Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Investors Campaign To Oust Murdochs From News Corp

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the ted-turner-wants-your-blood dept.

Businesses 150

Hugh Pickens writes "Alan Mutter writes that the California Public Employees Retirement System, the nation's largest pension fund, has become the latest investor to say it would vote against the re-election of Rupert Murdoch and his sons to the company's board of directors, joining several other institutional investors opposed to the tenure of not only the Murdoch trio but also most of the rest of the leader's hand-picked board. 'The company appears to have devolved into a free-wheeling, cut-throat and paranoid culture that reached its logical conclusion in the phone-hacking scandal at The News of the World, where deceit and naked ambition trumped common decency, good judgment and even simple compliance with the law,' writes Mutter... Further proof of the anything-goes atmosphere at News Corp was supplied last week when the Guardian reported that ... the European edition of the Wall Street Journal evidently sold access to its news columns and created back-channel payment networks to lift the otherwise sagging circulation of the paper... 'It's not clear whether the outside shareholders have the votes to change anything at a corporation where Murdoch effectively controls 40% of the shares,' concludes Mutter, 'But adult supervision most certainly is in order, because News Corp. seems to be operating with only the sketchiest of business plans and no effective executive oversight of his many far-flung initiatives. '"

cancel ×

150 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

CALPERS (0, Troll)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753498)

Largest pension fund...with all those state employees pulling down $100,000K retirement packages, no wonder they are the largest.

Re:CALPERS (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753570)

Unfortunately, CALPers seems to get into this "politics is more important than fiduciary responsibility to our members" mode these days.

The people they don't like, Murdoch, makes money to support their member's pension. The people they like, New York Times et. al., don't.

The problem is, and I have friends in CALPers (and CALStrs for teachers) and if it rolls over, it is so big, no one even the U.
S. Treasury could save it.

This is probably the most serious and ignored issue in the Country.

Re:CALPERS (2)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753614)

Yeah because engaging in illegal activities is just fine. Moron.

Re:CALPERS (3, Insightful)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753810)

They've been doing this for years. When it was fashionable to disinvest in South Africa, CalPers was there. There has been debate off and on about disinvesting in tobacco firms and other forms of social ills. What they're asking for here is new.

The structural problems have been ignored because, like the remainder California budget, nobody in the Legislature wants to take on a problem that can't easily be expressed in a sound bite. Every new year sees new smoke and mirror schemes pushing problems into the future in the vain hope the economy will get better. Then everybody can go back to ignoring deep structural problems in how pensions are funded in favor of short term things that will annoy no one and help them stay in office.

Re:CALPERS (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753832)

Unfortunately, CALPers seems to get into this "politics is more important than fiduciary responsibility to our members" mode these days.

The people they don't like, Murdoch, makes money to support their member's pension. The people they like, New York Times et. al., don't.

Well hey, smuggling drugs makes a lot of money, so is the responsible fiduciary measure to invest heavily in Mexican drug cartels?

Re:CALPERS (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753662)

Politically motivated: outing the Murdochs is very likely to be value destructive.

CALPERS' fiduciary duty is to maximize the value of fund assets - not to take political postures.
A fairly major breach of ERISA regulations if they go ahead with this.

Re:CALPERS (2)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753700)

Because supporting a media which itself funds a campaign against the retirement benefits which they are supposed to provide makes sense?

Re:CALPERS (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754174)

They are holding onto a large amount of the stock while simultaneously trying to undermine the leadership which made it blossom, and all-the-while their claim is not that new leadership would increase the value of the stock but instead that the current leadership is distasteful to their ideology.

You can try to spin this whatever way you want, but facts are facts. CALPers is trying to tank a stock it owns, to the financial detriment of the people CALPers represents.

Re:CALPERS (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754388)

You can try to spin this whatever way you want, but facts are facts. CALPers is trying to tank a stock it owns, to the financial detriment of the people CALPers represents.

Your argument is that the News Corp stock will go down if the Murdochs are ousted... Do you think the decline and scuttling of News of the World was good for the share price? The share price tends to disagree (it has been markedly below average recently).

Re:CALPERS (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754952)

A founder in charge is usually good for the company. Murdock might not be a nice guy, but he cares about the future of his empire. Closing News of the World made them lose a source of revenue, but he probably had a good reason - it lets every other journalist in his empire know that if they get caught making a scandal, they will lose their jobs, and so will all their co-workers. This will plug leaks (because if you leak, your whole paper will be nuked), and prevent unethical behavior.

