Murdoch and his son were in Sun Valley, Idaho, on July 13
Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images
If your anger is directed at Tucker Carlson, you should focus on the symptom rather than the cause. The Murdoch family, which owns Fox News, is the biggest advocate of the great replacement theory in America.
Carlson serves at the pleasure of Murdoch and his heirs, even though he was furious about the racist conspiracy theory that inspired a white supremacist to kill 10 people in Buffalo last weekend. Even if popular pressure forced Carlson off the air, the Murdochs would still find another racist host to replace him. They have done it before. Shouldn't the Murdochs become the next Sacklers because of their base of support in corporate America?
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., urged the Murdochs to stop lying this week.
The Murdochs have clout.
Advertisers have pulled away from Carlson in recent years due to public pressure. The network derives most of its income from cable providers that pay generous fees to carry it. It's been said that cable companies don't think twice about pouring $2 billion a year into a pseudo news operation.
Money launderers and bootleggers who don't want to live in the shadows have been associated with the Murdochs in the past. Challenges to their propriety are diminished by the legitimate things they do and the upstanding associates they have. The Murdochs have a network of TV stations that broadcast sports and entertainment programs.
Last week, Lachlan Murdoch, who runs the family's empire on a day-to-day basis, had a friendly earnings call with a group of Wall Street analysts. The softball financial questions from the representatives of Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America steered away from the political untidiness at Fox News. When Carlson breaks another taboo, he responds by texting or calling his favorite host to let him know the family is behind him.
On Monday, Lachlan was back in the establishment, this time with advertising executives and media buyers who were attending the U.S. presentation of his family. Variety reported that Lachlan was dressed in sneakers and watched as his management team outlined their offerings for the coming year, including the next Super Bowl and World Cup. Carlson's name was not mentioned in the presentation about Fox News spreading the idea that white Americans are being replaced by nonwhite immigrants.
Corporate America loves Murdochs. If Alex Jones presented himself, powerful executives would leave a room to see him.
A protester is outside of Fox headquarters in New York.
Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images
Is there a way to separate corporate America from the family that runs the far-right conspiracy machine?
I have pondered about this a lot. Again and again. Maybe too much. Maybe I have a problem. The dilemma of Fox News and the Murdochs is not going away. The protections of the First Amendment make government action not the answer. The Murdochs have the right to operate a racist cable network, but the question is whether major corporations should line it.
It's not good for a change of heart in corporate America. It's not realistic to think that Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner who is paid $63 million a year by billionaire team owners to make as much money for them as possible, will suddenly decide to pull the plug on the league. The man who had no problem with the banishment of quarterback Colin Kaepernick for taking a knee during the national anthem to protest police violence against Black people is the man, remember, who had no problem with it.
Let's think creatively. The Murdochs have a controlling stake in Fox Corp., which is a shareholder-owned firm. If the players spoke out against the owners of Fox Sports, what would happen to the share price? It's a shame that players can't criticize the Murdochs because they'll forget about being hired by Fox as a commentator after they retire. It is possible that the playing careers of any dissidents could be in jeopardy. This thought experiment is not encouraging.
Balance sheets do not have line items for doing the right thing by turning against the first family of “great replacement.”
How about the Murdochs in Hollywood? Corporations are happy to have their wares advertised on Fox television shows like The Simpsons, because consumers punish them for supporting political programs on Fox News. There is no market-driven reason for a company to withdraw its ads.
What about the creativity? While Hollywood proclaims itself to be anti-racist, there is little sign that the enlightened writers, actors, and producers who create Murdoch's entertainment programs are having second thoughts about who they work for. Susan Sarandon, famous for her political activism, was on the upfronts stage last week to promote her new Fox show and did not, in front of Lachlan Murdoch, pull a Nan Goldin.
The owners of the pharmaceutical company that flooded the U.S. with the addictive painkiller OxyContin were the subject of a wave of protests. Goldin became addicted to opioids after she was prescribed them for her tendonitis, and she led a protest at the Sackler Wing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in which she and other activists threw prescription bottles into a reflecting pool. The family's name has been removed from museums.
The First Amendment offers broad protections for news organizations and individuals, and no law protects a pharmaceutical company. It is easier to prove harm from an opiate than it is to prove harm from a broadcast. The exceptions are narrow. Alex Jones was accused of defamation for making false statements about the parents of the Sandy Hook students and was sued into bankruptcy for that.
It's hard to find examples of people who don't work on Fox shows protesting. It is a pattern that seems to affirm the effect of not knowing who will sign your next paycheck. Judd Apatow, the prolific director and writer, has been drilling holes into the Murdoch family for years.
Sure people in the administration will quit. Who will show some honor and quit working for @FoxNews ? Who will stop working for Lachlan Murdoch and the people who monetize division, racism, corruption, bad covid information which kills and treason?They helped create all of this.
— Judd Apatow (@JuddApatow) January 7, 2021
There has been a lot of discussion in the media about the need to cover the GOP as an extremists rather than a political party. The same discussion should be had about Fox and the Murdochs. Should they be covered as something other than a conservative news outlet with a cranky proprietor who enjoys watching his children battle each other for his attention and love? What would that mean?
The Murdochs have been treated as a tale of financial success and succession intrigue by news organizations for a long time. The New York Times and the Washington Post are among the usual suspects of CNBC and MarketWatch. Try not to cringe at Andrew Ross Sorkin's solicitude in the public interview of Lachlan Murdoch that he did for the New York Times. The only tough question came from the New Yorker reporter.
The Times has improved in the past few years, starting with an excellent series in 2019. The Times published a piece about Murdoch's wife in March. An article about a supposedly centrist member of the Murdoch clan donating to nonpartisan causes was more than 1,300 words long. It didn't mention that Murdoch's husband played a key role in the family empire and that she never criticized Fox News.
One of the lessons of the past few years is that journalists need to call things by their names, and that means when covering Fox News, naming not just the hosts who mouth the words that inspire violence, but the family that approves of these words and pays for them. This is a drum I have been banging for a long time, and while the coverage of the Murdochs has improved, it has a ways to go. The Washington Post mentioned Tucker Carlson 15 times this week, but did not mention the Murdochs.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
