Pages

Saturday, May 31, 2014

The Murdochracy « The Australian Independent Media Network

The Murdochracy « The Australian Independent Media Network

The Murdochracy



Image courtesy of society6.com
Image courtesy of society6.com

Nicole Clark looks at that propaganda machine – the Murdoch media (‘affectionately’ known of late as the Murdochracy) – and how it is determined to discredit climate science.


We are fighting a war on Climate Change in Australia, we are fighting
a war against the strong scientific inference of climate change. It is a
sad fact, that the absolute significance to changes in the earth’s
climatic cycles are not acknowledged to the broader society.



Transnational media has been allowed to access false information on
false pretences to formally and informally describe scientific consensus
that is neither true nor conclusive. We are living in an age where it
is these pretences that lead to the revulsions in public discourse. They
perpetuate evidence to the people that anthropogenic climate change
does not exist. We can attribute the gradual process of capitalist
change to be an overt perversion of scientific reverence. Intelligent
and scientifically minded individuals resist in vain, for the
conservative social stance is both triumphant and celebrated, but why?



We can look to these clues with changes in social discourse, by
examining the News Limited media. By examining News Limited we can
incorporate a corporate capitalist phenomena, where an innate power for
financial profit has lead to a democratic override, and the winner takes
all. We are living in a time where neither a strong evidential basis
nor bi-partisan approach will evoke change significant to stop the
transgression of the multi-faceted 70% power distributed, Murdoch media.
The shocking reverence of the situation is this: what you read, what
you see and what you hear is all a representation of interpretivist
opinion backed up by sceptics and conglomerate news bodies who seek to
mandate public discourse – without true mass media approaches. These
approaches are misrepresentations of facts and figures and bias which
divulge the ever condensing incorrect views of climate change. These
revered and conversely public trusted tabloids are the ones that are
perverting the social justice. The very same justice that leads to the
dilution and unstructured social opinion that not only persuades but
integrates societal ‘know how’.



For those who are aware, this is what we know: it is not just the
configuration of society that controls these aspects, and the
dissertation of opinion underlying strong scientific background- as well
as the complete and utter reverence that science can and should uphold.
It is also something else; it is the greater understanding of complex
concepts that are not transcribed in a proper ‘user friendly’ way or if
transcribed at all. It is the external factor, the foundations of
knowledge and the complexity of interpreting this knowledge to the
people. I suspect the underlying consideration that we must address is
the ‘denial’ and current ignorance that surrounds corporate body
structures such as News Limited and the current Liberal Government and
one Tony Abbott and their stakeholders. We can only deduce from
these observations, a conformist acquisition, one, where media owned
adversaries seek to ignore the evidence of climate change science for,
their own initiatives for the favouring of their own financial gain.



For this idea to uphold, we must take into consideration the
influence that transnational media can and does have on the wider public
opinion. We must transgress this idea further, and consider the
elements of . . . dare I say it . . . propaganda. Yes, propaganda!
Consider this: it is not without thought that we go so far as to say,
political factions of propaganda are truly evident in mass media.



Propaganda, whilst alluding the attitudes of political opinion also
eludes the values and emotional upheaval of individual opinion; take for
instance Adolf Hitler’s approach. As far as we know, we can see these
attitudes transgress to the audience through the author’s personal
epitomes and consumerist views. That is, through short worded slogans
and repeated headlines that seek to optimize emotional and social
relevance- often termed invoking the climate of fear, for example
‘Climate change not caused by humans” and “With Climate scientists like
this no wonder we doubt”. A tactic that invokes contextual wording to
interpret things that tug at fear and make people go ‘wow’, ‘The media
doesn’t agree with experts why?’ But, does this transgress (mass media
approach) to influence and persuade individual opinion? Does this really
pervert public discourse?



