Trump vs Rupert Murdoch over an Epstein article
Sam Hawley: Rod, we're going to have a look at the relationship between two of the most powerful men in the world, that is Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch, which has dramatically re-entered the spotlight in the last few days. This revolves around a Wall Street Journal article, which is owned, of course, that newspaper by Rupert Murdoch. Just tell me what this article alleged when it appeared in the paper last Friday.
Rod Tifffen: Well, it alleges that Donald Trump years ago sent a birthday greeting to Jeffrey Epstein with a sketch of a girl on it.
News report: Donald Trump launching yet another lawsuit against the press, this time targeting media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp empire over an article in The Wall Street Journal.
News report: He denies writing the letter, which the journal said included a sexually suggestive drawing and ended with the line, Happy birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret.
News report: The president dismissed the letter as fake, saying 'These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don't draw pictures.'
News report: The paper says it happened in 2003, which is before Epstein was convicted. It's all adding to the pressure Donald Trump is under over his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case.
Sam Hawley: Now, as soon as this was published, Donald Trump threatened to sue. He said in a post on his social media platform Truth Social he was looking forward to getting Rupert Murdoch to testify in his lawsuit against him. And in Donald Trump's words, the pile of garbage newspaper. So Donald Trump was furious.
Rod Tifffen: Murdoch has three main media outlets in the States. He has Fox News, which is unfailingly loyal to Trump. He has the New York Post, which swings around a bit. And he has the Wall Street Journal, where the market incentives are very different. The Wall Street Journal has to keep its credibility with a high flying business audience. Otherwise, they'll go to the New York Times or Washington Post or somewhere. So the Wall Street Journal's coverage of Trump is typically more independent and more probing than, say, Fox News is. So I would imagine that Rupert didn't know this was going to appear before it appeared because he's sort of, you know, at 94 years old, he's more hands off these days and he doesn't actually have the role of chief executive anymore. But I think that the key thing is the Wall Street Journal has to keep up its credibility with its audience.
Sam Hawley: But just to put that in context, once upon a time, of course, Rupert Murdoch had great control over what was in these newspapers. He certainly would have been told beforehand if an article like this was to appear.
Rod Tifffen: Yes, that's true. Certainly, let's say during Trump's first term, if this appeared, Murdoch would have known in advance. But I'm not at all sure that he knew this in advance.
Sam Hawley: All right. Well, he's now involved in an almighty fight with the US president who has indeed sued in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. So he's going all out Donald Trump here.
Rod Tifffen: Yes. I think the thing is, he's had a record of success since he was reelected, Donald Trump. He's got a settlement from ABC and, you know, CBS paid out a huge settlement for a case that had no substance at all.
News report: Paramount has agreed to pay Donald Trump more than 24 million dollars after settling a lawsuit over a televised interview with Kamala Harris. In the lawsuit, Mr Trump alleged the media group deceptively edited an interview with the former Democratic presidential candidate on its 60 Minutes program on CBS.
Rod Tifffen: And basically that was seen as its parent company, Paramount, wanting to do favours for Donald Trump. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, is leaning over backwards to be nice to him. I think the difference, though, is like Bezos is very keen to get government contracts for his space program. And CBS and ABC have other business interests which depend a lot on the favour and patronage of the president. And this president is all about favour and patronage. But Murdoch doesn't have that. So I'd be certainly very surprised if Murdoch settled any time soon. It would be a huge step down in credibility. It would be a huge blow to his ego because he doesn't like giving in, surrendering on these sorts of things. And he doesn't have any ulterior motives and interests like the other major media corporations do.
Sam Hawley: All right, well, Trump is suing News Corp. He's suing Mr. Murdoch. He's suing News Corp's founder, Robert Thompson. News Corp's chief executive. He's suing Dow Jones, the publisher, and he's suing the two journalists involved. So there's a lot of people involved in this lawsuit. That's for sure.
Rod Tifffen: All over a birthday card. Yeah.
