MCN Blogs
Ray Pride

By Ray Pride Pride@moviecitynews.com

The Morning Hack: All The NewsCorp That’s Fit To Print

DAVID CARR LEADS  OFF his Monday “Media Equation column: “‘Bury your mistakes,’ Rupert Murdoch is fond of saying. But some mistakes don’t stay buried, no matter how much money you throw at them. Time and again in the United States and elsewhere, Mr. Murdoch’s News Corporation has used blunt force spending to skate past judgment, agreeing to payments to settle legal cases and, undoubtedly more important, silence its critics. In the case of News America Marketing, its obscure but profitable in-store and newspaper insert marketing business, the News Corporation has paid out about $655 million to make embarrassing charges of corporate espionage and anticompetitive behavior go away.” $655 million? Carr continues at the link, revealing where the head of that subsidiary wound up. (If you’re guessing atop the New York Post, you peeked.)

The FT’s John Gapper thinks “Fleet Street is becoming a luxury for Murdoch.” In the Guardian, Charlie Brooker compares the unfurling saga to the end of John Carpenter’s They Live. (His casting suggestions for a BAFTA-bashing biopic don’t hold a wombat up to the 74-second “teaser” for “Hackgate: the Movie.”) Yahoo Finance lists the 25 major holders of NWS stock.

Ian Burrell at the Independent profiles “Team Murdoch,” the men coaching the 80-year-old mogul for his Tuesday morning seance before Parliament. Jay Rosen Storyfies reactions to how the assignment could affect Edelman PR’s brand.  In an intensely dense infographic, Bloomberg Businessweek illustrates the phone-spying scandal’s reach. NYTimes has a more modest graphic connecting key players. The paper’s timeline graphic of the scandal’s turns is more ambitious. Prime Minister Cameron, in Africa, skips Rwanda and Sudan for an early return to deputize investigative commissions. The Independent’s political editor: How near does all the furore come to the doorstep of No. 10?

NewsCorp’s Wall Street Journal does its own cleaned-up tick-tock, taking special issue with the allegations of spying on 9/11 victims: “Casting some doubt over the claims, however, is the newspaper article they originated in. The Daily Mirror, a British paper, quoted an anonymous source saying an unidentified private investigator had been approached by unnamed journalists to provide phone numbers of the victims and details of the calls they had made and received in the days leading up to the terrorist attack… The Daily Mirror did not provide evidence for its claims and did not revisit them in its coverage on Friday. The story so far has not been substantiated by other news outlets.”

“NEWS AND ITS CRITICS” is the modest pun from the Journal’s editorial board in its unsigned Monday leader: “When News Corp. and CEO Rupert Murdoch secured enough shares to buy Dow Jones & Co. four years ago, these columns welcomed our new owner and promised to stand by the same standards and principles we always had. That promise is worth repeating now that politicians and our competitors are using the phone-hacking years ago at a British corner of News Corp. to assail the Journal, and perhaps injure press freedom in general… We also trust that readers can see through the commercial and ideological motives of our competitor-critics. The Schadenfreude is so thick you can’t cut it with a chainsaw. Especially redolent are lectures about journalistic standards from publications that give Julian Assange and WikiLeaks their moral imprimatur. They want their readers to believe, based on no evidence, that the tabloid excesses of one publication somehow tarnish thousands of other News Corp. journalists across the world… We shudder to think what the Journal would look like today without the sale to News Corp…”

PAIDCONTENT, “a wholly owned subsidiary of Guardian News & Media,” headlines the response as “WSJ To News Corp. Critics: STFU.” “The editorial in Monday’s Journal doesn’t use the term “shut the f* up” or quote Cee Lo Green but the 1,046 carefully chosen words are written for the choir and aimed squarely at News Corp. critics,” they write. “The gist: Don’t blame us; the Journal is better off out of the hands of the Bancrofts; not investigating hacking is worse than hacking; fear media regulation; the BBC; the Guardian and liberal politicians have their own agendas; and anyone who backs Wikileaks should look in the mirror. It is a masterpiece as far as defensive editorials go—and the Journal and its journalists would be better off if it had been spiked.”

The Washington Post editorializes, too, offering comfort to British hacks who spy: “Britain’s biggest media problem is not too much freedom but too little: Onerous libel laws deter critical reporting about public figures and arguably drive journalists to measures such as phone hacking to obtain lawsuit-proof stories.” Channel 4 has News International’s director of corporate affairs, Simon Greenberg, on phone hacking at the company:

In Newsweek’s long piece on the subject, London mayor Boris Johnson offers, “I’ve got no doubt that a good number of papers were engaged in identical practices to those of News of the World. The confected outrage about the intrusions that you’re reading in some newspapers that I won’t mention by name, except to say that they’re the Daily Mail—I’d be amazed if these papers weren’t engaged in similar practices. Including the Daily Mirror and maybe others as well.” AP reports: “Liberty Media chief John Malone, who engaged in media-mogul head butting with Murdoch over his stake in Murdoch’s News Corp… did not return a message seeking comment that was left with a spokeswoman. CNN founder Ted Turner, who once challenged Murdoch to a boxing match in Las Vegas, was unavailable, according to a spokesman. New York Daily News publisher Mort Zuckerman, whose newspaper fights every day for front page dominance with the Post for New York’s tabloid audience also did not return a message seeking comment.” The Nation‘s John Nichols claims NewsCorp has “gamed” American politics as much as it has the British system. Reuters talks to former News of the World employees about pressures of the newsroom under Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson.