YES and here’s why. We have only to examine the structure of
hierarchy in Australian society, to exude confidence that indeed
capitalist opinion has strongly and forthright berated the notion of
climate change science. How, you ask? By decreeing the factual
publication that follows it, in exchange for the more effervescent
emotionally charged ‘writing on the wall’ and these short worded slogans
are the misperceptions that invoke the general climate of fear. The
wall has become no longer responsible for initiating freethinking
thought or providing factual and progressive knowledge for adequate
exploration of external stimuli, that is, exploration that provokes
progressions in critical thinking before one accepts new knowledge. In
place we have this wall, a safe cove r- a mask if you will, one that
seeks to perversely calm and elude individuals away from real danger,
pushing an agenda that ignores the kind of investigative thought that
brought about the uprise of modern society, modern economy and
scientific progression.



Indeed News Limited has exceeded these prospects, and further
constructed a consumerist approach that not only constrains the
individual, but also eludes them to the incorrect information that will
eventually decimate social, emotional, environmental and
political/democratic structure. News Limited will elude their audience
to a point of no return in which case, we will see more than a group of
troubled individuals with no free thought -but a group of troubled
individuals that will vote according to these allusions that have
propagated in their mass media world. The result you ask? Well, it’s a
group of right winged zombies who neither understand nor amend their
thought as to why they voted in such a contentious (conservative) way.



For all to see, News Limited got their wish, for the first time,
democracy has failed and for the first time, transnational media came,
crushed, killed and decimated an audience of free thinkers. News Limited
poisoned their right to execute free thought or one that would favour
their way of life. For the first time ever we see ‘tradies’, ‘parents’,
’single mothers ‘, ‘pensioners’ and ‘low-income earners’, vote against
subsequent benefits that aim to target the particular struggle their
respective bracket represents. What has Murdoch Media done? They have
allowed Tony Abbot and his pack of liberal dogs to come forth for the
kill and bring about the inevitable crumble of social justice. The
Murdochcracy has created a new breed in society, once and for all-this
new breed has gone against their own rights, their own free will and
their best interests at heart- for favour of liberal conservative
factions that aim to destroy the very things they are voting against . .
. sound familiar? So, the political factions that were once opposition
(for good reason), are thrust into power and News Limited epitomise
these views with each passing day, so now, for the first time ever – a
corporate capitalist structure has finally decomposed the walls of
democracy and laid foundations of misadventure to the democratic right
of the people.



That is right – you heard that right! News Limited has succeeded in
diluting the values of free thought, transgressing ignorance and
interpretivist views that assist with the consumerist/conservative
approach to financial gain. One that is not in the best interest of
social discourse, the best interests of the people and… not in the best
interest of scientific reverence. So . . . the bottom line – all of this
is not in the best interest for exposing the truth of Australia’s
Changing Climate and the struggles that are yet to come. Is it
propaganda? Has the Marino Wool from our jackets been pulled over our
eyes? Australia’s climate is changing, so why has News Limited and it’s
Murdochcracy been allowed to decide our fate?



*Author’s note-when I say ‘climate change’ I am referring to
‘anthropogenic (human induced) climate change; therefore, the sceptics
view is: denial of ‘human induced climate change’.


Saturday, May 17, 2014

Can ‘The Australian’ stoop any lower? « The Australian Independent Media Network

Can ‘The Australian’ stoop any lower? « The Australian Independent Media Network

Can ‘The Australian’ stoop any lower?



The AustralianProphetically, on the morning of his budget address Joe Hockey admitted to journalists that This’ll be an easy budget to criticise”.
And it certainly has copped a fair share, and deservedly so, because in
a nutshell, most Australians are going to hurt where it hurts most. The
pocket.



Most Australian simply can’t afford to take a hit on the pocket.
Among them the age pensioners, the unemployed, low-income earners,
people with a disability, carers, Indigenous Australians . . . the list
goes on.



The budget has not only delivered a hit on the pocket but also a kick
in the guts. A kick in the guts to those Australians desperate for
support.



