Rupert Murdoch is the biggest threat to democracy in the world

Former Australian Prime Minister labeled Rupert Murdoch "the biggest threat to democracy in the world" in an opinion piece for the Sydney Morning Herald.

Rupert Murdoch - the greatest cancer on the Australian democracy.

Murdoch is not just a news organisation. Murdoch operates as a political party, acting in pursuit of clearly defined commercial interests, in addition to his far-right ideological world view.

In Britain, Murdoch made Brexit possible because of the position taken by his papers. In the United States, Murdoch's Fox News is the political echo chamber of the far right, which enabled the Tea Party and then the Trump party to stage a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. In Australia, as in America, Murdoch has campaigned for decades in support of tax cuts for the wealthy, killing action on climate change and destroying anything approximating multiculturalism.

What's unique about Australia is Murdoch owns two-thirds of the country's print media. No other democracy has anything approaching his effective media monopoly.

Then there is Murdoch's masterful conflation of "opinion" with "news". The two had become one in Murdoch's own world of fake news well before "fake news" became topical after the 2016 US elections.

Murdoch is also a political bully and a thug who for many years has hired bullies as his editors.

Click to expand...

Just a side note for those who don't know Australia - Australia's Liberal Party is actually their version of the GOP, mostly centre-right in its views although as noted in the column, there are some hard-right parts to its legislative moves.

Somerville said:

Former Australian Prime Minister labeled Rupert Murdoch "the biggest threat to democracy in the world" in an opinion piece for the Sydney Morning Herald.

Just a side note for those who don't know Australia - Australia's Liberal Party is actually their version of the GOP, mostly centre-right in its views although as noted in the column, there are some hard-right parts to its legislative moves.

Click to expand...

Well thank you for posting the editorial.

I love it when politicians attack the media as being "threats to democracy" when the owners and editors of the media groups happen to disagree with the policies undertaken by the government. I'm sure Prime Minister Rudd likes to console himself while crying into his beer "The people of Australia LOVED me and LOVED my policies...if it weren't for Rupert Murdoch I would still be in the Prime Minister's Office!" Perhaps so. Or perhaps Australia didn't much care for Rudd and Labor as much as he likes to think and he just lost popular support as people saw the fruits of his and his party's labors.

Vitriol aside, I am given to distrust Rudd's attack on Murdoch for two reasons. The first, because it is entirely self-interested. In other words, would Rudd be as upset with Murdoch and his influential media empire if Murdoch was a die-hard left-leaning Labor supporter? Perhaps, but I doubt it. The second is that despite speaking in broad histrionic terms, he fails to list anything specific about what Murdoch did that was dishonest or misleading that led to his and other Australian politicians defeat. He makes vague reference to "fake news." But what exactly did Murdoch say that was false against Rudd, his party or others that led to their political defeats?

Now I am not supremely familiar with Australian politics, Somerville, and I do not know the tone and tenor of typical political discussion in your country (presuming you are from Australia/Oceania), but if this is how Rudd expressed himself before taking office and after leaving office, like some kind of tub-thumping Chavista-wannabe guttersnipe, then it is no wonder that he lost.

Somerville said:

Former Australian Prime Minister labeled Rupert Murdoch "the biggest threat to democracy in the world" in an opinion piece for the Sydney Morning Herald.



Just a side note for those who don't know Australia - Australia's Liberal Party is actually their version of the GOP, mostly centre-right in its views although as noted in the column, there are some hard-right parts to its legislative moves.

Click to expand...

It would be helpful if he offered supporting evidence to back up his claim. Without any it's just his word.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

trouble13 said:

It would be helpful if he offered supporting evidence to back up his claim. Without any it's just his word.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Will this suffice? Never before has a "News Network" given free advertising and provided key-note speakers. I'd say this demonstrates the OPs point adequately.

Somerville said:

Former Australian Prime Minister labeled Rupert Murdoch "the biggest threat to democracy in the world" in an opinion piece for the Sydney Morning Herald.



Just a side note for those who don't know Australia - Australia's Liberal Party is actually their version of the GOP, mostly centre-right in its views although as noted in the column, there are some hard-right parts to its legislative moves.

Click to expand...

I thought this was a very interesting post. I find that whenever the Rightists are confronted with the fact that they are being manipulated by billionaires, they tend to shy away from the discussion.

Media_Truth said:

I thought this was a very interesting post. I find that whenever the Rightists are confronted with the fact that they are being manipulated by billionaires, they tend to shy away from the discussion.

Click to expand...

Often they defend their ignorance...

He is and has been for 30 years.

He used his media empire to try to manipulate Australian politics.

He suscessfully manipulated British politics for decades and defacto appointed the English government for 20+ years.

He wanted to influence American politics by owning US media. He could not due to American protectionism that demanded that news media had to be primarily owned by Americans. He applied for American citizenship and was delayed by the Clinton administration. He finally got it, started Fx News and directly went after Clinton. Ever since his media empire has been manipulating politics in the US for the right.

In China he is a communist... ironic no?

In Europe he has slowly been getting dominating positions in Germany, UK and attempted it in Italy but ironically got blocked by his business rival Berlusconi..

Murdock is a danger to all. Thankfully he is old.... but still.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk

Media_Truth said:

Will this suffice? Never before has a "News Network" given free advertising and provided key-note speakers. I'd say this demonstrates the OPs point adequately.

