RUPERT MURDOCH - A PORTRAIT OF SATAN
Rupert Murdoch doesn't like the BBC
And sometimes the BBC doesn't seem to like Rupert Murdoch either.
Following the principle that you should know your enemy, the BBC has assiduously recorded the relentless rise of Rupert Murdoch and his assault on the old "decadent" elites of Britain.
And I thought it would be interesting to put up some of the high points.
It is also a good way to examine how far his populist rhetoric is genuine, and how far its is a smokescreen to disguise the interests of another elite.
As a balanced member of the BBC - I leave it to you to decide.
Murdoch first appears in the BBC archive in a short fragment without commentary shot in 1968. It shows him ambling into the City of London on his way to see Sir Humphrey Mynors who was head of the City Takeover Panel
Murdoch was going to ask Sir Humphrey for permission to take over the News of the World. Then he is interviewed afterwards.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
The News of the World was a salacious rag, but it was run by Sir William Carr who was a member of an old establishment family. He had already received a hostile bid from the publisher Robert Maxwell. Carr hated Maxwell because he was not British (he was Czech).
Then Murdoch arrived. He wasn't British either, but he told Sir William he would buy the paper but they would run it jointly together.
Maxwell warned Sir William not to trust Murdoch. He told him - "You will be out before your feet touch the ground".
Sir William replied - "Bob, Rupert is a gentleman"
But Lady Carr began to worry. She took Rupert Murdoch out to lunch in Mayfair. She reported that he had little small talk, no sense of humour and that he had lit up a cigar before the first course.
The BBC got interested in Murdoch - and they put out a profile of him. It was shot with him at work and at home in Australia. It has a great interview with Murdoch's secretary about what a sensitive man he is - and how upset he gets when he has to fire someone.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
The News of the World battle ended at a showdown at the shareholders meeting in January 1969. The BBC had a camera inside. Here are some of the shots - again without any commentary.
The shareholders were being asked to accept Murdoch's offer.
It has great bits with Robert Maxwell huffing and puffing about how Murdoch hasn't played by the rules. Murdoch's response - "Yesterday Mr Maxwell called me a moth-eaten kangaroo. I'd like to point out that I haven't yet got to that stage"
Robert Maxwell would go on to become one of the greatest criminals in British business history. And then he would fall off a boat in the Atlantic and drown in 1991
But Robert Maxwell was right in his warning. Within three months Murdoch forced Sir William Carr out - and took over complete control.
Carr died in 1977. Murdoch offered to pay for a memorial service. But a proud Lady Carr refused.
The British establishment decided Murdoch was not a gentleman. And then he did something much worse. He announced he was going to publish the memoirs of Christine Keeler in the News of the World. Keeler was a "model" whose liaison with a government minister John Profumo in 1963 had ruined Harold MacMillan's government.
But since then Profumo had redeemed himself in the eyes of the establishment by going off to work for a charity in the east end of London. So when the News of the World published the sordid details of the affair, the whole of London society was scandalised. Murdoch was unearthing a scandal that should have been dead and buried, and destroying one of their own.
And, they said, he was doing it with the sole interest of lining his own pocket. Murdoch was seen as sleazy and destructive.
And this is where his monstrous image began. The man who had first taught Murdoch journalism on the Daily Express in the 1950s summed it up:
"The trouble is - Rupert was regarded as the Supreme Satan"
And he had also just bought the Sun.
So the BBC decided to make a longer, more probing profile. And to do it they sent a key member of the broadcasting elite - David Dimbleby.
The film is surprisingly fair - given the outrage. Dimbleby puts the accusations to Murdoch, but he also flirts with him, and with Murdoch's wife Anna. It is fascinating to watch Murdoch's face as Dimbleby does this. You can see him beginning to realise just how the British establishment really operates.
The Canadian in spectacles who appears first is Lord Thomson of Fleet - head of a global newspaper empire. He owned the Times in Britain.
The man chairing the editorial conference with Murdoch is the News of the World editor Stafford Somerfield. He was a legendary Fleet Street figure. A few months later Murdoch would sack him.
Somerfield then went off and edited a magazine about pedigree dogs - and became a judge at Crufts.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
This rejection by the British establishment was one of the main reasons why Murdoch decided to leave Britain in 1973. He took his family and went to live in New York while still running the News of the World and the Sun in Britain. He talked about his reasons in an interview he gave to a left-wing journalist called Alexander Cockburn in 1976 in the Village Voice.
Although, as the consummate newsman, Murdoch turns it round and portrays it as him rejecting them. And you can see his guiding myth beginning to take shape here - the revolutionary outsider against the decadent British system.
Then in 1981 Rupert Murdoch returned to Britain and took his revenge. He bought the Times.
It was an act that united both the liberal elites and many old Tories in shock and outrage. This got worse when Mrs Thatcher's government allowed the takeover to proceed without it being referred to the Monopolies Commission. Under law this should have happened, but the government excused it with the flimsy excuse that neither the Times nor the Sunday Times actually made money.
There was a growing sense that Murdoch was now manipulating British politicians for his own personal gain. So the BBC decided to investigate Murdoch's business and personal background.
A Panorama was made called "Who's Afraid of Rupert Murdoch?" It was in two parts. First is a film which tells the story of Murdoch's rise to power in Australia, Britain and America. And then he is interviewed live in the studio by yet again - David Dimbleby.
The film is tough. And Murdoch is made to sit and watch it in the studio as he waits for the interview. It lays out and reports all the accusations that would become the foundation for future criticism of the way Murdoch both built and ran his media empire.
-That he takes over intelligent newspapers and turns them into trash. As the ex-editor of the New York Post says - "he took it towards a readership we believed didn't exist"
-That his critics say he turns the news reporting in his newspapers into a propaganda wing of his chosen editorial line, and then uses that to destroy politicians he doesn't like and help elect those he does.
- It describes the scandal in America when Murdoch got a massive favourable loan from the US government just after he had endorsed Jimmy Carter in the New York primary. Murdoch denies there was any connection.
- And it reports the outrage in New York over the sensational way his newspapers reported the serial Killer Son of Sam. Headlines personally overseen by Murdoch that seemed, it was alleged by other journalists, to turn a brutal killer into a celebrity.
- And it gave the American liberals a chance to reveal that they too now hated Rupert Murdoch as much as the British elites. "He is a force for evil" says the head of the Columbia Journalism review rather smugly.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
And then Murdoch is given a chance to respond. Here are the parts of the interview where Murdoch takes on those allegations and responds with what was now his central argument.
That he is engaged in a war on elitism - both on journalism in America and the "typical piece of slanting and elitism" that he has just had to watch. Made by the BBC.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
It now became his mantra. Anything that was "elitist" could be a legitimate target.
In 1986 Murdoch moved all his operations out of Fleet street to Wapping. The print unions went on strike - only to discover they had fallen into his trap. Murdoch promptly sacked them. The unions, he said, were another part of the decadent elites that were preventing Murdoch performing his proper role - making sure the market system served the people properly.
There was massive TV coverage of the outrage. But the BBC made an interesting programme that looked beyond Murdoch's rhetoric and linked the move to Wapping to what Murdoch was doing in America.
Murdoch had bought Twentieth Century Fox and then, in the months before Wapping, a chain of TV stations called Metromedia (they would become Fox TV). He was massively in debt, and the only way for his empire to survive, it was alleged, was to get more money out of his original purchases - the News of the World and the Sun.
The BBC programme was made by Robert Harris. He went and interviewed one of the American bankers involved in the deal - from Drexel Burnham Lambert - who says that the move to Wapping immediately increased the value of the British papers by over 300%.
Or as one of the union men says in the programme - "British workers are being forced to lose their jobs to fund his investments in America"
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
In 1989 - on the 20th anniversary of buying the Sun - Murdoch helped write an editorial that trumpeted his vision of himself as a revolutionary:
'The Establishment does not like the Sun. Never has
There is a growing band of people in positions of influence and privilege who want OUR newspaper to suit THEIR private convenience. They wish to conceal from readers' eyes anything that they find annoying or embarrassing.
LIVING LIES AND HYPOCRISY ON HIGH CAN HAVE NO PLACE IN OUR SOCIETY
IT IS THE STRUGGLE OF ALL THOSE CONCERNED FOR FREEDOM IN BRITAIN.'
But the liberal elite were already fighting a counterattack. It had begun with the chat-show host Russell Harty the year before as he lay dying in a hospital bed from hepatitis.
Harty was a homosexual who had been hounded by the News of the World. With his illness this had turned into a media frenzy - with reporters from all the tabloids pursueing him in hospital, posing as junior doctors demanding see Harty's medical notes, and photographers renting a flat opposite his hotel room.
At Harty's funeral in 1988 the playwright Alan Bennett publicly accused the tabloid press of accelerating his friend's death. "The gutter press finished him"
The Sun chose to reply:
'Stress did not kill Russell Harty. The truth is that he died from a sexually transmitted disease.
The press didn't give it to him. He caught it from his own choice. And by paying young rent boys he broke the law.
Some - like ageing bachelor Mr Bennett - can see no harm in that. He has no family.
But what if it had been YOUR son Harty had bedded?'
The BBC decided to quiz Rupert Murdoch. And they chose not David Dimbleby but their main attack dog.
Terry Wogan.
Murdoch was agreeing to interviews at the time because he was promoting his new Sky TV.
It is a very odd episode. Wogan starts off in an embarrassed way - asking Murdoch "is it difficult for you to keep a grasp of reality?". Then he attacks him in a chat show way about his behaviour towards "other chat show hosts" and he manages to get the audience to boo Murdoch.
The only other guest on the programme was someone from the very heart of the British establishment. The Duke of Westminster. Wogan interviews him in a creepy way about the Duke's good works for charity.
A balanced programme.
Here are some parts of the Murdoch interview.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
And then came the Sun's distorted reporting of the Hillsborough tragedy which disgusted even some of Murdoch's most fervent supporters .
All this was a disaster for Murdoch the revolutionary. When the 1992 general election began Labour announced that if they won they would introduce new cross-media ownership rules - and force Mr Murdoch to break up his empire.
This would mean he would either have to give up his new dream - the satellite TV station Sky - or he would have to sell his newspapers.
One of Murdoch's biographers says that no other company in Britain stood to lose so much from a Labour victory in 1992 as News Corporation.
