Is Murdoch responsible for a single major PoD?

[teg]

Can Rupert Murdoch be held for any major political development? I don't mean whether TV shows survive or not, but the outcome of elections and decisions on economics etc...

[black angel]

FOX news was the first to call Florida for Bush in 2000, all the other News networks went with FOX's lead and thus the recount was framed as "whiny Al won't give it up"

they also set up those Tea Parties in early 2009 that kicked off the tea party movement

[Cook]

Significantly influenced the abolition of the Death Penalty in Australia. Google the conviction for murder in 1959 and subsequent appeal of Max Stuart in South Australia.

[celt]

This headline from his biggest selling UK paper supposedly helped cost the Labour party the 1992 election,if they won there probably won't be a New Labour and no Tony Blair as PM.
Not sure what would happen to the Tories though,probably lots of infighting over Europe.
It could mean huge changes to the UK.


It's The Sun Wot Won It - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ThatGuyOverThere]

I dont know, I know it doesnt fit into a lot of peoples view of Murdoch as some bastion of capitalist propaganda, but it seems the Sun at least is more a case of being based on popular opinion rather than influencing it. Look at 97-as much as it pains me to say it, the Tories were a busted flush, and a News International that didnt switch to Labour would lose out. Saying that though, he does seem to be quite effective at making views and ideas more well known, so I think its more of a case of spreading opinions rather than forming them. I'd like to see a TL where Murdoch never goes into the media, but puts what seems an incredible drive and work ethic into other areas, perhaps mining

[ThatGuyOverThere]

Originally Posted by Cook

Significantly influenced the abolition of the Death Penalty in Australia. Google the conviction for murder in 1959 and subsequent appeal of Max Stuart in South Australia.

I would have always assumed Murdoch would support the death penalty, but its like i just said (double post, sorry), maybe he was just reacting to public opinion. Was abolition widely supported across Australia?

[Cook]

Originally Posted by ThatGuyOverThere

I would have always assumed Murdoch would support the death penalty, but its like i just said (double post, sorry), maybe he was just reacting to public opinion. Was abolition widely supported across Australia?

No, at the time there was no strong pressure against the Death Penalty and Max Stuart’s appeal was going nowhere until Murdock started to champion the case.

For some reason people in America identify Murdock as Fox instead of realising that he’s a canny businessman who saw a market for a product; he isn’t that product.

Politicly it is usually acknowledged here that Murdock likes to be on the winning side.

[ThatGuyOverThere]

Originally Posted by Cook

No, at the time there was no strong pressure against the Death Penalty and Max Stuart’s appeal was going nowhere until Murdock started to champion the case.

For some reason people in America identify Murdock as Fox instead of realising that he’s a canny businessman who saw a market for a product; he isn’t that product.

Politicly it is usually acknowledged here that Murdock likes to be on the winning side.

Hmm, you learn a new thing every day. This is what gets me about criticism of Murdoch, he's doing the exact same things anyone in that business does, only he's better at it. From 1997 to 2010, Murdoch was a reliable reflection of public opinion in the UK, and then he suddenly became a vile media tyrant trying to control the world. I wonder what caused that shift?

[Cook]

Originally Posted by ThatGuyOverThere

I wonder what caused that shift?

People thought Tomorrow Never Dies was a documentary?

[ThatGuyOverThere]

Originally Posted by Cook

People thought Tomorrow Never Dies was a documentary?

I was thinking it was him shifting his support to the neo-feudal capitalist toffs of the Tories, but that works too

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

I think yes, not because of Murdoch, the Labour Party will get the government from the Tories in 1992.

[Magniac]

Originally Posted by teg

Can Rupert Murdoch be held for any major political development? I don't mean whether TV shows survive or not, but the outcome of elections and decisions on economics etc...

There are a number of things he has done that are major developments without necessarily being easily quantifiable Points of Divergence. Corporate and social Big Picture reforms tend not to hinge on little details:

--Created Australia's first national newspaper, The Australian, and in the process helped push the Oz MSM of the day to adopt more anti-establishment views. Even though this is now considered to have been nothing more than cynical bandwagon politicking (Rupe was for Whitlamite Laborism before he was against it) I really do think his broadsheet paper set the standard for the small 'l' liberal reporting that is now associated with the Fairfax Papers and the ABC. ('The Australian' is now the bastion of the Rightwing commentariat in this country.)

