February 7, 2018--Rupert Murdoch's Boys

Rupert Murdoch, worth at least $13.1 billion, owner of various news outlets and TV stations, including in New York, the salacious Post and, nationally, the Wall Street Journal (known for its Neanderthal editorials and high-quality reporting), entertainment companies such as F/X and the National Geographic channels, and of course the nefarious Fox News Channel, home to the likes of Bill O'Reilly (gone but insufficiently forgotten) and Sean Hannity (still awaiting his ultimate fate), Rupert, now married for the 10th or 11th time (kidding) to Mick's Ex, Jerry Hall, approaching 90, with at least half his marbles (enough to talk to Donald Trump almost nightly offering advice and encouragement) has for the past couple of years been dividing and turning his empire over to his two adult sons, James and Lachlan--the entertainment division to the former and the news operation to the latter. 

This represents an opportunity, perhaps even hope, especially for his media holdings in America as son Lachlan is reputed to be of a more liberal persuasion than his father (he pushed vigorously to fire Roger Ailes when his sexual harassment behavior was exposed) and might, just might be inclined to calm things down at Fox by dumping the evening opinion shows (right-wing rants) and while he's at it the insipid morning show, Fox&Friends, which Trump watches religiously and from which he gets many of his most corrosive and paranoid daily talking points.

But then again, Lachlan's half of the pie is the most profitable part, netting the Murdochs nearly $1.0 billion a year in net profit.

Though the money keeps pouring in, Fox News's viewership is aging out and dying off. Their 3.3 million daily viewers are on average 68, almost old enough to be required to begin drawing down their IRAs.

With these trend-lines there's no real future for Fox News as it's currently configured while for Lachlan, only 46, it is too soon to be presiding over such a geriatric operation.

Then, though he holds dual citizenship (he was born in England but lives in America) he is more American than Brit and thus to have a life in New York and Aspen, where he owns a sprawling mansion, to live a cosmopolitan life, presiding over Fox News as it spills hate out over American airwaves, to be responsible for Sean Hannity, is a cultural and social problem. And not to forget, these mesmerized viewers led the spawning of the Trump constancy. No Fox, no Trump.

I can see the possibility of son Lachlan guiding Fox in a still conservative but moderate direction. There is a younger viewership for that and so the bottom line, over a carefully staged transition, would not be undermined. The Fox News channel would remain a cash cow.

On the liberal side, the Washington Post and New York Times (both at the time, as Fox, family owned) over a decade morphed from outlets for traditional Republican editorial policy into liberal institutions. (The New York Post, another example of generational transition, was for many decades very liberal, at times, socialistic, and then along came Rupert Murdoch.)

So there is precedent. Above all, one cannot overemphasize the propensity of children, when inheriting businesses, to want to put there own stamp on things. (That's the Trump story, isn't it?) Of course, children (sons) thinking they're smarter than the "old man" frequently wind up bankrupting the family business. (That's the Trump story, isn't it?)

In regard to Fox News, if that were to happen, I could live with it.

The Murdoch Boys

March 22, 2016--Yes, Yes Trump

A heretical thought--

Shouldn't progressive Democrats hope that Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination? Even, where they can, cross over and vote for him in their state's primaries?

Before you pull the plug on this, hear me out. And, as a hint, remember what happened to the GOP in 1964 and thereafter.

First, Trump's winning the nomination would assure Hillary Clinton's election.

Head-to-head she would trounce him. Forget current polls showing him doing decently in the general election. Imagine Clinton and Trump on stage debating. What do you think would happen? That's easy--he'd make a fool of himself, reveal that he is not temperamentally fit to be the Commander in Chief, and remind people the presidency is serious business and that political playtime is over.

As a consequence, Hillary would win at least three-quarters of the Electoral vote.

Then, as we've already seen, Trump is currently leading the pack of three after demolishing 14 other aspirants by self-funding his campaign. This is rendering high-roller donors such as the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson irrelevant.

Remember Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio? All were odds-on favorites, supported by big-buck PAC groups, and all are out of the race. The Kochs and Adelson types may be crazy, but they're not stupid--they know that the party for them is over if Trump continues to do well without their help. Actually, shows disdain for it.

He is a one-man wrecking crew when it comes to Citizens United. This could be the beginning of the end for dark-money interests who for decades have owned conservatives in Congress as well as the White House. This goes back to Dwight Eisenhower's and Ronald Reagan's time, both of whom were propelled forward and unduly influenced during their presidencies by corporate plutocrats.

Then there is the matter of Fox News.

Since it's launch in 1996, funded by Australian media-mogul Rupert Murdock, current fiancé of Mick Jagger's ex, Jerry Hall, and overseen by GOP spinmeister Roger Ailes. It has been the most powerful and influential of conservative institutions. Perhaps even more so than Rush Limbaugh or the Republican National Committee. What GOP politicians, including presidential aspirants, have not pandered to Fox's so-called reporters and talk-show hosts? No one but Donald Trump who uses them or ignores them on his own terms.

While Trump was getting his political career launched he was as ubiquitous on Fox air as John McCain and Sarah Palin. But as he was propelled into the lead, he began to treat Fox with dismissive contempt. After being effectively taken down by Megyn  Kelly during the first debate, he began a sustained campaign to assassinate her character and professionalism. It's hard to forget his "bleeding from wherever" slander and then how he petulantly decided not to participate, before the Iowa caucuses, in the Fox-hosted debate. And just this week, about another Fox-organized debate, he said "enough." And, knowing that without his showing up the ratings would plummet, Fox canceled it.

Not satisfied, Trump then launched another campaign of criticism directed at Kelly. Some said he was losing control, that he is "obsessed" with her, even that he is "stalking" her.

Who knows. But his not genuflecting at Fox's altar is beginning to affect their numbers. Without Trump-breaking-news-all-the-time, for the first time CNN and MSNBC, both of which are devoting almost full time to covering Trump, are seeing their comparative ratings creep up.

If Fox News is diminished because of Trump, rather than see in his attempts to control the press (which politician or president hasn't attempted to do that?) signs of fascism, maybe we should acknowledge, hate him-love him, that in this case Trump may be contributing to the diminishment of the heretofore all-powerful Murdock-Ailes media axis.

And then there is the 1964 effect. Another reason progressives should consider "using" Trump.

Recall, that was the year Barry Goldwater and his acolytes soundly defeated moderate Republicans Bill Scranton and Nelson Rockefeller for the GOP nomination. This was when Goldwater famously declared, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice . . . and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Goldwater went on to be overwhelmed by Lyndon Johnson, winning only six states while securing less than 40 percent of the popular vote. It took until 1980, 16 years, before the Republicans were reconstituted. A lifetime in political history.

Establishment Republicans are so fearful (I almost said freaked-out) about the prospect of a Trump nomination that they are talking about changing the party's nomination rules when they convene this summer in Cleveland or, if that fails, putting forth a third-party candidate such as Rick Perry. Yes, the hapless former governor of Texas. Or if he's not available, maybe they'd run Herman Cain. But not to worry--about him, I'm making that up.

Thus, a Trump nomination would not only assure a Clinton victory and likely enable Democrats to regain control of the Senate (and with that the ability to confirm progressive Supreme Court nominees) but would also dismember the Republican Party such as it is for at least a political generation.

So, my friends . . .