And the Sun launched a massive campaign against Labour. Ending on the day before polling with a famous cover. While inside on page three there was an overweight old woman in a swimsuit with the caption - "Here's what Page Three will look like under Labour"
When Murdoch heard the news that John Major had been re-elected he was on the lot at Twentieth Century Fox. He said two words:
"We won"
The key to Murdoch is how you interpret the word WE. Did he mean "We the people" - and that he truly is a populist revolutionary?
Or did he mean by "we" the new financial elite that had risen up in the 1980s that was using debt and junk bonds to break into the old corporations and businesses?
One man who thought he had the answer was one of Murdoch's closest allies who a few years later would come to believe he had been ruthlessly betrayed by Murdoch.
He was the journalist Woodrow Wyatt. Wyatt had been very close to Mrs Thatcher throughout the 1980s and he had become what he proudly called "Rupert's Fixer". But secretly Wyatt was writing a diary every day recording not just his life within the establishment but also his day to day dealings with Rupert Murdoch.
The diaries are wonderful. And in them Murdoch is a dark, silent figure - always listening on the other end of a phone somewhere in America or Australia as Wyatt tells him the inner secrets of the powerful people who run Britain.
But then - in 1995 - Murdoch begins to change. He decides he likes Tony Blair and tells Wyatt he may support him at the coming election. Wyatt can't believe it. He had thought that Murdoch would always support the Conservatives.
And then Murdoch does something worse. He tells the editor of the News of the World to cut back on the column that he had allowed Wyatt to write every week.
Wyatt is in despair. There is a wonderful moment in the diaries when Wyatt sleeps all night on the floor of his study next to the phone waiting for Murdoch to ring.
He never does.
And then - towards the end - Wyatt pours out the truth (as he sees it) about Murdoch. It is in a diatribe to one of Murdoch's American advisers, the economist Irwin Stelzer.
Wyatt cannot believe the treachery. He was the man who fixed it so Mrs Thatcher wouldn't refer the Times purchase to the Monopolies Commission. And now Murdoch is betraying him and turning to Blair.
Like a flash of lightning on a dark night Wyatt believes he sees Murdoch's true relationship to power.
And then in 1997 when Murdoch comes out for Blair, Wyatt has only one line.
Comment number 1.
At 16:43 30th Jan 2011, the art teacher wrote:This is brilliant, what a story.
Is the Robert Harris mentioned here the same one who wrote The Ghost?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 21:02 30th Jan 2011, Dylan wrote:@The Art Teacher.
Indeed it is - Robert Harris was a journalist with the BBC until the late 80s - Mr Curtis has used Harris' stuff on this blog before.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 01:24 31st Jan 2011, forthespacemen wrote:This has kept me up far too late ! Awesome - beautifully done. I'm very sceptical about the Beeb, particularly in regard to it's slavish Warmist and (above all) pro-newbuild nuclear power stance, but I've always been totally allergic to Murdoch and his megalomania ... Adam's piece here powerfully validates that instinct. I'll Tweet the link to this page right now.
BTW, Murdoch never looked shiftier than when, in the early days, expounding his great belief in press and media diversity [first clip]
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 14:05 31st Jan 2011, GiuseppeH wrote:Brilliant, thank you.
You should try to get this published in some newspapers, it deserves to be much more widely.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 14:08 31st Jan 2011, GiuseppeH wrote:...read, much more widely read!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 17:49 31st Jan 2011, egbert_the_atheist wrote:Which newspaper would publish Adam's work? I don't think newspapers are interested in insightful analysis and documentary, but rather in selling newspapers. The BBC can afford Adam, but they don't put him on prime time where he belongs.
I also notice that the BBC can afford Charlie Brooker but again not on prime time with his excellent new series How TV Ruined Your Life, which so reminds me of the work of Adam Curtis, that I can only equate Brooker as Adam's disciple.
And now as the Arab world falls into crisis, I think it is time for Adam to get his serious head on and examine the myths and legends that the West persists in, supporting one set of dictatorships and going to war with another set. Also the myths and legends that the Arab world persists in. We might be heading for a clash of delusions.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 22:13 31st Jan 2011, Orthodoxcaveman wrote:When Murdoch mentions communists he means liberal pinko BBC intellectuals in their ivory towers like you Adam ; )
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 23:03 31st Jan 2011, HotterThanAPileOfCurry wrote:Adam, an excellent post.
Back in October 2009, I pointed out how Rupert Murdoch and his News International media empire were switching their alliance from the Labour Party to the Conservatives.
David Yelland was Murdoch’s editor at The Sun between 1998 & 2003. In a recent article in the Guardian, Yelland described the threat posed to his former bosses at News International by the Lib Dem “surge” whilst taking shots at the media’s Tory bias propaganda.
In the run up to the Iraq invasion, Rupert Murdoch and his 175 newspaper editors worldwide all backed Bush’s policies in the Middle East, and were prominent in whipping up a frenzy to go to war.
It got even stranger when a FOI request showed that Rupert Murdoch had phoned Downing Street on several occasions to speak with Tony Blair, the very week it was decided that Britain would invade Iraq.
This came on the back of Murdoch saying, that invading Iraq would be of a benefit if:
“The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way, would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in the any country.”
the relationships between the media elite and the two main political parties have become closer and closer to the point where, now, one is indistinguishable from the other. Indeed, it is difficult not to think that the lunatics have stopped writing about the asylum and have actually taken it over.
We now live in an era when very serious men and women stay out of politics because our national discourse is conducted by populists with no interest in politics whatsoever. What we have in the UK is a coming together of the political elite and the media in a way that makes people outside London or outside those elites feel disenfranchised and powerless.
Akh The Angry Academic Activist
https://hotterthanapileofcurry.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/rupert-murdoch-to-be-locked-out-of-next-government/
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 10:41 1st Feb 2011, Henry wrote:Excellent Adam!
Thoroughly harrowing and informative. Plenty of information that I had never heard of before, so thank you. He must be stopped at all costs.
Given the current situation in Egypt at the moment and that you touched on popular civil unrest in the 1990s in "Power of Nightmares" maybe you could maybe put up a posting to see if there are any parallels with what's happening now what happened in 20 odd years ago. Or a piece on Mubarak altogether? Just an idea, it would be thrilling to see what could be said about this because yet again the mainstream media's collective amnesia to what happened lot so long ago is extremely irritating. You do a great job of filling the gap.
Keep em' coming.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 18:34 1st Feb 2011, dawghead wrote:@Egbert - why do you think the US is under some myth about Mubarak? The US knows who it deals with, few diplomats if any are under any illusions about the governments they work with. The US has supported Mubarak for a number of reasons, but it doesn't get to 'decide' what kind of government a different country has, except for maybe a few historical cases where it helped engineer a coup. Egypt is invaluable because it made peace with Israel and keeps the other regional Arab powers in check by so doing; that's the main reason.
Neither were the Arab public under any misconceptions about the government they've been living under for 30 years, but it's an oppressive government and it's a big deal for people who have never lived with much democratic freedom to have a popular uprising.
I've been noticing how people have been making posts where they think they have the real story, but whole governments and peoples have it wrong. Why do you think you have information that other people don't? Surely at least the Wikileaks diplomatic cables would show you the real thoughts of the diplomats about the officials they interact with. They are no dummies, and they have real expertise in their particular region.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 19:53 1st Feb 2011, Marios Richards wrote:The BBC is 'pro-newbuild nuclear power'? Relative to ... Greenpeace?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 09:48 2nd Feb 2011, DerekMc wrote:I usually ignore anything by the BBC about Rupert Murdoch. However, this is Mr Curtis and we should be in safe hands.
Definite shades of The Mayfair Set with this post. It could almost be a footnote to The Set.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 10:08 2nd Feb 2011, DerekMc wrote:Hi Hotter Than
---->"What we have in the UK is a coming together of the political elite and the media in a way that makes people outside London or outside those elites feel disenfranchised and powerless."
Charlie Brooker's Newswipe had a short piece by Peter Oborne giving an example of this coming together. It is on Youtube, search for "Peter Oborne - Government Controlled Media." Youtube user Paulio20 has uploaded a copy.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 11:36 2nd Feb 2011, JArble wrote:That Wogan interview is uncomfortable, a bit like watching David Mitchell on 10 O'Clock Live.
There was rather wonderful story about Murdoch planning to line up behind Obama in the last US election and telling Fox to go easy, but they refused. A true modern Frankenstein's monster / Pandora's Box (pick your myth) moment.
Murdoch has always been to the right, but as I think you make clear he's ultimately a pragmatist: he'll simply back whoever he thinks will win. Sadly most politicians are too gutless, dim or compromised to take him on. Although Cable has inadvertently made things pretty awkward for the Tories -
https://thethirdestate.net/2011/01/whatever-hunt-decides-about-sky-it-doesnt-look-good-for-the-tories/
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 13:17 2nd Feb 2011, G wrote:I think it is a struggle for anyone to focus on power and 'results' while remaining reflective and radically doubful enough to maintain ideological integrity. Murdoch is intelligent enough to build a coherent philosophy but the game of business is too absorbing and addictive to allow this - its demands come first, just as a junkie may rationalise away all moral demands not to shoplift or steal out of mum's purse.
Murdoch lives in a grey world and has no moral beacon even to steer by; his morality was always going to degrade into hodge-podge nonsense.
It is wrong however to contend that he is just evil and only cares about power. Amoral humans would not care about power once they had secured all the necessities and luxuries of life, which he attained many years ago. The love of power is related to the love of prestige and status, and this is always inextricably liked with morality, hence every powerful person worries about his 'legacy'.
Although there is a real thing that can be called 'the British establishment' Murdoch has created his own image of this and set it up as a moral antagonist, not so much for pragmatic reasons but to sustain his own sense of purpose. If he was a real pragmatic Vulcan he would not have conceived of such a colourful and silly crusade.
I think it is obvious to everone standing outside the influence of his personal existential dilemma that he is fighting to replace one establishment with another that is if anything even worse.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 15:19 2nd Feb 2011, egbert_the_atheist wrote:Just watching the scenes in Egypt, complete chaos, pro-government thugs attacking peaceful protestors, no army intervention, no police intervention, no ambulances to carry away the injured.
There are worse things than sociopaths that prosper within free liberal countries. What about the people who buy Murdoch's papers or subscribe to his Satellite channels?
The social psychological state of "Ain't it Awful" is not something foreign or alien to our western civilisation, it's something that will be coming here soon, as politicians continue on in their moral vacuum passively unable to form any leadership under the pressure of business interests.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 21:41 2nd Feb 2011, egbert_the_atheist wrote:Here is a pretty damn good article about western myths and their ignorance about revolutions and revolts in history, and the current situation in Egypt:
https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/riddling-the-sphinx-egypt-2011/
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 08:59 3rd Feb 2011, DerekMc wrote:Good grief, Egbert, were you pi**ed or just pi**ed-off when you wrote this:
"There are worse things than sociopaths that prosper within free liberal countries. What about the people who buy Murdoch's papers or subscribe to his Satellite channels?"
Derek
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 12:01 3rd Feb 2011, Andy wrote:Excellent article Adam
Thank you
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 17:55 4th Feb 2011, SONICBOOMER wrote:Notable too that Murdoch was very happy to Kowtow to the Chinese government in the area of censorship to establish a presence in that part of the world.
How does that sit with 'challenging elites', you don't get more 'elite' than the Chinese Communist (in name only) Party?
He was also a backer of US Politician 'Pitchfork' Pat Robertson, a far right 'Christian Conservative', a sort of early 'Tea Party' type.
Sitting happily it seems with jiggling titties on page 3 of the Sun.
According to Rupe, 'he (was) right on all the basic issues'.
Still, the good people of Liverpool made their views on Rupe's rag clear, boycott it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 22:17 4th Feb 2011, dawghead wrote:I wouldn't have expected you to post something so pro-demagogue, Egbert. I agree that many people in America - but also elsewhere - have a way of cheering on the protesters without knowing what will happen next, what if there is a power vacuum in place of the US's most important strategic alliance in the Middle East. But this isn't the outlook of the international diplomats (or this white house administration) who are in the know and who do have real worries about what this means for the US, Israel and the rest of the middle east. And yet, what does America stand for if not for the right of the people to have a say in how they are governed?
The myth in question in that blog post is not the myth of the benevolence of autocrats but the myth that change is always good. This is more a problem with progressives than anyone else, because progressives seem almost by definition to believe that things can and should change for the better and that society progresses in the long run. People with a little more knowledge of history and less rosy tinted glasses are more skeptical that any such thing is pre-ordained. Nevertheless, IMO this popular uprising must be supported (cautiously while easing the Army to accept a new status quo) if the US and the world is to retain its legitimacy, its very soul if you will.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 23:17 4th Feb 2011, Phiiip Pilkington wrote:Speaking of Alexander Cockburn, for some very insightful family background read the chapter on Murdoch in his 'Death of the Fourth Estate' - co-written with Jeffret St. Clair. There, in an interview, the journalist Bruce Page tells of how Murdoch's father was an ach-propagandist lauded by the Australian administration after WWI as a hero, but spat on by the people who blamed him for the death of Australians.
Scum grows from scum, I guess...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 14:21 5th Feb 2011, Moor Larkin wrote:I'm not sure which seems funnier, Terry Wogan as an attack dog or Charlie Brooker being compared with the inestimable Adam Curtis.... :-D
Otherwise, I tend to agree with the guy who basically said that it is the idiots who buy the Sun and subscribe to Sky who give this guy his power. Blaming some conspiracy is just silly. I rarely buy The Times nowadays.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 15:50 6th Feb 2011, ny_guy wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 01:36 8th Feb 2011, mididoctors wrote:The News will eat itself. What have here is a host of stories about journalism. The hacker scandal for instance. Reporting on the reporting as influenced by elites.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 14:55 2nd Mar 2011, vpLSBU wrote:is it possible to download some videos? it's for my MA project
Complain about this comment (Comment number 26)
Comment number 27.
At 12:14 22nd Apr 2011, matthew fenton wrote:Hello, I am looking to somehow make contact with Mr Curtis. I was hoping somebody or even he, may see this. Maybe a wild shot… (fentonfenton(at)gmail.com)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 27)
Comment number 28.
At 00:06 23rd May 2011, InNegative wrote:Not sure as yet about the idiocy of Sun readers, though it's always been pretty easy to say it. Not sure anymore that any reader of 'content' has any greater part to play in the world of meaning. Could be Murdoch's genius that he's always known and reflected this.
https://innegative.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/rupert-murdoch-andy-gray-richard-keys-sian-massey/
Complain about this comment (Comment number 28)
Comment number 29.
At 05:43 24th May 2011, Robert wrote:I would like to read your analysis of what will happen when Rupert Murdoch dies.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 29)
Comment number 30.
At 08:22 24th May 2011, jimthing wrote:Murdoch's only care in life is to make money for his businesses. Just like many highly successful businessmen, as it's the nature of business; but luckily some have higher ideals beyond simply making money too, which Murdoch has never shown any slightest possession of it seems.
The ultimate point here:
Given such ideals, and the tactics he uses to continue to achieve it (especially by switching sides to back the winning horse or whichever similar underhand tactic he decides on next), then why do politicians in power constantly fail to see the bigger *longterm* picture and never act together to bring about change in his power position?
Surely they see the games he plays—not least from his past performances—yet they continually let those games repeat themselves decade after decade without acting in any active way.