I think it was Sun Zi who claimed he could make any squad of new recruits march in perfect formation - if anyone in the squad broke ranks he'd just order the whole squad put to death. In the short term, it's suicidal, but it might pay off in the long term.

Re:CALPERS (1)

PoopCat (2218334) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755108)

In the short term, it's suicidal, but it might pay off in the long term.

You have that precisely backwards. Without short-term survival, long-term viability is significantly decreased.

Re:CALPERS (4, Insightful)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754510)

You can try to spin this whatever way you want, but facts are facts. CALPers is trying to tank a stock it owns, to the financial detriment of the people CALPers represents.

Bullshit. They point out several major problems that have cropped up at News International recently. Illegal activity that appears to have been approved (or at least knowingly ignored) at the highest levels, selling access to supposed news columns, and little or no oversight from the board. These issues have the potential to very rapidly destroy the company; CalPERS, along with other institutional and private investors, are looking for a way to bring some oversight to the top-level executives, which happen to be Murdoch and family (among others). Yes, Rupert Murdoch has been very effective in building value over time - but recent events have shown that, whether through a failure to properly oversee operations or willing participation in these activities, they are taking much greater risks than some investors are comfortable with. It isn't the ideology espoused by the News Corp outlets that is at issue - that hasn't changed since CalPERS and the others invested, and frankly most of them probably don't care as long as the returns are good - it is the policies of the corporate leadership that they see as trending towards corruption.

That isn't to discount the fact that CalPERS members are likely to be largely opposed to the ideological viewpoint espoused by many of the News Corp properties. CalPERS has, in the past, moved out of industries it has ideological problems with (or specific companies) on numerous occassions. But to say that they would intentionally destroy the value in a stock they plan on (apparently) continuing to hold is just letting your own ideology color your view of events. News Corp seems to be out of control, from the perspective of some of the investors. They want more oversight of executive activities and decisions in order to reduce the risk of being blindsided by continued negligence (or criminal activity), which means removing or diluting the Murdochs' presence on the board.

But yeah, more fun just to yell and scream that the evil liberals are trying to silence the voice of conservatives.

Re:CALPERS (-1, Offtopic)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755280)

But yeah, more fun just to yell and scream that the evil liberals are trying to silence the voice of conservatives.

They're not? What world do you live in?

Re:CALPERS (5, Interesting)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754052)

No, this is a good thing. Hopefully people wake up to this new form of democracy. Where if you don't act morally and for the benefit of employees, customers, and the earth then we pull our umpteen millions or billions out of your company now. Government has been dysfunctional for over thirty years in America. William Greider covered this in The Soul of Capitalism where he predicted this very thing. He said that people would start to act through their enormous pension funds to affect change in the world because government simply can't get it done, and it is easier to do this than to change government. Awesome. Get it done.

Re:CALPERS (1)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754318)

"No, this is a good thing. Hopefully people wake up to this new form of democracy."

It's not a "new form of democracy", it's a legal owner exerting its right to have a say in how its investment ought to be managed. Why are all the crazed shills against shareholder rights and shareholder value now?

If this owner believes that doing sleazy unethical things are bad for its investment or just because they're immoral, then so what? It's not "fox news", it's the phone hacking and the falsifying the european circulation with various schemes etc which give good cause to believe the current management is a danger to its long-term investment.

Re:CALPERS - Modded Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37755116)

I swear, this place is turning into another Huffington Post. Filled with limp dicked liberals who can't take any criticism.

Oh I understand their business plan (5, Insightful)

SlippyToad (240532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753530)

'But adult supervision most certainly is in order, because News Corp. seems to be operating with only the sketchiest of business plans and no effective executive oversight of his many far-flung initiatives

It's to terrorize a modern democracy into giving over control of our every institution to unelected morons with a bare-knuckled agenda of self-enrichment.

Fuck Fox News. Fuck Everyone Who Listens To Fox News. Fuck Everyone Who Opens Their Dumb Fuck Mouth On Fox News. Fox News Should Be Pulled Apart By Wild Weasels.

I've about had it with these vandals. Fucking freaks!

Re:Oh I understand their business plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753564)

Tell us how you really feel, deep down inside.

