I was wondering if Murdoch was the real example of the fertile octogenarian from the rule against perpetuities, but it seems his youngest daughter Chloe was born when he was 72.
I put the parenthetical in the wrong spot-- the trust separately apportions wealth from and power over Fox among his existing and yet-to-be born kids.
Fox settled with Dominion for $787 miliion. Truly depressing that there's such an audience for malicious lies that losses like this are an acceptable cost of business, that the incentives to lie are this steep.
All the articles I see mention that the hearings are sealed (Murdoch has 28 days from {I think} 9/23 to respond to a request to unseal). I don't see the name of the probate court commissioner (I think that's the right title) who didn't make a ruling on 9/23, but concluded that hearing, nor do I see the name of the judge who will make a decision later. So the names of the people deciding and of course their backgrounds are apparently not available. The Las Vegas Sun reports that Barr was seen at the Reno courthouse.
Politburo personnel changes are decided more transparently.
||
I'm too lazy right now to read the details of the trust, but I was pretty shocked to watch Fox News coverage which was pretty critical of Trump and Vance, maybe even saying that they were untruthful or Biden was doing better. I was so shocked that I don't remember. But Murdoch may have decided that Trump is so dangerous it would hurt his business interests.
|>
3: FN can let more critical stuff slip through from time to time - it doesn't affect the arc of the narrative they involve their viewers in.
4: They were women anchors. Murdoch switches party allegiances in the UK.
Which Barr is this Barr? Bill? Bob? Roseanne?
But Murdoch may have decided that Trump is so dangerous it would hurt his business interests.
I think a lot of rich people and big business leaders are having to gauge how much they believe Trump (and supporters/successors) would successfully create an authoritarian state strong enough to expropriate enormous amounts of personal wealth and direct businesses to do its bidding. There's basically no chance that Biden/Harris/any Democratic leader would crack down on oligarchs the way Russia has when they've fallen out of favor or even the way China has treated Jack Ma. But a Trump authoritarian state would. Of course, it's less of a concern if you think you're going to be the oligarch who never falls out of favor and is happy to both toe and enforce the party line.
I kind of wish they'd arrest the Temu guy.
They were women anchors.
I don't understand what you're saying.
9: I keep hoping that my degree in German Studies will become irrelevant, but no.
9: so tell me, when Trump was actually president, did we see this laudable Robin Hood side much?
9 is actually a nearly pure sample of Trumpite thinking. He's evil and lawless and therefore he must be both effective and right. I mean, Putin Cracked Down On The Oligarchs and now there are no oligarchs. Right? Right?
*No*, that's a fucking insanely idiotic thing to say. There are plenty, VVP himself is one, if you're round here I can walk you to the biggest private house in London, the property of the guy who taught him judo and somehow ended up owning all Russia's potash resources. Russia's Gini coefficient has not come down since the 90s, it just stopped going up. Putin secured the position of the oligarchy by no kidding murdering or exiling anyone who didn't like it. That's how he got rich himself.
laudable Robin Hood side much
I'm assuming this is a joke since expropriation can take the form of sending an oil oligarch to Siberia while not engaging in broad distributions of the confiscated wealth. it could mean forcing the sale of companies that got on the wrong side of the government, regulations targeting specific companies for political reasons, and so on. All more likely to happen under the current Republican party.
9 is actually a nearly pure sample of Trumpite thinking.
Oh, sorry about 13. The real response I should have posted is just fuck off.
Ok, so the trust bit in Succession was another bit almost directly from Murdoch? Probably not in the details which I don't really recall following on the show.
My point isn't that there are no oligarchs, which you could have seen by applying some reading comprehension and just a modicum of charitable interpretation. My point is that there's a different risk calculation if you're in a country where the government can make or break your oligarchical position. Do you want to live under that risk or not? You could benefit greatly as long as you're on the right side of it, so maybe you do. Is Trump going to successfully get there? Not likely in a couple of terms of office. But you have to ask the question if you go down that path.
Putin secured the position of the oligarchy by no kidding murdering or exiling anyone who didn't like it.
Yes, including some oligarchs. My only point was that if you are something of an oligarch now, there's more risk of being murdered or imprisoned in a possible future authoritarian state than under the current US government.
3, 4: FN can be "moderate" and "concerned " occasionally. But yeah, overall they reinforce the narrative. A lot of how they do that is in what they *don't* report, and this helps them maintain the veneer of "straight" journalism during their daytime shows--the "lie" is in the overall narrative not generally in individual story details. A veneer that is paper thin but enough to provide cover for their many apologists in the MSM (even when as in 2021 they are helping trash public heath authorities for political gain--which should have been one of the biggest stories about media of the decade).
I am willing to grant RM some manner of "genius" status. An evil fucking pig of a genius, but he's absolutely run circles around so many.
Clearly not everything has worked.. cough MySpace cough.. but a lot has. Totally helped fuck the media in three anglophone countries.
The Slow Burn podcast is doing a series on the rise of Fox News. I've only listed to the first two episodes but a lot of it is about Roger Ailes. I'm curious to see how directly Murdoch factors in.
14.1: I saw something recently pointing out that Trump's whole deal is that he's a wrestling heel. It really explains so much. The context was that he's lost his charisma and ability to entertain and so he doesn't even work as a heel the way he did in the past, but it does strike me as a really helpful framework.
