Even as the Murdochs bitterly feud, their empire thrives
NOTHING in Fox's television schedules last year was quite as exciting – or, at times, as profane – as the drama that played out in a closed probate court in Reno, Nevada.
Rupert Murdoch, the now 94-year-old founder and controlling shareholder of Fox Corporation and its sister company, News Corp, was trying to change the terms of a family trust in order to block three of his children from inheriting control of the companies on his death. The high-stakes legal manoeuvre was rejected. An appeal – and thus a new season of morbid entertainment for media watchers – is in the works.
As the Murdochs continue their decades-long, multibillion-dollar family feud, the empire they are fighting over is flourishing.
This is doubly surprising. For one thing, succession crises and legal uncertainty tend not to bolster investors' confidence in a company. What is more, the Murdoch firms are giants in linear television and print journalism, declining industries that markets have not been kind to. Why are a pair of legacy media companies controlled by a dysfunctional dynasty so popular with investors?
Start with Fox, the larger of the two, with a market value of US$24 billion. Its business is concentrated in American broadcast and cable television, which in recent years have witnessed a bloodbath.
Over the past decade and a half, the share of homes with pay TV has fallen from nearly 90 per cent to barely 50 per cent, as viewers have defected to streaming services such as Netflix. As for broadcast television, Americans today spend half as much time watching it as they do streaming, according to Nielsen, a data company.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
While other legacy media companies' values have stagnated or worse, Fox's has soared. The difference lies in its content mix.
In 2019, Fox sold its general-entertainment assets to Disney for US$71 billion, at what turned out to be the top of the market, deciding to focus on news and sport. It was the right call: streamers like Netflix have since grabbed the audience for general entertainment, while news and sport have mostly stayed on linear TV, and thus with Fox.
'They were always the most entrepreneurial company – they could always see around corners,' said Jessica Reif Ehrlich, a media analyst at Bank of America.
Despite streamers' growing interest in sport, Fox's audience is stable: its first showing of the Indianapolis 500 last month brought in 7.1 million viewers, the most for the motor race since 2008. Fox News, meanwhile, recently recorded the most-watched quarter in the history of cable news, thanks in part to the chaos generated by the new occupant of the White House.
Healthy audiences mean that, despite a shrinking cable market, Fox has seen modest growth in its affiliate fees (the sums it charges cable providers for carrying its channels) from US$5.9 billion in 2020 to US$7.3 billion last year.
The return of Donald Trump has also helped Fox's advertising business, by normalising opinions which once made mainstream advertisers queasy about airing commercials on Fox News. Ads on the channel are no longer just for gold and magic pillows: in recent months, the likes of Amazon, Netflix and GE have paid for spots on the network.
'Because of the election results, many advertisers have sort of rethought their positioning in this country and understand that the Fox News viewer really does represent middle America,' Lachlan Murdoch, Fox's chief executive, said in March.
Having mostly sat out the ruinously expensive streaming wars, in which media companies lost billions trying to woo subscribers, Fox is now experimenting with the new medium. In 2020 it bought Tubi, an unglamorous free streaming service with ads.
Tubi has since overtaken rivals such as Pluto, owned by Paramount, and is on track to bring in more than US$1 billion this year. In February, Fox aired the Super Bowl on Tubi, drawing eight million new viewers to the platform. Some 40 per cent of the audience was under 34, a group that is hard to reach on cable.
Its latest streaming experiment is Fox One, combining all of Fox's linear content, which will launch before the National Football League kicks off in September. Unlike other legacy media companies, which must reckon with the trade-off that putting their best stuff on streaming will undermine people's willingness to pay for a bigger bundle of entertainment content on cable, Fox faces no such dilemma.
'The beauty of Fox is, because they don't have the long tail of crappy linear cable channels to protect, they're very nimble,' said Jason Bazinet of Citigroup, another bank. On the transition to streaming, 'They're sort of agnostic, and so from a strategic standpoint they're just in a very good position.'