Sam Hawley: Oh, yeah. It's a rather damaging birthday card if the allegations are, in fact, true. And we are not insinuating that they are. But Trump is also after huge damages, not less than $10 billion, he says he wants.
Rod Tifffen: Yes, I mean, it's serious, but it's very funny at the same time. The one thing that would make News Corp, make Murdoch settle is if Murdoch was forced to testify in court, because I think he's not really up to doing that anymore. And I think that would be the one threat that would make Murdoch settle.
Sam Hawley: Hmm. All right. Well, let's come to the history of this relationship in just a moment. As you mentioned, you don't think Rupert Murdoch will settle. The newspaper is absolutely sticking by its reporting. It's not removed the article. It's still up there for everybody to see. So it's backing in its own journalism at this point, isn't it?
Rod Tifffen: It is. And one imagines they went through a pretty strenuous process before they published. I mean, this isn't a fly by night newspaper. It's one of the leading newspapers in America. And it wouldn't publish something like this without doing due diligence beforehand.
Sam Hawley: All right, let's get into the history of this relationship, because it has been rather volatile, hasn't it? It's been interesting to watch Rupert Murdoch and his almost reluctance to back Donald Trump, but then sort of falling into line. Just tell me what it was like in the beginning, I guess, back in 2016 during Trump's first pitch for the White House.
Rod Tifffen: Well, the beginnings go back even further than that. Rupert Murdoch took over the New York Post in 1976, and Trump was an absolute publicity whore. He was always wanting to get into the paper. And they have a page six column, which is all gossip about politicians and celebrities and so on. And he often featured in that and was often a source for it. And he more or less divorced his wife in the pages of the New York Post. And they were willing to play the game because Trump, they thought Trump was good copy. But Murdoch saw him as just a lightweight, a crooked property developer. So Murdoch was happy to give him publicity, but never had any high opinion of him, either morally or intellectually.
Sam Hawley: Hmm. All right. But by 2016, he'd sort of come around, had he? He supported Trump.
Rod Tifffen: Well, 2016, Fox News is locked into being on the Republican side of politics. And initially, Murdoch didn't think Trump would be a good candidate. But once Trump won the nomination for the Republicans, Fox News in particular, just and all of the Murdoch empire actually just fell in behind Trump. After the election, Fox News was a faithful outlet for Trump all through the next four years. But then we get to the 2020 election and Trump loses to Biden. And then we've got Trump refusing to accept the result. Got the terrible attack on the Capitol building on January the 6th, 2021. And Murdoch is absolutely appalled. He sees this as an attack on American democracy, American institutions. And he really can't stand the way Trump was behaving. At the same time, though, Fox News had created this audience that believed everything that Trump said. And after the election, Fox's ratings were falling. And in a panic meeting, Murdoch and others said, well, we've got to start going along more with Trump. And then they locked themselves into this false narrative that there was something fishy about the 2020 election. Now, Murdoch was reluctant to go along with this. And in fact, there's evidence of him saying he wants to make Trump history and all this sort of thing. But in the end, the commercial incentives are such that he he toes the line. So you get to 2024 and Fox News is locked in behind Trump. And then, of course, Trump wins. And now the power relationship is all around the other way. Here's Murdoch wanting to be part of the action again. And Trump saying, maybe, maybe not.
Sam Hawley: All right, well, Rod, this relationship between Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch is clearly volatile, but it really is at a new low right now. How ugly do you think this could get?
Rod Tifffen: Well, Trump's not known for his subtlety. You know, we've already seen, you know, I'm going to sue his ass and all this sort of talk. I think that it could get very ugly.It all depends a bit on how the Murdochs respond. And my guess is they will want to take the heat out of it a bit. But I think the Epstein stuff is, it's hard to know because, I mean, Trump has survived so many scandals it would have sunk any other politician. But it seems to me the Epstein stuff and the different excuses they've given for not releasing information and whatever, this seems to be dividing Trump's MAGA base, you know. And it could be that both sides think it's in their interest to keep, you know, for all this to go away. But Trump's drawn a lot more attention to the article than it would have got, you know, by all this. So if I was a spin doctor, I'd say this wasn't a very rational strategy. But maybe that's why I'm not a spin doctor. But, you know, I would think that it could get very ugly. And certainly I can't see the Wall Street Journal rolling over and saying, yes, we got it wrong.
