Rupert Murdoch has stepped down as the chairman of Fox Corp (FOXA.O) and News Corp (NWSA.O), ending a more than seven-decade career during which he created a media empire spanning from Australia to the United States.
His son, Lachlan Murdoch, will become the sole chairman of News Corp and continue as the chair and CEO of Fox, the companies said on Thursday.
Out with one, in with another. I have no idea if that is a good thing or not.
Yeah, my first thought was just a "Yeah, thanks for all the fucking work you've done." Murdoch did his damage, and the path now is clear and wide for whoever wants to follow in his footsteps.
Fox Corp. CEO Lachlan Murdoch said Thursday that it is the job of Fox News to serve as the opposition to the Biden administration, clearly stating the political biases of a network that until 2017 billed itself as "fair and balanced."
Speaking at a Morgan Stanley investor conference, Murdoch said Fox News stood to benefit from Biden's presidency because the network would act as "the loyal opposition" to his administration.
Last edited by LordMortis on Thu Sep 21, 2023 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
I doubt it makes much of a difference. Fox has carved out a space that they must maintain or they'll shrink.
Edit: Loyal opposition would be great but it's clear they went way past loyal opposition long ago. They've broken several democracies and defended destruction of the climate.
Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 9:44 am
Yeah, my first thought was just a "Yeah, thanks for all the fucking work you've done." Murdoch did his damage, and the path now is clear and wide for whoever wants to follow in his footsteps.
Or not. As you said, the damage is already done, so doesn’t really matter much whether we get Connor or Roman Roy I think.
Unagi wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 9:44 am
Yeah, my first thought was just a "Yeah, thanks for all the fucking work you've done." Murdoch did his damage, and the path now is clear and wide for whoever wants to follow in his footsteps.
Or not. As you said, the damage is already done, so doesn’t really matter much whether we get Connor or Roman Roy I think.
Rupert Murdoch has stepped down as the chairman of Fox Corp (FOXA.O) and News Corp (NWSA.O), ending a more than seven-decade career during which he created a media empire spanning from Australia to the United States.
His son, Lachlan Murdoch, will become the sole chairman of News Corp and continue as the chair and CEO of Fox, the companies said on Thursday.
Out with one, in with another. I have no idea if that is a good thing or not.
I'd like to say that it can't be any worse, but of course it always can.
Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 11:10 am
I'd like to say that it can't be any worse, but of course it always can.
Please, don't tempt fate. Fate has been unhappy with humanity lately, and would love nothing more than a little bit of jinxing to show us who's in charge again.
Late Friday night, the former president of the United States—and a leading candidate to be the next president—insinuated that America’s top general deserves to be put to death.
That extraordinary sentence would be unthinkable in any other rich democracy. But Donald Trump, on his social-media network, Truth Social, wrote that Mark Milley’s phone call to reassure China in the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.” (The phone call was, in fact, explicitly authorized by Trump-administration officials.) Trump’s threats against Milley came after The Atlantic’s publication of a profile of Milley, by this magazine’s editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg, who detailed the ways in which Milley attempted to protect the Constitution from Trump.
And yet, none of the nation’s front pages blared “Trump Suggests That Top General Deserves Execution” or “Former President Accuses General of Treason.” Instead, the post barely made the news. Most Americans who don’t follow Trump on social media probably don’t even know it happened.
Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous, not just because it is the exact sort that incites violence against public officials but also because it shows just how numb the country has grown toward threats more typical of broken, authoritarian regimes. The United States is not just careening toward a significant risk of political violence around the 2024 presidential election. It’s also mostly oblivious to where it’s headed.
Trump loves to hide behind the thin veneer of plausible deniability, but he knows exactly what he’s doing. If a mob boss were to say, “In times gone by, people like you would have had their legs broken,” nobody would mistake that for a historical observation. The suggestion is clear, and it comes from a man who has one of America’s loudest megaphones—one that is directed squarely at millions of extremists who are well armed, who insist that the government is illegitimate, and who believe that people like Milley are part of a “deep state” plot against the country.
Academics have a formal term for exactly this type of incitement: stochastic terrorism.
Sort of lost in the whole mess in Israel is the appearance that CBS News is in serious decline. We can at best say that other outlets have struggled with dealing with the Trump era but CBS has now multiple times boosted misinformation in favor of Trump. This same reporter was hired out of Fox and has repeatedly been responsible for misinformation. Her stories have fallen apart multiple times and CBS has not once corrected the record after her shoddy reporting has been undermined by facts down the line. Mostly because they are hiding behind "Sources" say type language.
The story has a major flaw in that no one has reported that Trump shared records. It was a verbal discussion but even then more reputable outlets contradict this story. For example, the Australian businessman is on the witness list for the MAL case and Australian governmental sources have confirmed the story. They have related Pratt had told approximately 45 people what Trump said.