In response the public outrage has been overwhelming. As a political
watcher of some years I have never witnessed such emotion. With the
advance  of social media and the subsequent access to information it
brings, the gut-wrenching stories of the struggles of the poor have
flooded into the public discourse. I wonder how they survive now. I
wonder how they’ll survive tomorrow. I wonder why a government would
wish to make their daily existence even more miserable.



Yes, Joe, it is an easy budget to criticise. You knew that your
budget would make millions of peoples’ lives more appalling. You deserve
the criticism.



But some of your friends at The Australian see it differently. From yesterday’s editorial came this disgraceful piece of filth:


Joe Hockey’s first budget has
brought out the whiners and whingers, the grifters and grumblers, the
loonies and looters. The culture of complaint is alive and well in our
noisy democracy, with myriad platforms available to those who want to
participate in an orgy of angst or add to a bonfire of miseries. It is
pretty puerile stuff and Bill Shorten’s budget-in-reply speech last
night sits comfortably within this immature, facile political debate.

What a display of absolute contempt for the needy, the poor, or the
disadvantaged. And such blatant disregard – bordering on mockery – for
their desperation.



There are an estimated two million Australians
living below the poverty line but I’m speculating that means absolutely
nothing to you. You so rightly point at that they’re not really people
worth worrying about, they’re just the ‘whiners and whingers, the grifters and grumblers, the loonies and looters
of our country. How dare they complain that they can’t afford an extra
$7 to go to the doctor. How dare they complain that prescriptions become
unaffordable if they are slugged another $5. How dare they complain if
they can’t buy new shoes for the kids. How dare they complain that they
will have no hope of survival without income support if they lose their
job. How dare they openly express outrage that this devastatingly cruel
government is going to destroy their miserable lives.



To whoever wrote that opinion piece, I am the opposite to you. You may think that the budget has brought out the  ‘whiners and whingers, the grifters and grumblers, the loonies and looters‘,
but in my opinion you have shown that the budget has brought out the
lowest dregs of our society: people such as yourself. That you could
make such a statement – or even think in such a manner – places you at
the very bottom of the cesspool that has become of the favoured habitat
of Murdoch journalists.



You are a disgrace. You are a pathetic individual. Can The Australian
stoop any lower than the level you’ve sunk it to with what must be the
most vile opinion piece from what was once (so long ago) a respected
newspaper?



God help those unfortunate Australians who have had the heart and
guts ripped out of them by the government, and God help those
Australians who are moronic enough to be influenced by the nasty filth
you offer them. Ironically, it is fortunate that their are more
desperate Australians than there are desperate readers of  The Australian.


Friday, May 16, 2014

Rupert Murdoch and Vice

Rupert Murdoch and Vice

Rupert Murdoch and Vice



Rodney E. Lever 16 May 2014, 11:30am 34



Murdoch likes Vice (Image via wire.com)


As Rupert Murdoch completes and considers more grandiose
media acquisitions, his empire looks on increasingly shaky ground,
writes former News Ltd executive Rodney E. Lever.




This is the first of a series of reports by Rod Lever on the Murdoch Empire to be published by IA over the next few days.



Vice
is the name of an online daily news service, given birth in Montreal,
Canada, in 1994, and now picking up a rapidly growing audience
throughout America.  It has been largely ignored by the mainstream
media, as were the earlier Australian digital news sources, like Independent Australia.




The audience for Vice is mostly young people with a focus on sex and
drugs and wild parties. Catering for a population that outstrips
Australia by more than 400 million potential readers it has still
quietly become a healthy business empire that caught the eye of Rupert
Murdoch, who picked up a five per cent share of Vice last year.




Murdoch’s purchasing tactics over the past sixty years have always
been the same. He starts with a tiny investment. If the business
continues to grow and it suits his plans, he will one day swallow the
whole company.




Traditional newspapers have always aimed at adult readers — from the
middle twenties onwards and upwards. The stuff young people read, was
the common theme, is mostly comics and sexy magazines.




