The Man Who Owns the News

My recent reading has included a biography of Rupert Murdoch by Michael Wolff.

One point that I found remarkable: the way Murdoch announced the settlement of a critical matter of family business -- on the Charlie Rose show. It seems to have come as a surprise to everyone in his family.

The basic succession issue concerns who will run, and profit from, the Murdoch empire when Rupert is gone: the adult children he had with his first and second wives, several of whom have played various roles within that empire and see themselves as vested in it? or will the minors born to his third and present wife, Wendi, be dealt into the situation? The tensions here aren't unusual. Blended families of one configuration or another aren't are common these days, after all. But the sheer quantity of the wealth involved -- and the placement of much of that wealth (billions of dollars worth) in a trust holding more than a quarter of News Corp's equity -- make this family drama noteworthy.

RM announced how this trust is going to accomodate his kids with Wendi in an interview on the Charlie Rose TV show in July 2006.

Wolff gives us a good chunk of the transcipt from that show. The gist of it is that Murdoch told the world that he the trust would give voting rights solely to his children by the first two wives, but the children with Wendi would be cut into the wealth. So far as Charlie Rose's viewers, or Wolff's readers, can tell, this will remain the case however old Wendi's kids get.

Presumably this is all because, as I've mentioned above, it is because the older children are vested -- RM feels they've been part of building the empire -- so they're the ones who are going to have voting control, and who will decide among them who gets to run the company when he is gone. But all his children will "get treated equally financially."

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog