The Murdoch Legacy: Lessons from Past Media Barons
The Murdoch Legacy: Lessons from Past Media Barons
President Biden labeled Rupert Murdoch as the most dangerous man in the world last year, above Putin and Xi Jinping. Murdoch, who currently faces deposition in the Dominion Voting $1.6 billion defamation trial, is not the first media baron to face political ire and controversy.
Professor and author Kathryn S. Olmstead highlights past press barons’ roles, including Lords Beaverbrook and Rothermere, and William Randolph Hearst, in enabling the rise of fascism in a recent Foreign Press Association Zoom briefing.
The 1930s media barons were either sympathetic to fascism or promoted isolationism, at least until the breakout of armed conflict. At that time, less than savory ideas were quietly dumped and replaced with patriotism. By choosing to be on the “winning” side of the war effort and contributing to it, past sins were mostly erased. (Prof. Olmstead’s book “The Newspaper Axis: Six Press Barons Who Enabled Hitler” is an illuminating read).
Although the 1930s were the highpoint for the owners of newspapers, today’s billionaire media barons still carry huge influence. And, with control of major right-leaning newspapers and media, particularly FOX, Rupert Murdoch’s media empire is arguably most influential of all.
Just as Beaverbrook and others were deeply involved in the operational decisions of their papers and setting their political agenda, Murdoch has played a key role in shaping coverage through editors and talent, and as a political kingmaker.
It is both surprising and perhaps unsurprising, that the Murdoch family have not received more critical attention for FOX’s content and outrage-driven stars. Lachlan Murdoch suing Crickey, an independent Australian media organization, for defamation after being cited as an unindicted co-conspirator with former President Trump in relation to the January 6 Capitol attack, provides one reason.
If we are to believe the reporting on patriarch Rupert Murdoch’s apparent disdain for Trump, a not unreasonable conclusion is editorial principles stem not from ideological conviction but from making money. FOX’s right-wing populism, the promotion of the Big Lie, and conspiracies have, until now, paid off handsomely.
The focus and coverage of media outlets is a choice. The billionaire owners of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post, have arguably taken a different, generally fact-based, journalism-focused path.
And although all qualify as modern media barons in terms of wealth, Rupert Murdoch arguably owns the title from the broader historical context as an owner whose outlets are most directly shaping society, as much as they reflect it.
The key takeaway from the media barons of the 1930s is that there came a day when they faced a choice to put country first. When they used their power to support democracy against fascism, their legacies were cleaned up and burnished.
It may be that, after the mid-term elections, the business case for outrage and untruth may have changed. Or the financial risk from litigation makes the dissemination of what is known to be untrue to be greater than the benefit to the bottom line.
Either way, at 91 years old, Rupert Murdoch’s legacy, like past and present media barons, will likely be defined over the next few years not by money, but by whether FOX, in particular, rises to the moment with a commitment to the truth, the constitution, and democracy, or gives a platform to those who would undermine them.
A version of this article first appeared in the LEVICK Tomorrow Blog.
