Quick Clip
Print

Murdoch Biographer Wolff: Broadening News Corp. Scandal May Force Murdoch To "Get Rid Of [His] Business In The UK"

February 14, 2012 9:50 am ET

From the February 14 edition of CNN's Starting Point:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Murdoch Hits the Hacking Trifecta

News Corp. Hacking Admissions Spread To Times of London; FBI Focuses U.S Investigation

PHONE HACKS: A Guide To Resignations, Arrests, And Convictions During The News Corp. Scandal  

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Imbecile (February 14, 2012 9:53 am ET)
      13  
      That's nice, but it'll be even better when he's forced to ditch his business ventures in the U.S.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Psycho3D (February 14, 2012 9:59 am ET)
        1  
        So are you saying to get rid of all the business's he owns in the US, or sell them off?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Imbecile (February 14, 2012 10:20 am ET)
          7  
          Either. Of course, I think we already know that his absence will create a vacuum that will soon be filled by someone else.

          The type of dishonest, hateful, xenophobic journalism that Fox News spawned is here to stay, I'm afraid.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Psycho3D (February 14, 2012 10:34 am ET)
            1 8
            As pointed out below News Corp isn't just Fox News, or the Sun for that matter, There are many companies within News Corp that have nothing to do with news. To get rid of News Corp as a whole would mean a lot of selling off of assets, rights to movies, and such. I just don't think its a good idea, especially since many of the companies are good money makers, and they provide jobs. And I'm not talking about the "anchors" at Fox News.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Imbecile (February 14, 2012 10:38 am ET)
              5  
              See my reply below with a link to the list of all of NewsCorp's holdings.

              Many of those entities existed long before the arrival of News Corp and will continue to exist long after.

              Besides, isn't it one of the major tenets of capitalism that if these companies can't survive on their own, they don't deserve to?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Psycho3D (February 14, 2012 10:48 am ET)
                1 4
                If no one wants to buy it up sure. I don't think a company should exist just to exist. If they aren't successful what is the point of operating. If its a big company we can get into the issue of employment, would that company going under put a strain on the job market and economy? That is an emotional argument, and a very real argument to consider. But If a company can't turn a profit, it is just a vacuum of money, and what is the point of existence?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Imbecile (February 14, 2012 10:54 am ET)
                  5  
                  If its a big company we can get into the issue of employment, would that company going under put a strain on the job market and economy? That is an emotional argument, and a very real argument to consider.


                  Does this statement indicate that you are not a free-marketer?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Psycho3D (February 14, 2012 11:12 am ET)
                    1 1
                    No, I am a free market guy, but I also have the aptitude to look at all issues before I make a judgement. While I am not perfect by any means, I do my best not to look at something with a blind eye, or blind faith.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Psycho3D (February 14, 2012 11:14 am ET)
                        1
                      without*
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 14, 2012 11:21 am ET)
                      5 1
                      Sorry, but it seems like the crux of your argument is that when holdings are sold off by parent companies, those holdings cease to exist. If News Corp. sells of 20th Century Fox, I'm pretty sure that they'll still be making movies. Same with the other holdings. Murdoch didn't buy most of his assets because they couldn't survive without a giant parent company squatting over them, he did so because they were profitable (with the exception of the ever-so-excrable Wall Street Journal, of course). If those holdings were spun off, if News Corp were deconstructed, it wouldn't have any impact on the job market. But it would probably have an impact on the quality of journalism in America.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by pete592 (February 14, 2012 3:55 pm ET)
                           
