A few weeks ago the world woke up to explosive revelations that Rupert Murdoch had a secret plan. The nonagenarian billionaire had gone to court to strip three of his children out of an irrevocable family trust and consolidate power with his eldest son and chosen successor, Lachlan Murdoch.
In this week’s Friday Fight, a debate series in which two writers make their case on a hotly contested topic, the question is: should Australians give two shits about the Murdoch succession saga? In the negative corner we have media correspondent Christopher Warren. Arguing in the affirmative we have journalism academic Andrew Dodd.
Yes, Australians should definitely give two shits about the Murdoch succession saga. But I wonder whether two is enough. Perhaps it should be four shits, or maybe even six, because that’s the number of children involved in this power struggle.
Wait, I hear you saying, that’s too much excrement to donate, because this is just about the four oldest children: Lachlan, James, Prudence and Elisabeth. The youngest, Chloe and Grace, from Rupert’s marriage to Wendi Deng, don’t factor as they don’t get to vote on the company’s direction. They just get billions of dollars in inheritance. Literally billions. Each of them.
Okay, so let’s settle for four shits, a shit each for the four who won’t settle.
We should care about the saga inside the Murdoch family for many reasons. Not least because last year screenwriter Jesse Armstrong declared the fourth season of the TV series Succession would be its last. So, this is it now. To find out what happens next we have to watch real life.
Remember (spoilers!) those final scenes in the show, when Tom Wambsgans vanquished his wife Siobhan, as well as her brothers Roman and Kendall, who were all united — or thought they were? Well, the good news is that real life promises to be even more dramatic.
This is a knockdown fight with enormous consequences for the control of a company that does still matter, despite what some might say.
Rupert Murdoch knows it matters. He was explicit about it when he applied to the Nevada probate commissioner to change the family’s “irrevocable” trust, which establishes the governance of Fox News and News Corp after his death. He claimed constant fighting between the siblings would “impact the strategic direction at both companies including a potential reorientation of editorial policy and content”.
In other words, Murdoch fears that Prudence, from his first marriage, and Elisabeth and James, from his second, will seize control from his oldest son, Lachlan. This is a marked departure from the ideals underpinning the deed when it was written during marriage number three. Back then Murdoch said the four oldest children would decide between them who took control after his death.
This isn’t really about the business. Rupert’s not too fussed about the money, because it won’t be much use to him where he’s going. Paper’s flammable after all. Nor is he overly concerned about keeping the empire together, because we know Murdoch has made a career by pragmatically merging and divesting his assets.
This is about Murdoch’s belief that Lachlan is the best champion of his real legacy: the creation of a business that seeks to disrupt, usurp and generally mess with anything progressive on a global scale. We should care about this because Murdoch has done much of this under the guise of journalism, or some corrupted form of it that, on balance, has done more harm than good. At times it’s been a scourge on democracy.
For decades News Corp has demonised groups and causes it has disagreed with. It has targeted progressives, the LGBTQIA+ community, Muslims, scientists, environmentalists, refugees and immigrants, as well as countless others. The journalism has often been unbalanced and sensationalised, involving phone hacking, gotcha stories and ambushes.
Let’s not forget the page-three girls, the brazen regime-changing crusades in support of right-wing politicians and against progressive governments. There’s even been sustained collusion with known liars, some of whom have held very high office. For decades, far too many of Murdoch’s news outlets have debased the craft of journalism across three continents.
But, some argue, we don’t need to worry because News Corp’s power is waning. Those people say News Corp doesn’t swing elections like it once did, and that social media and Big Tech are much more alarming. But even if some of News Corp’s influence has diminished, it is still unquestionably true that Murdoch media sows division, amplifies hateful voices and conspiracies, and routinely dumbs down and weaponises the very issues that need nuanced and sensitive treatment. For evidence, look to its coverage of the Voice debate in Australia, of Gaza, of transgender issues globally, and the way Fox News in the US is now Kamala-trashing to appease its MAGA audience.
If there’s any chance — even an outside one — of the three children driving a company shakeup so that editorial standards are improved, then that’s worth supporting. Imagine Sean Hannity being obliged to interview as many Democrats as Trumpists. Or Rita Panahi having to defend her reactionary views against some critics on Sky after dark. Imagine News Corp making space to explain complex issues from several perspectives to inform a debate, rather than to just try and win it for its own ends. Imagine News Corp using its power for the greater public good.
DING! DING! DING! CRIKEY EDITORS DECLARE DODD HAS ALMOST PASSED HIS ALLOCATED WORD COUNT
Okay, maybe that’s unlikely, but it’s got to be worth giving a few measly shits about.
Read the opposing argument by Christopher Warren.
Is the Murdoch succession plan worth paying attention to? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