Re:Oh I understand their business plan (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753586)

Seems one of the turds at Occupy my Ass finally paid his mobile bill and can post from his Android again.

Re:Oh I understand their business plan (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753680)

How often is your ass occupied? You enjoy it, don't you?

Re:Oh I understand their business plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754150)

How often is your ass occupied?

Not as often as I'd like.

You enjoy it, don't you?

Yup. Getting laid is fun, you should try it.

Seriously, is insinuating that someone partakes of anal sex really the most insulting retort you could think of? Now, stop feeding the trolls you ignorant, festering little blob of sputum.

Who cares (1)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754476)

what an ignorant, corporate whoring bagger like you has to say?

Undeserved hostility (4, Funny)

overshoot (39700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753642)

Fox News Should Be Pulled Apart By Wild Weasels.

What did wild weasels ever do to you?

Re:Undeserved hostility (1)

Colin Douglas Howell (670559) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754522)

Fox News Should Be Pulled Apart By Wild Weasels.

What did wild weasels ever do to you?

Probably blew up all his SAM batteries [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Undeserved hostility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754566)

What did wild weasels ever do to you?

Ripped my flesh.

Re:Undeserved hostility (2)

garrobon (790884) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754728)

Fox News Should Be Pulled Apart By Wild Weasels.

What did wild weasels ever do to you?

Ripped his flesh?

Re:Oh I understand their business plan (1)

Sunshinerat (1114191) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754130)

Thank you,
Now you got me wondering on who will win... the Fox or the Weasel...

Re:Oh I understand their business plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754204)

Fox News would win. The weasels wouldn't attack out of profession courtesy to the weasels at Fox News.

Re:Oh I understand their business plan (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754230)

Fuck Everyone Who Opens Their Dumb Fuck Mouth On Fox News.

One of the professors in my graduate department, who is highly liberal, was invited and paid to appear on Fox news because her research found a liberal bias in state bar (law, not booze) organizations (which was not at all what she expected to find). So not everyone who appears on Fox News is an idiot who wants to turn the US into the Fascist States of Christ, as you seem to believe.

Ironically enough, she was subsequently attacked by many liberals for having a conservative bias and agenda due to the findings of her research.

Re:Oh I understand their business plan (3, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754454)

However, the organization is intended as such.

Re:Oh I understand their business plan (1)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754508)

The fact that she agreed to go onto a biased site like fox shows that she is an idiot, however. I hope here research wasn't as flawed as her personal decisions appear to be.

Re:Oh I understand their business plan (2)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755068)

One of the professors in my graduate department, who is highly liberal, was invited and paid to appear on Fox news because her research found a liberal bias in state bar (law, not booze) organizations (which was not at all what she expected to find).

So what if she's "highly liberal"? The only reason she was invited to appear is because she published research that could be spun to support a standard Republican talking point, which is that the Democratic Party is bought and paid for by trial lawyers. She should have realized this, but she took the money and appeared on the show anyway, because she decided that her own selfish interests outweighed her principles -- in other words, she acted exactly like any other corrupt right-wing stooge that appears on Fox News. (Incidentally, real news organizations don't pay sources, so the fact that she was offered money should have been a tip-off that she was being asked to appear in support of an editorial agenda.)

Re:Oh I understand their business plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754534)

My thoughts exactly. Also, knowing that the Murdochs are jewish, why is it that all or most top jobs (management and presenters) at Newscorp & subsidiaries go to jewish people too?

Re:Oh I understand their business plan (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754584)

Speaking of which:

"The company appears to have devolved into a free-wheeling, cut-throat and paranoid culture that reached its logical conclusion in the phone-hacking scandal at The News of the World,"

FTFY: "The company appears to have devolved into a free-wheeling, cut-throat and paranoid culture that reached its logical conclusion as The Fox News Network,"

Re:Oh I understand their business plan (1)

fdawg (22521) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754736)

It's ok to be frustrated. I know, I am. But muting people who have a different ideology from your own doesn't solve anything. In fact, the reverse happens- the people you disagree with become as frustrated as you.

The harder problem is getting them to, if not agree with, tolerate your ideology. What we've lost in this country is honest, unadulterated, innocent, discourse. We stopped having conversations where a different point of view doesn't dominate another. Too much of what is being said is predicated by various single-issue objectives and amplified by a blow horn of party loyalists.