                        Don't forget MySpace. Murdoch bought it for $580m and wound up dumping it off to Justin Timberlake for $35m.
                        Report Abuse
                • Author by epkklk851 (February 14, 2012 11:02 am ET)
                  7 1
                  Yes, but in mergermania, many companies that were making tidy profits were bought up by bigger companies who either eliminated the threat of their competition or they used these companies for assets and sold them off in dribs and drabs, making a profit on the piecemealing. There would be pressure on the labor markets, because the new company often required fewer workers, especially middle level manager types, since each company had had their own, but now only needed one set. That's why this type of Capitalism is called Vulture Capitalism. In an unregulated "Free Market" economy, the ultimate result is monoply, and monoply is the death of "Free Enterprise".
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by blk-in-alabam (February 14, 2012 12:04 pm ET)
                    1  
                    Sometimes the bought-up company has been left with too much debt to allow the company to buy needed to stay competitive more efficient/productive equipment,and retain,or hire additional experienced productive employees.....Especially if one of the purpose of the buy out was to cash out the equity of the previous owners.........Maybe offering those owners more options to cash out their equity may prevent what happens when new owners want to recover the 100 tear equity they paid out to purchase the business in a couple of years
                    Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (February 14, 2012 9:57 am ET)
      5  
      The vulture capitalist are coming to fox news,the vulture capitalist are coming to fox news......They have already got started by telling Murdoch to ditch fox business's prime time line-up..........Eric Boling got a tip from a hooker,and made a run for the five...Either that or he is just one of the rats looking for a dry place
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Psycho3D (February 14, 2012 9:58 am ET)
      3 2
      I'm sure he will be ok
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Liberal in the South (February 14, 2012 10:04 am ET)
      3 2
      It's naht mah fauhlt thah bahtendah cut yah off last night yah friggin d___bag!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Conchobhar (February 14, 2012 2:47 pm ET)
        1  
        Wicked cool.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Liberal in the South (February 14, 2012 3:03 pm ET)
            1
          It's from adam sandlers "tollbooth willy"

          Murdoch reminds me of an alcoholic with that red nose, I thought it was appropriate
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Conchobhar (February 14, 2012 3:22 pm ET)
               
            Oh. I thought you were sending up my Beantown cousins' accents.
            Speaking of which, congrats to the Eagles, 3-2 victors over the Terriers in last night's Beanpot final.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by GBU-15 (February 14, 2012 10:06 am ET)
      3  
      Murdoch is in serious trouble in the U.K. There is real pressure to downsize or get rid of NewsCorp altogether. Murdoch may not be totally gone but his power will be seriously diminished!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Psycho3D (February 14, 2012 10:11 am ET)
        1 8
        First that is just nonsense to get rid of News Corp as a whole. Sure their are several entities with in News Corp that we can do without, but I think your emotions are clouding your judgement.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (February 14, 2012 10:20 am ET)
          4 2
          Oh, there are more than "several" NewsCorp entities that the world could do without. It's not emotions, it's fact. The world doesn't need the kind of trash that Murdoch passes off as "news" outlets.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Psycho3D (February 14, 2012 10:27 am ET)
            1 5
            News Corp as whole isn't just News Though, You have Fox entertainment, Fox network, and many magazines that have nothing to do with news.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (February 14, 2012 10:33 am ET)
              1 3
              I know, Psycho. Did you read my post at all? I was specific to the alleged "news" outlets.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Psycho3D (February 14, 2012 10:37 am ET)
                  4
                Yes, I was just saying that getting rid of News Corp as a whole is an emotional argument, and it wouldn't serve any purpose other than the small feeling of vindication some would feel.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by bintx (February 14, 2012 10:48 am ET)
                  2 3
                  I will repeat, did you read my comment? Nothing that you're talking about in your comment above has a thing to do with mine.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by curiousindependent (February 14, 2012 10:53 am ET)
              4  
              News Corp as whole isn't just News Though, You have Fox entertainment, Fox network, and many magazines that have nothing to do with news.
              News Corp isn't news at all. In any of it's manifestations. NO FNC subsidiary has anything even remotely to do with news.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by Imbecile (February 14, 2012 10:30 am ET)
          5  
          NewsCorp is a holding company that buys up media for no other reason than to reap the financial benefits of ownership.

          In the cases where they purchased journalistic publications, they turned those publications into little more than tabloid-style, sensationalist rags, in some cases destroying long-built reputations.

          This list of what they have their hands in should make anyone who claims to be a free-marketer cringe.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by okiepoli (February 14, 2012 11:28 am ET)
            3  
            ...and you can supplant that list with the information here.

