Why I’m stepping down(spectator.co.uk)
spectator.co.uk
Why I’m stepping down
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-im-stepping-down/
58 comments
LOL , exactly what I was thinking .
Either he has 0 self awareness, has gone complete senile , or he is at the top of cow dung pushers.I tend to think he is at top of the dung pushing business.
Either he has 0 self awareness, has gone complete senile , or he is at the top of cow dung pushers.I tend to think he is at top of the dung pushing business.
“I hate elites,” says billionaire owner of multinational media properties.
"Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth," says the billionaire who has been supporting another billionaire's political career since 2015, with very little regard for the truth.
It is titled "Why I am stepping down" and then, to the best I can tell, only gives this as a reason: "But the time is right for me to take on different roles". In short, corporate-speak for "I'm not going to tell you why, but I'm going to pretend that I am".
Murdoch is in his 90s. We don't need a clue to crack this case.
It makes sense to practice stepping down now. If Dante is to be believed, it's a long journey down to Malebolge.
I know Hacker News doesn't want you messing with article titles... but you couldn't have added "Rupert Murdoch: " to the title of your submission?
I believe it was originally submitted as such and was then changed to the actual title.
HN mods occasionally do this to reduce the extent to which people are responding off the title alone rather than the substance of the article, particularly in the case . This is especially so in the case of highly polarising topics, or people, as here, which tend to give rise to "title fever".
I don't necessarily agree with this, either generally or in specific instances, but I understand the rationale.
See:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21622388>
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23555000>
"Title fever" generally: <https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...>
I don't necessarily agree with this, either generally or in specific instances, but I understand the rationale.
See:
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21622388>
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23555000>
"Title fever" generally: <https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...>
Forcing the public to check the source to have that title make sense.
In the original source, that's the first line of the headline, so I wouldn't even consider including the name "messing with the article title".
But bdcravens is right, the submitter included the name, and it was later removed.
But bdcravens is right, the submitter included the name, and it was later removed.
It blows my mind that he's willing to complain about "elites". Does he genuinely not consider himself part of the "elite"? He owns most of the world's media and a sizable chunk of the planet's wealth.
What else could he need to consider himself elite?
What else could he need to consider himself elite?
This is an old trick. Witness Boris Johnson and Donald trump also railing at the elites that they were so clearly born into.
> Does he genuinely not consider himself part of the "elite"?
You are imagining said """elite""" as being one single group, whereas the view presented is that of some powerful parties and agents which are countered by other reactive forces.
You are imagining said """elite""" as being one single group, whereas the view presented is that of some powerful parties and agents which are countered by other reactive forces.
He absolutely is part of the elite as are basically everyone he associates with. In my experience when conservatives (rich or poor) start complaining about "the elites" they're almost always talking about Democrats and not always the rich Democrats. I'd bet that if polled a sizable chunk of conservatives in America wouldn't consider Trump to be one of the elites.
When Republicans refer to "Elites" it is short for "Coastal Elites", think overeducated upper middle class person with a lot of opinions and ideas for "simple" things that could be changed to "make the world a better place".
There is another brand of elite on the Republican side that I'm not sure there is a name for as evocative as "Coastal elite". There is "Religious elite" and maybe "Business elite" (but this group sometimes can be categorized as coastal elite)?
There is another brand of elite on the Republican side that I'm not sure there is a name for as evocative as "Coastal elite". There is "Religious elite" and maybe "Business elite" (but this group sometimes can be categorized as coastal elite)?
> lot of opinions and ideas for "simple" things that could be changed to "make the world a better place".
Something like "If we just got rid of all the regulation, the free market would be able to solve all of our problems"?
Something like "If we just got rid of all the regulation, the free market would be able to solve all of our problems"?
For the "coastal elite" it typically involves restricting freedoms with a sense of "knowing better".
Also I'm aware you somehow took offense to me explaining what "coastal elite" means.
Also I'm aware you somehow took offense to me explaining what "coastal elite" means.
[deleted]
The same thing happens in the UK. I just don't understand how anyone can fall for it.
These unfathomably rich people pointing their fingers at the comfortable middle-class and calling _them_ the elite.
These unfathomably rich people pointing their fingers at the comfortable middle-class and calling _them_ the elite.
To be fair, many non-conservatives also don't think Trump is elite.
That's his schtick. He pisses on your leg and tells you it's raining.
A strong sense of civil responsibility and decorum, maybe?
> Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth.
In this context of a conspiracy to control the media as a stepping-stone to control political systems, the word "elites" is a dogwhistle to deniably say "jews".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_trope#:~:text=one%...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)
In this context of a conspiracy to control the media as a stepping-stone to control political systems, the word "elites" is a dogwhistle to deniably say "jews".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_trope#:~:text=one%...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)
It honestly reads like a parody.
Waystar Royco is down 13 points after this announcement
> Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth.