Also her point about lack of charges has been explained by several experts. It is unlikely that charges will be brought because this case would be hard to prove legally speaking, and might require that the information revealed be discussed in open court. Her work is hackery of the worst sort.
By the way, Washington Post fans - if you weren't aware. The Washington Post finally hired a new CEO and it's ... Will Lewis. He ran the WSJ and worked as an executive under Rupert Murdoch for ten years. WTF?
They laid off a 100 people this morning. I'll bet it'll be less aligned with cost and more aligned with ideology. The media has surrendered and nearly every paper is starting to be run by oligarch/authoritarian aligned leaders. The United States has essentially run through the process that Russia ran in the 90s where all the media functions and eventually all industry fell under control of an ever smaller group of individuals.
Edit: Just to be a little softer. The paper is losing money so layoffs aren't out of line but I'm more saying that it also is a convenient excuse to adjust the Post's mix more in the Fox direction over time.
malchior wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 11:05 am
By the way, Washington Post fans - if you weren't aware. The Washington Post finally hired a new CEO and it's ... Will Lewis. He ran the WSJ and worked as an executive under Rupert Murdoch for ten years. WTF?
They laid off a 100 people this morning. I'll bet it'll be less aligned with cost and more aligned with ideology. The media has surrendered and nearly every paper is starting to be run by oligarch/authoritarian aligned leaders. The United States has essentially run through the process that Russia ran in the 90s where all the media functions and eventually all industry fell under control of an ever smaller group of individuals.
Edit: Just to be a little softer. The paper is losing money so layoffs aren't out of line but I'm more saying that it also is a convenient excuse to adjust the Post's mix more in the Fox direction over time.
He ran the overall WSJ? I'm only concerned about WSJ association to the extent that it's involvement in the whackadoodle op-ed section.
malchior wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 11:05 am
By the way, Washington Post fans - if you weren't aware. The Washington Post finally hired a new CEO and it's ... Will Lewis. He ran the WSJ and worked as an executive under Rupert Murdoch for ten years. WTF?
They laid off a 100 people this morning. I'll bet it'll be less aligned with cost and more aligned with ideology. The media has surrendered and nearly every paper is starting to be run by oligarch/authoritarian aligned leaders. The United States has essentially run through the process that Russia ran in the 90s where all the media functions and eventually all industry fell under control of an ever smaller group of individuals.
Edit: Just to be a little softer. The paper is losing money so layoffs aren't out of line but I'm more saying that it also is a convenient excuse to adjust the Post's mix more in the Fox direction over time.
He ran the overall WSJ? I'm only concerned about WSJ association to the extent that it's involvement in the whackadoodle op-ed section.
He was in leadership at the Guardian and then overall WSJ.
About my larger concern though, The Post is owned by one of the biggest oligarchs in the United States and he just installed a guy who literally was promoted out of the ranks by Rupert Murdoch himself. He is going to move the paper hard to the right. Bezos picked Lewis for a reason and I doubt it was because it was losing an amount of money that is basically a rounding error to Bezos. For awhile, it was clear that Bezos has been nudging it to the right. I'm not saying Bezos is MAGA but during COVID the Washington Post started slanting especially on COVID and other issues towards the right-wing take. It's been subtle but I expect it'll become more pronounced in the coming year or two. Especially with the election coming.
malchior wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 12:43 pm
Excellent catch here! Russia gets the active voice. Israel gets the passive voice.
Isn't the second headline phrased the way it is because there's a dispute about the origin of the explosion in the second case but not the first one? Like they're not saying "Israel conducts airstrike..." because (I gather) there's a dispute about whether it's an airstrike and consequently whether Israel is the actor there.
Was there a dispute? I didn't really see one there. They described an explosion that destroyed several buildings. Doesn't sound like an errant missile. I guess we can say the Ukrainians are more reliable and that earns them different voicing but...that's the difference in sourcing in a nutshell.
Last edited by malchior on Mon Nov 06, 2023 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
malchior wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 1:39 pm
Was there a dispute? I didn't really see one there. I guess we can say the Ukrainians are more reliable and that earns them different voicing but...that's the difference in a nutshell.
I don't know - I'd have to see the non-linked articles. But that's an obvious explanation for the difference in the headlines, and the phrasing "Gazans say was airstrike" certainly implies that there are non-Gazans saying that it wasn't, and I feel like that needs to be answered before we know whether there's an issue here or not.
malchior wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 1:39 pm
Was there a dispute? I didn't really see one there. I guess we can say the Ukrainians are more reliable and that earns them different voicing but...that's the difference in a nutshell.