            Information at Freepress would also make a free-marketer cringe.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Imbecile (February 14, 2012 11:50 am ET)
                 
              I like the layout of the information.

              Thanks for the link.

              This kind of information should make anyone who values a free press, a free market, and free ideas both angry and sad.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by What Happened to Gannon (February 14, 2012 10:09 am ET)
      1  
      "Get the #$%@ off the island, crook!"
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (February 14, 2012 10:17 am ET)
      6  

      That was an OK interview I guess, I'd rate it a three on a scale of ten, which makes it about three times better than most things broadcast on television under the guise of news and/or commentary...

      But I don't see how they spoke for four minutes about this particular matter, without once mentioning the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

      I also don't see how it was they didn't mention the fact that much of murdoch's and News Corp's lucrative US earnings come by way of federal licensing, by way of the many FCC Licences they hold or otherwise broadcast through (in a contractual manner), which are in truth the sources of News Corp's financial power and political power both...

      And of the two of those things, it's their political power and their power to influence and manipulate the political opinions of the American people, it's there where the greatest power is... it is by that use of steel and iron (to use an ancient Roman saying) that much gold is acquired.

      Which again, is mostly a federally licensed power and authority... that means you approve authorize and enable most of News Corp's power in the US, by way of your FCC.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by boxtop (February 14, 2012 10:18 am ET)
        8
      I know some of you can't stand some Fox hosts, but CNN has some hosts that bug me. Piers Morgan, Wolf Blitzer, the woman in this clip, etc.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (February 14, 2012 10:22 am ET)
        3 3
        And? I can't stand Piers Morgan or Wolf Blitzer. I kind of like Soledad O'Brien, but I don't watch her very often. I don't watch Morgan or Blitzer, either. Don't like Chris Matthews or Ed Schultz on MSNBC.

        So, what was your point again?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (February 14, 2012 10:24 am ET)
          1 4
          Oh, and don't get me started on Lawrence O'Donnell. I'm sure he's a good guy, but he's just too much of a drama queen for my taste.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Dem02020 (February 14, 2012 10:32 am ET)
          5  

          I think the point was to distract you and throw you off from commenting on murdoch's and News Corp's troubles, especially in the US (which of course was what the video clip is about).

          That's the point I think to the flurry of several comments to quickly appear above, by these types and on this issue.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (February 14, 2012 10:34 am ET)
            1 4
            Actually, I don't think it was distract me. It was simply a false equivalence. Boxy's not bright enough to distract.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by boxtop (February 14, 2012 10:45 am ET)
          3 4
          You made my point.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (February 14, 2012 10:49 am ET)
            4 5
            You didn't have one, boxy. That was my point. You rarely ever have a point. :)
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (February 14, 2012 10:49 am ET)
            3 5
            Oh, and thanks for the thumbs down . . . verifies that I made my point. LOL!
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Imbecile (February 14, 2012 10:50 am ET)
            7  
            I don't think we made the point you think we made.

            You see, you made your comment operating under the delusion that every single news channel except Fox News is raging liberal.

            We don't believe that. Most of us tend to believe that, while MSNBC does host liberal shows in the evenings, it is still corporate-owned and, in the end, if push comes to shove, will ditch their liberal programming in favor of pro-corporate Republicanism.

            Most of us also tend to believe that CNN is trying to copy Fox News's playbook, but is failing miserably at it and is little more than a caricature of what it once was.

            I'm not sure that's what you were thinking when you posted your comment.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (February 14, 2012 10:55 am ET)
              1 3
              I don't like any of 'em . . . I prefer to get my news on my own. I don't need some overpaid entertainer on television to tell me what I'm supposed to be thinking. Political ideology is irrelevant.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Psycho3D (February 14, 2012 11:03 am ET)
                3 2
                But, unless you are the most resourceful person you will always rely on someone for your news , whether it is A News Network, or local people blogging about what is going on in their neck of the woods. Unless the news is happening right now, and you are witnessing it right now, there is always enough time for the people to put their spin on it, and sometimes its not conscious. My Grandmother always told me there are 3 sides to a story. Each parties side, then what actually happened. Getting what actually happened can be the hardest part.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Imbecile (February 14, 2012 11:07 am ET)
                  6  
                  When it comes to political news, you can always just read the statements, speeches, or interviews with the political figures.

