroughgoing “psychopath”. Even his physical demeanour, we learnt, was rather disgusting. He “smirks”. He “pouts”. He “wants to stamp his little feet”. He “flicks” his hair repeatedly. Not only is he “afflicted by a repetitive, involuntary twitch of his lower lip”, but “his rotating hand movements have to be seen to be believed”.

In this collective portrait of Kevin Rudd, the News Corp columnists did not find him to have even one positive human quality.

Rudd was returned as Labor leader because of his apparent popularity with the Australian people. With him therefore the News Corp attack dogs went in for character assassination. With Tony Abbott, by contrast – “the Oxonian Rhodes scholar”, “the volunteer fire-fighter and surf club member”, “the hugely intelligent, hugely decent, down-to-earth bloke”, equally at home downing “beers” and “writing books about political philosophy” – the same journalists practised character beatification.

Australian journalists once did not write like this. How had Australian journalism come to this? Although the explanation is complex, the foundations were laid down a quarter-century ago.

In 1979 Rupert Murdoch made his first takeover bid for the largest newspaper company in Australia, the Herald and Weekly Times, which he believed had mistreated one of its key architects, his father. The bid was resisted. Murdoch had a well-deserved reputation as a manipulator of the political process. He was known to have used his existing papers ruthlessly in 1972 to undermine the Liberal prime minister, Billy McMahon, and then in 1975 to help destroy Gough Whitlam, the Labor prime minister he had once enthusiastically supported. In fighting against the bid, the Melbourne Herald expressed the general understanding: “Mr Murdoch’s newspapers always respond in unison – as though to some divine wind – as they pursue their relentless campaigns in favour of current Murdoch objectives – particularly his political ones. Every journalist in Australia knows that.”

In 1986 Murdoch announced a second Herald and Weekly Times takeover bid. By this time the case for resistance was far stronger than in 1979. In order to pursue his television ambitions, Murdoch had become a citizen of the United States. The rules of the Foreign Investment Review Board made it clear that “foreign investment in mass circulation newspapers is restricted”. In 1981, Murdoch had taken control of the London Times and Sunday Times, we know now with the collusion of the UK prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. His bid had been spared reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the condition that he respected the newspapers’ editorial independence. Almost immediately, the condition was flagrantly breached and Murdoch threatened with a term in prison. Even more importantly, by this time it was clear that Murdoch was using his papers as standard-bearers for the Thatcher–Reagan radical-conservative revolutions that were undermining social democratic parties and progressive politics throughout the English-speaking world. The Hawke government’s opposition to the News Corp takeover bid for the Herald and Weekly Times ought to have been certain.

Bob Hawke, who had once advised Whitlam that he would rue the day he got into bed with Murdoch, was in fact a strong supporter. Hawke blamed the conservatives who ran the Herald and Weekly Times for keeping Labor out of power in Victoria between 1955 and 1982. Even more, he resented the light that Murdoch’s rival newspapers at Fairfax – both the Sydney Morning Herald and the National Times – had shone on real or supposed corruption in the NSW branch of the ALP. Hawke hoped to seize the opportunity occasioned by the Murdoch takeover bid to kill or weaken two of Labor’s media enemies. He also believed that he could use his best mate, Sir Peter Abeles, a News Corp business partner in Ansett Airlines, as a political bridge to Murdoch. In his Media Mates, Paul Chadwick records a telling exchange between the prime minister and Senator John Button. Button inquired: “Why don’t you tell us precisely how you want to help your mates?” Hawke replied: “Remember they’re the only mates we’ve got.”