Even worse, it all adds to the lowering of the general standard of political discourse and understanding amongst the masses, increasing social and political apathy all the way by stoking people's worst fears and resentments. Surely some politicians would consider this one of the TRUE reasons people do not bother to vote.
What for the future? In the (supposed) "pay wall" vs. "ad-supported free" internet age, one wonders if Murdoch may actually have some serious competition. Or perhaps whether the money buying influence game will remain virtually unchanged.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 30)
Comment number 31.
At 15:32 29th May 2011, WG51 wrote:Dear Adam,
This is a great piece. I hope you will update it and cover the hacking scandal as this unfolds. I do feel the malign influence of Murdoch Press runs deeper than Rupert Murdoch's dislike of the English upper class, or his global business and political ambitions. You did not mention Blair's trip to Australia to seek Murdoch's support and it would seem permission to govern. Significant concessions were made it would seem, perhaps including keeping Brussels out of the affairs of News Corporation. No wonder Blair's policy was Education, Eduction, Education, there were few other areas of policy left that New Labour with which could tinker.
I try not to believe in conspiracies that do not allow for cock-up, "Events Dear Boy" and opportunism. It was a sting by Telegraph reporters that prevented Vince Cable from "going to war" with Murdoch, leaving Hunt to give the nod the outright purchase of Sky, without referral to MMC and which coincided with the evil empire absorbing Kudos and the launch of another monopoly, Sky Atlantic only accessible via Rupert's "black box."
It is not clear to what extent Murdoch is in day-to-day control of his empire or of son Lachlan and editor Wade, or to what extent Coulson may have been acting for Murdoch while working for Cameron or Elizabeth when dining with him. The Murdoch offspring are becoming part of the next generation ruling class, more at ease in the company of Bullingdon Boys. Rupert seemed pretty annoyed about the handling of the hacking scandal and flew in to sort it out. It is deplorable that what is a criminal act on a massive scale can be "put in a box" and made to go away in the courts. Meanwhile the Metropolitan Police is investigating itself and it seems unlikely that they will find against themselves in relation to their handling of the hacking scandal, payments to police officers for information, or links between senior Met officers and New Corps executives.
What troubles me about the hacking scandal is not so much the exposure of the infidelities of some B list celebs, but rather all the information that has been harvested and held for future publication or even perhaps to control and silence critics. This may be spying and an intrusion on privacy on a scale that not even the "security services can match."
It used to be said about getting on in life that it was not what you knew, but who you knew. Now it would seem to be who you know and what you know about them.
The Murdoch empire has succeeded it would seem in creating a climate of fear among politicians and in the media.
Of course for a while, Cameron may feel that he can use the Murdoch Press to advance his ambitions, but he may be a frog riding a snake. It was The Sun "wot did it again" getting Cameron to task the Met to re-open the McCann case, to coincide with the publication of Kate McCann's book and interviews with The Sun. With all the resources of The Sun, you'd think they could find Madeline without the aid of the police.
I fear for future of the BBC when it would appear that both the Tories and Murdoch are determined to cut Auntie down to size and it may be that the space for your creative documentary film making will be closed. I hope not.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 31)
Comment number 32.
At 09:22 30th May 2011, EinsteinsGhost wrote:Many years ago, The Guardian used to have a regular section in it's Saturday edition, where an artist, celeb, musician etc answered the same set of questions. What is your favourite this, that or the other. One question used to be 'Who do you most despise in the world and why?' I wish I could remember the person who said this, but they answered, 'Rupert Murdoch, because he has based his entire fortune on exploiting the poorly educated'. That comment has always stuck with me and just about sums him up.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 32)
Comment number 33.
At 00:58 4th Jun 2011, Strugglingtostaycalm wrote:"As a balanced member of the BBC - I leave it to you to decide."
I presume that this is tongue-in-cheek?
BBC employees' ability for self-delusion is remarkable.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 33)
Comment number 34.
At 15:19 4th Jun 2011, U14804610 wrote:All this user's posts have been removed.Why?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 34)
Comment number 35.
At 11:09 20th Jun 2011, willhowley wrote:‘Citizen Murdoch’…An academic at Goldsmiths College once pointed out ’The decline in the standards of British Journalism can be laid at the door of Rupert Murdoch and the founding of the Sun newspaper’, and I cannot disagree.
Barron-Rupert likes to think of himself as a ‘change-agent’ and believes, and it may have been true in the 1960’s but not now, that the ‘Establishment’ was all against him.
Murdoch is deluded, what did Wogan ask him about his contact with reality?
Now we have Son-of-Satan, James Murdoch who is hell bent in saying the BBC is a monopoly and argues for the end of State/Licences fee support. To then establish bland programming and a propagandistic monopoly with his BSKYB. If people want to know how bad it can get view FOX NEWS with Sarah Palin and Glen Beck.
The News International’s empire now charge for access from the internet to their quality papers like The Times of The Sunday Times. But like the Communists that Barron-Rupert hates so much they are equally perplexed that people can instantly access information in a heart beat with no need to rely on outlets like popularist-neo-conservative, lowest common denominator sleazy reporting. He cannot cope with the fact that when Hearst said ‘Give me the pictures I’ll give you the War’ is gone. The top down dissemination of information by a select few, whether they be Media-Tycoons like Rupert or various Gurus in the Leninists movement the WWW will end their control of information.