Founder Shane Smith was recently reported in entrepeneur.com as saying:



“When we first started doing news everyone told us, in
established media and legacy media, ‘Young people don’t care about news.
American youth don’t care about international news.'




"We didn’t believe that.”




He claimed that his team had developed their news network after
polling their potential audience and asking questions about the kind of
news they wanted. Now Vice clips are among the most popular on YouTube
in the US, feeding news from wars and international disasters, climate
change news and humanitarian events as well as the more salacious,
gossipy type of reporting that Murdoch admires. 




They have have averaged 165 million YouTube video views every month, a huge number by Australian standards. 



Shane Smith has confessed an admiration for Rupert Murdoch and admits
that he adopted the styles of Murdoch’s international newspapers. In
one interview, he confessed that he would like to be
the Rupert Murdoch of the next generation. He was overjoyed when
Murdoch paid $US70 million through 21st Century Fox for his stake in
Vice.






As always, Murdoch acts on several levels of acquisitions, from his Wall Street Journal and The Times of London, down to the level of the News of the World, which he dumped when it blew up into a national scandal in the UK.



Another new venture was his purchase last month of Harlequin
— a large publishing company specialising in romance novel and a
company whose revenues have steadily declined by 25 per cent a year over
the past four or five years.




Harlequin's total revenue last year was listed as $US398 million.
Murdoch’s offer was slightly more than that when he clinched the deal.
Why?




He wants to bring down the five largest book publishing companies in
the world to four. And then to three and then to two and then to…? 




Just imagine his power then!



Murdoch’s original HarperCollins merger led to on-going, but still unsettled, negotiations with Simon and Schuster and Macmillan. He has already added the Penguin Random House merger to HarperCollins.



Not only would he then be the world’s largest book publisher, he
would have free access to practically every worthwhile book ever
published − to be turned into movie and television productions, English
and foreign − all over the world. Combined with his political power and
his control of so many news sources, it would make Rupert Murdoch one of
the most powerful people in history.




As if that was not enough, in another burst of frantic hyperactivity, he has proposed turning his BSkyB British television company into a giant European satellite TV system estimated to cost $US14 billion dollars. He would acquire control of Germany’s Sky Deutschland and Italy’s Sky Italia under the umbrella of 21st Century Fox.



It would be the world’s biggest combined pay TV operation, selling satellite coverage to about ten million European homes.  



At the age of 84, Rupert probably only has a few years to live, but
his two sons − now in their forties − and the rest of the Murdoch
family, will inherit the money and the power.




Does the Murdoch family want this? Do the people of the world want
such an outcome? Doesn’t it smack of mad men, like Napoleon — or Mugabe
in Africa or Vladimir Putin in modern Russia.




One dark cloud hangs over the Murdochs. It lies within the walls of London’s historic Old Bailey court house.





As you read this, a senior British judge is laboriously preparing his final instructions to the jurors who will decide the fate of several former Murdoch employees, most notably Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson,
who have, with others, been grilled for months by some of the smartest
prosecuting lawyers in Britain over phone hacking and other alleged
criminal activity.




That judge is obliged to read carefully through every word of the
evidence given in those trials in preparation for the jurors’
deliberations and his legal advice to them. The outcome could be mild,
or it could be dynamite for all those Murdoch employees who faced
charges. 




A decision by the British government to strip him of his investment
in BSkyB UK would certainly wipe away his dreams for a massive European
pay TV venture.




On the sideline is the Criminal Division of the US Department of
Justice, awaiting the outcome of the British trials for any evidence
that Rupert Murdoch and/or his son James actually knew of, or
authorised, any illegal payments or bribes to any person or persons
employed by the British government. 




America takes a grim view of the bribery of officials not only in its
own land but in other countries as well, and the sentences their courts
might impose include serious jail terms. 




The outcome of the London trials may well shape the future for Rupert Murdoch and his family. 



It is well to recognise that while alternative mechanical printed
newspapers are struggling because of vanishing revenues, Murdoch and his
successors can still afford to continue to freely circulate their own
personal political propaganda through their own newspapers, while
writing off the costs as tax deductions, for as long as those newspapers
remain active.




Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License



Thursday, May 15, 2014

Shock jock fantasy land vs reality « The Australian Independent Media Network

Shock jock fantasy land vs reality « The Australian Independent Media Network

Shock jock fantasy land vs reality



Image courtesy of 2gb.com
Image courtesy of 2gb.com

Recently I’ve started listening regularly but sparingly to Alan
Jones, Steve Price and Ray Hadley. All out of the 2GB stable. All
willing unquestioning extensions of the Liberal Party’s PR machine.



Why would I do such a thing, especially when it has the tendency to make me feel ill at times?


Over the last few years I have grown increasingly worried that the
Australian electorate isn’t as informed as they should be when it comes
to matters of policy, politics and especially economics.



I have come to the conclusion this is in large part due to shock
jocks like Jones, Price and Hadley and the deliberately skewed view of
the world they present.



For years I’ve been reading the cavalcade of conservative columnists
in the News Corp Australia stable. I refuse to pay for News Corp
Australia publications anymore but nonetheless I know what these
columnists write and how they state their case.



I’m also all too aware of Gina Rinehart’s pet television project The Bolt Report and the content of that show.


I wasn’t however aware of what was being said by conservative shock jocks to their captive audiences on a daily basis.


It’s safe to say I am now fully aware and I must say I have no idea why they are paid so much money.


It’s nothing but puerile, immature, self-congratulatory rubbish from “goodies and baddies” fantasy land.


Not sure what else I should have expected given the quality of all other conservative commentary.


I have been listening to them for a while with Tony Abbott in
government and I must say it is interesting to hear how they are
handling it now the shoe is on the other foot.



Their man’s in The Lodge. The people haven’t taken to him and accepted him as their personal saviour.


I’m sure there is an element of resentment towards Australia because they feel this wasn’t the way it was meant to be.


The rest of us do however live in the real world.


The world where Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey are taking a sledgehammer
to workers with significant increases in taxes, cuts to the pension,
cuts to support payments and welfare as well as unnecessarily punitive
and harsh changes around their eligibility requirements and structure.



Broken promises and lies aplenty.


Tony Abbott ran around for years – backed by his conservative
columnist cheer squad – claiming carbon pricing was causing the sky to
fall in and hurting everyday Australians with increases in cost of
living.



Now he’s in government and slugging pensioners, families, students
and the least well off among us as a result of his lies and broken
promises we’re expected to just accept it and, as some callers to 2GB
put it, stop “whinging”?



Everyday Australians are distressed by what these changes will mean
for them and their families. Many will have thousands of dollars ripped
from their budgets overnight.



If people have the nerve to question what this means for their
family’s future, and how they will get by, they are told by Hockey not
to think about themselves but what’s in “the good of the nation”.



Any cries of “Joeliar” on the Alan Jones show? Nope.


Instead we get the good old “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” and wall to wall remarks about “heavy lifting”.


Why did Abbott break his promises?


Well there’s a “debt and deficit disaster” don’t you know?


This wouldn’t happen to be the same “debt and deficit disaster” you were claiming before the election would it Abbott?


The numbers in the Pre-election Fiscal Outlook (PEFO) were fully known to Abbott and Hockey when they made their commitments.


The question to them should be: were they ever going to keep their commitments?


There is no “debt and deficit disaster”. It’s a focus grouped scare
campaign to make people accept tough cuts to their way of life.



Taking an axe to your voters by scaring them into submission? You’re all class as usual Abbott.


This government just isn’t being upfront with you.


That’s right. They’re lying.


Good old Phoney Tony.


We came through the GFC unscathed due to a stimulus package that has
been applauded by the IMF, OECD and the World Bank as well as Nobel
Prize winning economists.



We took on debt to avoid recession when our revenue fell off a cliff.