As Colleen Ryan has documented recently in her Fairfax: The rise and fall, Hawke’s treasurer, Paul Keating, was even more enthusiastic about the takeover, in part for the same reasons as Hawke; in part because Fairfax had raised awkward questions about Keating’s relations with the property developer Warren Anderson; and in part because, as a radical reformer, Keating wanted to inject into the economy the energy of “new money” represented by Murdoch (and Kerry Packer) and to destroy moribund “old money” interests, represented for him by both the hated Fairfax enemy and the moribund Melbourne gentleman’s club he thought was running the Herald and Weekly Times. Keating was not merely a passive supporter of the Murdoch takeover. By secretly providing Murdoch with inside information about the government’s proposed new media laws – where the ownership of television and newspapers was to be separated – Keating actively sought to bury the Herald and Weekly Times, to thwart Fairfax’s ambitions and to facilitate News Corp’s domination of the Australian press.

There were several people who understood what the Murdoch takeover meant. Within the senior ranks of Labor, opposition came from Bill Hayden, the foreign minister. He was reduced to silence. Inside the Opposition, Ian Macphee advocated resistance. He was removed from John Howard’s shadow cabinet. A citizens’ group formed whose members included Malcolm Fraser, Patrick White, Hal Wootten, David Williamson, Veronica Brady, Dick Smith and David Penman. Their protest actions had no hope. The takeover was supported by both the Labor and the Liberal parties, and was opposed by none of the relevant gatekeepers – the Press Council, the Trade Practices Commission and the Foreign Investment Review Board. “Effective control of the media is the first step on the road to controlling the values and the future direction of our society,” the Age warned on 17 January 1987. “It is the saddest reflection imaginable on this society that virtually no one in public life – a former Prime Minister (Malcolm Fraser); a promptly disciplined Foreign Minister (Hayden) and a gagged Opposition spokesman (Macphee) excepted – has dared to speak out against the growing concentration of ownership of the Australian press.”When the dust settled on the takeover, Rupert Murdoch controlled the sole metropolitan tabloid newspaper in every Australian state except Western Australia and the only general national broadsheet, the Australian. His company controlled approximately two thirds of the circulation of state-wide Australian newspapers. Murdoch’s only press rival, Fairfax, controlled about a quarter. As a consequence of the takeover, Australia now had a concentration of newspaper ownership unknown anywhere in the developed world beyond the party-controlled papers of the communist bloc. In the short term, Labor was rewarded with the support of the three most popular Australian newspapers, Sydney’s Daily Telegraph and Melbourne’s Herald and Sun, in the 1987 election. In the long term it had been midwife at the birth of what was potentially the most anti-democratic force in national life and also the most powerful future enemy of Labor.

All of Rupert Murdoch’s biographers agree that, outside of family, his life is dominated by only two real interests – business and politics. Over the past 40 years he has built two remarkable parallel empires, one expanding his media interests, the other advancing his quest for political power. These empires are closely interconnected. Parts of his media empire are used to strengthen his political influence. On occasions his political influence is used to expand his media business. Murdoch’s media empire now spans the globe, but his shadow political empire hardly extends beyond the United Kingdom, the US and Australia. In each of these, the political empire has grown gradually by trial and error and necessarily assumed a different shape. While Murdoch’s media empire has been analysed and chronicled many times, his political empire, outlined extensively only in David McKnight’s Rupert Murdoch, is less well understood.

Although in the UK Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox (until recently part of News Corporation) has a 39.1% stake in BSkyB, the hugely profitable entertainment satellite television business does not exercise any great political influence. Almost exclusively Murdoch’s influence comes through his ownership of newspapers – the quality broadsheets, the Times and Sunday Times, and his London tabloid, the Sun. Although his broadsheets consistently supported the Thatcher government, and although in turn Thatcher supported Murdoch during his epic Wapping battle with the Fleet Street print unions, there is no reason to believe that the Times and Sunday Times have wielded greater political influence than the other London quality papers. Rather, Murdoch’s political influence in the UK has for more than 30 years been chiefly exercised through the Sun.

