Rupert Murdoch is attempting to stage a coup against his own heirs to protect his beloved eldest son, Lachlan, as his successor. His failure to achieve this, at the hands of an unknown person probate commissioner in Nevada, exclusively revealed by New York Times, was perhaps the biggest failure of the 93-year-old mogul’s career, frustrating his valedictorian plans for his vast media empire and having far-reaching consequences.
Fox News has always been a catalyst for family feuds. For Rupert and Lachlan, it was their latter-day “fuck it” success, widely despised and hugely profitable. (Rupert is at the same time very satisfied with the most respected part of his news business, according to Wall Street Journal, one of the stores he owned.) However, as far as the remaining heirs were concerned—James, Elisabeth, And discretion—Fox News is like a toxic pollutant they want to get rid of. In the past year or so, this division has fallen into a state of paranoid war. James and his two sisters denied they were plotting to eliminate Lachlan after their father’s death; James emphasized that no such conspiracy exists and that the future of Fox and the rest of the media empire must be decided — as would be expected under the terms of the irrevocable trust was established in 2006 — with the voting power of all four.
Nevada Probate Commissioner, Edmund J. Gorman Jr., so harsh in his description on the attempt to change the trust: “The attempt was an attempt to arrange Lachlan’s advantage in Murdoch’s favor after Rupert Murdoch’s death so that the succession would be immutable. The play might have been a success; But an evidentiary hearing, like a face-off in a poker game, is where the technicalities of the game collide with the facts and at the end all bluffs are called and the cards lie face up.”
Even then, nothing about this family’s future plans is simple. For one thing, it would be a mistake to consider James Murdoch a white knight. As one person familiar with the family dynamic told me, “There was a lot of conflict between them.” Any suggestion that the dispute is more about ethical broadcasting standards than about money and control is naive. Certainly, James, Elisabeth and Prudence are working to minimize the tax impact of the succession as well as who will decide the future of the Murdoch empire, including Fox News.
IN a statement ARRIVE the New York Times, James, Elisabeth and Prudence said they “welcome Commissioner Gorman’s decision and hope that we can move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships between all members.” family member.” Rupert Murdoch’s lawyer told the newspaper that he and “Lachlan are disappointed with the verdict and intend to appeal”.
The line of attack that James is taking against his brother is said to be based not simply on Fox News’ role in amplifying the tide of Trump’s lies, but is aimed at high levels of corporate governance and Lachlan’s record of cyber surveillance, which has incurred massive litigation costs over election irregularities under his watch. Most serious: the libel case that Murdoch had to do compensation for damages worth $787.5 million to Dominion Voting Systems as well as The case has not been resolved provided by another voting machine company, Smartmatic. James also had long been angry at the suffering of predatory sex the culture of Fox News when the late Roger Ailes ran it.
Still, those costs seem like chump change compared to the cost of the most damaging scandal ever to hit the Murdoch empire. And this has sunk James Murdoch as well as his father: the industrial-scale hack, nearly two decades ago, at two London tabloids, the cyber-attack. World news (now defunct) and Sun. James was later supported by his father, at first claiming that the hack was carried out by a rogue reporter and then denying direct personal knowledge of both the hack and an alleged cover-up. cover. The truth about that will come closer this week, when the High Court in London considers the final arguments between Murdoch’s lawyers and those. acting for Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex, on what will be admissible as evidence in a public trialexpected in January.
