Ratts of Tobruk
Cancelled
- May 1, 2013
- 9,168
- 5,975
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- ATV Irdning
When Gina Rinehart bought into Fairfax with the desire for editorial influence, she was no doubt thinking of replicating the effect the media had on the Labor Government during the Mining tax debate. But in the Victorian election both Murdoch's Herald Sun and Rinehart's The Age editorialised for the Liberals and the Coalition still lost easily.
If you ever bother to check Murdoch's Twitter feed you will find that he isn't a political genius, but just an old man with strong views that are often not very well articulated. Here's his last 5 tweets, where he uses the sort of debating tactics his papers are accused of doing, but which they wouldn't normally make so obvious (and he also seems to mistake the highly-controlled oil market as a free market):
In the last Federal election and State election Murdoch papers haven't bothered to pretend to be balanced, and the result was drops in circulation (as Fairfax had too), a one-term Vic Coalition govt, and Abbott's popularity beginning low and seemingly unable to recover despite the cheerleading. More importantly, there has been a huge loss in credibility for the News Corp voice.
The dropping of the pretence of balance is most likely because News Corp are getting desperate. Advertising dollars are diversifying and Murdoch's empire is getting far less revenue. Fox News in America is the model they appear to be trying to create here, but Australia is too small a market (and generally a better educated market) for it to be a money-spinner big enough to effect politics. Also, compulsory voting means hard-line views don't win out. What's more, Fox News helped legitimise the Tea Party politics that have divided the Republicans in the US and made a Presidential win less likely. A loss in 2016 to Hillary Clinton is expected.
Rinehart has tried and failed to sell a third of her Fairfax shares, and now there are rumours of Fairfax buying Channel 10. That is seen as more about the survival of the two, rather than the expansion of influence that was suggested by Bolt as the reason Rinehart first bought in to Fairfax. Speaking of which, a Fairfax merger would give Bolt an excuse to leave Channel 10 without ratings being brought into it.
Murdoch is also under attack from News Corp shareholders. Not for the first time, but he came close to being effected (47.4% of votes) and has a year to try and shore up support, like from the Saudi Prince, Alwaleed bin Talal. Rupert will be 84 in March.
He's had an outstanding run, but politics again seem to be turning away from his views (in his tweets you'll see he criticises David Cameron in the UK, perhaps due to Climate Change or immigration, or simply because of BSkyB). I think Murdoch's time is ending. And by way of homage (I originally typed "hammage' - probably more appropriate) I will end this on a partisan note:
If you ever bother to check Murdoch's Twitter feed you will find that he isn't a political genius, but just an old man with strong views that are often not very well articulated. Here's his last 5 tweets, where he uses the sort of debating tactics his papers are accused of doing, but which they wouldn't normally make so obvious (and he also seems to mistake the highly-controlled oil market as a free market):
In the last Federal election and State election Murdoch papers haven't bothered to pretend to be balanced, and the result was drops in circulation (as Fairfax had too), a one-term Vic Coalition govt, and Abbott's popularity beginning low and seemingly unable to recover despite the cheerleading. More importantly, there has been a huge loss in credibility for the News Corp voice.
The dropping of the pretence of balance is most likely because News Corp are getting desperate. Advertising dollars are diversifying and Murdoch's empire is getting far less revenue. Fox News in America is the model they appear to be trying to create here, but Australia is too small a market (and generally a better educated market) for it to be a money-spinner big enough to effect politics. Also, compulsory voting means hard-line views don't win out. What's more, Fox News helped legitimise the Tea Party politics that have divided the Republicans in the US and made a Presidential win less likely. A loss in 2016 to Hillary Clinton is expected.
Rinehart has tried and failed to sell a third of her Fairfax shares, and now there are rumours of Fairfax buying Channel 10. That is seen as more about the survival of the two, rather than the expansion of influence that was suggested by Bolt as the reason Rinehart first bought in to Fairfax. Speaking of which, a Fairfax merger would give Bolt an excuse to leave Channel 10 without ratings being brought into it.
Murdoch is also under attack from News Corp shareholders. Not for the first time, but he came close to being effected (47.4% of votes) and has a year to try and shore up support, like from the Saudi Prince, Alwaleed bin Talal. Rupert will be 84 in March.
He's had an outstanding run, but politics again seem to be turning away from his views (in his tweets you'll see he criticises David Cameron in the UK, perhaps due to Climate Change or immigration, or simply because of BSkyB). I think Murdoch's time is ending. And by way of homage (I originally typed "hammage' - probably more appropriate) I will end this on a partisan note:
- Hopefully this will stop 'the left' talking about Murdoch, rather than the real reasons people don't agree with them.
Last edited:
