When some of the mind games and manoeuvres that turned a Murdoch family “retreat” into an ordeal appeared in Succession, the TV drama about squabbling family members of a right-wing media company, members of the real-life family started to suspect each other of leaking details to the writers. The truth was more straightforward. Succession’s creator, Jesse Armstrong, said that his team hadn’t needed inside sources – they had simply read press reports.

Future screenwriters have been gifted a whole load of new Murdoch material in the past few days, after two astonishing stories in the New York Times and the Atlantic lifted the lid on the dysfunction, paranoia and despair at the heart of the most powerful family in global media.

The stories followed the end of the secret trial involving the fate of the Murdoch family trust. The mogul’s four eldest children – Lachlan, James, Elisabeth and Prudence – were set to inherit the family firm following Rupert’s death. But four years ago, just after turning 90, Rupert had tried to cut James, Liz and Prue out of their inheritance and hand the businesses over to Lachlan, his favoured heir who also happens to share his increasingly right-wing politics.

The lawsuit was brought by the three errant offspring, and in December a Nevada commissioner ruled in their favour, accusing Rupert and Lachlan of acting in “bad faith”. The trial took place in secret, but the fallout – thanks to the New York Times investigation and a 13,000-word Atlantic interview with James – has been anything but.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I write about the Fairness Doctrine all the time.

    Someone commented that they thought it was a terrible idea, because a Flat Earther would be given time.

    People today are so used to propaganda that they can’t even imagine what a level playing field looks like.

    • Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      16 hours ago

      If it is interpreted in malicious intent, that is indeed how a fairness doctrine can be abused.

      For instance during Covid in German public broadcasters, far right politicians and conspiracy theorists were given disproportionately much screen time and often not followed by fact checking. So if you have 70% science based and 30% lies and deceptions, at the end the lies will make up 70% of what the audience receives.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        15 hours ago

        The original laws were written in broadcast days. Even if we had it today, so many people get their news from privately produced videos that there’d always be a huge number of deliberately uninformed people.