Extract from The New Daily
Imagine a world without Donald Trump and his mini me, James David Vance, and Rupert Murdoch and his mini me, Lachlan Murdoch.
Can we even imagine that? Especially about the Murdochs?
But after a decade of Trump madness and many decades of the shadow of Murdoch bending our politics, and our lives, it seems that inconceivably, unexpectedly, that’s where we are.
A second Trump victory seemed certain with the senescent Joe Biden hanging on, but Kamala Harris is now energising the Democrats and with Trump’s shortcomings laid bare, he is a good chance to lose.
Fight for control
And in Reno, Nevada, 93-year-old Rupert Murdoch is trying to preserve his control of the company beyond the grave by disenfranchising three of his children – James, Elizabeth and Prudence – and cementing Lachlan’s control, revealed by the New York Times a few days ago.
Rupert and Lachlan could easily lose, in which case the Murdoch empire would flip from right wing to centre left when he dies, back to what The Australian was like under Adrian Deamer when I started work there 54 years ago, before Rupert sacked him a year later.
As things stand, the Murdoch family trust voting structure gives Rupert full control, but when he dies each of the four kids get one equal vote each. Since Lachlan will be outnumbered three to one, Rupert wants to change trust voting rules to give him full control when Rupert’s gone.
He’s called it “Project Harmony”, but it’s anything but harmonious: James, Elizabeth and Prudence are fighting tooth and nail to prevent Lachlan getting control, with a trial is expected to start in September. The action is taking place in Reno because Nevada is a popular state for dynastic family trusts because it has favourable probate laws and privacy protections.
Follow the money
The New York Times has been leaked a 48-page pre-trial decision by the Nevada probate commissioner in which he found that Murdoch could amend the trust if he is able to show he is acting in good faith and for the sole benefit of his heirs. The trial in probate court is to determine that.
Murdoch is quoted in the document as saying that he’s concerned that the “lack of consensus” among his children “would impact the strategic direction at both companies, including a potential reorientation of editorial policy and content”.
It’s not clear from that quote whether Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch are being motivated by ideology or money, but it’s probably both. With Murdoch it’s hard to separate dosh from dogma.
The right-wing bias that the Murdoch media businesses have adopted over the past few decades has been a massive money spinner with Fox News in the US.
Editorial stance
With News Corp it’s harder to discern because the company is dominated by a 61 per cent shareholding in REA.
The two companies’ market values are about the same – about $25 billion – so News Corp is basically a holding company for REA with the Wall Street Journal thrown in. The rest of the business – New York Post, The Australian, the Australian tabloids and Sky – are politically influential, but have little value.
We learned that James was uncomfortable with the company’s editorial stance on climate change when he quit the board in 2019 citing “disagreements over certain editorial content published by the company’s news outlets,” and then in 2020 he and his wife Kathryn expressed their “frustration with some of the News Corp and Fox coverage” of climate change in a statement to The Daily Beast, noting “the ongoing denial among the news outlets in Australia”.
After the January 6, 2020, riots in Washington, James indirectly criticised Fox News, saying that unnamed “outlets that propagate lies to their audience” had “unleashed insidious and uncontrollable forces that will be with us for years”.
Long-term prospects
The piece in NYT says James differed with his father and brother over Fox News’ support for Donald Trump because the play for “short-term ratings gains would undercut the company’s long-term prospects”.
Taken at face value that suggests James, and by implication Elizabeth and Prudence, think that while Rupert’s and Lachlan’s right-wing, pro-Trump editorial strategy might be good for short-term profits, it’s bad for the long term.
And that’s the question that will be on the minds of other News Corp and Fox Corp shareholders as they watch the drama of “Project Harmony” unfold in Reno: If James and his sisters get control, what will happen to revenue?
Anyone who owns shares in those companies is obviously comfortable with the editorial policy and content, but James, Elizabeth and Prudence must be revolted by it. If they were just motivated by money, they would get on with their lives and let Lachlan make lots of cash for them, but they can’t – according to the New York Times story, they want to stop him.
And while it’s possible that Rupert and Lachlan are 100 per cent cynics and are only right-wingers for financial gain, it’s more likely they believe what their dogs are barking.
Ideological struggle
So the Reno probate court is playing host to an ideological struggle that will alter the world, and especially Australia, the UK and US – a corporate version of their elections, not to mention a real-life version of the TV show Succession.
And it’s fitting that the decision by the Nevada probate court will be about good faith. That should be an easy one for the court.
As for Donald Trump v Kamala Harris, the big question now is whether a Harris victory in November would lead to civil war, or at least disruptive, paralysing unrest. Maybe it will.
There will be a lot of angry, well-armed Trump supporters who will believe, once again, that the election was stolen and/or rigged, and they will be egged on by Trump, unless the Republicans generally somehow gag him and support the result.
The MAGA warriors will also be egged on by Fox, unless James, Elizabeth and Prudence are running it.
The world is approaching a double turning point: How will the Republicans behave when they lose in November and who will control Fox and News Corp?
There’s a lot at stake in Reno, Nevada.
Alan Kohler writes weekly for The New Daily. He is finance presenter on the ABC News and also writes for Intelligent Investor
No comments:
Post a Comment