During Thatcher’s years as prime minister, she described the support the Sun had given her government as “marvellous”. More crucially, in 1992 the Sun helped destroy Neil Kinnock’s Labour Opposition, which once had a commanding lead in the polls. Two of its headlines – before the election, “Will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights”; after the election, “It’s the Sun Wot Won It” – are justly famous. As several witnesses before the Leveson inquiry made clear, Labour now feared Murdoch. To Kinnock’s disgust, the party’s new leader, Tony Blair, conducted a long flirtation with Murdoch, symbolised by Blair’s round-the-world journey to meet Murdoch and his News Corp staff on Hayman Island, and confirmed by his promise to weaken Britain’s cross-media ownership laws. The reward for Labour was the vicious campaign the Sun waged in 1997 against the Conservative prime minister, John Major, who had held Murdoch at arms’ length and sought to restrict his movement into terrestrial television. Major’s defeat was celebrated with the headline: “It’s the Sun Wot Swung It”. What followed were 12 years of solid Sun and News Corp support for New Labour, the highlight of which was the intimate telephone collaboration between Blair and Murdoch in the month leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In 2009, News Corp decided to switch to David Cameron and the Conservatives. Cameron had already paid homage on Murdoch’s yacht moored by the Greek island Santorini. News proclaimed its turn against Labour on the day Gordon Brown addressed his party conference. In this case the influence of the Sun was used nakedly to advance News Corp’s commercial interests – their controversial proposed $12 billion bid for total control of BSkyB, whose announcement was delayed until the Conservative-led government was elected. In the following months, News Corp’s lobbyist and the responsible minister or his adviser exchanged hundreds of phone calls, emails and text messages, several in the tone of conspirators in a common cause. Only the public revulsion following reports that Murdoch’s Sunday tabloid, News of the World, had hacked into the voicemail of a murdered teenager scuttled the BSkyB bid at the eleventh hour. Temporarily, at least, Murdoch’s vast political power was paralysed.

There is no way that Murdoch could aspire to wield through the newspapers in the US the direct kind of power he had been able to exercise through the Sun in the UK, neither through his beloved New York Post nor the recently acquired Wall Street Journal. In the US – where the top four proprietors control only one fifth of newspaper circulation – press ownership is simply far too dispersed. If he was to achieve real political influence in America he had to find some other way. It is a testament to Murdoch’s ingenuity that he did.

After a failed attempt to purchase CNN, Murdoch turned his mind to creating a cable news channel of his own, which would compete with CNN and counter its supposed “left-wing bias”. The man he chose in 1995 to run the station, Fox News, was Roger Ailes, a brilliant former media adviser to Richard Nixon, a seasoned television executive and, like Murdoch, a rabid right-wing ideologue. Until Ailes, Murdoch had dominated and sometimes terrorised all the editors who worked for him, not only tabloid journeymen like Kelvin MacKenzie of the Sun, the recipient of frequent humiliating “bollockings”, but also highly intelligent and accomplished ones like Harold Evans of the Times. In Ailes, to whom for the first time in his life he is reported to have given full editorial independence and whom he is reputed to have eventually come to fear, Rupert Murdoch had finally met his equal.

The partnership between Murdoch and Ailes has been one of the most consequential in the history of American politics. It was grounded in a common political vision – the superiority of American values of free enterprise and the untrammelled free market, and the dangers to these values represented by the treasonous left-liberal, politically correct elites. It relied on Murdoch’s genius for business. In order to establish a subscriber base, for example, Murdoch inverted the established industry patterns by paying cable companies $500 million for access to their subscribers. But it relied as greatly on Ailes’ feel for television and capacity for political invention.

Fox News was genuinely original – a 24-hour conservative-populist propaganda channel, where right-wing opinion and slanted news, described in Orwellian fashion as “fair and balanced”, were delivered in a highly entertaining fashion. On Fox News, the anxiety of its white and ageing audience at the collapse of the values and prejudices they had grown up with, and their hatred for the supposed condescension of the liberal elites, were inflamed on a daily basis. Gradually, Fox News became the most popular American cable news channel. In turn, it became critical to the fortunes of the Republican Party. Fox News was a vital supporter of George W Bush’s presidency and the most important cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq. It was the arbiter of the fate of the Republican contenders for the presidential nomination in both 2008 and 2012. And it was in attendance at the birth of the Tea Party movement which, in its insane permanent war against the presidency of Barack Obama, is currently tearing Congress and American society apart. David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, best captured the political influence Fox News has come to wield on the right of American politics: “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us. Now we’re discovering that we work for Fox.”