If not for these steps we would have gone into recession, like the
rest of the world. Unemployment would have skyrocketed and we would
still be struggling out of it as we speak.



Ironically, had action not been taken it can easily be surmised that
our debt position would be worse than it is now and revenue would have
been impacted for longer.



Australia’s debt to GDP is in the bottom third of developed nations.


We have around trend growth, low inflation and low unemployment.


You don’t get to make up your own facts Abbott.


This is the reality and it’s what makes the savage cuts and obsession
with surplus at all costs harmful and a risk to our economy if such
recklessness continues.



Why have the $130B of subsidies and concessions for big business and the well off not been touched Hockey?


Where’s their “heavy lifting”?


A symbolic temporary 3 year 2% tax on those earning over $180,000.


A breach of faith no question, but piddling compared to the whack on the unsuspecting ordinary Australian.


Abbott has frozen federal politicians pay for 12 months. What a trooper. An effective 2.4% cut.


Meanwhile, we’re all told to just accept the entire restructuring of our social safety net permanently.


For a government, surplus is obviously preferable to deficit but not at all costs.


Not at the expense of the people who voted for this government and trusted the specific commitments they made.


Not when it’s based on fear, lies and deceit around our budgetary position.


That’s called blind ideology; and boy doesn’t that term fit this government like a glove?


The issue with the current situation is we take nowhere near enough revenue.


The answer isn’t to just keep attacking the worker’s way of life and cutting taxes.


The answer is to ask those who have more to pay more.


A start would be looking at tax loopholes, concessions and subsidies.
As stated earlier, a whopping $130B of them being paid out every single
year.



Why? We can’t afford them anymore. I doubt we ever could.


Cuts to these expenses would go a long way to fixing our structural issues in the Budget.


Our debt can be paid back over time without causing massive damage to the community.


We don’t need the shock and awe approach to government, nor do we deserve it.


Nothing about this Budget is “fair”.


Abbott and Hockey seem to think if they repeat their condescending lines enough we’ll accept them.


It’s not going to happen. People are angry. They want answers. Honest answers.


A lady rang up 2GB recently and said she was worried we were heading the way of Greece due to the “debt and deficit disaster”.


A clearly laughable scenario when our economic situation is placed next to Greece’s at the peak of crisis.


It’s incredible that some people are so misinformed they are scared into blind adherence to conservatism.


It’s time we all pushed back against the lies about our economy,
because if we don’t who knows what damage these economic vandals will
do?



Matthew has a political opinion segment that streams live at 9:30am every Saturday at thetruthaboutisrael.tumblr.com

Sunday, May 11, 2014

The next U.S. president: The Murdoch Clinton match

The next U.S. president: The Murdoch Clinton match

The next U.S. president: The Murdoch Clinton match








Rupert Murdoch may be about to throw his support behind
Hillary Clinton as the first performers appear in the next U.S.
presidential circus, writes Rodney E. Lever.




The next United States presidential election is still a year and a
half away, but speculation about the most likely candidates has already
begun.




The idea of a woman president is beginning to enter the minds of U.S. voters for the first time in its history.



Unlike Australia, where election fever usually only lasts for a few weeks, the U.S. election program
is always the longest and most ballyhooed political event in the world,
and dominates headlines for more than a year. Nowhere else is an
election such a long-running drama that climaxes in November voting and
runs until the winning candidate takes the oath of office in January
2016.




Rupert Murdoch is merely a minor element in U.S. elections. He loves to feel
he is central and important, but he will never be able to exercise the
level of influence in America that he has shown in Australia and
Britain.




Rupert has always played his cards on both sides of the political fence. His history has bounced between conservative politics and Labor — whoever will give him the best deal, the most power, the best financial return.



In America, in recent years, he has had to concede his debt to the Wall Street Republicans and bankers who saved him from the edge of bankruptcy. His Republican-Tea Party loyalty may be thinning now as he considers his own immediate future and that of his two sons.