If you really want to get into a full accounting of all the excellence in our writing I can do that.
1 No, the fertile octogenarian is female. A legal fiction.
Re oligarchs: Musk is all in wrt Trump right now, but one can easily imagine scenarios where they fall out. Neither gives in gracefully.
But you have to ask the question if you go down that path.
The thing is, you don't actually have to ask that question, any more than Joe Sixpack does.
What's the matter with the oligarchs? The same thing that's the matter with Kansas. They're assholes.
A tremendous amount of wheat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyZkp7EX7LU
26: Right. And even today people are willing to work for Donald Trump, despite his record of turning on his own lickspittles.
When people say that the rich support Trump because of self-interest -- tax cuts or whatever -- they are missing a whole lot of the picture. The rich Trump supporters are, by and large, principled racists, sexist and fascists who are willing to sacrifice for their principles.
My epiphany on this came with Joe the Plumber. You remember: the guy who was pissed off because marginal tax rates could go up for people making more than $250,000.
Turns out that contrary to what he said, Joe didn't make that much. But he was legit angry because he was a patriotic American who wanted what was best for the country, even if it didn't benefit him.
Some of my best friends are white people, but I think we need to be honest. They have had a rough ten years or so.
It went from "white supremacists" to just "racist" because even the white supremacists were self aware enough to take a look at Trump and realize a copy of "The Bell Curve" and a Burke quotation isn't going to paper over that.
The thing is, you don't actually have to ask that question, any more than Joe Sixpack does.
In context, the "you" I've been referring to are people like the Murdochs, which you can see by reading the excerpt of the comment I was originally responding to. Should "you", meaning politicalfootball or random internet commenter, or plumber, worry about what the fate of oligarchs means for your own life? Probably not.
I'm certainly not voting for Harris in order to protect the rich or whatever uncharitable interpretation someone wants to make up and get mad at and attribute to me.
I'm voting for Harris because Michael Stipe said I should.
Anyway, I'm willing to pay money to see bad things happen to oligarchs. Just tell me how.
I'm not a rich man, but I have very low fixed expenses.
Just write your critters.
In context, the "you" I've been referring to are people like the Murdochs, which you can see by reading the excerpt of the comment I was originally responding to.
Sure, I understood that and responded accordingly. I'm a little puzzled at having failed to make my point, but here's my point: Trump voters, as a group, are not required to reflect in a useful way about what will benefit them personally or financially. The Murdoch types, like other Trump voters, support him for reasons that are separate from a rational calculation of pecuniary benefit.
But also, it should be said that the US oligarchs are not meaningfully threatened by Trump (as I think you have said). So I might be missing your point entirely.
38: I'm going to have to kill a ground hog.
But also, it should be said that the US oligarchs are not meaningfully threatened by Trump (as I think you have said). So I might be missing your point entirely.
I can't tell if you have, to be honest, and I'm regretting participating in this thread.
But anyway, I don't think any oligarchs are particularly threatened by the current US state. But a more authoritarian state could threaten specific individual oligarchs more than the current US government, even while maintaining oligarchy overall. So, if you are in an oligarchical position* and think electing Trump will further the path towards that type of authoritarian government, then you may start thinking about whether you really want to go down that road. If you are a Trump supporter, you're probably fine with it and thinking you'll come out ahead. If you are anti-Trump, then you have a lot of reasons already not to vote for him.
If you're somewhere in between, and you think he's just buffoonery and tax cuts and slashing regulation, then maybe you say tax cuts and fewer regulations are good and there's no real threat of anything else. But if you are thinking Trump might not be good for your business interests, then maybe the calculation you're making is that there's ultimately a greater risk to you in an authoritarian state and you don't want to take that on, so you want to put the brakes on going down that road, even though on the surface it seems like a right wing government will be better for your short term interests.
Is that a qualified enough statement?
*Or, you know, maybe not an "oligarch" but running a major business that has lots of contact points with the US state.
The only real point I wanted to make was in 19. I will bow out of any further speculation on the psychology of individual oligarchs or voters.
If you really want to get into a full accounting of all the excellence in our writing I can do that.
But when you're done killing the groundhog can you write your critter? Things are getting pretty hairy over here.
Avalanche of malicious MAGA lies te: hurricane response met with faint whimpers of rebuttal by the press.
Avalanche of malicious MAGA lies te: hurricane response met with faint whimpers of rebuttal by the press.
42% of the audience wants lies is apparently insurmountable for the press. It's a tough problem to solve, those people need to want to rejoin reality and then there has to be a path back.
AIMHMHB I remember reading an article about how Murdoch was restructuring his business in preparation for his imminent retirement or death in "Punch", a magazine which printed its last issue in 1992.
48 how many marriages has it been since then?
I'm certainly not voting for Harris
I knew it!
OT: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a really weird movie.
Even in a weird movie the flamethrower is weird.
I did learn that it's the "Manson" family, not "Mason." So I can hire someone to fix my bricks.
The book is also really weird, not least for the way in which it finishes several months before the end of the film and only discusses the climax of the film extremely briefly and parenthetically, in (I think) less than a sentence. About a third of it, meanwhile, is about the di Caprio character filming the pilot episode of the Western he's in.
Hot damn
https://x.com/dlowther715/status/1843278452767809798?s=46&t=nbIfRG4OrIZbaPkDOwkgxQ