Fox News has been as politically significant in the US as the Sun has been in the UK, with one important difference. As a branch of Murdoch’s shadow political empire, the Sun has, in part at least, served the interests of his business empire. Fox News did not need to serve other Murdoch commercial interests. With a handsome annual profit, it is in its own right one of the empire’s most lucrative businesses. With Fox News, Murdoch’s two great passions – media and right-wing politics – have come together in perfect harmony.

Despite the influence he has gained in London and Washington, Murdoch has never abandoned his early ambition of shaping the political values of the country of his birth. Here the task was quite different from what had been done in the UK or the US. Because Australia is a federation, no single tabloid could possibly play the same role as the London Sun. And because Australia is a country of modest population, even if differences in national temperament could be overcome, economies of scale determine that there could never be a commercially successful cable or satellite channel of a Fox News type, whose daily audience of a million and a half in a US population of more than 300 million is enough to turn an annual profit of more than one billion dollars. If Murdoch’s direct political influence was ever to become as significant in Australia as it was in the UK and the US, a model different from the Sun or Fox News was needed.

By about 2010 the model had emerged. It consisted of separate halves. One was Murdoch’s flagship, the Australian, a curious hybrid newspaper that combines some characteristics of Murdoch’s quality broadsheets, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – detailed political and business coverage, extensive daily analysis, excellent arts pages – and other characteristics of Murdoch’s tabloids, the New York Post and the Sun – ideological simplicity, a pugnacious campaigning style, intimidation and character assassination of political opponents and critics. The readership of the Australian is modest, but it is the only general national daily, with by far the most extensive coverage and analysis of national affairs. Since 2002, under the editorship of Chris Mitchell, it has become a powerful vehicle for the propagation of the fundamental Murdoch world view – free and unregulated markets, small government, American global leadership, anti–political correctness. Although it has, almost certainly, lost hundreds of millions of dollars – handsomely subsidised until recently by News Corp’s entertainment empire – as a servant of Murdoch’s political ambitions it has been worth every dollar. Because of its ideological clarity and aggression, no one within the Australian political class – politicians, business people, public servants – could afford to ignore it.

Employee of the month. Source:

To exert maximum political influence, however, the Australian was not enough. Very gradually, no doubt instinctively rather than consciously, what News Corp has done in Australia is to turn its five state-based tabloids – the Sydney Daily Telegraph, the Melbourne Herald Sun, the Brisbane Courier-Mail, the Adelaide Advertiser and the Hobart Mercury – into a single political instrument. Of course, if they are to remain relevant these tabloids need to maintain some distinctive aspects. They must report state politics, local government, crime, community news and especially state-based sport. They must also be sensitive to differences in state temperaments – the brashness of Sydney, the frontier rawness of Brisbane, the liberalism of Melbourne, the respectability of Adelaide, the parochialism of Hobart. But, as News Corp has come to realise, in their coverage of national politics and policy and in their propagation of the Murdoch ideological agenda, there is no reason for maintaining very great differences between the News Corp metropolitan tabloids.

In part the political unification of the Murdoch tabloids has been achieved by the creation of a stable of national affairs reporters. In larger part it has been achieved by the spread of some of their most influential opinion columnists or ideology-makers from a particular tabloid to almost the entire stable. Perhaps the first example of this process of across-the-tabloid expansion at work was the neoliberal, climate-change denying Terry McCrann. The most important instance is the right-wing provocateur, Andrew Bolt, whose lengthy twice-weekly columns have spread over the past decade from the Herald Sun to the Brisbane Sunday Mail and Courier-Mail, the Advertiser and the Daily Telegraph. Of course, in the age of steady newspaper decline, a major reason for this partial national unification of the Murdoch tabloids is to cut costs. But the impact is political. What has been created, within ostensibly state-based papers, is a single Australian tabloid political voice. This is another, not sufficiently recognised, original Murdoch achievement. Through the combination of the Australian and the hydra-headed “national” tabloid, Murdoch has fashioned in Australia an instrument at least equal in potential political influence to those he fashioned in the UK and the US.