--Purchased 'News of The World' and created 'The Sun' newspaper in the UK, making tabloid media more powerful than it had ever been before in that country. Popularised the old fuddy duddy 'Times', and removed the hard investigative journalistic edge of 'The Sunday Times'.

--Promoted and then exploited media ownership deregulation in Australia, the UK and America. This is probably the big one. Media consolidation. Sure, maybe Conrad Black or Summer Redstone would have done it if he hadn't, but as per Al Gore and the Internet, Murdoch "took the lead" on this issue.

--Made subscription TV what it is today in Aust and UK. He's more important in those two markets than he has ever had been in US cable. Soccer on Sky in Britain. Say no more.

--Created 24 hr tabloid news channels. Not such a big development in Aust or GB, but a major thing in America. FoxNews is his American legacy (other than, perhaps, his triumph over congress vis-a-vis ownership laws.)

--Has attempted to expand into China as a corporate equal of the Beijing and Shanghai elites. His success at this is questionable, though certainly worth noting.

--Is attempting to bring back Internet paywalls for regular online news media, not just premium content. This is potentially huge.


I think everything else is secondary to these points. Buying the 'Wall Street Journal' and 20th Century Fox's Hollywood operation, or selling his stakes in network TV in Australia, or buying and selling and then repurchasing the NY Post, they're all secondary.

Now, his effect on Rightwing politics in the English speaking world, his cosying up to the PRC regime, his alleged campaign to besmirch the good name of the British Royals, all those things are debatable.

[Magniac]

Originally Posted by Cook

No, at the time there was no strong pressure against the Death Penalty and Max Stuart’s appeal was going nowhere until Murdock started to champion the case.

For some reason people in America identify Murdock as Fox instead of realising that he’s a canny businessman who saw a market for a product; he isn’t that product.

Politicly it is usually acknowledged here that Murdock likes to be on the winning side.

Maybe in South Australia, but I've never read anything about the anti-death penalty campaign that sprung up at the time of Ronald Ryan being at all influenced by the events depicted in the movie Black And White. That was the closest thing to a national political movement that issue ever had.

Murdoch and Don Dunstan were friends during the Stuart case years, but not during the era when Dunstan was the premier legislating for all those social reforms, including the abolition of capital punishment.

Originally Posted by ThatGuyOverThere

From 1997 to 2010, Murdoch was a reliable reflection of public opinion in the UK, and then he suddenly became a vile media tyrant trying to control the world.

Oh, yeah, Tony Blair never copped any flak from traditional Labour voters for being in a friendly relationship with NewsCorp, and those folks only stopped loving Uncle Rupe at the last election.

[ThatGuyOverThere]

Originally Posted by Magniac

Oh, yeah, Tony Blair never copped any flak from traditional Labour voters for being in a friendly relationship with NewsCorp, and those folks only stopped loving Uncle Rupe at the last election.

I know there was some grass-roots opposition, but its amazing how quickly senior figures changed their tunes. Back to the OP, I think the biggest change, at least in the UK, was the creation of Sky Sports and the acquistion of Premiership TV rights, with all the resulting consequences of all that money being pumped into top-tier football. Maybe the gap between the top few teams and the rest stays smaller if Sky dont buy TV rights, but then again maybe someone else fills the gap, assuming anyone else has the money needed

[Meadow]

The Sun didn't win it in 1992. The reasons for Labour losing were more deep-seated. Triumphalism, a difficulty envisioning Kinnock as PM, and above all a Tory campaign surprisingly humble led by John Major. His decision to appear as the humble incumbent making the best of a difficult time in government was the perfect contrast to Labour's whoops and jeers as they campaigned on a platform of restoring consensus, which many voters misread as 'it's our turn now'.

The Gulf War also played a small part in it, as did the (pre-recession, remember) state of the economy - it's rare that governments presiding over stable economies lose elections. Above all, it was far from just Murdoch that won it.

However, Murdoch did play a large part in making New Labour acceptable to the masses. But again, that's not a single PoD. I'd be inclined to say that he hasn't personally changed any specific major event, but his organisations have been part of the periphery and, sometimes, at the centre of many many broad PoDs.