                  This removes the filter of any news organization spinning the words of the politicians.

                  Then, when a politician makes claims about the efficacy of programs or other ideas, you can always look at the research yourself.

                  The data is out there for anyone who wants to locate it. This is called the Information Age for a good reason.

                  The problem is that too many people assume that, since the information is readily available to everyone, anyone presenting it wouldn't dare lie, so they take the information at face value.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Psycho3D (February 14, 2012 11:41 am ET)
                    2 3
                    Yes there are plenty of Filtration steps you can make, and these are some great ones. But you have to realize to that Politicians that are only politicians( by that I mean they only care for their own hides, and careers, "Newt" is a grand example) will say anything if they think that will help them, and they rely on the short memory we seem to have as a nation to cover their tracks. As for statistics, reports, and such they can be a great tool, if it is unbiased , but often times statistics, and reports are commissioned to prove a preconceived idea and those conducting the reports, or statistics will find away to prove their idea is truth, the opposite of the scientific method.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Imbecile (February 14, 2012 11:49 am ET)
                      4  
                      True, which is why we always need to look at the source.

                      When I was in college, one of my professors had a great saying (I'm not sure if he coined it, or borrowed it from someone else, but it was still good). He told us, "Figures can't lie, but liars can figure."

                      So, yes, there is no fool-proof way to ensure that all the information you get will always be unbiased and authentic, but having the will to do at least check probably means you're a better-informed voter and will be much more critical of your own decisions than someone who just willingly accepts whatever their favorite news outlet tells them.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by bintx (February 14, 2012 11:15 am ET)
                  4 3
                  Actually, no, Psycho. I listen to or read the actual statements of the people involved. I don't give a rip about the opinions of other folks. For instance, when the reports regarding the Duelfer Report (the Iraq Study Group) came out, I read the report, I didn't listen to the BS that was being spewed about it. When I came across a mention of the PNAC document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses for the 21st Century," which outlined, in detail, the wrongful invasion of Iraq and how it could be accomplished, I went to the PNAC site, printed the document and read it myself.

                  News is news. What your Grandmother was talking about was opinion, not news.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Psycho3D (February 14, 2012 11:32 am ET)
                    5 1
                    I can see your point. I think its good that you take your time to research these. I do that to, on occasion, if I really care about the story and something doesn't smell right. But I really don't have the time or the will power to do that for every story that crosses me. But Kudos to you for being that way.

                    I just gave you a thumbs up
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by wenfen (February 14, 2012 11:53 am ET)
                    6  
                    You know, I still say, Rolling Stone has excellent journalism. They have have always exposed the messes they call wars (I call occupations) in Iraq and Afghanastan.

                    BBC
                    Al- Jazeera (Yes Boxy and Psycho, I said Al-Jazeera)

                    Rachel Maddow. (Makes me feel safe and sane every evening)

                    Jon Stewart and S. Colbert (Because at the end of the day, you just gotta laugh at it all)
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by okiepoli (February 14, 2012 12:12 pm ET)
                      2  
                      I'd add Amy Goodman to that list. Good investigative journalist. <But her voice annoys me...>
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by boxtop (February 14, 2012 11:21 am ET)
              1 13
              Media Matters controls MSNBC.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (February 14, 2012 10:24 am ET)
        8  
        Note to CNN:

        Please allow Boxy to have the final say on anyone who appears on your network.