In 2007, Michael Wolff spent several months in Murdoch’s company. His The Man Who Owns the News is the most perceptive account of Murdoch and his empire. In it he argues that while the compulsory, prevailing myth of News Corp employees is that Murdoch is a hands-off owner, the truth is very different. “To work for him is to do his bidding, to follow his line, to execute his desires, to support his needs, to grind his axe, to act on behalf of his empire, to carry out his policies, to be a citizen of his nation-state with all its demanding nationalism.”
How is this accomplished? Andrew Neil worked for Murdoch for 11 years as editor of the Sunday Times and was in general treated respectfully. In his Full Disclosure he describes his relations with Murdoch like this: “Rupert has an uncanny knack of being there even when he is not. When I did not hear from him and knew his attention was elsewhere, he was still uppermost in my mind.” Many former Murdoch editors tell much the same story. If they wished to survive, they needed to internalise Murdoch’s world view. In their newspapers they always needed to seek to please him. When they woke up in the morning, they wondered what Murdoch would make of some new development. They practised a policy of “anticipatory compliance”. Despite the fact that his editors might not see him for months at a time, he was nevertheless, as one put it, “ubiquitous”, although to paraphrase George Orwell’s aphorism – “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others” – it must be the case that Murdoch has been more ubiquitous in New York or London than in Sydney, and more ubiquitous in Sydney than in Hobart.

Around late 2010, evidence suggests, Rupert Murdoch decided to use his Australian newspapers to destroy the government of Julia Gillard. So far as I am aware, it was the first such decision with regard to federal Australian politics he had taken since 1975. One reason might have been the government’s minority status. Another was the Labor government’s relations with the Greens. During a visit in 2010, he had warned Australians darkly, “Whatever you do, don’t let the bloody Greens mess it up.” In striking a formal agreement with the Greens leader, Bob Brown, Gillard had failed to follow his advice. In late April or early May 2011, Murdoch met with his Australian executives, editors and senior journalists at Carmel in California. In interviews I conducted for the Quarterly Essay ‘Bad News’, Chris Mitchell told me that on the second day of the meeting they had discussed Australian politics, while a Gillard government minister told me that he had been informed by someone who had been at Carmel that there was talk of taking the Gillard government down. In July 2011, John Hartigan, the CEO of Murdoch’s Australian operations, was interviewed on ABC television. Inadvertently, he appears to have let the cat out of the bag. “I think, you know, we’re a company of values, like most companies, and we have very implicit values, we have things that we think as a company and individually as editors that need to be done. One of them is a leadership vacuum by minority government.” Hartigan could hardly have been more explicit: the company’s editors would help undo the minority Gillard government.