News Corp, the other half of the Murdoch empire, which holds titles including The Wall Street Journal and New York Post, is in favour with investors for different reasons.
Print news looks no more promising than cable television, as circulations at many titles decline and the advertising business is swallowed by Google and Meta. By one estimate, more than 3,000 newspapers have closed in America in the past 20 years – a third of the country's total. Yet, like Fox, News Corp's stock is buoyant, rising by nearly 50 per cent in the past two years.
One reason is the success of Dow Jones, the part of News Corp which holds the Journal. Whereas advertising-reliant titles like the New York Post are struggling with declines in web traffic, the globalised, subscription-focused Journal has thrived in the same way as rivals like The New York Times.
Dow Jones also has a high-margin business supplying data to companies. Its revenue has risen by 40 per cent since 2020, offsetting a decline among News Corp's other news businesses. HarperCollins, a book publisher owned by News Corp, has also contributed to growth, helped by a boom in audiobooks.
Yet, the biggest driver of News Corp's share price has nothing to do with news. Among the company's eclectic assets is a 61 per cent stake in REA Group, a publicly traded Australian property-listing platform. The Murdochs invested in the company in 2001, when it was on the brink of bankruptcy after the dotcom crash. It proved to be an inspired bet: following a housing boom in Australia, REA's market value has grown to over US$20 billion, some US$4 billion more than News Corp itself.
Shareholders' excitement about News Corp has little to do with newspapers or books, said Bazinet of Citi: 'The market's enthusiasm is for REA.' He calculated that, between 2017 and 2024, there was an 84 per cent correlation between the movements in News Corp's share price and those of REA.
Rupert Murdoch (above) is apparently determined to protect the leadership of his eldest son, Lachlan – who as well as running Fox is chairman of News Corp – against a future challenge by three siblings, Prudence, Elisabeth and James, who disagree to varying extents with the right-wing politics of the Murdoch outlets. PHOTO: REUTERS
As the Murdoch empire ploughs successfully on, the family continues to feud. Rupert Murdoch is apparently determined to protect the leadership of his eldest son, Lachlan – who as well as running Fox is chairman of News Corp – against a future challenge by three siblings, Prudence, Elisabeth and James, who disagree to varying extents with the right-wing politics of the Murdoch outlets.
Under the terms of the family trust, the three will have enough votes to oust Lachlan Murdoch after their father dies. Unless he can amend the trust, or buy out the rebel siblings, change could be on the way for Rupert Murdoch's companies.
Yet, the prospect of such an upset seems to be stoking enthusiasm for the stocks in some quarters. Activist investors in News Corp have long lobbied for the company to spin off its stake in REA, arguing that the property company and the newspapers would fare better separately than they have as a bundle. Fox has likewise benefited from speculation that the company could become a target for acquisition, as Hollywood's studios rush to bulk up.
If control of the companies passes to siblings who are unhappy with the status quo, the chances of a sale or break-up rise. Investors' enthusiasm for Fox and News Corp is partly explained by the fact that Murdoch has run them so shrewdly. But it is also due to a sense that his time in charge is drawing to a close.
©2025 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
32 minutes ago
- Business Times
Court partially allows Goh Jin Hian's appeal, finds he did not breach duty by not probing IPP's red flags
[SINGAPORE] The Appellate Division of the High Court has partially allowed an appeal by Goh Jin Hian against having to pay damages for breaching his duty of care as a then-director of the insolvent marine fuel supplier, Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP). The ruling on Thursday (Jun 5) said that Goh had breached his duty of care as a result of not being aware of IPP's cargo trading business – not because he had failed to open a probe into red flags surrounding the company. The justices presiding were Tay Yong Kwang, Woo Bih Li and Kannan Ramesh. Goh was also found not to have breached his duty to act in the best interests of IPP's creditors regarding drawdowns on bank facilities in relation to fraudulent cargo trades. This follows his being found liable in February 2024 for breaching of his director's duties, statutory duties and the losses suffered by the firm, which came to US$146 million plus interest. The liquidators of IPP had sued Dr Goh, the son of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, to recover US$156 million in losses, accusing him of 'sleepwalking through his time as a director' and failing to discover and stop the drawdowns in trade financing between June 2019 and July 2019, said to have been funding non-existent or sham transactions. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up In his grounds of decision released last July, High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah said Dr Goh had not taken 'reasonable steps', such as by making the necessary inquiries, when red flags surrounding the company arose. Goh was also unaware of the existence of IPP's cargo trading business, despite being a director of the company, and therefore did not know this business was a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by IPP, said the justice. Following the appeal, the judgement has been set aside, and Dr Goh no longer has to pay damages to IPP. While the Appellate Division agreed with the previous judgement that Goh had breached his duty of care by being unaware of IPP's cargo trading business, it found that the three red flags raised in the previous judgement were not 'red flags that would have put Dr Goh on a train of inquiry leading to the fraud in the cargo trading business being uncovered'. One such red flag was an audit confirmation request relating to amounts of receivables due to IPP from customer Mercuria Energy Trading, which Goh signed and was sent to Mercuria on Feb 7, 2018. The sum due was US$132 million. While Justice Aedit said Goh should have made inquiries upon receiving the audit confirmation request, the Appellate Division said the fact that this sum was requested by Mercuria was 'not, in and of itself, enough to put him on inquiry'. This was because Mercuria was a big company and that the size of the receivable could have been explained by IPP's sizeable trading volume, amounting to about US$1 billion, with it. Two other issues that IPP's liquidators had called red flags – the suspension of IPP's bunker craft operator licence in June 2019 and three confirmations of indebtedness signed by Dr Goh in July 2019 – were also found not to be red flags by the Court of Appeal. In the case of the suspension, 'even if Dr Goh had made the inquiries... it is unclear if he would have uncovered fraud in the cargo trading business, even if he had learned that IPP was carrying on such business'. The judges were not persuaded that the suspension of the licence was a red flag. As for the confirmation of indebtedness, there was no assertion in the confirmations that the debts were for the cargo trading business, and they were thus not considered red flags. The Appellate Division therefore departed from Justice Aedit's finding that Dr Goh breached the care duty regarding the red flags. It also disagreed with Justice Aedit that Dr Goh did not breach his duty to act in the best interests of the respondent's creditors on the drawdowns for fraudulent cargo trades made on IPP's bank facilities. It found that IPP bears the legal burden of proving that the fraud would have been detected, and that the resulting loss would have been averted had Dr Goh known that IPP was undertaking the cargo trading business, but failed to discharge this burden. Dr Goh was represented by TSMP Law Corporation, led by joint managing partner Thio Shen Yi; IPP's liquidators were represented by LVM Law Chambers, led by managing director Lok Vi Ming. After the appeal, Thio said the decision has practical implications for all directors, as the Court of Appeal has clarified that it 'cannot be part of a director's duty of supervision and oversight to pick up fraud unless there are tell-tale warning signs'. 'Directors owe fiduciary obligations and the duty of care to the company, but the Appeals Court has crucially recognised the practical and commercial limits to their ability to scrutinise for and detect fraud, especially deep-seated fraud,' he added.