Robert Fisk of the Independent wrote: “I was insisting that we had a vocation to write the first pages of history but she [Amira Hass a journalist from the Israeli paper Ha’arezt] interrupted me. ‘No, Robert, you’re wrong’ she said. ‘Our job is to monitor the centres of power’. And I think this is the best definition of journalism I have heard; to challenge authority – all authority – especially so when governments and politicians take us to us to war, when they have decided they will kill and others will die”.
Adam, keep monitoring, your work is invaluable and good J
Complain about this comment (Comment number 35)
Comment number 36.
At 12:06 27th Jun 2011, LionelKent wrote:I don't know enough about Mr Murdoch to decide for myself whether there is something sinister about him. Maybe he is sinister, I simply don't know. What does impress me is that he doesn't circumvent when asked a question, nor does he stare at his interviewer in the fixed, unblinking away of a high politician. In this regard he impresses me much more positively than e.g. David Cameron.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 36)
Comment number 37.
At 08:50 8th Jul 2011, HotterThanAPileOfCurry wrote:With all the interest in Murdoch's media conglomerate, I wrote a piece a couple of weeks ago, titled;
"How Rupert Murdoch’s dinner party for the British political elite got him ownership of SKY"
I’ve stated on many an occasion that Rupert Murdoch has a pervasive and damaging effect on British democracy through his ownership of printed & television media channels. The politicians are so scared of the “King Maker” that instead of challenging his position, they kowtow to his every demand.
Which is why it's so laughable to see politicians from the opposition getting in on the act to trash Murdoch.
David and Samantha Cameron as well as Labour leader Ed Miliband and shadow chancellor Ed Balls drank Moet & Chandon champagne and ate oysters with Rupert Murdoch as recently as three weeks ago.
With an unassailable grip on the British media, News Corp has the ability to dictate to our elected political class as never before, no one in their right minds wants Fox News style propaganda being beamed on to our screens.
My full post is here:
https://hotterthanapileofcurry.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/how-rupert-murdochs-dinner-party-for-the-british-political-elite-got-him-ownership-of-sky/
Complain about this comment (Comment number 37)
Comment number 38.
At 10:39 8th Jul 2011, theartteacher wrote:They should be linking to this from the top bit of the BBC homepage. Have a word Adam.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 38)
Comment number 39.
At 16:31 8th Jul 2011, MarkAJA wrote:Did I here him say to Wogan that Sky is free.
I think he owns somebody some money.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 39)
Comment number 40.
At 17:28 8th Jul 2011, denbos wrote:Following the recent disclosures and David Cameron's tennis partner, a certain female employee of News International, I just wondered how many balls she held in her hand during their games?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 40)
Comment number 41.
At 22:24 8th Jul 2011, wolfie69 wrote:i would just like to recount briefly an encounter with one of rupert's u.s. henchmen, the very one who wrote the "son of sam" stories for the n.y. post, steve donleavy, a kiwi ex rugby player who it turned out had gouged eyes and bitten off ears during his days as a reporter in asia and hooking up with rupert. i was the publisher of urizen books and had done Wilfred Burchett's [an Aussie] GRASSHOPPERS AND ELEPHANTS which was Wilfred's very much inside account of being with the Vietcong up and down the Ho Chi Minh trail. I recall going out at 4 pm for my pickme-up Mars bar and seeing Wilfred's photo, pudgy faced, on the front page of the NY Post: "Torturer of G.I's in New York." My heart sank as I chewed my Mars bar and walked the two blocks back to my office: "No, Wilfred, please no," I prayed and then called the White House communications director, Hoving, who said, "Nonsense", he has a visa, he was part of the peace process, he was one of Uncle Ho's gobetween." I had invited a lot of journalists to a by then famous restaurant where i had been going when it was just a hole in the wall on 2nd Avenue, Elaine's, lots of journalists who had been in touch with Wilfred during their mutual Vietnam days. David Halberstam, David Arnett, a table full, the big table and we were having a good time, I was just a kid then, the year in 1978, when Donleavy barges in and ruins the evening. Elaine Kaufman, the recently deceased owner tells me I might want to leave through the kitchen, Donleavy has his Post photographer waiting outside. I make the mistake of taking Mama's advice and leave through the kitchen when Donleavy and photographer barge into the kitchen and he pushes me aside, who has interposed himself between him and Wilfred and his Bulgarian wife. That is called assault and I called the police and took Donleavy to court and the judge said you can read Donleavy's record, Wilfred had provided me with it, into the court record or you have to bring all the witnesses to court, three times, and I will give you a conviction for leaving the cover off a garbage can [a priceless detail, no?]. I took the judge up on his offer. As Donleavy and his Post lawyer and I left Part One Leonard Street court, where we had been called first among the hundreds that morning, Donleavy said: "Aren't you glad I didn't bite off your ear." A sense of humor then makes me forgive Steve Donleavy and his toupe, but not a publisher who employs his likes. here is a link to the story at a posting about Elaine's on my https://artscritic.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/mike.roloff1?ref=name
Complain about this comment (Comment number 41)
Comment number 42.
