Sociopathic Liar Taking Over 21st Century Fox: Report

20.64K

J.K. Trotter

06/11/15 11:05AM

Filed to: fox

CNBC is reporting that 21st Century Fox C.E.O. Rupert Murdoch is planning to transfer his title to his 42-year-old son James:

While James Murdoch, 42, would take over the day-to-day management of Fox, he will work in tandem with his 43-year-old brother Lachlan and his father. Sources who have spoken with the Murdochs in recent weeks tell me they have shared their plans openly and describe the Murdoch brothers’ new roles as a “partnership.”

You may remember James for his role in News International’s phone-hacking scandal, during which he testified before the British Parliament that he was completely unaware of the criminal activities taking place at News of the World and other tabloids owned by Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers (NGN) conglomerate.

Almost immediately after his testimony in July 2011, a former editor and a former lawyer for News of the World announced that Murdoch was, in fact, aware of one of the most damaging pieces of evidence related to the phone hacking scandal: the infamous “for Neville” email sent by NotW reporter Ross Hindley that contained transcripts of hacked voicemail messages left by the English footballer Gordon Taylor for his legal advisor, Jo Armstrong. That email suggested, among other things, that News of the World editors had encouraged systemic hacking of celebrities’ cell phones. (An internal memo prepared by News International lawyer Michael Silverleaf further indicated the extent to which News of the World editors were aware of the paper’s criminal liability.)

In response to the editor and lawyer who accused him of lying to Parliament, Murdoch stood by his testimony, without clarifying why.

According to the New York Times, Murdoch’s new title will be discussed next week, at 21st Century Fox’s scheduled board meeting.

Have any good stories about James Murdoch? Send us an email.

Email or gchat the author: trotter@gawker.com · PGP key + fingerprint · Photo credit: AP

The following replies are approved. To see additional replies that are pending approval, click Show Pending. Warning: These may contain graphic material.

8

Don'tPokeTheWhere J.K. Trotter 06/11/15 11:21AM

I wouldn’t expect anything else. The Murdochs are running a family business that just happens to be a publicly traded company. They’ve still got nothing on how incestuous Italian family run companies structure their ownership. I mean it’s all dirty but the Italians have managed to create a ownership structure not even the Murdochs could manage.

22

SlickWillie Don'tPokeTheWhere 06/11/15 11:25AM

holy fuck I don’t think I’ve seen bigotry towards Italians since the Cubs won the World Series, well done.

14

Don'tPokeTheWhere SlickWillie 06/11/15 11:26AM

Not AY-talians, the American faux Mediterranean treat, actual Italians.

5

dothedew Don'tPokeTheWhere 06/11/15 11:27AM

Many media and cable companies in this country have a 2 tier ownership with the founding family controlling the voting shares. The public may own a majority of the shares but can never get control.

3

SlickWillie Don'tPokeTheWhere 06/11/15 11:28AM

oh ok yeah fuck those guys

3

Taint Nuttin J.K. Trotter 06/11/15 11:23AM

Nothing new, but it’s always worth mentioning that James was the money behind Rawkus Records. Probably just a coincidence they started out by putting out some classic records, then by the time they petered out they had a big role in sparking the backpacker-backlash when they switched up to predominantly more club-friendly production.

1

SlickWillie Taint Nuttin 06/11/15 11:45AM

Wait, whatttttttt

Soundbombing II and Lyricists Lounge 3 were probably the apex of hip hop. That record label is why I will always insist hip hop peaked in 1999

3

OrtizDupri Taint Nuttin 06/11/15 11:53AM

YES BUT “Oh No” is still one of my favorite songs of all time.

I always found it funny that a Fox News heir was behind Rawkus, one of the seminal “underground” labels of all time.

Taint Nuttin SlickWillie 06/11/15 11:56AM

Check their discogrophy in chronological order and you can see what I’m talking about... they started off with lots of DJ Spinna and Shawn J. Period production, vibey head-nodders, and by the end they were rolling with Kanye and putting Nate Dogg on tracks. They seemed to be exhibit A on people just throwing in the towel on putting out quality, non-jiggy rap back then.

1

SlickWillie Taint Nuttin 06/11/15 12:10PM

Oh no, I clearly remember. I had actually moved on to 9th Wonder/Little Brother by then anyway.

4

amt J.K. Trotter 06/11/15 11:22AM

On the plus side, James doesn’t really give a crap about being a political player like Rupert does so he might be less inclined to keep the Fox News crew around.

I’d love to see them spun off as a separate company from 21st Century Fox in an IPO so they find out how fast all of that “immoral leftist Hollywood garbage” actually helped keep them afloat.

2

Don'tPokeTheWhere amt 06/11/15 11:28AM

It’s long been an article of faith that the Ruper Discount has afflicted the News Group stock. Without Rupert the assets would be worth a lot more, and would also be less apt to play yellow journalistic games.

isgk amt 06/12/15 09:07AM

Well they have consistently gotten more viewers than MSNBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, so the thought that they are not making literally assloads of cash and are instead losing cash and have to be floated by another division is laughable at best.

amt isgk 06/12/15 10:26AM

They are the number one news network, but even their top show The O’Reilly Factor only tops off at about 3.1 Million viewers, which is what Community would get when it was on the air (which people joked about nobody ever watching).

Also, the network heavily skews towards older people who are far less attractive to advertisers as while they may be doing well financially, they are reluctant to switch brands and try new products, so that limits what advertisers are willing to spend.

They do get money from cable fees, but combined with the big salaries Fox News pays out to O’Reilly, Hannity and their star reporters and the general business model of the news networks (MSNBC and CNN included), the margins are still super tight and a profit can easily become a loss.

If any of those companies were stand alone (or not government funded like BBC or Al Jazeera), they really wouldn’t have a leg to stand on financially. There’s a reason they’re all a part of various big conglomerates (21st Century Fox, Comcast, TimeWarner, etc)

isgk amt 06/12/15 06:39PM

http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2013/cable-a-g…

Fox news channel has 890 million in actual profit.... yeah they are hanging on by a thread. The horrors of pushing so close to 900 mill in profit every year after paying all your employees, contracts, business and other bills

24

OMG!PONIES! J.K. Trotter 06/11/15 11:29AM

It’s not really surprising. Rupert is getting up there in age so he needs to make sure everything is in place for his new host body.

2

cuntybaws OMG!PONIES! 06/11/15 12:02PM

Certainly James is dumb enough that there’s probably a lot of empty space in that noggin already: daddy can just get poured in there