        This will be your last warning!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Imbecile (February 14, 2012 10:36 am ET)
        1  
        CNN is for people who like the sensationalist dishonesty of Fox News but like to pretend to be sophisticated.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Psycho3D (February 14, 2012 10:57 am ET)
          2 4
          Its actually funny because I remember that during the Clinton administration everyone was saying that CNN was in be with the Clinton's, it was the Clinton News Network.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Imbecile (February 14, 2012 11:03 am ET)
            5 1
            Of course, those are the same people who insist the media is liberal. And those people who called it the Clinton News Network, or the Communist News Network still think CNN is liberal.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by boxtop (February 14, 2012 11:28 am ET)
              2 11
              I have REAL news for you. With the exception of FOX, the news media is LIBERAL. CNN is not as liberal as it once was, but MSNBC should broadcast from Russia.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by n'est-ce pas (February 14, 2012 12:16 pm ET)
               
            Yeah, "everyone" also said the media was liberal. It's almost like "everyone" is full of chit.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by dogbreath (February 14, 2012 11:04 am ET)
          2  
          To be honest they are the only major cable news outlet covering anything going on in Syria - CNN still has decent foreign news coverage WHEN they actually decide to air it. Like many have said, CNN Europe is much better than what we get here and periodically they allow that to spill over into their international coverage - not often, but it happens on occasion.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Camera (February 14, 2012 12:26 pm ET)
               
            This is true. When I travel outside of the US I find CNN to be a reliable news source. Not so much here.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by westmassman (February 14, 2012 10:29 am ET)
      3  
      Murdoch Biographer Wolff: Broadening News Corp. Scandal May Force Murdoch To "Get Rid Of [His] Business In The UK"

      So the Brits are ahead of us again .......
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotshark (February 14, 2012 10:34 am ET)
      3  
      Good deal then he can come back to the USA and watch Fox/Saudi? propaganda entertainment news and company's go as well.

      the world would not miss them.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Iceguy (February 14, 2012 10:37 am ET)
      1  
      Poor baby, can't hack anymore emails and phones to become rich.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (February 14, 2012 11:49 am ET)
      3  
      It's looking more and more like Murdoch isn't going to be able to find journalists in the UK who are willing to work for him...

      Journalists inside News Corp. and its British division, News International, are said to be furious at upper management, including the Murdochs, for their willingness to cooperate so extensively with police. In addition, the latest round of arrests at the Sun have left employees there feeling betrayed and adrift, darkly telling other news outlets that the Murdochs are using their reporters as human shields. (As one senior executive told the Mirror, "there is nothing the Murdochs will not do to protect their own backs.")
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotshark (February 14, 2012 11:55 am ET)
      4  
      Calling Bain Capital there's a entertainment news franchise on the table.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 14, 2012 1:18 pm ET)
        1  
        And, to balance their books, they have to fire either 100 office workers or Sean Hannity. I wonder what those "job creators" will decide.....?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pilotshark (February 14, 2012 1:44 pm ET)
          2  
          be fun to watch as you notice rush hasn't said crap about Mitt, you know he wants to but when it comes down to it Bain is controlling owner of clear channel.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (February 14, 2012 11:58 am ET)
      1  
      Great. What'll it take to get rid of him here?

      ---------------------------------------
      IMHO
      UTOPIA
      Report Abuse
    • Author by FNC Liberal (February 14, 2012 12:35 pm ET)
      2  
      Bossmen Murdoch, Ailes and the rest of the Fox News idiot executives are using the attacks against Media Matters to cover-up the widening of the phone hacking scandal. Media Matters, they are scared of you. They are using conservative publications to stop you.

      If you think the hacking scandal is only limited to the U.K., babies, I have a Long Island Railroad to sell you. I can't wait to see News Corporation executives and employees in the U.S. arrested. The FBI is right to focus their attention on the U.S. side of News Corporation. I have no doubt in my mind that they will find something. No doubt at all!




      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (February 14, 2012 1:21 pm ET)
        2  
        I'm guessing that Uncle Rupert has thick dossiers on most of the Republicans on Capitol Hill. They'll protect him, unless he gets caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (February 14, 2012 2:59 pm ET)
           
        If there is or was something there, the shredders at News Corp affiliates in the US would have been working overtime long before the FBI started paying attention. Still, coverups can only cover up so much. If one employee gets painted into a corner by the Feds and starts talking, look out.
        Report Abuse