Fox news is a blow horn. Would be interesting to see what will happen if the family behind the mouthpiece is ousted. For all anyone knows it may move even further away from the center.

oxycontin (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753548)

Rush Limpdick is a fucking druggy.

Would It Change? (4, Insightful)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753562)

Fox and its affiliates got where they are by selling an elaborate and real-seeming fictional world, catering to people who could be convinced to wear Tinfoil hats if enough of the people on the network repeated that it was a good idea. I don't think it would be as profitable if people who believe everything they hear were to become better informed. What if those people started to think for themselves? They might start listening to other news sources! Perhaps even NPR! Then Fox would actually HAVE to be a legitimate news organization, or their core audience might realize how full of shit they are, come out of their bunkers, sell off their gold and start living less fearful lives! That would be devastating to Newscorp's bottom line!

Which is why I'm voting my 11% shares to keep Murdoch. Sorry guys!

Re:Would It Change? (2, Informative)

swan5566 (1771176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753682)

NPR has its own skeletons in the closet. Look up Juan Williams. I think it's better to just assume that every news source has its junk, whether its well-known or not, and to just read any news source with a grain of salt, and then cross-reference it with other news sources. I think this is more realistic than to assume X is biased, and Y is not.

Re:Would It Change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753728)

The same Juan Williams who was a fox news contributor before ever being on npr? Why would that be an npr skeleton?

Re:Would It Change? (1, Flamebait)

swan5566 (1771176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753806)

It was after he was unceremoniously fired from NPR, and the reasons for it, that makes it a skeleton.

Re:Would It Change? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754112)

So now NPR is now required to employ racists?

If you made those sorts of comments where I work you would be fired too.

Re:Would It Change? (1)

swan5566 (1771176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754226)

That in no way was being racist. That was admitting an honest and understandable feeling at the expense of being politically correct. And if I worked at such a place I would quit.

Re:Would It Change? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754246)

I bet your employee handbook has a similar section about not saying racist stuff at work. It is not understandable to be uncomfortable around people of a different faith or race, that is just racism. I am more nervous on the drive to the airport than on the plane, I realize I am far more likely to die in my car.

Re:Would It Change? (1)

swan5566 (1771176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754478)

So are you racist against cars then? Not wanting to get blown up in a plane is not racism. Neither is refusing to ignore why 9/11 and the like took place simply because it doesn't it doesn't fancy the politically-correct idealists. Being racist would be being uncomfortable around them for their own sake, and he clearly was not saying that at all.

Re:Would It Change? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755154)

9/11 happened because of our policies in the middle east. We backed the Saudis and the nuts against the Soviets.

Re:Would It Change? (2)

Dare nMc (468959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755006)

FYI, Racism is the belief that another race is inferior, to another.
1) Muslim isn't a race
2) Fearful that someone could be succeeded at a difficult task is not indicating a belief of inferiority (at least not in my book.)

We were all told by the Al Quida, that it is a muslims job to kill Americans, most understand that listing to Al Quida is a mistake, and you can call Juan stupid for listing to them, but the Al Quida are the ones to blame the most.

As a counter example, Do you believe if a black man was scared of 2 white people wearing KKK uniforms that the black guy is thus a racist? He believes what he has been told that people wearing those outfits want to hurt black people, and is thus afraid of them. The people wearing the outfits may have another belief causing them to wear the outfit, or the may indeed hate black people. But it isn't the black man's racism causing the fear, it is the reputation of the KKK.

So if you are honest about being a racist (1)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754528)

that makes it OK in your warped little world?

Re:So if you are honest about being a racist (1)

swan5566 (1771176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754620)

No, but what is true in my world is that Ad hominem means admitting defeat.

Re:Would It Change? (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754706)

NPR has its own skeletons in the closet. Look up Juan Williams. I think it's better to just assume that every news source has its junk, whether its well-known or not, and to just read any news source with a grain of salt, and then cross-reference it with other news sources. I think this is more realistic than to assume X is biased, and Y is not.

The thing that makes Fox extra fun is that they admittedly spend only about 6 hours a day being a "news source" (and it's not in the timeslots you think it is)... Guess which category Juan's little crymeafuckin river rant was aired in? Tune out 100% of the prime time talking heads and their anything-for-ratings antics and you MIGHT get enough information from Fox to make it worthwhile, but you won't see Juan or any of the other "familiar faces" on during those hours.

Re:Would It Change? (1)

swan5566 (1771176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754786)

I never meant to say that Fox doesn't have it's biases, I'm only saying that they're not alone.

Re:Would It Change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754780)

NPR has its own skeletons in the closet. Look up Juan Williams. I think it's better to just assume that every news source has its junk, whether its well-known or not, and to just read any news source with a grain of salt, and then cross-reference it with other news sources. I think this is more realistic than to assume X is biased, and Y is not.

Well, I don't know about you, but when I find a black guy sitting next to me on a plane, I get nervous. He might be a junkie. Or want to have sex with white women. Or, y'know something else un-American.

Re:Would It Change? (2)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754872)

Really? You're comparing the sale of news articles and circulation fraud with firing a news analyst for making an utterly moronic statement while representing NPR?

I agree that every news source has issues, that all stories should be cross-checked for accuracy. But there is getting some things wrong on occasion, and having a corporate policy to flat-out lie for profit and propaganda purposes.

Re:Would It Change? (1)

swan5566 (1771176) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755114)

I believe he was stating his personal feelings, not trying represent NPR in that moment. Saying it is moronic to make a candid though politically-incorrect observation about politically-charged issue... well I guess it was if you want to keep working for NPR, but it only exposes what they consider is "journalistic objectivity". Btw, Murchoch et al. I agree is getting what's coming to them.

Re:Would It Change? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753696)

California public employees are going to be the adult supervision ? Wow, that like saying NPR is going to do in depth unbiases news. Only in an alternate reality.

Re:Would It Change? (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754294)

This is modded flamebait, but it's pretty close to the truth. Investors in Fox have to know that they're not investing in a journalistic enterprise. They're investing in propaganda for profit. If they replace Murdoch (big if), expect someone just even worse to replace him.

What happens to subsidiaries (0, Troll)

overshoot (39700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753612)

Most significantly, the United States Republican Party?

Tech news? (5, Insightful)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753618)

I know stories like this generate a lot of traffic but what does this have to do with tech news?

Re:Tech news? (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753684)

My guess? they did said protesting from thier iPhones? I really dont know.

Re:Tech news? (2)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753704)

It's "News for nerds, stuff that matters" not "tech news."

Re:Tech news? (2)

Frenzied Apathy (2473340) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753830)

stuff that matters

"stuff that matters"

'Nuff said...

Re:Tech news? (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753894)

And this matters? No it is News for Nerds this is News for bankers and stock brokers.
Heck it is even tagged Business!
Slashdot is dead.

Re:Tech news? (2)

esme (17526) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754042)

And this matters? No it is News for Nerds this is News for bankers and stock brokers.
Heck it is even tagged Business!

yes, a possible change in the leadership of a company that is very influential in politics, news and entertainment matters -- at least to me, and probably most nerds who care about government or entertainment, which is probably ~100%.

Slashdot is dead.

/me checks poster's id

cry me a river, kid. people have been complaining about /. going downhill since forever. if you don't like it, quit bitching and read something else.

-esme

Let me explain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754482)

This is news for nerds as it is about getting back at Rupert Murdoch, the man leading Fox who cancelled Firefly.

Re:Tech news? (1)

lavagolemking (1352431) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753820)

Enough of us here complain about News Corp, Murdoch, Fox, etc. that it's probably relevant enough for our purposes. If this goes anywhere, it's really big news and it does matter. Besides, it's not like this [slashdot.org] was news-for-nerds(TM) either.

Re:Tech news? (3, Insightful)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753902)

It's a Slashdotter masturbation frenzy. Everyone will get in with a comment about how they're so smart for not believe anything on Fox news, and they'll try to top each other in contests of cleverness by substituting "Faux" for "Fox" because nothing impresses the ladies like snide misspellings.

Re:Tech news? (1)

lysdexia (897) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754958)

I find that a 11 week-old German Shepherd puppy works much better than snide misspellings.

Re:Tech news? (1)

doclight (2476864) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755268)

Also, commenting about how smart you are that you don't follow the cliche of being anti-fox. That attracts the ladies like moths to a flame.

I know Murdoch is crooked... (1, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753628)

But CA Public Employees Retirement System sounds left wing already, and if I were a worker, I'd be pissed that they're using my pension $ to play politics instead of simply focusing on good companies and divesting themselves of bad ones.

Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (2)

digistil (628921) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753714)

Isn't the electing of the board part of being an investor? If my pension can't be bothered to act on my investments through them, why would I stick with them?

Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753718)

Robert Maxwell also decided peoples' pension funds were his to play with. He's now living in hiding, or fell off a boat, which ever you choose to believe.

Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (1)

Colin Douglas Howell (670559) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754758)

Robert Maxwell also decided peoples' pension funds were his to play with. He's now living in hiding, or fell off a boat, which ever you choose to believe.

Considering his body was found by a fishing boat [guardian.co.uk] on the same day he went missing, and that he would now be 88 if he were still alive, the "living in hiding" supposition seems rather far fetched. :)

Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (2)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753726)

Uhhh, see, it is clearly bad for the long-term benefits of their members that fox continues to exert any influence at all on American politics. So their move is in fact good economic policy.

Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (3, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753788)

Better policy would be to not invest in News Corp at all.

News Corp. seems to be operating with only the sketchiest of business plans and no effective executive oversight of his many far-flung initiatives

Then why are they, or anyone else seeking a successful investment, owing part of the company? If no one wanted the stock it would devalue itself and the rest of the owners, including the Murdochs, would lose money.

Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754068)

Uhhh, see, it is clearly bad for the long-term benefits of their members that any media outlet continues to exert any influence at all on American politics.

FTFY

Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (5, Insightful)

trims (10010) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753840)

Please. Public Pension systems are one of the last bastions of Good left in this country. And, I'm not talking about the pension system itself, I'm talking about some very, very responsible fund managers who run them (not just CALPers, but most state's public pension systems). These folks are paid significantly less than equivalent ones on Wall Street, and they put in a huge effort to get good returns for their funds. Part of that effort is to be more pro-active than a typical Wall Streeter, and not just game the system, but FIX the system.

So, you're strategy is "cut and run"? Where? Oh, to another company where the culture sucks so bad because the stockholders are sheep. The pension funds are right - they have to fight, since there's no where to move their money that isn't in some way corrupted by the current international "corporate culture standard".

There have been some major efforts by public pension systems (just in the past year, I can remember efforts from Louisiana, Wisconsin, New York, and even South Carolina) to reform the way companies are run. This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with maximizing the pension's ROI - after all, that $100 million the board just paid the CEO comes right out of stockholder's pockets. Public pension systems are at the forefront of the reform movement, and it's all in very much self interest.

In the Murdoch's case, fighting to oust them can only HELP the ROI - NewsCorp is incurring massive losses (legal, circulation, etc.) directly due to the Murdoch-installed culture. Replace that culture with a more sane one, and the ROI goes back up.

It's not politics, folks, it's money. Pure self-interest, just it happens to be wielded for Good this time.

-Erik

Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (-1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753946)

Modded +1 Fuckin' A

Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754020)

Sure, and if pensions were actually funded today, out of the actual contract money handed over to union members, I'd be cheering for them with you. Since pensions are funded by "someone else in the future" - i.e., the taxpayer of tomorrow - I'll continue to vote against them.

Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754118)

Unfortunately, you then vote against them in ignorance. Not every pension fund works that way.

Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754196)

You are thinking of social security (State Pensions, which is mandatory and managed by the feds (SSA)), the parent is taking about Employment-based pensions (or retirement plans) managed by various private and public entities.

Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (0, Flamebait)

lavagolemking (1352431) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753920)

Think bigger -- Fox News, being so radically right wing as it is, represents a huge threat to public workers, safety nets, and generally anything that doesn't immediately benefit the elite class. Even if this ends up hurting News Corp's viewer base (the delusional [slashdot.org] ), it will mean less of this blockading politics in the name of tax cuts for wealthy, less wars of conquest, and less of this anti-union vendetta being pushed on public employees. If they're as leftist as you say, then their workers would probably also like it if the propaganda machine were to die down.

Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754104)

Your post after removing irrelevant and biased content:

Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754216)

Um if you bothered to read the summary above, it seems that the pension is troubled by Murdochs' apparent lack of ethics or the underlying lack of control. Either Murdoch and his sons had no clue what his editors were doing or they knew but did nothing about it. Both are bad signs for a company's management.

Re:I know Murdoch is crooked... (3, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#37755174)

But CA Public Employees Retirement System sounds left wing already, and if I were a worker, I'd be pissed that they're using my pension $ to play politics instead of simply focusing on good companies and divesting themselves of bad ones.