Australians must wonder how a powerful media magnate can so easily obtain huge political favours in this country, while elected politicians in New South Wales can be thrown out of office for even a modest and overlooked error of judgment.  



In Britain, Rupert Murdoch became Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative saviour
at a time when she was running out of friends. Murdoch introduced her
to President Ronald Reagan and the two found some common interaction.
The U.S. stood back while she raged her silly war on Argentina.






When George W. Bush became the American President, Rupert created a link with both Labor’s Tony Blair, whom he then supported, and the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard. The three of them conspired to delude
not only their own citizens but the United Nations as well. They
started a fateful war with Iraq.  From the beginning it was an immoral,
unnecessary, deceitful and illegal war that leaves Iraq still suffering even today.




Rupert disguised the nature of the Iraq war.



His newspapers smothered horrible crimes against humanity
and changed what was a defeat into a claim of victory by cynically
hiding the truth and the level of murderous butchery that followed for
years afterwards as the Americans, British and Australian troops
gradually returned home as sad losers in a comparatively small country.




After a very trying and embarrassing three years in a new millenia, Rupert has bounced back now from his own three-year run of annus horribilis, beginning with Rebekah Brooks and concluding with his monumentally expensive divorce from Wendi Deng. 



He seems revived and active again as American election fever begins and his two son’s train to become the future heads of the family company. Both will have their mettle tested.



Predicting the future is a tricky business, but I will hazard a guess
that Rupert might surprise a lot of people and switch his support to
the leading Democrat contender, Mrs Hillary Clinton. Hillary posted an 82% vote of support from enthusiastic Ohio members of the Democrat Party in a trial run last month. 




The voters were asked to choose between Hillary and her fellow Democrats Joe Biden, Obama’s Vice-President, and Elizabeth Warren
— a 64-year-old Democrat Senator from Massachusetts, a former Law
Professor at Harvard University, and a frequent guest on the very
popular Daily Show with Jon Stewart.






The Democrat voters of Ohio favoured Hillary over them and also over a list of the five most likely Republican candidates. 



With that vote, Hillary Clinton may have garnered Rupert’s support.



Rupert is interested in winners, not losers. His political influence
is strong among Republicans and less so with Democrats. Rupert has never
been slow to change horses if he sees a more likely candidate, whether
Republican or Democrat or Liberal or Labor. 




He has maintained a relationship with the Clintons for many years and set tongues wagging in 2006 when he hosted a fundraiser for then Senator Hillary Clinton.



Rupert reinforced any doubts about his control of News Corp America
when he moved his two sons into the top levels of the family firm. Now
he must also consider a dramatic change in Fox News, the broadcast voice
of the Republican Party. 




The Fox network lags behind the giant CBS network in current U.S. audience ratings. The prime viewers who follow Fox are mainly elderly Republicans who have voted Republican from birth. 



Fox needs to at least double its audience and bring in younger
viewers to cater for a new America with new ideas for the future. In
this, it will have to captivate not only CBS viewers but also NBC, CNN
and the smaller networks.




To do this, Rupert will need to engage with the formidable Roger Ailes, head of Fox News, a dedicated Republican and a fierce personality — perhaps even stronger and more ruthless than Rupert. 



Ailes has plenty of ammunition for a fight.





For one, Hillary would be the first woman president in American history.



For two, some of her ethics during her legal career have been questioned.



Thirdly, two amendments to the U.S. Constitution refer to Citizen’s Rights and Equal Rights, but do not mention women’s rights.



The Murdoch newspapers in Australia effectively ended the short Prime Ministerial career of Julia Gillard, the Labor Party’s nerves failing them before the election. 



So the Murdoch history proceeds, perhaps for another decade and perhaps with Murdoch’s sons able to shake off the dismal record of their recent past business experiences.



Their careers so far reveal little ability to tackle the massive tasks that lie ahead.



But we will see.



Rodney E. Lever is a former senior News Ltd executive and right-hand man to Rupert Murdoch. You can follow him on Twitter @rodneyelever.