I don't know - I'd have to see the non-linked articles. But that's an obvious explanation for the difference in the headlines, and the phrasing "Gazans say was airstrike" certainly implies that there are non-Gazans saying that it wasn't, and I feel like that needs to be answered before we know whether there's an issue here or not.
The article only says the Israelis were researching it. A non-answer. No dispute really. The only real difference is in the "sourcing" so to speak. Ukraine is firing ordnance too but their word is good enough to earn them the benefit of the active voice. IMO the NY Times had a lot of internal turmoil over the hospital incident and might be overcorrecting.
An explosion overnight in a densely populated part of the central Gaza Strip destroyed several buildings and appeared to have killed and wounded many people, photos and videos from the scene on Sunday showed.
The Gazan Health Ministry said an Israeli airstrike had hit Al Maghazi — a community built up from a refugee camp established decades ago — killing at least 47 people and wounding dozens of others. It warned that the toll was expected to rise, saying that many bodies remained buried under the rubble.
Casualties were taken to nearby Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital, where a photographer for The New York Times saw the injured crowding the hallways and the lifeless being prepared for burial.
A spokesperson for the Israeli military said it was looking into reports of the strike.
malchior wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 1:39 pm
Was there a dispute? I didn't really see one there. I guess we can say the Ukrainians are more reliable and that earns them different voicing but...that's the difference in a nutshell.
I don't know - I'd have to see the non-linked articles. But that's an obvious explanation for the difference in the headlines, and the phrasing "Gazans say was airstrike" certainly implies that there are non-Gazans saying that it wasn't, and I feel like that needs to be answered before we know whether there's an issue here or not.
The article only says the Israelis were researching it. A non-answer. No dispute really. The only real difference is in the "sourcing" so to speak. Ukraine is firing ordnance too but their word is good enough to earn them the benefit of the active voice. IMO the NY Times had a lot of internal turmoil over the hospital incident and might be overcorrecting.
An explosion overnight in a densely populated part of the central Gaza Strip destroyed several buildings and appeared to have killed and wounded many people, photos and videos from the scene on Sunday showed.
The Gazan Health Ministry said an Israeli airstrike had hit Al Maghazi — a community built up from a refugee camp established decades ago — killing at least 47 people and wounding dozens of others. It warned that the toll was expected to rise, saying that many bodies remained buried under the rubble.
Casualties were taken to nearby Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital, where a photographer for The New York Times saw the injured crowding the hallways and the lifeless being prepared for burial.
A spokesperson for the Israeli military said it was looking into reports of the strike.
It is entirely possible that it's an overcorrection to the hospital kerfluffle. But that whole incident also made clear that the consequences of getting it wrong in the context of the Israel-Hamas war are significant. So if the NYT had Gazan sources saying airstrike and Israeli sources saying "we're not sure yet", it doesn't seem crazy at all to run with a "Gazans say" headline.
I usually shy away from discussions that treat "the media" generically, but this woman's opinion is worth spreading.
So what can the press do differently? Here are a few suggestions.
Report more – much more – about what Trump would do, post-election. Ask voters directly whether they are comfortable with those plans, and report on that. Display these stories prominently, and then do it again soon.
Use direct language, not couched in scaredy-cat false equivalence, about the dangers of a second Trump presidency.
Pin down Republicans about whether they support Trump’s lies and autocratic plans, as ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos did in grilling the House majority leader Steve Scalise about whether the 2020 election was stolen. He pushed relentlessly, finally saying: “I just want an answer to the question, yes or no?” When Scalise kept sidestepping, Stephanopoulos soon cut off the interview.
Those ideas are just a start. Newsroom leaders should be getting their staffs together to brainstorm how to do it. Right now.
Former President Donald Trump pledged to eliminate political extremist groups that “lie, steal and cheat on elections,” calling them “vermin” during a speech Saturday and in a Truth Social post commemorating Veterans Day—echoing a term Nazis often used in antisemitic propaganda to dehumanize Jews, equating them to parasites who spread disease.
Not really seeing it discussed, reported or highlighted elsewhere.
I've never associated the word 'vermin' with the Nazis or the Jews, despite using the term from time to time. Is this one common knowledge? Because it feels like a bit of a stretch.
Like everything else, context matters. Comparing immigrants or outsiders to vermin has been around forever - usually as a way to associate the presumed spread of disease and illness that is believed to follow immigration. It was absolutely imagery that was used by Hitler and part of Nazi propaganda, specifically targeting Jews by depicting them as rats.
I use the term "vermin" all the time. Never in my capacity as a public official would I ever describe a population of people as vermin, especially in the context of trying to describe how they should be treated or how I imagine dealing with them.
Actually, I've been known to use it affectionately with my kids, which are, in a manner of speaking, a population of people. If it's got negative connotations that strong, I'd like to know before I absentmindedly use it again, but I've never heard of it as being a racist term.
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 5:13 pm
I've never associated the word 'vermin' with the Nazis or the Jews, despite using the term from time to time. Is this one common knowledge? Because it feels like a bit of a stretch.
Doesn't really matter. Dehumanization is dehumanization. Sometimes it's just people being shitty. Many of us are guilty of it. However, politically powerful people vowing to do something about these subhumans and very possibly having the power to act on their words? That's the same subset as Nazism, even if it's not specifically Nazism. They are in the same Venn diagram. So why bother to distinguish?
"That's what the Nazis did" is true, if you don't want to call it Nazism for semantic reasons.
Trump has lots of dog whistles. He seems to have one implanted in each tooth from the amount of time he spends blowing them. I was just discussing whether this was another intentional dog whistle, or if he's just using a generic derogatory term the way many others would.
I wasn't trying to justify calling a nation/race/culture by a derogatory term - just trying to figure out if the connection to Nazis/white supremacists was justified (this time.)
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2023 6:09 pm
I wasn't trying to justify calling a nation/race/culture by a derogatory term - just trying to figure out if the connection to Nazis/white supremacists was justified (this time.)
No one said you were. And let's ignore these Nazi adjacent comments and focus on his multiple literal Nazi quotes.
Drumpf wants to win so bad he's willing to have actual Nazi's writing his statements now. It boggles the mind. Drumpf was always a bad person, but he was never this genocidally bad.
Why won't he fucking die in a private plane crash that takes his offspring with him???
I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me that Trump was specifically talking about Jews with his "vermin" comment. That said, it's both hard to know and fairly unimportant specifically which groups he was talking about. The important thing is that this is more bloodthirsty authoritarianism from him. Which is both bad generally, and also bad for the Jews and other minority groups, for whom democracy and the rule of law are the most important protection against those who would do them harm.
My general observations about him suggest he likely doesn't believe half the nonsense he is spouting. However, he knows what to say and how to say it in order to motivate his followers. So to me it's irrelevant whether or not he was actually dipping his toes into Nazi propaganda because I instead think he intentionally said "vermin" because his followers believed he was. And for those that aren't full on Nazis, they likely enjoy hearing him compare immigrants ("dirty illegals") to vermin - even if they don't realize the history of doing so. It validates their own gross feelings.
Yeah Trump isn't focused on Jews. It's more so the general mass of anyone who stands against him. Immigrants. Brown people. The "woke". Etc. He is essentially going to go on a lawless rampage if elected and we need to 1) stop it from happening and 2) be prepared to survive and resist it if he does win.
malchior wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 12:41 pm
Yeah Trump isn't focused on Jews. It's more so the general mass of anyone who stands against him. Immigrants. Brown people. The "woke". Etc. He is essentially going to go on a lawless rampage if elected and we need to 1) stop it from happening and 2) be prepared to survive and resist it if he does win.
Also like, while he's not super focused on Jews *now*, Jews as a group are almost certain to be overwhelmingly against him if he's elected. So even if he doesn't hate Jews now, he will sooner or later as a matter of his overwhelming instinct to punish and destroy anyone who is against him.
Sorta related, but it's a sad state of affairs when you get this kind of information from a late-night TV host:
For those without Twitter, I apologize. If I had a transcript, I'd post it. Anyway, her point about how the language is being used to attack democracy should be more widely distributed. Yes, the raw language is gross, but it's deeper than just an attack on populations of people.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 12:12 pm
I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me that Trump was specifically talking about Jews with his "vermin" comment.
And that's fine, regarding vermin. Mostly because it doesn't matter as he has said plenty of other things straight out of Germany circa 1930's. I don't have the article in front of me, but I did see one that listed drumpf quotes followed by Hitler quotes, and some were literally identical, while others were slightly paraphrased.
Yeah, there were a few others besides, however I didn't vet the sources and couldn't tell you where I saw it (google news, I do try to be more careful) so it might not be as bad as I thought. But it's easy to believe so I believed it. *shrug*
El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 12:12 pm
I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me that Trump was specifically talking about Jews with his "vermin" comment.
And that's fine, regarding vermin. Mostly because it doesn't matter as he has said plenty of other things straight out of Germany circa 1930's. I don't have the article in front of me, but I did see one that listed drumpf quotes followed by Hitler quotes, and some were literally identical, while others were slightly paraphrased.
What's happening in the US is terrifying.
Oh, 100%. When we're at the point where we're parsing which minority group(s) the leading presidential candidate is specifically talking about targeting...we're in a bad spot.