View attachment 67239248

Click to expand...

Biased journalism isn’t necessarily a threat to democracy.

Media_Truth said:

I thought this was a very interesting post. I find that whenever the Rightists are confronted with the fact that they are being manipulated by billionaires, they tend to shy away from the discussion.

Click to expand...

That explains why there are no conservatives in this sub forum.

He's old and won't be around much longer... at least there's that.

But he probably has kids and at least one of them have been taught his ways.

mpg said:

Biased journalism isn’t necessarily a threat to democracy.

Click to expand...

It's a good point. I think when lies are perpetuated, that it could fall into this classification. The Birther Lie and Obama's father being a drunk (not necessarily a lie, but irrelevant, as Obama only met his father once) are examples. It's more than biased journalism. It's anger-inciting journalism based on lies.

mpg said:

Biased journalism isn’t necessarily a threat to democracy.

Click to expand...

Biased, no...not quite the problem with Murdoch, however.
Murdoch has destroyed journalism.
The problem is bigger than just his bias, it's his standards.

Northern Light said:

He's old and won't be around much longer... at least there's that.

But he probably has kids and at least one of them have been taught his ways.

Click to expand...

His kids do not share his politics. They're not liberal, but they don't align with Rupert's views.
Fox News Channel will change when the old man finally dies.

Somerville said:

Former Australian Prime Minister labeled Rupert Murdoch "the biggest threat to democracy in the world" in an opinion piece for the Sydney Morning Herald.



Just a side note for those who don't know Australia - Australia's Liberal Party is actually their version of the GOP, mostly centre-right in its views although as noted in the column, there are some hard-right parts to its legislative moves.

Click to expand...

Pretty much. He's decided the ruling party in Great Britain for several decades now. Thatcher, Major, Blair, etc etc.

"Rupert Murdoch is the biggest threat to democracy in the world"

... and here I thought all the time it was Soros who is the biggest threat to democracy in the world ...

Barnacle said:

"Rupert Murdoch is the biggest threat to democracy in the world"

... and here I thought all the time it was Soros who is the biggest threat to democracy in the world ...

Click to expand...

It’s Mitch McConnell.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

His kids do not share his politics. They're not liberal, but they don't align with Rupert's views.
Fox News Channel will change when the old man finally dies.

Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt that. FAUX News has plenty of other billionaires to advance their agenda. The same faulty arguments were put forth, when Roger Ailes left.

Media_Truth said:

I sincerely doubt that. FAUX News has plenty of other billionaires to advance their agenda. The same faulty arguments were put forth, when Roger Ailes left.

Click to expand...

When Roger Ailes left (and died) that didn't change the fact that Rupert still owned the network, which he still does.
This wasn't about Ailes, it's about Murdoch. Ailes is a valid thing to discuss but in its own thread.

It's not about arguments (faulty or otherwise) and never has been. It's about market share and always has been.
They may have bought themselves a little more time now that the Tribune Media purchase by Sinclair got iced but Sinclair isn't going to sit still.
And when Sinclair makes its next move, if it's after the death of Murdoch, they will be aiming for the jugular of Fox News Channel.

Wonder what he makes of Soros?

Checkerboard Strangler said:

When Roger Ailes left (and died) that didn't change the fact that Rupert still owned the network, which he still does.
This wasn't about Ailes, it's about Murdoch. Ailes is a valid thing to discuss but in its own thread.

It's not about arguments (faulty or otherwise) and never has been. It's about market share and always has been.
They may have bought themselves a little more time now that the Tribune Media purchase by Sinclair got iced but Sinclair isn't going to sit still.
And when Sinclair makes its next move, if it's after the death of Murdoch, they will be aiming for the jugular of Fox News Channel.

Click to expand...

You would have to provide a link, with some background. I'm not familiar with Sinclair, Tribune Media; nor their relationship to FAUX News.

Media_Truth said:

You would have to provide a link, with some background. I'm not familiar with Sinclair, Tribune Media; nor their relationship to FAUX News.

Click to expand...

How about I provide the background, and if you're really interested, you will be able to dig up multiple links in nothing flat, because it was a huge story for about a year and a half.

Sinclair Broadcast Group (SBG) owns something like 150 local TV stations, and had been planning to take over Tribune Media's station holdings. That would have given SBG ownership of about 230 stations 73 percent market penetration.
They're about four steps to the right of Fox News. The only thing SBG did not have is a satellite channel but when you have a couple hundred owned and operated local stations, all it takes to start your own SBG branded satellite channel is a check for $200 K every month and a finger to flip the switch.

Fox Network does not OWN a couple hundred stations, they own their satellite channel and a small handful of stations, the rest are affiliates.

Therefore, had SBG been able to complete the purchase of the Tribune stations, SBG would have been able to eat Fox News Channel's lunch and drink their milkshake.
I was not the only one predicting changes to Fox News Channel, a lot of industry experts were pretty sure of it too.
Now that the Tribune merger got killed, things are up in the air again but probably not for long.

Fox News Channel might be numero uno with their demographic but there just aren't enough of that demographic to feed TWO major right wing networks, so had Sinclair made a move, Fox would have had to rebrand itself somewhat.
And I doubt Murdoch's kids would have hesitated.

Slingshot Bob said:

Wonder what he makes of Soros?

Click to expand...

Hates him... where do you think the right wings hatred comes from.... from reading Rupert newspapers and watching Faux News.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk