The Rupert Murdoch “Succession”-like family fight has reached a conclusion. And in the end, it’s Rupert’s son, Lachlan, who will take control of the family’s media empire.
What does that mean? Well, The New York Times’ Jim Rutenberg and Jonathan Mahler wrote, “The deal ensures that the empire’s various outlets, including Fox News, The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, will remain conservative after his father Rupert’s death. It is valued at $3.3 billion, according to a person with knowledge of the negotiations.”
The multi-billion-dollar deal puts an end to a decadeslong battle to determine who will succeed Rupert, who is now 94. At times, it really did look like HBO’s “Succession.”
The Times wrote, “The deal comes months after Rupert and Lachlan’s audacious bid to unilaterally change the terms of the Murdoch family’s irrevocable trust and disenfranchise Lachlan’s oldest siblings, Prue, Liz and James. The bid initially failed in court, but ultimately brought the two sides to the negotiating table.”
In the end, this is what Rupert wanted: to have Lachlan keep the conservative bent to the Murdoch media empire. As it is, Lachlan has essentially been running the business for a few years.
The Times added, “In a sense, both sides are getting what they wanted, and can claim victory. Prue, Liz and James — who are all less conservative than Lachlan — were eager to break from a media empire whose politics they have often disagreed with, and to add another billion-plus dollars to the multibillion-dollar fortunes that they have already inherited from their father. And they are getting considerably more for their shares than Lachlan had been willing to pay in previous buyout discussions.”
The oldest three siblings are expected to receive about $1.1 billion for their shares.
The company, of course, put out a statement cheering the news, saying, “News Corp’s board of directors welcomes these developments and believes that the leadership, vision and management by the Company’s Chair, Lachlan Murdoch, will continue to be important to guiding the Company’s strategy and success.”
For more, check out The New York Times’ Emmett Lindner with “The Murdoch Succession Fight Is Over. So What Does Lachlan Control?”
This story comes with art
Remember that letter that Donald Trump supposedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein for a 2003 birthday book? The one where Trump allegedly drew the outline of a woman’s body? The one that Trump denied writing (or drawing)? The one he sued The Wall Street Journal over?
Well, on Monday, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee posted the letter, complete with the drawing and the signature of “Donald” that very much looks like Trump’s distinctive signature in a rather sensitive spot on the drawing.
Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., who is the committee’s Democratic ranking member, said, “President Trump called the Epstein investigation a hoax and claimed that his birthday note didn’t exist. Now we know that Donald Trump was lying and is doing everything he can to cover up the truth. Enough of the games and lies, release the full files now.”
Trump has continually denied authoring the letter.
The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, published “A Visual Breakdown of the Trump Birthday Letter to Epstein.”
The Journal’s Khadeeja Safdar, Joe Palazzolo and Kara Dapena compare similarities between the letter and Trump’s signature to other Trump letters, drawings and official signatures.
A spotlight on Spotlight
Here’s an interesting media story. Semafor’s Max Tani reported that The Boston Globe recently turned the spotlight on its own legendary Spotlight team.
Spotlight is the Globe’s investigative unit that is most famous for its reporting on sexual abuses of children inside the Catholic Church. Spotlight’s work won a Pulitzer Prize in 2003 and was later the basis of an Oscar-winning film starring Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo and Rachel McAdams that was called, appropriately enough, “Spotlight.”
Tani reports that the Globe investigated complaints against Brendan McCarthy, the editor of Spotlight. According to Tani’s story, at least two Globe journalists complained to human resources about how they were treated by McCarthy. Tani wrote, “McCarthy, according to the complaints, separately berated two Globe journalists over perceived editorial differences, they said, cursing at his team and at staff working on Spotlight-related projects. Four other people told Semafor that they had also been told about the alleged incidents. One employee claimed McCarthy punished employees who complained about his management by reducing their roles in journalistic projects.”
Ultimately, the Globe acknowledged that McCarthy was blunt, but had not crossed any lines of acceptable workplace conduct and “determined no further action was warranted.” A Globe spokesperson told Tani, “Our award-winning Spotlight team undertakes important and impactful work that is a large part of our commitment to providing readers with trusted news and information. We recognize the dedication and leadership that Spotlight Editor Brendan McCarthy contributes to this effort, and his track record as a respected colleague in the newsroom and industry speaks for itself.”
Tani wrote, “I’ve spoken to more than a dozen people in the Globe newsroom and some who have left in the last year, partially because nearly every person I spoke with insisted that I speak with multiple other people who would corroborate their side of the story. (One person gave me a list of 28.) The camps were more or less divided between people who think McCarthy crossed a line with staff in several instances, and others who see him as a top-tier editor with a passion for journalistic results and less patience for staff who fall short. (There’s some overlap in these categories.)”
Tani added, “It’s hard not to see in the decision to stand by McCarthy a conclusion that journalism’s rough, confrontational edges may simply require big, difficult personalities, in a cultural moment dominated by them. One staffer noted to me that if the McCarthy incident had ‘happened at Harvard, we’d be investigating it — but when it happens at the Globe, no one here cares.’ But the shift may be broader, as newsrooms both describe a cultural shift and, at least in some cases, embody it.”
Don’t blame us
In Monday’s newsletter, I mentioned how the United States Tennis Association asked broadcasters of the U.S. Open to censor reactions to President Donald Trump attending Sunday’s men’s final.
But the White House said it did not ask the USTA to put out that memo. When asked by ABC News, the White House said, “That’s not true. We did not ask anyone to censor.”
Meanwhile, there were reports from several outlets — including The Associated Press and The New York Times, not to mention actual video on social media — that said Trump was booed by the crowd in New York. Rolling Stone had a headline that said Trump was booed “repeatedly.”
However, MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle retweeted a Rolling Stone tweet and wrote, “I was there. I didn’t witness him getting booed & the delay wasn’t a big deal. The day was about great tennis. The President was there too.”
The match between Italy’s Jannik Sinner and Spain’s Carlos Alcaraz was delayed 45 minutes while fans waited through extra-long security lines because of Trump’s presence. Ruhle said that the delay “wasn’t a big deal.” Maybe she was talking about her experience getting in. But several tennis analysts, including the great Martina Navratilova, noted that such delays are actually a really big deal to players, whose preparation often relies on matches starting on time.
Baba Booey!