Bitch, please. You're a multibillionaire who started a disinformation network that's been banned in several western nations (including your home country) due to blatantly pushing bullshit. Your very same network has argued in court (and won!) that no sane person should believe anything your most watched presenter says because it's so blatantly wrong that nobody with a brain would think he's correct. Your network was started so that the GOP could get their talking points in ("the thinking is done for you") so a repeat of Nixon could never happen again. Your network just got slapped down in court to the tune of $750 million USD because it knowingly pushed lies and falsehoods about the US 2020 presidential election.
You are the epitome of the elites you complain about. Take your billions and kindly fuck off.
The truth is that you're a megalomaniac prick who is solely responsible for the brainwashing that has killed millions, and destroyed tens of millions of families by purposely dividing the USA with your half-truths, your lies, and your dog-whistle pandering.
Bitch, please. You're a multibillionaire who started a disinformation network that's been banned in several western nations (including your home country) due to blatantly pushing bullshit. Your very same network has argued in court (and won!) that no sane person should believe anything your most watched presenter says because it's so blatantly wrong that nobody with a brain would think he's correct. Your network was started so that the GOP could get their talking points in ("the thinking is done for you") so a repeat of Nixon could never happen again. Your network just got slapped down in court to the tune of $750 million USD because it knowingly pushed lies and falsehoods about the US 2020 presidential election.
You are the epitome of the elites you complain about. Take your billions and kindly fuck off.
The truth is that you're a megalomaniac prick who is solely responsible for the brainwashing that has killed millions, and destroyed tens of millions of families by purposely dividing the USA with your half-truths, your lies, and your dog-whistle pandering.
>destroyed tens of millions of families by purposely dividing the USA with your half-truths, your lies, and your dog-whistle pandering
This makes it sound like there are two sides, where one side is smart and is never fooled by propaganda, and the other side is easily gulled by flashy TV effects.
This makes it sound like there are two sides, where one side is smart and is never fooled by propaganda, and the other side is easily gulled by flashy TV effects.
No it doesn't. If someone says "You targeted group X" then that does not imply that group Y is beyond being targeted at all.
> This makes it sound like there are two sides, where one side is smart and is never fooled by propaganda, and the other side is easily gulled by flashy TV effects.
I think you're reading a bit more into the comment than the author put into it.
I think you're reading a bit more into the comment than the author put into it.
Not sure how else to read it. The implication was that Murdoch divided families, and that he used deception to do it, and they were dumb or foolish enough to fall for it.
I get the anger at Murdoch. I just wonder why the same anger isn't directed at other half dozen TV news outlets that are equally untrustworthy.
I get the anger at Murdoch. I just wonder why the same anger isn't directed at other half dozen TV news outlets that are equally untrustworthy.
Yet again the authoritarian right accuses the left of their own actions.
let’s not pretend that manufactured consent isn’t a bipartisan game, it’s just a petty trick to keep us barking up the other tree
Mr. Murdoch is 92 years old; it seems to me he doesn't need to explain to the world why he is stepping down from a major role.
You only need to look at the US presidential runs to see why it might actually need to be explained.
Murdoch has possibly done more damage to the UK than any other living human.
Umm, don't forget about the US/world. Bush administration got a lot of key help from them, just to name one example.
No doubt that's true. But I don't live in the US so don't feel very qualified to comment.
Another discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37597264
This is the end of succession we didn't get to see.
This reads like a love letter to shareholders; of which, I am not. The reason i say this? love em or hate em: Murdoch leaving the helm means fiscal uncertainty for shareholders. I wish him and everyone else well (of course i always have so this comment is as much drivel as the "news" article)
`Our companies are in robust health, as am I`
is he really in good health?
is he really in good health?
The actuarial life tables don't have a special column for billionaires. Regardless of what SV longevity hackers think they know. He's got ~3-5 years.
As with any neocon: you can take what they say, invert it, and understand what they mean.
Nope: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/04/rupert-murdoch-cover...
He was in relatively poor health even before getting COVID. It’s been a downward slide since
He was in relatively poor health even before getting COVID. It’s been a downward slide since
Starting next year, Murdoch will be 93.
According to this actuarial table from the US government, for a male age 93-101, the probability of dying in any given year varies from 25% (low end) to 40% (high end). Note that it's a number that only goes in one direction - up.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
According to this actuarial table from the US government, for a male age 93-101, the probability of dying in any given year varies from 25% (low end) to 40% (high end). Note that it's a number that only goes in one direction - up.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
His real estate companies are not in good health.
For a lich, sure.
The late on a Friday afternoon comment is a bit strange, rather pointed.
> late on a Friday afternoon comment is a bit strange, rather pointed
Why? And what do you mean with "«rather pointed»"?
Why? And what do you mean with "«rather pointed»"?
It's early Friday morning in Australia right now, and nowhere on Earth is it late Friday afternoon at the moment.
this is a reference to a line in the article
Introducing: The Chairman Emeritus podcast
What a total piece of filth.
He's bad, but he'll die. So I like it!
I would say the lack of self-awareness is astonishing but as is the usual case with reactionaries, this is pure projection.