If large, institutional investors don't take an active hand in steering public corporations, who will? Do you honestly think that if we posted about it to Facebook enough, all the individual investors would take time to fill out their shareholder ballots and vote the Murdochs off the board? If CalPERS was responsible for my retirement security, I not only would expect it to wield as much influence as it could over its holdings to secure long-term growth, but I would also expect it to steer those organizations in a direction that does not send them down the path of graft, corruption, and criminal misconduct. You seem to advocate CalPERS taking its ball and going home. I say it's far better for American workers and the U.S. economy for CalPERS to help keep corporations like News Corp accountable, responsible, forthright, upstanding, and most of all legal.

Not Far Enough (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753648)

Good, I hope they do oust the evil old bastard.

Then maybe we can get rid of FOXs other owner, the known terrorist bankroller Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.

Fraud. (2)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753692)

And why, exactly, don't they just ask police in all involved countries to investigate the papers and board for fraud? 40% means jack shit if RICO and similar laws are applied to the board.

Re:Fraud. (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754256)

Because those kinda of moves would lower the value of the stock which they own a significant number of shares. They want Murdoch gone and new leadership which helps their investments for their members.

Re:Fraud. (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754526)

But they can't get Murdoch and his cronies out any other way, so there isn't really a choice.

Why is this "Hacking" so frowned upon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753768)

Anon and luzsec and hell even wikileaks don't get this kind of condemnation as this instance of organized hacking has received in the media and on the forums. What's going on guys? Liberal can hack, but conservatives can't?

Re:Why is this "Hacking" so frowned upon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754362)

Anon and luzsec and hell even wikileaks don't get this kind of condemnation as this instance of organized hacking has received in the media and on the forums. What's going on guys? Liberal can hack, but conservatives can't?

Anonymous and Lulzsec are despicable and do get massive condemnation. WikiLeaks doesn't do any hacking, yet is still massively despised in the media.

In short, what the hell are you talking about?

I'm a little confused here (2)

willoughby (1367773) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753790)

I thought Rupert's website paywalls were going to fix all their problems.

Re:I'm a little confused here (1)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754258)

They don't paywall newspapers these days, they shutter them.

The complex web of the phone hacking scandal has many threads to yet unwind. James - Herr Flick - Murdoch was the heir apparent. But when the complete truth is ironed out and he is found to have lied to the UK parliament select committee on what he knew then his corporate career is over. Where that leaves the "empire" given the age of it's king, is anyone's guess - but a family dynasty to control all far into the future is looking increasingly unlikely.

ARE THEY NUTS?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753794)

Rupert Murdoch is the most important part of the Fox brand, and the quality of its product. Cutting the power of Rupert Murdoch is like firing Steve Jobs from Apple. Without Rupert Murdoch, the ideals Fox stand for will wither away, and Fox will become a bland, undifferentiated product. That will destroy shareholder value.

Tar and Feather the Fucker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753838)

They should've done the same to Hearst...though he did build a kick ass castle...

Another slow news day.... (2)

dthanna (1294016) | more than 2 years ago | (#37753850)

Hurm... how many want to bet that absolutely none of this will make Fox News at 11 tonight?

ALERT: If you are conservative... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37753942)

you need to remember this is Slashdot so, to see any conservative views, you need to make it a point to read all of the posts that have been scored -1.

NOTE: This alert should be posted on all politically sensitive topics!!!

Re:ALERT: If you are conservative... (0, Flamebait)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754110)

p.s., you should take that as a hint that your views are outdated rubbish and have no place in a modern, civilized society

Re:ALERT: If you are conservative... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754176)

You dumb ass... You only proved the point.

When doing science, one needs to keep an open mind... Not seek validation of their beliefs. Whenever decenting views are posted and they are modded down... It simply indicates that most of the people on Slashdot are just a technically dumb as the average Obama voter...

Re:ALERT: If you are conservative... (-1, Troll)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754658)

whatever dickhead, I don't see you offering anything of value

Re:ALERT: If you are conservative... (0)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 2 years ago | (#37754646)

don't mod me insightful dipshits, I'm not on your side either

The Other Vader (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37754390)

If Dick Cheyney is the Darth Vader of government, then certainly Rupert Murdoch is the Darth Vader of Industry. I hope he gets spanked hard!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>