this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
242 points (99.6% liked)

World News

41185 readers
3128 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
242
‘We’re clearly heading towards collapse’: why the Murdoch empire is about to go bang (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 12 hours ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

When some of the mind games and manoeuvres that turned a Murdoch family “retreat” into an ordeal appeared in Succession, the TV drama about squabbling family members of a right-wing media company, members of the real-life family started to suspect each other of leaking details to the writers. The truth was more straightforward. Succession’s creator, Jesse Armstrong, said that his team hadn’t needed inside sources – they had simply read press reports.

Future screenwriters have been gifted a whole load of new Murdoch material in the past few days, after two astonishing stories in the New York Times and the Atlantic lifted the lid on the dysfunction, paranoia and despair at the heart of the most powerful family in global media.

The stories followed the end of the secret trial involving the fate of the Murdoch family trust. The mogul’s four eldest children – Lachlan, James, Elisabeth and Prudence – were set to inherit the family firm following Rupert’s death. But four years ago, just after turning 90, Rupert had tried to cut James, Liz and Prue out of their inheritance and hand the businesses over to Lachlan, his favoured heir who also happens to share his increasingly right-wing politics.

The lawsuit was brought by the three errant offspring, and in December a Nevada commissioner ruled in their favour, accusing Rupert and Lachlan of acting in “bad faith”. The trial took place in secret, but the fallout – thanks to the New York Times investigation and a 13,000-word Atlantic interview with James – has been anything but.

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 136 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

Reagan removing the fairness doctrine and Murdoch setting up Fox News rank among the biggest blows in democracy and prosperity IMO.

I acknowledge that many left and center-left news organizations will also push agendas, tell partial truths, etc. (Fairness doctrine would help reign them in as well).

edit: Fairness doctrine didn't cover cable only radio. That'd still help cut down some misinformation but in an ideal world IMO it'd apply to most forms of media.

[–] [email protected] 63 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I write about the Fairness Doctrine all the time.

Someone commented that they thought it was a terrible idea, because a Flat Earther would be given time.

People today are so used to propaganda that they can't even imagine what a level playing field looks like.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

If it is interpreted in malicious intent, that is indeed how a fairness doctrine can be abused.

For instance during Covid in German public broadcasters, far right politicians and conspiracy theorists were given disproportionately much screen time and often not followed by fact checking. So if you have 70% science based and 30% lies and deceptions, at the end the lies will make up 70% of what the audience receives.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 hours ago

The original laws were written in broadcast days. Even if we had it today, so many people get their news from privately produced videos that there'd always be a huge number of deliberately uninformed people.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

This is one of the most level headed comments on Lemmy I’ve seen.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

https://youtu.be/IjJ5ISwVXz8

Never before, have I been so offended by something I agree with 100%

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Fairness Doctrine (wikipedia)The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine
.
ok, i get it now.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

You might want to look up a movie called "Network.'

It went from cutting edge satire to staid docudrama in real time.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago

Reading the plot of the film on Wikipedia reminds me i might have seen it once. This film ends on : "This was the story of Howard Beale: the first known instance of a man who was killed because he had lousy ratings."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film)
.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

While removal of the fairness Doctrine was a horrible thing. It would not have impacted Fox News in the slightest. It may have had some impact on am talk radio, or Sinclair propaganda. Which would have been a good thing. But zero impact on OANN or similar ilk. Not even CNN or MSNBC or any of the others would have been affected either. It was strictly broadcast only.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

I think if it’d stayed, we’d have been talking about applying it to cable, rather than just forgetting it existed in the first place.

There’s certainly no direct link, but I think it indirectly changed the conversation around what society deemed acceptable in news media.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Interesting. Well I stand corrected. I've seen people, including in the media and the like, apply it to cable. Can't help but wonder if some of the misinformation was deliberate and meant to manipulate.

In this case, A I think fairness doctrine should be reinstated and B should apply to more forms of media.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I think a lot of people assume that had it stuck around it would have eventually been applied to cable. But cable was a big new thing at the end of the 1970s early 1980s. Specifically because it didn't have a lot of the regulation and restrictions that broadcast did.

I think a lot of people would have also assumed that the ERA would have been ratified by now. Or that a woman's right to abortion would have been enshrined in law by now. But that didn't happen either. So it's never good to assume.

And then the real rub, what actually constitutes a Viewpoint worthy of being heard. Yes the fairness Doctrine was supposed to give other viewpoints air time. And it did. But not all of them. Fox News in fact was really good with this formula. Early Fox News often tried to provide the appearance of that sort of balance. Toe-headed Sean Hannity did not have his own show for a long long time. Granted the show was his in all but name. But for a long time he was saddled with a limp wet noodle Democrat. Who was little more than a foil for Sean to stomp over. But Alan Combs did provide some token Democrat views and pushback.

The equal representation was only as good as the honesty and the sincerity of the people behind allowing it. Which was often quite dubious itself.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Great write up. The Fairness Doctrine on its own definitely wouldn't solve everything. It'd be a step in the right direction, but the journey would be far from over. edit: and there's probably no "perfect" solution.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago

I think we would have been better off had it stuck around as well. But I also think that we've somewhat arrived at the best of all situations. Where access to Media is much more democratized. You don't have to rely on a big wealthy owner Etc allowing your Viewpoint to be heard. The modern problem is AI generated fire hoses of disinformation. They can output so much more misinformation through seemingly so many more Outlets than an actual person can. So it's going to rely on a lot more word of mouth and Trust. People finding good journalists and presenters like coffee Zilla for instance and sharing them with others to help build up trusted networks of Representatives.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

It says if he lives to be 99, in 2030 when the trust expires, he can then again cut the other kids out. May his health fail quickly for everyone’s sake

[–] [email protected] 17 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I wish nothing but pain for this fuckhead. May he develop dementia and circle the drain for years, living in a puddle of his own mess, then die alone and sobbing the day before he would get the power to dissolve the trust.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 hours ago

A couple weeks or months would be better, that way they can't pretend that he lived just long enough to sign it over.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 11 hours ago

And not a minute too soon.
Fuck Murdoch to hell and back with a rusty wire brush.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 hours ago

"It is irrevocable, but it includes a provision that gives Rupert the ability to make changes as long as he is acting solely in the best interests of his beneficiaries."

:D

Outside of blatant corruption Murdoch probably isn't getting out of that.

I'm not a lawyer, but the penalties alone over the 2020 election BS among many other things, arguably prove the the current editorial environment and management is bad for both the kids personally and the company as a whole. Damage to the company is ultimately damage to the kids, and Murdoch dug his own grave with that.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

How can a public trial be held in secret? I can understand that any agreement can also include NDAs but I wasn't aware that any US court could adjudicate in secret.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

It was family court. Meaning theres privacy to internal family matters

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

Europe here, what's a family court?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago

And in its place Musk has his own now. :\

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 hours ago

Finally some good news