Search

During the 2013 federal election in Australia, the role of Rupert Murdoch and his newspapers in the nation's politics became a matter of major public controversy for the first time in some years. This accords with both popular belief and the academic literature that suggests Murdoch has a long history of political intervention through the use (or threatened use) of his media power in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia. This article examines the relationship between Rupert Murdoch and the Labor governments from 2007 to 2013. It describes the campaigning role of his newspapers in attacking key policies of the first Rudd government and the subsequent Gillard government. It then explores the front page headlines that influenced the tone of the 2013 election campaign and which saw the issue of media ownership and bias emerge as a topic of widespread discussion. Ultimately this article explores Murdoch's motivations for campaigning against Kevin Rudd, including the claim that News Corporation stood to gain financially through the election of a Liberal-National coalition government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is the most powerful media organisation in the world. Murdoch's commercial success is obvious, but less well understood is his successful pursuit of political goals, using his news media. Murdoch himself is probably the most influential Australian of all time. He says the recent News of the World hacking scandal went 'went against everything [he stands] for'. But how true is this? He sees himself as an anti-establishment rebel, yet his influence in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States makes him part of a global elite. He has become one of the key promoters of neo-liberal ideology of small government and deregulation over the past 30 years. The basis of his philosophy was expressed by one of his former editors, David Montgomery, who said 'Rupert has contempt for the rules. Contempt even for governments.' Murdoch is also a devotee of the neo-conservative wing of the US Republican Party. The possibility of exercising power through ownership of the news media has been little studied in recent years, but Murdoch's role in English-speaking countries over the last 30 years shows that perhaps we need to look again at such media theories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

News Corporation is one of the most closely studied international media conglomerates, headed by the world’s most famous media proprietor. Yet, despite its prominence in the academic literature, little attention has been paid to the company’s book publishing operations. This article seeks to rectify this oversight. It investigates some of the more controversial book deals made by HarperCollins, outlining a partisan publishing pattern that conforms to Murdoch’s proclivity for conservative politics. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In 2007 the global media company News Corporation announced that it would become ‘carbon neutral’ and generally endorsed scientific warnings about global warming. Its CEO, Rupert Murdoch, signaled not only that the media group held a corporate view toward the issue of climate change but that its editorial coverage would henceforth change. This article examines the period before this change of direction. From 1997 to 2007 newspapers and television stations owned by News Corporation, based on their editorials, columnists and commentators, largely denied the science of climate change and dismissed those who were concerned about it. While the intensity of commentary and editorials about climate change varied between media outlets owned by News Corporation in the USA, Britain and Australia, its corporate view framed the issue as one of political correctness rather than science. Scientific knowledge was portrayed as an orthodoxy and its own stance, and that of ‘climate sceptics’ as one of courageous dissent. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the political influence in the United States, Great Britain, and Australia of Australian media magnate Rupert Murdoch and his multinational News Corporation. In contrast to popular accounts of Murdoch as a businessman who prioritizes profit over politics, the article argues that his conservative political agenda is a more important motivation in his business decisions. Examples are discussed that are seen as typifying four distinguishing features of the Murdoch media operations: free market ideology; unified positions on matters of public policy; global editorial meetings; and opposition to liberal media bias.

This article contends that The Sunday Times became a champion of the ideas of free market populism after it was purchased by Rupert Murdoch. The driving force for this shift was the editor (1983-1994), Andrew Neil, who argued that free market ideology was a radical set of ideas which was on the side of ordinary people and which was opposed mainly by “elites” and “establishments”. This populist view of markets owes much to the ideas of the American Right and was shared by the newspaper's proprietor, Rupert Murdoch. The market populism of The Sunday Times was allied to a discourse in which opposing left-liberal views were characterised as politically correct “orthodoxies” rather than authentic positions. This article examines the newspaper's challenge to the “orthodoxies” of economic policy, the welfare state and policy on AIDS. It concludes that the popularisation of the market as a vehicle for social betterment was one of the lasting influences of this Murdoch newspaper, rather than simply its support for a particular leader (Thatcher) or party (the Conservatives). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper outlines the high level of interest that News Corporation's Chief Executive Officer, Rupert Murdoch, has always had in politics. It details his trajectory on the political spectrum, arguing that while his position has changed, one consistent theme has been libertarianism. It examines the political stance of News Corporation's Australian flagship newspaper and argues that it helped forge a neo-liberal consensus in the late 1970s both within conservative political circles and within the Australian public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]