TheWrap claims “[E]ven some in Murdoch’s elite circle of fellow multi-billionaires have deemed him kaput. ‘No one can take News Corp. away from Rupert,’ a member of that lofty strata told TheWrap, speaking on condition of anonymity. ‘But he’s dead money. He’s not going to rise again.'” Guardian: BSkyB directors to meet on £2bn payback to investors and James Murdoch’s role as chairman. Reuters: NewsCorp’s Australian shares drop 7% to two-year low.

Media pundit Jeff Jarvis stood tall on his tweetbox, too: “The Wall Street Journal is becoming Murdoch’s cheap harlot, publishing his ‘interview’ and ‘editorializing” his defense.’ Oh dear. A little later, he offered his own prescription for either the preservation or the detonation of NewsCorp’s newspaper holdings. Filmmaker Aaron Stewart-Ahn bowls a googly on Twitter: “Maybe Murdoch’s cunning plan is to have so many people arrested, resigned on daily basis everyone gets stunningly confused.” [Times of London front page preview tweeted by Jon Hill Design; Bloomberg Businessweek by Rafat Ali.]

“The Hack” is an occasional column of media commentary.

One Response to “The Morning Hack: All The NewsCorp That’s Fit To Print”

  1. Not David Bordwell says:

    Ray, a word of personal thanks for your sterling curation of the News of the World headlines over the past two weeks or so. I was in Europe when the shit started hitting the fan, and the bigger stories in the German papers were the Women’s World Cup and the ongoing sovereign debt crisis extending to Italy (they were also still talking about DSK, for Christ’s sake).

    Coming home and finding everything I needed to know all lined up on Movie City News was a treat, and reading each story as events unfolded was gripping.

    Cinematic, even. Anyway, good work and thanks.

Leave a Reply

Movie City Indie

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Let me try and be as direct as I possibly can with you on this. There was no relationship to repair. I didn’t intend for Harvey to buy and release The Immigrant – I thought it was a terrible idea. And I didn’t think he would want the film, and I didn’t think he would like the film. He bought the film without me knowing! He bought it from the equity people who raised the money for me in the States. And I told them it was a terrible idea, but I had no say over the matter. So they sold it to him without my say-so, and with me thinking it was a terrible idea. I was completely correct, but I couldn’t do anything about it. It was not my preference, it was not my choice, I did not want that to happen, I have no relationship with Harvey. So, it’s not like I repaired some relationship, then he screwed me again, and I’m an idiot for trusting him twice! Like I say, you try to distance yourself as much as possible from the immediate response to a movie. With The Immigrant I had final cut. So he knew he couldn’t make me change it. But he applied all the pressure he could, including shelving the film.”
James Gray

“I’m an unusual producer because I control the destiny of a lot of the films I’ve done. Most of them are in perfect states of restoration and preservation and distribution, and I aim to keep them in distribution. HanWay Films, which is my sales company, has a 500-film catalogue, which is looked after and tended like a garden. I’m still looking after my films in the catalogue and trying to get other people to look after their films, which we represent intellectually, to try to keep them alive. A film has to be run through a projector to be alive, unfortunately, and those electric shadows are few and far between now. It’s very hard to go and see films in a movie house. I was always involved with the sales and marketing of my films, right up from The Shout onwards. I’ve had good periods, but I also had a best period because the film business was in its best period then. You couldn’t make The Last Emperor today. You couldn’t make The Sheltering Sky today. You couldn’t make those films anymore as independent films. There are neither the resources nor the vision within the studios to go to them and say, “I want to make a film about China with no stars in it.”Then, twenty years ago, I thought, “OK, I’m going to sell my own films but I don’t want to make it my own sales company.” I wanted it to be for me but I wanted to make it open for every other producer, so they don’t feel that they make a film but I get the focus. So, it’s a company that is my business and I’m involved with running it in a certain way, but I’m not seen as a competitor with other people that use it. It’s used by lots of different producers apart from me. When I want to use it, however, it’s there for me and I suppose I’m planning to continue making all my films to be sold by HanWay. I don’t have to, but I do because it’s in my building and the marketing’s here, and I can do it like that. Often, it sounds like I’m being easy about things, but it’s much more difficult than it sounds. It’s just that I’ve been at it for a long time and there’s lots of fat and security around my business. I know how to make films, but it’s not easy—it’s become a very exacting life.”
~ Producer Jeremy Thomas