AsiaOne
37 minutes ago
- AsiaOne
American group distributing aid in Gaza delays reopening sites, World News
CAIRO/JERUSALEM — A controversial private company distributing aid in Gaza, backed by the US and Israel, had yet to reopen its distribution sites in the enclave by mid-morning on Thursday (June 5), a day after shutting them following a series of deadly shootings close to its operations. The US-based Gaza Humanitarian Foundation had said on Wednesday that its sites would not reopen at their usual time due to maintenance and repair work. It did not say when the locations would reopen. A Palestinian father of four in Gaza's Khan Younis, who asked not to be identified over safety concerns, told Reuters the GHF site in nearby Rafah had not reopened by mid morning. GHF did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [[nid:718722]]
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
Appeals Court partially allows Goh Jin Hian's appeal, finds he did not breach duty by not probing IPP's red flags
[SINGAPORE] The Court of Appeal has partially allowed an appeal by Goh Jin Hian against having to pay damages for breaching his duty of care as a then-director of the insolvent marine fuel supplier, Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP). The court ruled on Thursday (Jun 5) that Goh had breached his duty of care as a result of not being aware of IPP's cargo trading business – not because he had failed to open a probe into red flags surrounding the company. The justices presiding were Tay Yong Kwang, Woo Bih Li and Kannan Ramesh. Goh was also found not to have breached his duty to act in the best interests of IPP's creditors regarding drawdowns on bank facilities in relation to fraudulent cargo trades. This follows his being found liable in February 2024 for breaching of his director's duties, statutory duties and the losses suffered by the firm, which came to US$146 million plus interest. The liquidators of IPP had sued Dr Goh, the son of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, to recover US$156 million in losses, accusing him of 'sleepwalking through his time as a director' and failing to discover and stop the drawdowns in trade financing between June 2019 and July 2019, said to have been funding non-existent or sham transactions. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up In his grounds of decision released last July, High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah said Dr Goh had not taken 'reasonable steps', such as by making the necessary inquiries, when red flags surrounding the company arose. Goh was also unaware of the existence of IPP's cargo trading business, despite being a director of the company, and therefore did not know this business was a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by IPP, said the justice. Following the appeal, the judgement has been set aside, and Dr Goh no longer has to pay damages to IPP. While the Court of Appeal agreed with the previous judgement that Goh had breached his duty of care by being unaware of IPP's cargo trading business, it found that the three red flags raised in the previous judgement were not 'red flags that would have put Dr Goh on a train of inquiry leading to the fraud in the cargo trading business being uncovered'. One such red flag was an audit confirmation request relating to amounts of receivables due to IPP from customer Mercuria Energy Trading, which Goh signed and was sent to Mercuria on Feb 7, 2018. The sum due was US$132 million. While Justice Aedit said Goh should have made inquiries upon receiving the audit confirmation request, the Court of Appeal said the fact that this sum was requested by Mercuria was 'not, in and of itself, enough to put him on inquiry'. This was because Mercuria was a big company and that the size of the receivable could have been explained by IPP's sizeable trading volume, amounting to about US$1 billion, with it. Two other issues that IPP's liquidators had called red flags – the suspension of IPP's bunker craft operator licence in June 2019 and three confirmations of indebtedness signed by Dr Goh in July 2019 – were also found not to be red flags by the Court of Appeal. In the case of the suspension, 'even if Dr Goh had made the inquiries... it is unclear if he would have uncovered fraud in the cargo trading business, even if he had learned that IPP was carrying on such business'. The judges were not persuaded that the suspension of the licence was a red flag. As for the confirmation of indebtedness, there was no assertion in the confirmations that the debts were for the cargo trading business, and they were thus not considered red flags. The Court of Appeal therefore departed from Justice Aedit's finding that Dr Goh breached the care duty regarding the red flags. The Court of Appeal also disagreed with Justice Aedit that Dr Goh did not breach his duty to act in the best interests of the respondent's creditors on the drawdowns for fraudulent cargo trades made on IPP's bank facilities. It found that IPP bears the legal burden of proving that the fraud would have been detected, and that the resulting loss would have been averted had Dr Goh known that IPP was undertaking the cargo trading business, but failed to discharge this burden. Dr Goh was represented by TSMP Law Corporation, led by joint managing partner Thio Shen Yi; IPP's liquidators were represented by LVM Law Chambers, led by managing director Lok Vi Ming. After the appeal, Thio said the decision has practical implications for all directors, as the Court of Appeal has clarified that it 'cannot be part of a director's duty of supervision and oversight to pick up fraud unless there are tell-tale warning signs'. 'Directors owe fiduciary obligations and the duty of care to the company, but the Appeals Court has crucially recognised the practical and commercial limits to their ability to scrutinise for and detect fraud, especially deep-seated fraud,' he added.