Sam Hawley: And who do you think will be the victor then, Murdoch or Trump? We know, don't we, that when things proceed to court, all sorts of information might come to light.
Rod Tifffen: Yes. And I think Rupert Murdoch wouldn't want to be having to testify in court. But equally, Trump wouldn't want to have to testify in court where he's cross-examined on his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. That would be just a nightmare for him. They've got various things in America where president can't be sued during their term of office and that sort of thing. So it could all just be put off until after the next election. Who knows? Maybe it will just peter out. But it doesn't show any sign of that yet.
Sam Hawley: Rod Tiffen is an emeritus professor in government and international relations at the University of Sydney. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead and Sam Dunn. Audio production by Cinnamon Nippard. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
5 minutes ago
- ABC News
Greens co-founder Drew Hutton slams party as 'authoritarian, aggressive, unlikeable'
Green's co-founder Drew Hutton has responded to his expulsion from the party, saying the Greens have lost focus on environmental issues and become "authoritarian and aggressive". He claimed the party had become "unlikeable" and there was evidence it was impacting their support amongst voters. Mr Hutton was expelled from the party at the weekend for refusing to delete transphobic comments made by others commenting on a Facebook post he made in 2022. In an interview with 7.30, Mr Hutton claimed the party refuses to allow frank debate on its transgender policy, which states people have "the right to their self-identified gender". "What I disagree with vehemently is the way that anybody who actually voices any dissent with that policy and do so from a credible position, that there is such a thing as biological sex and there are two sexes, is forced out of the party," Mr Hutton said. "That's extremely authoritarian. And what I worry about is that there is a very doctrinaire mentality developing in the Greens, especially with regard to this issue." Mr Hutton accused the Greens of being run by a "cult" intently focused on identity politics and showing a "disdain" for free speech. "There is a clear need for a party like the Greens … But there is also this fairly authoritarian and aggressive and unlikeable element to the Greens that I think people in the community are responding to," he said. According to an internal Greens' party account of the events leading to the expulsion, the comments on Mr Hutton's Facebook page were brought to the Greens' attention by "distressed" party members. Some of the comments seen by 7.30 used transphobic language, including claims that trans women pose a threat in women-only facilities. Mr Hutton refused to remove the comments, claiming they were "free speech". He told 7.30 he supports transgender rights but opposes what he calls an attempt to stifle debate. Greens leader Larissa Waters said she had not read the documentation about Mr Hutton's expulsion. "I haven't read the documentation because here I am in parliament hoping to talk tomorrow about introducing a climate trigger into our environmental laws and fixing the gender inequalities in our tax system," Ms Waters told 7.30. She rejected Mr Hutton's claim, however, that internal debate about transgender issues was stifled. "Our members are involved in formulating those very policies and those debates happen on a regular basis … And we love involvement in the democratic process," she said. Ms Waters said Mr Hutton did not debate "respectfully". "I believe that's the basis for which the party upheld the decision." Mr Hutton told 7.30 that former Greens leaders Bob Brown and Christine Milne had lent their support in an email. The email says: "Bob and Christine say that any member may hold a view different from Greens' policy. Consensus decision-making is the hallmark of Greens policy-formulation making … We oppose Drew Hutton's expulsion … and advocate that his membership be restored." Asked to comment on the request by the former leaders, Ms Waters said: "Like me, they respect his environmental achievements … But this was a decision that was reviewed by the party, taken by volunteer party members, many of whom uphold the code of conduct on a regular basis. "It's not hard to uphold the code of conduct." Watch 7.30, Mondays to Thursdays 7:30pm on ABC iview and ABC TV Do you know more about this story? Get in touch with 7.30 here.
SBS Australia
an hour ago
- SBS Australia
Mehreen Faruqi stages Senate protest, asks Albanese: 'Will you sanction Israel?'
Greens deputy leader Mehreen Faruqi held up a sign calling for sanctions against Israel and questioned the prime minister during an address marking the return of parliament. It comes after Australia condemned the "inhumane killing" of Palestinians in Gaza while calling for Israel to end its war in a joint statement, which a Labor frontbencher called it the strongest statement the government has made in the near two-year offensive. As part of a largely ceremonial return on Tuesday, Governor-General Sam Mostyn delivered an address to both houses in the Senate chamber, declaring the 48th parliament open. More than a dozen pro-Palestinian demonstrators were detained after protesting inside the foyer of parliament during Mostyn's speech, before being removed from the building. Hundreds of protesters called for sanctions on Israel on the lawns of parliament, with one woman arrested, federal police say. Traffic around Parliament House was also disrupted by the protests. During her address, Faruqi was pictured holding a sign that read: "Gaza is starving. Words won't feed them. Sanction Israel." As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese left the Senate, the Greens senator called out: "Prime minister, Gaza is starving, will you sanction Israel?" Later speaking on the ABC's Afternoon Briefing program, Science and Industry Minister Tim Ayres said he thought Faruqi's actions were "disrespectful to the parliament". "Parliamentary institutions, the ceremonies and the way that today has unfolded actually is important for the dignity of the institution," he said. "I think she has diminished herself," Ayres went on to say. "The institution is pretty robust but we've all got a responsibility to think about the way we participate in the institution and in public debate and in civic debate to lift the country up to get more people engaged. "I don't think that's served that purpose very well and I don't think it assisted the cause of Palestinians in Gaza one little bit." Australia calls for Gaza war's end A joint statement signed by Foreign Minister Penny Wong and more than 20 of her global counterparts — including from the United Kingdom, France, and Canada— calls for an immediate end to Israel's violence in the strip and condemns the denial of humanitarian assistance to starving Palestinians. The United States was not a signatory. Israel's foreign ministry rejected the statement, saying it is: "disconnected from reality and sends the wrong message to Hamas" — the Palestinian political and militant group that governs Gaza. The joint statement came as pro-Palestinian supporters rallied in Canberra on Tuesday for the first sitting day of parliament since the May federal election. The countries condemned what they called the "drip feeding of aid" to Palestinians in Gaza and said it was "horrifying" that more than 800 civilians had been killed while seeking aid, which they labelled "inhumane". The majority of those killed were in the vicinity of Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) sites, which the US and Israel backed to take over aid distribution in Gaza from a network led by the United Nations. "The Israeli government's aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity," the countries' foreign ministers said in a joint statement. "The suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths." They said: "The war in Gaza must end now." In its statement criticising the statement, Israel's foreign ministry said: "The statement fails to focus the pressure on Hamas and fails to recognise Hamas's role and responsibility for the situation." Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa'ar later said he spoke with his British counterpart David Lammy on Monday regarding regional issues, including Gaza. He blamed Hamas "for the suffering of the population and the continuation of the war". The US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, called the statement "disgusting" and said blaming Israel was "irrational" because Hamas rejects every proposal to end the war. Last week, following a call with Pope Leo, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office released a statement saying he had told the pontiff that Israel's efforts to secure a hostage release deal and 60-day ceasefire, "have so far not been reciprocated by Hamas". It came as Hamas' armed wing spokesperson Abu Ubaida said the group favoured reaching an interim truce in the Gaza war, but if that could not be made in negotiations, it could revert to insisting on a full package deal to end the conflict. Hamas has repeatedly offered to release all the hostages held in Gaza and conclude a permanent ceasefire agreement, and Israel has refused, Ubaida said. Hamas says any agreement must lead to ending the war, while Netanyahu says the war will only end once Hamas is disarmed and its leaders expelled from Gaza. 