Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to continue controlling his company from beyond the grave would be better labelled Project Hegemony, than Harmony, because it’s designed to cement one sibling’s dominance over the others and shield the business from possible progressive reform.
But, in attempting to revoke the “irrevocable” family trust that sets out the company’s governance after his death, Murdoch has laid bare his own business. He has exposed what many observers have long suspected about the company, and revealed just how much is now at stake. Most of the revelations are not pretty, but some hint at a very different future for the global media empire.
We can now be certain that Rupert believes the company’s future is dependent on remaining trenchantly right-wing. This is most apparent in the US, where Fox News dominates cable TV ratings because it is the voice of MAGA Republicans. Murdoch now sees no other way to maintain that edge than by aligning with the reactionary wing of the party.
He wavered for a while when his New York Post championed Ron De Santis as an alternative Republican nominee to Donald Trump. But when the Florida governor failed in the early primaries, News Corp quickly circled back, fully committed to the Trump cause. Now Murdoch knows wavering could erode the loyalty of Fox viewers, perhaps sending a significant number to rival conservative media channels like NewsMax.
So much for Murdoch driving the right or steering the agenda. The 93-year-old has come to realise that if he was ever in charge, he isn’t anymore.
He may have lit the spark of reactionary politics and fanned the flames of anger in his audiences, but now it’s a movement and it’s raging like a Californian wildfire. In a sense, Murdoch has become captive to the masses who demand that their prejudices remain unchallenged. He has learnt that to lead he must follow.
Lachlan, and only Lachlan
All of this means there’s only one person in Rupert’s mind who can ensure the company’s ongoing success, and that’s his eldest son, Lachlan. In turn, this confirms at least one of two things; either Lachlan really is the most right-wing of Rupert’s four oldest children, or he is the most in sync with the company’s business model of serving up whatever content the audience demands to keep watching.
It appears Rupert thinks Lachlan is both.
Yes, many have long suspected Lachlan’s leanings, given his guidance of Fox in the lead-up to the January 6 insurrection. Lachlan was in charge when the network condoned the conspiracy-mongering and the big lie in the wake of Trump’s election loss in 2020.
He did little to curb the transphobia across the organisation or its obsession with “wokeism” as the latest frontier in the culture wars. He watched on as News smeared climate scientists and ridiculed Australian firefighters who linked the 2019/20 bushfires to climate change. The company’s coverage and support of Trump finally led James Murdoch to walk away from News in 2019.
Even though this much is known, it’s still shocking to realise that Murdoch has seen it too and that, after weighing up his children’s political views, has gone and driven a wedge between them because three of them aren’t right-wing enough.
Murdoch plans to rewrite the trust to “consolidate decision-making power in Lachlan’s hands and give him permanent, exclusive control”, even when he is in a minority of one against siblings Elizabeth and James and half-sister Prudence, who share power under the existing deed.
The Nevada probate commissioner has ruled that Murdoch can amend the trust if he can demonstrate he’s acting in good faith for the sole benefit of his heirs. When the matter goes to court next month, Murdoch will argue everyone will benefit because changing the trust will prevent endless power struggles resulting from the “lack of consensus” between the four children. If unchecked, Murdoch believes, the fighting “would impact the strategic direction at both companies including a potential reorientation of editorial policy and content”.
One suspects it’s not the endless fighting that worries Murdoch, so much as the fact that, without amendment, Lachlan may be quickly outvoted and ousted from company control.
The arrangement Murdoch wants is no less democratic than the provisions that have given the Murdochs control of the company with only 39% of the stock. But again, it’s shocking to see Murdoch wants to enshrine something so brazen within what is still essentially a family business.
On the other hand, similar rules already exist to shut out third wife Wendi Deng’s two children, Chloe and Grace. They hold equal shares in the company’s equity but don’t get a vote.
A more interesting question is what this tells us about Murdoch’s deepest fears. Has the emeritus chairman been spending sleepless nights fretting about Prudence, James and Elizabeth ganging up to relegate Lachlan to a non-executive role? Is he really worried that James will sack some of the many climate deniers who lurk around his publications? If so, he won’t need to sack the leading one in Australia, as Andrew Bolt has already promised to go of his own accord if James ends up in charge.
What is it that’s really driving Rupert?
If he’s thinking along these lines, then perhaps the three siblings are too. Perhaps they have gamed what they would do when – not if – they join forces? Maybe they’ve begun to imagine a different News Corp, based on a fresh business model, where balanced journalism is reinstated and respected and actually practised?
Now that’s an endlessly fascinating question, especially in this age of media disruption. Can a pluralist news outfit that practises good journalism create profits on the same scale as an outlet like Fox, which thrives commercially by serving one section of the market and dispensing with journalistic standards?
It’s not media economics that prevents reform. A channel like Sky News in Australia could easily alter its line-up so that after dark a wider range of views are canvassed and challenged. That would not imperil its bottom line, but it would make for better programming. Sky wouldn’t even have to stop being right-of-centre, it would just have to remember to be respectful to the other half of the population that has completely different views.
Another view is that Rupert just doesn’t want the empire he spent a lifetime building being broken up. Perhaps he thinks one-person rule will ensure it remains cohesive.
But what we know about Rupert suggests he is pragmatic on such questions and is prepared to merge and divest whenever it’s strategic or opportune. The fact that his business is now housed in two companies, Fox and News Corp, is testament to that.
If it’s not about the bottom line or the cohesion of the empire, then what is driving Rupert to act like this in his twilight years? This is a variation of the question Murdoch-watchers endlessly ask: why does Rupert do what he does, is it the money or the power? Some speculate it’s both, because making money creates ways to exert influence, which in turn lead to more ways to make money, and so on.
Keeping a winning formula, even beyond the grave
But impending mortality changes that equation. Even Murdoch knows his money won’t be much use to him after his death. Instead, this is about ensuring the legacy that now most matters to him.
He has spent seven decades building a reactionary force across three continents and he likes the effects it continues to create. Yes, it isn’t what it once was and sometimes the issues get away from him, but at least the debates are happening, and the so-called elites and the establishment continue to be rattled.
He watches his acolytes in action, such as Fox presenters Sean Hannity and Greg Gutfeld and columnists Miranda Devine and Bolt, and he likes what he sees. He likes that they sow division. He likes that they mock people who are progressive and bolster those who are cruel. He doesn’t agree with all their conspiracy theories, but he kind of likes that they’re out there creating hegemony, undermining harmony.
He likes it all and he doesn’t want it to end. Not now. Not even when he’s dead.
Andrew Dodd does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