At 22:58 8th Jul 2011, Innkeep wrote:I recently figured out that the woman I was married to for 15 years was and is a classic sociopath. Research suggests that about 5 % of the population are sociopaths. The Republican party in in the USA is sociopathic as are many of its members. Rupert Murdoch I suggest is also a sociopath.......he has no conscience and will say or do anything to get his was. He is more than a portrait of satan.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 42)
Comment number 43.
At 02:39 9th Jul 2011, Sam_afc wrote:"33. At 00:58 4th Jun 2011, Strugglingtostaycalm wrote:
"As a balanced member of the BBC - I leave it to you to decide."
I presume that this is tongue-in-cheek?
BBC employees' ability for self-delusion is remarkable......"
Are you for real?!! We have our police force being bribed, our MP's scared to step out of line and our GOOD (and yes they are out there!) citizens totally afraid to speak out about it because of repercussions. This man has had a hold on our 'democracy' for years and there's thousands of us out here that know it - thank goodness for the REAL journalists out there that didn't give up!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 43)
Comment number 44.
At 11:49 9th Jul 2011, mikestubbs wrote:compunded bits of info i knew to make a comprensive and clear case of what i suspected
all done in a superb new form of documentary/journalism
excellent and hope it helps convice some of the important decison makers to do the right thing !
Complain about this comment (Comment number 44)
Comment number 45.
At 20:36 9th Jul 2011, GB OReilly wrote:Now That's What I Call Journalism.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 45)
Comment number 46.
At 21:07 9th Jul 2011, siriusgreen1 wrote:Great article. Wish I could get everybody in the UK to read it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 46)
Comment number 47.
At 22:28 10th Jul 2011, liathroidi wrote:terry mustn't have a mobile phone.
2 things. 2 or 3 things that struck me as quite important. the new york reporter who is a murdoch man and say's that people may have reason to question their method of obtaining information...and this was in NY in the 80's.....but not question the manner of it being reported.
that last piece about wyatt describing murdoch looks kinda artistic...what's the deal there?
excellent article. thanks.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 47)
Comment number 48.
At 03:57 11th Jul 2011, freemycatfish wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 48)
Comment number 49.
At 22:15 12th Jul 2011, odotman wrote:Again, Mr.Curtis provides invaluable information. You are a hero of the people. Thank you.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 49)
Comment number 50.
At 08:03 13th Jul 2011, xaver wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 50)
Comment number 51.
At 00:25 14th Jul 2011, humblelife wrote:I am knocked out.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 51)
Comment number 52.
At 00:30 14th Jul 2011, humblelife wrote:Put this onto film and I may reconsider buying a TV. Due to the unquestioning tenuous crap on it I can't be bothered with a license and, therefore, I have no TV. (Send the guys round and I'll shout at you, I am not a criminal...).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 52)
Comment number 53.
At 20:06 20th Jul 2011, Libertybelle wrote:Alright...what's going on? I KNOW there was A LOT more to this article when I read it a few months ago!! I was going to post a link to this incredibly insightful article...HOWEVER, seeing as how you've obviously deleted parts of it, I'm not sure I will now! But WHY????????
Complain about this comment (Comment number 53)
Comment number 54.
At 21:09 20th Jul 2011, Libertybelle wrote:Perhaps I'm wrong! But, I could have sworn there was more to this story prior to the News of the World scandal...MUCH more! You can be quite assured that I'll happily stand corrected if, in fact, I AM wrong about my bold assumption!...Though, I STILL think it's doubtful that I am! This is really beginning to bother me! Can you tell?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 54)
Comment number 55.
At 04:44 27th Aug 2011, christopher copywriter wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 55)
Comment number 56.
At 05:01 27th Aug 2011, christopher copywriter wrote:I think Rupert knows darn well he has catered to the lowest common denominator in anyway possible to maintain and grow his empire. He uses the word "elitist" to justify this populist stance. But given the power, influence and popularity of his type of media - communicators should have a responsibility to elevate and revelate to a much greater degree than NEWS Corp. ever allows. Paying lip service to virtue doesn't make one virtuous. If communicators don't use a responsibilty and care to it's reader for their best interests we get exactly where the world is today.. Mislead.
Chris.
https://christophercopywriter.com
Complain about this comment (Comment number 56)
Comment number 57.
At 11:20 6th Nov 2011, NausikaDalazBlindaz wrote:I'm a latecomer to this run of commentary as I was told about this blog site only a week or so ago by a friend who used to sell me CDs when he was living in Melbourne. I'm quite certain Rupert Murdoch does have principles that he lives his life by but they are not principles that we would recognise as legitimate. Surrounded by lackeys and an adoring wife, separated from the public by layers of sycophants who tell him what he wants to hear, perhaps convinced that he is still fighting an unforgiving political / financial hierarchy that can't quite accept him, unhappy that his children are bickering over their inheritance ... I can imagine Murdoch is a pathetic creature who might deserve some sympathy if he could cut through the layers of fawning hangers-on and discover the truth about himself and News Corporation. But the truth when exposed to the cold light of day might turn out to be a foetid corpse whose fumes could knock over entire herds of African elephants.
It would be a good day indeed when the Murdochs and the media culture associated with them are consigned to the dustbin of history. We might finally get a decent quality news print media in Australia instead of the Tweedledee-Tweedledum arrangement we have now with News International and Fairfax Media.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 57)
Comment number 58.
At 11:08 11th Jan 2012, bluehouse90 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 58)