News Corp. at Brave New Films

Headzup: Murdoch Buys The Wall Street Journal

2008-03-22T21:54:48Z

It seems about right to me...

So Long, Respectable Wall Street Journal

2008-07-09T19:56:38Z

This from the NYTimes, which hopefully has enough room for quitting WSJ reporters who don’t want to be there when the WSJ becomes a crappy joke of its former self:

Richard F. Zannino, Dow Jones’s chief executive, will leave the company after staying for a time to help with the transition, Dow Jones announced yesterday.

People briefed on the matter said that both Mr. Zannino and L. Gordon Crovitz, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, would be succeeded by trusted lieutenants of Rupert Murdoch soon after the takeover was complete.

Mr. Zannino said the choice to leave was his; others at Dow Jones were divided as to whether that was so, while some said the decision was mutual. Mr. Murdoch has a history of putting his loyalists atop newly acquired operations.

(for a closer look at the comic, go here)

FOX: "A Myth in the Unmaking"

2008-07-09T19:41:16Z

I haven’t yet addressed the Judith Regan lawsuit against News Corp. (owner of FOX, the NY Post, MySpace, etc etc). You can read the court filing at the SmokingGun.com — it really reads like a corporate mob hit, where people at News Corp. saw that Regan could be a liability to Giuliani’s campaign due to her affair with indicted Giuliani BFF Bernie Kerik and set her up to be whacked. I repeat: “senior executives” at News Corp. told Regan to lie to people investigating Kerik because it would hurt a presidential candidate. It’s a pretty fascinating read and I’ll be writing more about it in the future.

But Michael Tomasky of the UK Guardian knows what this lawsuit could mean. First, he nails what FOX really is, “a lock, stock and barrel servant of the Republican party,” then goes on to what FOX clearly is not:

Journalism with a point of view is a fine thing. It's what I do. The difference is that I say I'm a liberal journalist while Fox executives and "reporters" insist they play it straight. But everyone in the US knows that my description is true. This is precisely why its fans watch it. Walk into any bar, hair salon, gym or motel lobby in the country; if the TV is tuned to Fox rather than CNN, you know that the owner or clientele or both are Republican. It's a secret - although not actually secret any more - sign of fraternity among conservatives

Fox News Corp.: Writers strike a good thing. "Murdoch & Co. figured out a way to spin presumed strike-related losses into opportunistic gold. "

2008-01-12T20:34:37Z

This striking writer had the right idea:

One sign bore a doctored photo of Peter Chernin, president of Fox parent News Corp., extending his middle finger over the legend, "Write this!"

Kudos.

During a Wednesday earnings call with analysts, Rupert Murdoch's top lieutenant [Peter Chernin] had the temerity to suggest that, far from being a fearsome prospect, the writers strike could be, like, a good thing for Fox. Other honchos, such as NBC Universal's Jeff Zucker, have downplayed the strike's effect. But they haven't matched Chernin for zesty optimism: Strike? Yes, please -- may I have another?

Oh Peter? I just thought of a new use for the long part of a picket sign.

Calling the strike "probably a positive" for the company, Chernin added: "We save more money in term deals and, you know, story costs and probably the lack of making pilots than we lose in potential advertising."

Want to compound the anger you may have welling up right now? Here's what the columnist, Scott Collins, adds:

As Jon Stewart would say, "Well-played, sir." Telling striking writers that the corporate balance sheet is better off without their salaries mucking everything up is what you might call negotiation by other means. (Grist for someone's interdisciplinary economics/lit dissertation: Try to calculate Shakespeare's "story costs.")

But here's the thing: Chernin's probably right. At least in the short term, News Corp. stands to benefit from the strike, largely because Fox is in a much better position than its rivals to weather the work stoppage.

Mr. Laffy and I thank you. He's referring, by the way, to such stellar examples of television classics as "American Idol".

When you stack everything up, you begin to understand why Chernin and Murdoch are laughing amid the industry panic. And also why, despite all the claims of "Norma Rae"-like solidarity this week, the scribes might end up having to knuckle under for companies that are already practically mocking them. Rage against the machine, indeed.

Rage against Scott Collins is more like it.

When it comes to labor relations, the gods seem to smile on Murdoch. Or more likely, his characteristic brazenness nearly always serves him well in a crisis. In 1986, when unionized British printers tried to put the squeeze on him, Murdoch played hardball and switched to non-union workers in what one account dubbed "the biggest union-busting operation in history."[...] [I]ndustry vets with long memories will recall that Fox also found a way to benefit from the last Hollywood writers strike, back in 1988.
[...] But the point is that Murdoch & Co. figured out a way to spin presumed strike-related losses into opportunistic gold.

That's what they're likely to do this time around too.

How admirable. Collins, you sure do know how to pick 'em.

And if the strike lasts longer than even pessimists predict? Well, the whole point of vertical integration over the last decade is that it's made these media conglomerates diversified. News Corp., as Murdoch likes to point out, isn't just about Fox. The company owns MySpace. It controls newspapers and satellite operations around the world. Soon it will own the Wall Street Journal.

And to hell with the rest of us.