the future of Fox

[LKellerIII]

http://news.yahoo.com/ex-murdoch-aide-rebekah-brooks-arrested-london-133823461.html

Update Murdoch aide is arrested in London.

To be specific - Rebecca Brooks was arrested. She was more than just an "aide" - she was the Executive Director of the News International division of News Corp, which includes all the English papers, and (perhaps, not sure) their English satellite holdings. She was very close to both Rupert and James Murdoch. She was former Chief Editor for News of the World, and is the 'biggest fish' (so to speak) arrested so far in the scandal, so her arrest is a big deal.

 

[Ultimajock]

There are always possibilities......the U.S. hasn't had a good broadcast entity downfall since the collapse of RKO General. (Ironically, one of RKO's former stations is owned by Fox/NewsCorp, WWOR)

...Fox owns two former RKO licenses -- WHBQ-TV/13 Memphis as well as WWOR...

 

[azumanga]

Fox owns two former RKO licenses -- WHBQ-TV/13 Memphis as well as WWOR...

WWOR, once a major superstation, as since become WNYW's redheaded stepchild affiliated with MyNetwork TV. And in Memphis, Fox attempted to sell off WHBQ when it sold some of its stations to Local TV, but Local TV was disqualified from buying that station (due to already owning WREG), and the only other interested parties, Newport and Raycom, also had stations in Memphis and their bids were too low for Fox.

 

[TexasTom]

And News Corporation's ownership of its OTA properties won't be challenged by anyone other than the people who hate Fox News with a passion.

There's another possible scenario -- someone might try filing a challenge against one or more of the Fox OTA stations with the hope of winning the license for themselves. It's a high risk strategy, but the potential payoff is pretty huge, since News Corp has some pretty valuable major market station licenses.

 

[Sammi Brie]

I can also see the FCC forcing Fox to spin off its television stations group instead of an auction of the stations. Essentially a superpowered New World Communications — none of the fat and lots more of the meat. An auction would generate a lot of money — with 15 stations in the top 10 markets and 23+1 in the top 20 (FTSG owns 27 stations — the balance is WUTB Baltimore, KTBC Austin, and WHBQ Memphis). (The +1 is WOGX.)

 

[w9wi]

There's another possible scenario -- someone might try filing a challenge against one or more of the Fox OTA stations with the hope of winning the license for themselves. It's a high risk strategy, but the potential payoff is pretty huge, since News Corp has some pretty valuable major market station licenses.

That used to be possible -- at renewal time you could file a competing application for the same facilities and promise you'd do a better job of serving the public than the existing licensee.

In practice it almost never worked. (I'm not sure it *ever* worked) It did cause a lot of legal expense & difficulty for the existing licensee, but it wouldn't cost them their license.

You can't do that anymore. Today, a license *will* be renewed unless a challenger can show violations serious enough to justify revocation. At which point you end up with an empty channel and an auction.

(if you did pursue that path, you'd better have an ABC/CBS/NBC affiliation lined up -- if you cost Fox one or more of their licenses you'd better not bet on retaining the Fox affiliation!)

 

[Al Timiter]

Apparently many people just go straight to the last page of a thread and don't start at the beginning, not realizing they are discussing things that have previously been pointed out and settled. This thread has officially run its course.

 

[recto101]

http://news.yahoo.com/police-phone-hacking-whistleblower-found-dead-181711003.html

Update Whistleblower in Phone hacking scandal is found Dead!

 

[JeeperOne]

Nothing will happen in the U.S. Heck, News Corp. was even able to buy the Wall Street Journal with little hassle. They aren't gonna lose their TV licenses.

You're forgetting one VERY IMPORTANT thing.....

THERE WAS NO SCANDAL BACK THEN !!!!!

So far, the only negative fallout from the whole NOTW scandal was the Sky deal in the U.K. falling apart. There'll be some knuckle-rapping, but aside from that, business as usual.

I highly doubt that. Those who've been pushing for tougher FCC regulations & a crackdown on the number of properties a company or individual can own have just been given A STICK OF C4 DYNAMITE to use in their efforts thanks to this scandal. Don't think it won't be used

But again - as has been pointed out a few times already in this thread - the FCC regulates broadcast TV licenses NOT cable. The FCC can't do anything to force News Corp to divest itself of Fox News, Fox Sports, FX, or their other cable properties.