'So much of this is indefensible' Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke was asked on ABC News Breakfast on Tuesday whether this was the strongest statement Australia had issued since the conflict escalated on 7 October 2023. "It would be," Burke said. "There's been a series of very strong statements that we've made. What we've been making sure of is that whenever we make a statement of this nature that we're bringing as many other countries along with us at the same time." LISTEN TO SBS News 21/07/2025 01:16 English Burke said the hostages captured by Hamas on October 7 must be released, but the "slaughter" in Gaza "has to end". "We've seen too many images of children being killed, of horrific slaughter, of churches being bombed," Burke said. "The images that we've seen have been pretty clear that so much of this is indefensible and, as that statement referred to, aid being drip-fed in." Opposition leader Sussan Ley did not say whether or not she supported the joint letter. While Ley wanted "to see aid reach those who deserve it", she said the most "important thing" was rescuing the remaining hostages. Save The Children estimates between 50,000 and 80,000 Palestinian people are sheltering in Deir al-Balah. Source: Getty / Dawoud Abo Alkas While some of the hostages have been released, others have died and about 50 are believed to still be in captivity — although Israel believes about half of those are dead. Opposition frontbencher Jonathon Duniam said Israel had a "right to self defence" and said Australia signing the joint statement was not the right approach. "There is more to this issue than this letter portrays and I think it is a sad turn of events for our government to have joined with other countries in signing this letter," he told Sky News. Much of Gaza has been reduced to a wasteland during more than 21 months of the conflict that escalated when Hamas-led militants stormed into Israel on 7 October 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza, according to Israeli tallies. Israel's campaign in Gaza has killed more than 59,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health authorities, with the latest deaths reported on Monday as Israel began a new incursion in central Gaza. — With reporting by the Australian Associated Press and Reuters news agencies
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The right to disarm
'Further to Craig Forbes' piece about political chew toys [C8]. I recently found a Donald Trump squeaky dog toy,' reveals Jonathan Vincent of Emu Heights. 'My puppy loved it, but within five minutes she had removed both his arms. This silenced Trump's squeak [Result! – Granny], and the disarmament is great for world peace.' 'My siblings and I learnt about antimacassars [C8] very early in life,' says David Pigott of North Parramatta. 'The letter 'A' was my mum's favourite when playing I Spy with my Little Eye.' Warren Menteith of Bali describes the antimacassar as 'a classic marketing ploy. Create the problem so you can flog the solution'. He also explains that 'Macassar, the capital of Sulawesi (Celebes) gave its name to this item. It seems long before Brylcreem and other pomades, ebony oil from Makassar was the top-selling product.' While well aware that former PM Bob Hawke was a bit of a ladies man, Ron Besdansky of Northbridge was still taken aback when viewing Wikipedia 's Born on This Day page: 1929 – Hazel Hawke, Australian social worker and pianist, 23rd Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia (died 2013). Jeff Stanton of Strathfield has a decidedly European take on signalling (C8) when he says: 'using indicators is seen by many as providing information to the enemy'. 'Mishaps really do come in threes,' reckons Viv Mackenzie of Port Hacking. 'A friend should be enjoying the best snow in ages. However, she has been hospitalised with asthma, her husband has come down with COVID and another member of the party has broken a knee. Otherwise, everyone else is having a great time.' Generational talent Greg Leisner of Blackhead writes: 'I'm of an age now where the only comfortable shoes are expensive stretchy sneaker types (black for weddings and funerals) but resist the pejorative term 'Boomer', and I am proposing that we be called the INDY generation. As in, 'I'm Not Dead Yet', any thoughts?' Column 8's recent Coldplaygate (C8) headline got Richard Jary of Waitara thinking: 'Perhaps at 61, I'm too young to remember, but why does every scandal now have to be somethinggate? What did they call scandals before Watergate?' 'I purchased a mood lamp which soon put me in a bad mood as it required an app to set it up,' laments Susan McLaren of Windradyne. 'This 'free' app was soon asking for my credit card details.'