It would be tedious and should be unnecessary to detail the remorseless hostility the Murdoch press showed towards the Gillard government. Let one piece of solid research suffice. On 24 February 2011, Gillard announced her government’s intention to legislate for a price on carbon emissions. On 10 July 2011, she announced the details of what was called the “Clean Energy Future” package. A team at the University of Technology, Sydney, led by Wendy Bacon, analysed the climate policy coverage of the major Australian newspapers between these dates. Once neutral articles were eliminated, it turned out that 89% of the articles in the Daily Telegraph, 85% in the Herald Sun, 84% in the Courier-Mail, 83% in the Australian, 69% in the Advertiser and 62% in the Mercury were negative. By comparison, 53% of the stories in the Sydney Morning Herald were negative and 33% in the Age. The hostility of the Murdoch press opinion columnists was even more pronounced. Ninety-six percent of the columns in the Herald Sun were negative, 89% in the Courier-Mail, 85% in both the Australian and Daily Telegraph, 79% in the Advertiser but only 58% in the Mercury. Perhaps this was in part because this was the last Murdoch tabloid that remained Andrew Bolt–free. The Bacon team counted the climate policy words of different journalists and opinion columnists during these months. Bolt contributed an astonishing 33,906, though he was surpassed by Terry McCrann, who contributed 36,887. Even though overall coverage of climate policy in the Australian was several times greater than in any of the tabloids, their most prolific climate policy journalist, Dennis Shanahan, contributed only half as many words as his two across-the-tabloid Murdoch colleagues. Nor was the hostility to the Gillard government climate-change policy of the Murdoch tabloids insignificant. During these months, the question of the carbon price became the central issue in Australian politics. And it was during these months that the popularity of the Gillard government collapsed, with first preferences for the government – for the first time in federal politics since opinion polls were conducted – commonly falling below 30%.

Even though there can be no doubt that the ubiquitous Rupert Murdoch both approved and inspired his Australian newspapers’ climate policy coverage, or that a Murdoch editor who supported the Gillard government or its climate policy would very shortly have been looking for another job, there is no direct evidence about the great man’s thoughts during these months on the carbon price in particular or the Gillard government in general. Fortunately, however, in December 2011, Murdoch – who, before Twitter was invented, conversed with friends and issued directions to subordinates in short, sharp, gruff, tweet-length sentences – became an enthusiastic tweeter. His thinking about Australian politics now instantly became transparent.

This is a little of what he thought. 5 February 2012: “Don’t understand Aussie politics. Can Kevin Rudd really come back and knife Gillard? Weird place mucking up great future.” Followed by: “Gillard once good education minister, now prisoner of minority & Greenies. Rudd still delusional who nobody could work with. Nobody else?” 24 February 2012: “Oz Labor tearing themselves to pieces. Ugly sight. Tony Abbott should just lie low and watch.” 17 May 2013: “Australia itself makes no carbon problem. China does, but what can we do other than meaningless gestures costly to every home?” 26 June 2013: “Australian public now totally disgusted with Labor Party wrecking country with it’s [sic] sordid intrigues.” 19 August 2013: “Conviction politicians hard to find anywhere. Australia’s Tony Abbott a rare exception. Opponent Rudd all over the place convincing nobody.” 7 September 2013: “Aust election public sick of public sector workers and phony welfare scroungers sucking life out of economy.” 19 September 2013: “Great first day by PM Abbott firing top bureaucrats, merging departments and killing carbon tax.”These were not merely the dyspeptic tweets of a remote, right-wing, elderly former Australian. They were the tweets of the man who owned two thirds of the metropolitan Australian press. His Australian editors no longer needed to wake up in the morning and wonder what Murdoch might be thinking. All they had to do was read his tweets. And from the date the election was called, they did not even need this prompt. Col Allan had landed to provide them with the benefit of his “insight, expertise and talent”.

When the history of the Gillard–Rudd governments is written, it will, I believe, record both failures and achievements. They will be criticised for the Rudd-based internal instability, for the faulty redesign of the mining tax, for the failure of their asylum seeker policy, for their mishandling of media reform, and above all for the folly of allowing a price on carbon to be called a carbon tax. But they will be praised for managing the most successful economy in the developed world, laying the foundations for disability insurance welfare reform, and for the introduction, albeit far too timidly, of a policy for dealing with climate change.