I wasn't talking about the FCC beyond those pushing for tougher FCC regulations. I know the FCC can't tell News Corp. what to do with their properties beyond Fox Broadcasting, MyNetwork TV & the radio networks (And even THAT is borderline). But News Corp. WILL wanna devote as many resources (financial & otherwise) as it can to weathering the storm brewing over their heads & if that means killing off or selling resources that bleed & deprive News Corp. of needed resources (Such as MyNetwork TV) so those resources can be put to better use both now & in the long term, then SO BE IT !!! That's the point I'm trying to make

I guess some law could potentially pass in Congress that re-instituted broadcast ownership limits and required corporations that own broadcast stations to own a limited number of cable properties or newspapers. In the unlikely event of that happening,

In this Congress, you can FORGET IT

I'd speculate that corporations (including News Corp) would sell off their broadcast licenses for the stations they currently own, but continue to run their cable networks and provide network programming to broadcast affiliates - just as they are today. In other words, Fox would no longer have O&O stations - just supply programming to affiliates.

That would make them no better off than MyNetwork TV beyond programming & ratings IMO

Yes - I'm sure News Corp would not want to lose ownership of KTTV, WNEW, etc, so that would put a little crimp in their bottom line for a few months, but its hardly tantamount to any big divestiture. The future is in cable and internet anyway, not broadcast TV stations.

They don't wanna lose ownership of KCOP 13, WWOR 9 & the other O&Os they have for MyNetwork TV either (Especially since they just spent a wad of $$$ restarting WWOR's news department) but if they're bleeding the company of needed resources, then what choice do they really have?

Cheers

 

[JeeperOne]

I have a great concept sell the Fox O&O's to Barry Diller the former Programming executive of Fox and current CEO of IAC Inc. But then again its just a lame idea.

Probably about as lame as my thought of selling them to Gannett where the only problem that would exist that I could see would be in Washington DC (I believe Fox owns WTTG 5 & the MyNetwork station if I'm not mistaken whereas Gannett only owns CBS affiliate WUSA 9)

But then again.....Who knows? Stranger things have been known to happen

Cheers

 

[JeeperOne]

Apparently many people just go straight to the last page of a thread and don't start at the beginning, not realizing they are discussing things that have previously been pointed out and settled.

I'm one who reads a thread from start to finish (Within reason of course)

This thread has officially run its course.

HAS it though? I'm not convinced of that

Cheers

 

[listener-in]

Amid all the to-do about the future of Fox and the rest of Murdoch's US properties, what about turmoil within the family? As Rupert loses his touch, the next generation is feuding. James is closer to the hacking scandal than Rupert, and his status as heir-apparent must be in doubt. Who knows, if Elisabeth rose to the top, you could see a different News Corp, and a very different Fox News, which stockholders may welcome because the stock hasn't been exactly stellar, even compared with other media companies.

 

[mescutia]

Meanwhile, there's this rather interesting article on Murdoch's legal woes. One thing confused me, though:

The lawsuit was filed in Delaware Chancery Court months ago to focus on a $650 million News Corp. purchase of a British TV production company owned by Murdoch’s daughter, Elizabeth — a deal that the lawsuit alleges resulted in a $250 million windfall for the younger Murdoch. It also focused on what it alleges is excessive compensation paid by the company — including $74 million paid to Murdoch in the past three years — as well as News Corp.’s $1,250,000 contribution to the Republican Governor’s Association last year.

The donation shows Murdoch’s willingness to use corporate assets — as opposed to political action committee contributions voluntarily donated by employees — to advance his “conservative political agenda,” the lawsuit charges.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Murdoch himself a liberal? I seem to recall some noise about his making a contribution to Hilary Clinton's campaign back in 2008, for example.

 

[KeithE4]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Murdoch himself a liberal? I seem to recall some noise about his making a contribution to Hilary Clinton's campaign back in 2008, for example.

First and foremost, Rupert Murdoch is a capitalist. He developed Fox News Channel as a conservative/Republican-leaning news channel because he saw money in it. Period.

I have also heard that he personally leans liberal, but that makes as much difference to FNC as the political views of the CEOs of General Electric and Comcast, which are more likely conservative, do to MSNBC.

 

[LKellerIII]

Rupert Murdoch is NOT a liberal. Most businessmen (and corporations) hedge their bets and donate to both parties, so I wouldn't be surprised if Murdoch handed a check to Hillary Clinton in 08 at the same time that he was handing one to McCain. He probably gave money to Obama once he had clinched the nomination.

Murdoch is a conservative, but does not divulge his personal views. I would assume he's mainstream Republican, but not a Tea Party type. I heard Murdoch interviewed a few years ago, and all he would say is that he was not as conservative as people assume he would be from watching Fox News.