[Magniac]

Originally Posted by Meadow

The Gulf War also played a small part in it, as did the (pre-recession, remember) state of the economy - it's rare that governments presiding over stable economies lose elections. Above all, it was far from just Murdoch that won it.

Minor quibble, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7686531.stm

I think you're conflating the recession which began before the election with the post-election currency crisis.

Originally Posted by Meadow

However, Murdoch did play a large part in making New Labour acceptable to the masses. But again, that's not a single PoD. I'd be inclined to say that he hasn't personally changed any specific major event, but his organisations have been part of the periphery and, sometimes, at the centre of many many broad PoDs.

I think Newscorp's genius is in following trends more than creating them, at least outside of FoxNews.

It's actually Black who set out to change the world and become a Carlylean hero. Rupert is mostly playing to things as they are, not to what he wants them to be.

[Meadow]

Yes, I realised the recession confusion point about ten minutes ago myself. Bloody modern history. It all blurs into one. By 1992, things were looking up though, were they not?

You're right about how they go where public opinion is, but they then use that position to shape it for their own monetary or power-based gains. EG Murdoch jumped on New Labour and gave Blair the go-ahead to Number 10, and then used that position as powerbroker to push for laxer competition laws and so on.

[Magniac]

Originally Posted by Meadow

You're right about how they go where public opinion is, but they then use that position to shape it for their own monetary or power-based gains. EG Murdoch jumped on New Labour and gave Blair the go-ahead to Number 10, and then used that position as powerbroker to push for laxer competition laws and so on.

I agree, though they're hardly alone in wanting corporate welfarist government policy objectives. Of course when you're a mass information powerbroker ala Newscorp you're closer to the wheelhouse than most peak industry bodies can ever hope to be.

[V-J]

Originally Posted by Meadow

The Sun didn't win it in 1992. The reasons for Labour losing were more deep-seated. Triumphalism, a difficulty envisioning Kinnock as PM, and above all a Tory campaign surprisingly humble led by John Major. His decision to appear as the humble incumbent making the best of a difficult time in government was the perfect contrast to Labour's whoops and jeers as they campaigned on a platform of restoring consensus, which many voters misread as 'it's our turn now'.

The Gulf War also played a small part in it, as did the (pre-recession, remember) state of the economy - it's rare that governments presiding over stable economies lose elections. Above all, it was far from just Murdoch that won it.

The Tories almost certainly had a lead going into the 1992 campaign - the polling at the time was a shambles which overweighted Labour supporters, often used sample sizes which were nationally unrepresentative, wasn't aware of the 'shy Tory factor' etc. The events of the campaign are seized upon, but personally I suspect their bearing on the result was probably minor.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Tories ran a restrained campaign and Labour the 'fast' one - in fact, the opposite was true, with the Tories going after Labour on tax and economic competence massively and systematically in a way - "From Robin Hood to Robbin' everybody" I think was a quote Patten used - which makes recent campaigns look fairly sedate by contrast. Despite Major taking advantage of his everyman image and the occassional use of the soapbox for the media, Tory campaigning under him was always very hard-hitting in a ways which would be seen as 'gaffes' today. (see also 'demon eyes' in 1997, which was rapped even at the time, and his description of Scottish devolution as 'teenage madness')

And as Magniac has already pointed out, the UK was emerging from a recession, not going into one. The recession had started in the middle of 1990, and the economy didn't properly emerge from it, in growth terms, until Q3 of 1992. (Although unemployment would take longer to recover, as it always does) And it was a pretty severe one at that. The early nineties were the only point in my dad's life in which he was actually laid off from a job.

[Rickshaw]

Originally Posted by Cook

Significantly influenced the abolition of the Death Penalty in Australia. Google the conviction for murder in 1959 and subsequent appeal of Max Stuart in South Australia.

Significantly? I suspect not. All myths aside, Max Stuart was a minor cause celebre hardly known outside of Adelaide at the time. As Murdoch only controlled the Adelaide News and the Melbourne Truth at the time, his reach was severely limited.

Murdoch's greatest legacy IMHO as far as politics goes was the 1972 and 1974 Federal elections. Murdoch's papers were very heavily behind Gough on both occasions.