Murdoch scum

[Snake Plissken]

Why would Fox die?

METAL GEAR?!?


(Sorry.)

[Nefertiti2]

Ash Sarkar

Rupert Murdoch has been the single most malevolent force in global media and politics in my lifetime, without a doubt. I’d argue that he’s the individual most to blame for obstructing and stymieing action on climate change.

[E10 Rifle]

Murdoch's empire isn't a one-man show: there'll be plenty of others prepared to continue it on its malignant course, and there's money to be made from such a course after all too.

[Hot Pepsi]

Right now, Fox - like ESPN, etc. - is getting money from every single cable subscriber whether they watch Fox News or not. That's not going to last much longer.

So when cable dies, Fox News will just become a streaming service. They're already preparing for that.

Among the kinds of people who watch it now, how many are going to pay for that? And how many of them even understand what a streaming service is?

The answer to both of those questions is "some, but certainly not all or even most." But that means it's actual reach - which is already often overstated - will diminish.

And it will have to compete with even lower-budget, more unhinged versions of the same thing. It's already having that problem. It has to compete with Nazis on Youtube, etc. 25-30 years ago, everyone was astounded by how many cable channels there were and yet that was pissing in the wind compared to the endless options available on the internet now.

I suppose the Fox News brand means something to a lot of conservatives, but a lot of those people will be dead soon and for a lot of wingnuts, Fox News is considered a traitor. So I'm not sure how well it's brand power will translate into the future. Media brands can and do die. When I was a kid, Time, Newsweek and Sports Illustrated mattered.


As for the theoretical non-MAGA Republicans, they'll probably be younger and a bit more clued in to modern technology, so they can just watch the WSJ's Youtube channel or something like that. They don't need cable news.

There's this assumption out there that everyone watches cable news and therefore each of the three big ones have to stake out a defined section of the political spectrum, but I just don't think that's going to be the case at all in a few years and never really was to the extent a lot of people assume.

[ursus arctos]

Those are indeed real challenges, but are going to take time and have nothing to do with Rupert's change of title

[Hot Pepsi]

No, I guess not. But I thought the question was whether or not Fox will die.

[WOM]

Murdoch's empire isn't a one-man show...

You say this, but it's surprising how many companies are really cults of personality. I mention Shultz. It's a fucking coffee shop, but apparently he's the only one qualified to run it. We just had Heather Reisman come out of retirement to run her Indigo book chain in Canada. A book shop....there's nobody else in Canada qualified to run a book shop???

[E10 Rifle]

We can but hope that it all goes a bit Man-Utd-after-Ferguson-left for them, but I'm not confident

[ursus arctos]

You say this, but it's surprising how many companies are really cults of personality. I mention Shultz. It's a fucking coffee shop, but apparently he's the only one qualified to run it. We just had Heather Reisman come out of retirement to run her Indigo book chain in Canada. A book shop....there's nobody else in Canada qualified to run a book shop???

This says infinitely more about the individuals than the enterprises

[WOM]

This says infinitely more about the individuals than the enterprises

Does it, though? These are companies with systems for operation, inventory, HR, finance. Yet a board of directors without a strategic visionary at the head of the table can't steer the ship beyond next week. It's baffling. My point is that Fox was Murdoch...the two are indivisible. Look at Apotex without Barry Sherman...already sold. Fox will be, too. Or broken up.

[Lang Spoon]

Strategic visionary is often code for unhinged bullshitter. Lots of companies do well without em.

[Hot Pepsi]

Strategic visionary is often code for unhinged bullshitter. Lots of companies do well without em.

It doesn't matter if it's bullshit if everyone in the organization is committed to the same bullshit.

I recall Jim Collins, that business guru researcher guy who wrote Good to Great, said something like that. I didn't read it, but I saw it in an interview. He admits that it's scary because it means that if the whole organization is committed to the same evil goal, it will do better than an organization of good people who don't have a specific common goal.

[Guy Profumo]

Ave bossa nova, similis bossa seneca

(Lachlan takes over from Rupert)

[WOM]

Ave bossa nova, similis bossa seneca

(Lachlan takes over from Rupert)

Haha. You really think Kendall is the new Logan?

[Hot Pepsi]

[Nefertiti2]

people who lost their parents to fox news

[Sits]

These are companies with systems for operation, inventory, HR, finance.

Doubtless, and these will be systems The Market expects them to have. But it doesn’t make them good systems. Just about every (if not every) FTSE Top 50 company uses SAP or Oracle. I wonder if any of them have an employee community think SAP or Oracle are good systems which help them do their jobs. My 19-year experience of SAP (a system designed for manufacturing businesses) has been ordinary, to say the least. But it doesn’t matter, that’s what the City wants. It’s like Big 4(?) accounting firms. The market expects all big companies to use them, and look how they are turning out.

[WOM]

Sorry…I meant systems in the sense of people who do jobs…ways of working….daily responsibilities. Structures…the sorts of things that, ideally, should mean the company keeps operating even if the charismatic figurehead / visionary gets run over by a bus. Think Steve Jobs. Apple still operates quite well, but the spark seems to have gone out with him. Now, it’s just evolution, not revolution.

[ad hoc]

I suspect it's not about whether the company can function or do the things it was doing before the retirement and/or death of a well known ceo, it's that "the market" suddenly worries that it can't. And all that anyone cares about is the share price not boring things like function or sustainability

[ad hoc]

Apple doesn't seem like a good example to make your point. It's continued perfectly well without Jobs.

[San Bernardhinault]

Yeah. Company with the largest market capitalisation in the world, with an adoring fanbase, captive clients who have multiple devices and therefore won't move on to change any one of those products (watch, phone, tablet, laptop) because of the risk that everything else is less compatible, very profitable products, still broadly considered either market leader or close to market leader, doesn't feel like a business that's struggling. It's like danielmak complaining about how the Dodgers are doomed because one relief pitcher had a slightly iffy game.

[Sits]

On Apple, they are indeed highly successful but they fundamentally do not put the customer first and I really don’t know if it’s even worse post-Jobs. An expensive product which will be completely inoperable/unsupported without regular updates, which will ultimately fill it up to the point it’s inoperable. I’m so angry with myself for being another pawn in this game, but I am.

[Etienne]

Lachlan adds the mad monk to the News Corp board. Doesn't bode well.

[Sits]

With any luck he’ll be a disastrous board member.

[Nefertiti2]

Owen Jones on Murdoch

https://x.com/OwenJones84/status/1705171142141456806?s=20