Very few big businessmen and corporate CEOs are mainstream Democrats. I believe Sumner Redstone (Viacom/CBS) is liberal, but he's very rare. It makes sense - the Republicans are the party against regulation, tariffs, and raising taxes for the wealthy.

 

[mescutia]

Thanks for the clarification. Now that I think about it, it makes sense that he leans conservative.

 

[KeithE4]

Very few big businessmen and corporate CEOs are mainstream Democrats. I believe Sumner Redstone (Viacom/CBS) is liberal, but he's very rare. It makes sense - the Republicans are the party against regulation, tariffs, and raising taxes for the wealthy.

Redstone said in 2004 that although he's a liberal Democrat, he supported Bush because having a Republican in the White House was better for his company.

Link: FreeRepublic.com

 

[justpassingthough]

Rupert Murdoch is NOT a liberal. Most businessmen (and corporations) hedge their bets and donate to both parties, so I wouldn't be surprised if Murdoch handed a check to Hillary Clinton in 08 at the same time that he was handing one to McCain. He probably gave money to Obama once he had clinched the nomination.

Murdoch is a conservative, but does not divulge his personal views. I would assume he's mainstream Republican, but not a Tea Party type. I heard Murdoch interviewed a few years ago, and all he would say is that he was not as conservative as people assume he would be from watching Fox News.

Very few big businessmen and corporate CEOs are mainstream Democrats. I believe Sumner Redstone (Viacom/CBS) is liberal, but he's very rare. It makes sense - the Republicans are the party against regulation, tariffs, and raising taxes for the wealthy.

People close to Rupert Murdoch have hinted that his latest marriage has moved him closer to center, as his wife is liberal, and has influenced his politics. Still, I would think he is slightly center right, and cares more about what happens to his personal finances and that of the company he runs than anything else. He is a human being and all.

What you said about CEO's being Republican isn't entirely true. CEOs are probably evenly split as the electorate when it comes to political leanings, and most large corporations hedge their bets and donate to both parties. Its fairly clear that when it comes to big business, though, both parties are the different side of a one-sided coin. Even the "regulations" put on business during the past 2.5 years are fairly tame- the Democrats are on the same side of business as the Republicans, and they both lack fiscal responsibility. I think we turned over the checkbook to irrational teenagers who bicker about how to spend the money we don't have (and I say that as a lifelong liberal).

The truly fringe candidates for President (think Ron Paul or Ralph Nader) get no love from the media- and Rupert Murdoch and his media owner cronies basically play kingmaker.

 

[LKellerIII]

Justpassingthrough - Not sure I agree about corporate CEOs, who I perceive as generally conservative in keeping with their self-interest. But I agree with the rest of your statement.

All the 1990s era de-regulation was supported by Democrats and President Clinton. Flip the coin, and you'll find immense lack of fiscal responsibility between 2001 and 2007 when Bush was President, and the Republicans ran the Congress.

In fact, one of those famous Republican "talking points" during that era was "Deficits don't matter."

Very few big businessmen and corporate CEOs are mainstream Democrats. I believe Sumner Redstone (Viacom/CBS) is liberal, but he's very rare. It makes sense - the Republicans are the party against regulation, tariffs, and raising taxes for the wealthy.

Redstone said in 2004 that although he's a liberal Democrat, he supported Bush because having a Republican in the White House was better for his company.

Link: FreeRepublic.com

There you go. My point exactly.

 

[justpassingthough]

Not to take us off topic, but I agree that deficits don't matter- in the short term. Historically, in the long run, after periods of deflation or slow growth, we were able to grow our way out of massive deficits. Still, the current Congress is failing to address what are long-term, systemic issues that could potentially bankrupt our country- everything from Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs, BLOATED defense spending, wars that are unpaid for, a tax system that needs desperate reform and unfairly burdens the middle class etc. These aren't Democratic or Republican issues- these are American issues.

The media, Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel included, have politicized what shouldn't be a political issue. This should be an all hands on deck, American effort to protect our future.

So for every CEO that is personally progressive yet supports deregulation and gives Republican candidates, there need to be about 1 million individuals who vote for their economic interests instead of social causes that the federal government doesn't regulate anyway.

Our country has lost its checks and balances- people and "the media" used to put a check on corporations and now corporations put a check on government- and it pretty much ends there. This is where the media has failed our society. Of course, when "the media" is nothing but a division of a corporation that is asked to show a profit like every other division, its not surprising that they fail on their duties.