I am not arguing that criticism of the Gillard–Rudd governments was illegitimate, although I do believe that nothing but criticism from every News Corp paper on a daily basis over almost two and a half years certainly was. Nor am I arguing that the biased Murdoch press coverage of the 2013 federal election campaign was responsible for the Labor loss. That was inevitable more than two years earlier. What I am arguing is different. It is in principle extraordinarily unhealthy for a single corporation to own two thirds of the metropolitan press. This is the situation in no other Western nation. And it is especially unhealthy when the corporation is owned by an ideologue who has a proven track record of political manipulation and who demands that his newspapers across the globe remain committed to his views, as all 173 did, for example, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Murdoch’s domination of the metropolitan press has two main consequences for our democracy. First, any government, no matter how worthy or unworthy, is now vulnerable should News Corp decide to target it in the way it targeted the Gillard government more than two years ago. Second, while News Corp retains its present dominance, mainstream debate about certain fundamental ideologically sensitive questions – how to respond adequately to the climate-change crisis; what levels and kinds of taxation are needed to develop the welfare state; the trajectory of foreign policy during the rise of China; Australia’s Middle Eastern policy; and, of course, media reform – is effectively ruled out in advance.

Some will argue that this analysis is too pessimistic because it overstates the importance of newspapers. It is true that newspaper readership has declined rapidly, especially in recent years. It is also true that the majority of citizens now rely more on online media, television news or radio for their news and views than on newspapers. However, the significance of all this is easily exaggerated. The majority of the most popular news websites are owned by newspapers. Most radio stations and television news programs still rely very heavily on newspapers for their daily content and for their interpretative frames. Most of the multitude of alternative blogs and websites are seen by only a tiny fraction of the population. In societies like ours, newspapers are still the most important news agenda-setters.

Others will argue that, even if News Corp’s present domination of the press in Australia is unhealthy, as eventually the newspaper industry will collapse, there is good reason not to be greatly fussed. This seems to me unconvincing. In part this prediction remains uncertain. And in part it calls to mind Maynard Keynes’ famous answer to arguments of this kind: “In the long run we are all dead.” For anyone who cares about this country, even the next ten years matter greatly. Others find consolation elsewhere, pointing to the fact that Rupert Murdoch is already in his 80s. These people need to be reminded that Murdoch’s mother lived to the age of 103.

For many years, those of us who warned of the dangers to our democracy represented by the stranglehold of the Murdoch press were routinely dismissed as conspiracy theorists. In the face of the outrageous behaviour of the Murdoch press during the election campaign, this has begun to change. Although it probably did him harm, Kevin Rudd was the first prime minister in recent history to speak honestly about the bias of the Murdoch press. Yet despite the growing awareness among genuinely liberal-minded citizens about the existence of our “Murdoch problem”, no convincing answer has yet been discovered to the basic political question: what is to be done? In theory, a concerned government could amend the Competition and Consumer Act in a way that required News Corp to sell some of its newspapers. In practice, it is hardly worth thinking about the possibilities and difficulties of framing such legislation. Any government that even considered compulsory divestment would be set upon by the News Corp papers and their powerful conservative supporters with a ferocity that would make the savaging of the Gillard government over its minor Finkelstein-inspired proposals for media reform look mild-mannered and civil. The truth is sad and salutary. News Corp’s domination of the press is a threat to Australia’s democracy. There is now no politically realistic way to overcome this problem.

In August, Bob Hawke claimed that in his long experience of Australian politics he had seen nothing to equal the virulent bias the Murdoch press showed during this year’s election campaign. I wondered whether he recalled the role his government had played in laying the foundation for this state of affairs when it facilitated News Corp’s domination of the Australian press. And I wondered whether he dimly recalled the warnings about Murdoch of the kind that the Age had issued in its January 1987 editorial: “The effective control of the media is the first step on the road to controlling the values and future direction of our society.

Juan Cole: Twitter Mirth Erupts After Fox’s Steve Emerson Reveals ‘No-Go’ Zone for Non-Muslims in U.K. – Juan Cole – Truthdig : Fox News Practises Freedom of Press but No Truth

View image on Twitter

Juan Cole: Twitter Mirth Erupts After Fox’s Steve Emerson Reveals ‘No-Go’ Zone for Non-Muslims in U.K. – Juan Cole – Truthdig.

Kochh Brothers Exposed: Murdoch’s heros and his model of influence


The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus. – See more at:

Filed under: