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!

Rupert Murdoch's Quest To Buy Time Warner: Not Done Yet

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 months ago | from the please-give-up dept.

The Media 63

Presto Vivace (882157) writes It seems that Murdoch's desire to acquire Time Warner predates his acquisition of Fox, and continues in spite of Time Warner's recent refusal. The possible deal is important in and of itself, but it also affects the future leadership of Fox. From the article: "Murdoch's skill is not just hiring the right people; he has been able to maintain control over them. They have his support as long as they produce results. His executives are the hired help. There is never any threat to his control. When a Murdoch favourite begins to get more headlines than the chairman, the clock begins ticking for their departure. But with the Time Warner bid, that balance may change. Chase Carey has put together a deal that, because of Murdoch's history, is almost irresistible to him. But it's a deal only Carey can put together. If he succeeds, the $US160 billion company that will emerge will be an ungainly beast that will depend on Carey making the merger work. He's indispensable." Clearly we have not heard the last of this.

cancel ×

63 comments

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

so one billionaire (2, Insightful)

hguorbray (967940) | about 2 months ago | (#47504505)

can maneuver another billionaire (Murdoch) to make the first Billionaire even more rich and powerful

but the money they both make comes from us -the 99.9%

I hope they have more fun with my money than I did....

When Elephants fight its the grass that gets hurt

-I'm just sayin'

Re:so one billionaire (0)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 months ago | (#47504527)

I am a little less concerned with this than I am with comcast time warner. Regardless of what iu feel about the man himself or fox news, hes run a pretty good op to date. Having said all that I would prefer that delivery systems and content creators be seperate entities at all times

Re:so one billionaire (4, Informative)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 months ago | (#47504565)

Time Warner and Time Warner Cable are two separate entities. Murdoch is not getting TWC.

However Comcast + TWC is very evil.

TW is a giant media company owning all sorts of properties including CNN and HBO. Having Fox own these is also very evil.

Re:so one billionaire (2, Interesting)

Presto Vivace (882157) | about 2 months ago | (#47504627)

TW is a giant media company owning all sorts of properties including CNN and HBO. Having Fox own these is also very evil.

NewsCorp is a lawless corporation [nakedcapitalism.com] it would be a very bad thing were it to have more power.

Re:so one billionaire (3, Informative)

alen (225700) | about 2 months ago | (#47504773)

yeah, imagine an Ayn Rynd HBO series with lots of sex
or some life in Jesusland HBO special with sex, cheating, swinging and secret gay love with a family values theme behind it

Re: so one billionaire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47504901)

OMG, you just explained it. Jon Snow=Jesus.

It makes perfect sense.

Re: so one billionaire (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47506425)

Jesus christ, you know nothing!

sorry had to do this.

Re:so one billionaire (1)

voss (52565) | about 2 months ago | (#47504905)

The Fountainhead on HBO would kick ass and I say that as a Democrat.

Re:so one billionaire (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47506881)

yeah, imagine an Ayn Rynd HBO series with lots of sex
or some life in Jesusland HBO special with sex, cheating, swinging and secret gay love with a family values theme behind it

I actually came across (no pun intended) some porn recently where the girls in it were saying 'Oh my gosh' instead of, presumably, 'Oh my god'.

Re:so one billionaire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47505265)

CNN is a shell of its former self, it no longer does 24 hour global news. Most of the shows are of the talk and interview type, with some travel and syndicated crime (Forensic Files) and history shows thrown in for good measure. They laid of a large chunk of their news staff last year. Look what they did with the Malaysian plane incident over the Indian Ocean, wall-to-wall coverage of the missing plane but without any actual news.

HBO is perfect for Murdoch. The Fox viewers will love Game of Rape and Murder, err, I mean Game of Thrones.

Re:so one billionaire (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 2 months ago | (#47506747)

That's a pretty biased source but it sure gets referenced allot.

Would you trust a Fox News story about naked capitalism?

Re:so one billionaire (2)

rtb61 (674572) | about 2 months ago | (#47504765)

Murdoch is also very unlikely to get Time Warner as long as he continues to try to buy it with junk bond status non-voting News Corporation stocks. News corporation just can not cut it on the internet which will make it a boat anchor for the Time Warner group. As News Corporations drops and Time Warner rises so the buyout will eventually be on the other boot. The MySpace was the death knell for News Corporation on the internet.

Re:so one billionaire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47506123)

It'll happen eventually. Massive corporations rarely use cash when talking over another smaller entity, it's invariably some stock swap option that allows the real owners to cash in quickly and make a getaway.

Re:so one billionaire (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about 2 months ago | (#47506913)

you are right...but Comcast loves to acquire content creators.
thus the next logical step is of course for the two potential behemoths to merge. especially once he Foxifies CNN and HLN. just imagine how awful Comcast/TWC + Murdoch's empire w/TW would be...

bad enough that half of Fox stories right now quote other Murdoch brands like the NYPost or WSJ in order to give stories the credibility of repetition (once it was a WSJ article quoting Fox quoting the NYPost....). Now add even more media outlets to the mix? plus the threat of the internet side simply blocking any competeing news sources? talk about the potential to control all thought and discourse.

as a purely hypothetical and while extremely unlikely, its still nightmarish (and a great reason to sto these insane megamergers).

Re:so one billionaire (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 months ago | (#47507637)

Really Comcast doesn't own that much in terms of content creators. 51% of NBC Universal, which is mostly a distribution network with Universal Studios bolted on. A few channels like SyFy generate content, but I could live without that.

Re:so one billionaire (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about 2 months ago | (#47514557)

Not as small as you make it out to be. You may not think it that big, but you have to remember that Comcast is not only one of the Big 6 (who own nearly all media/entertainment), but it's also the biggest of the 6. By a lot. It has over 157billion in revenues compared to the next largest, Disney, at "only" 36 billion. It got that big very much as a result of melding one of the biggest of the 6 already (NBC Universal and largely owned by GE) with the largest cable/telco company, Comcast. And that has absolutely allowed them to leverage their vertical integration into a true behemoth.

The others are Fox, Time Warner, CBS, and Viacom.
And let's not forget the original summary is talking precisely about Fox acquiring Time Warner.
And Comcast is currently trying to acquire Time Warner Cable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]

Universal of course is one of the big studios, who also owns Focus Pictures, Working Title, and Illumination.
That's a decent amount of movies coming out of them every year.

NBC itself of course, a major network who also broadcasts a lot of sport events (and specials like the Superbowl, Olymics, World Cup, etc). And being broadcast, its available in every home across the nation through the affiliates across the country. Just cannot underestimate the power of the big broadcast networks; the performance difference between them and cable (and ratings differences and expectations) is just huge.

Comcast sports, NBC sports, and the golf channel. Comcast not so much, but the other two are pretty popular. and while NBC and ESPN frequently share broadcast rights for many sporting eventing (or split them as with World Cup), NBC just recently secured the rights to NASCAR for something like the next 10 years. (no i dont really get the attraction either, but it is a big performer in ratings)

On cable you get E!, Syfy, USA, Bravo, Oxygen, Telemundo, mun2, NBC News, CNBC, MSNBC. More as well, but those ones have solid markets. 3 major news networks, 4 channels of original shows, and 2 channels of essentially reality tv (hate that stuff, but it is low cost high profit). And of course Telemundo, one of the bigger hispanic channels, and like most hispanic TV flies under most peoples radars so they dont realize it, but its also a very profitable market.

And of course part ownership of Hulu on the net...where their primary partners are Fox and Disney/ABC (whom they've tried to buy before).

Re:so one billionaire (1)

Are You Kidding (1734126) | about 2 months ago | (#47504849)

Can these guys really imagine this deal will be approved by the FCC and Justice Departments? This merger is so destructive of the public interest, it could spend a decade in court in some subsequent administration, even if the present administration allows it.

Re:so one billionaire (1)

linearZ (710002) | about 2 months ago | (#47505455)

Can these guys really imagine this deal will be approved by the FCC and Justice Departments? This merger is so destructive of the public interest, it could spend a decade in court in some subsequent administration, even if the present administration allows it.

Right, the FCC is all about public interest with net neutrality and all that.

Re:so one billionaire (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 2 months ago | (#47505711)

they aren't fighting. they are working out the details of who gets to penetrate the other and how deep they get to go.

How big is one billion dollars anyway? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 2 months ago | (#47504515)

It's that [brucesallan.com] big.

The good news is that he's mortal (3, Insightful)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 2 months ago | (#47504525)

No matter how rich and obnoxious the fucker will eventually drop dead.

Re:The good news is that he's mortal (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47504577)

Not before the old cunt does more damage to democracy and the political system unfortuantly. Murdoch is truly disgustingly evil.

Re:The good news is that he's mortal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47506071)

Obama has done more to damage to democracy in his complete failure of a presidency than 10,000 Murdocks^10,000 could ever do.

Re: The good news is that he's mortal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47506661)

This isn't yahoo news.
Care to elaborate.
Obama is just another president.
Murdoc is a monopolist JP Morgan and friends would have had in their circle.

Re:The good news is that he's mortal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47504625)

Are you sure? I suspect he and Dick Cheney are the first wave of cyborgs. They may well outlive today's children -- if not from technology extending their lifespan, then because neither want anyone surviving them.

Re:The good news is that he's mortal (1)

metlin (258108) | about 2 months ago | (#47505023)

...and someone else will take his place.

Re:The good news is that he's mortal (1)

sg_oneill (159032) | about 2 months ago | (#47505533)

No matter how rich and obnoxious the fucker will eventually drop dead.

You'll want it soon. He's done incredible damage to australias democracy by controlling 70% of the media and using it to straight up intimidate politicians and then blatantly lie about those who don't bow down.

An amazing amount of australians believe the rises in their energy costs came from the carbon tarifs despite every economist of note pointing out the inflation was almost insignificant , and many australians even complain about the effect the mining tax has on them despite it applying to about 2 or 3 hundred companies tops.

Very few realise that 90% of peoples taxes dropped somewhat significantly BECAUSE of those taxes. But why would they know? Newscorp decided to simply not report that, and it led to an astonishingly incompetent government being voted in.

Don't let this happen to you America.

Re:The good news is that he's mortal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47505561)

Sorry - too late!

Re:The good news is that he's mortal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47507167)

You must've missed the last 14 years. We've got an entire state using/loving obamacare but swear they hate obamacare because it's named something different in that state.

The misinformation, along with the irony(of free speech giving us complete lies), is all over our faces.

Re:The good news is that he's mortal (2)

dryeo (100693) | about 2 months ago | (#47505719)

This is the scarey thing about immortality, rich old fuckers living forever.

Re:The good news is that he's mortal (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about 2 months ago | (#47506983)

and naturally the GP and your post made my mind think of Peter Weyland.

Re:The good news is that he's mortal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47506155)

The Rupert Murdoch is having too much fun to die.

Re:The good news is that he's mortal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47506309)

That's what they say about Castro, too.

Hopefully not (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47504533)

Hopefully this worm won't be able to pull it off. At the very least we know that, bearing in mind his age, he's not likely to be around much longer.

This is what extreme capitalism accomplishes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47504569)

In the end, there is only one big corporation left, and it's hard to distinguish between it and the government. It's not far away now.
Feels good, right?

Re:This is what extreme capitalism accomplishes (1)

TemporalBeing (803363) | about 2 months ago | (#47516703)

In the end, there is only one big corporation left, and it's hard to distinguish between it and the government. It's not far away now. Feels good, right?

And then they made RoboCop, and we all know how that went...

Just an unfortunate truth.... (1, Insightful)

Jahoda (2715225) | about 2 months ago | (#47504599)

...that as we have seen from Cheney, the capability of the dark side of the force to sustain and prolong life is unrivaled. Perhaps by Sauron's ring, but I wouldn't rule out that fucker murdoch as having one of those, too.

We need competition, not mergers (1, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 months ago | (#47504619)

Screw big-media mergers. We need more competition as the current oligopolies have some of the worse customer service records there are, and high prices compared to the rest of world, even in denser population areas where the "rural long wire" argument doesn't hold up.

Oligopolies & monopolies almost always result in crappy service/products/prices.

The "economies of scale" argument for defending them is weak. That claim was used to protect the Detroit Big 3, but the Medium 7 from Japan came along and kicked the Big 3 in the ass.

I'll take the downsides of (alleged) lack of "economies of scale" over the sloth of oligopolies.

I have only 2 realistic ISP choices in my area, and it's not rural by any stretch. It's a hefty suburb right next to a major city. And both suck. The pushy sales persons on the phone eventually admit their service sucks when presented with undeniable evidence, but will blatantly make the argument, "Okay, we suck, but we can get you crappy service at a better price than the other crappy guy". Even they know they suck; they just claim they suck for less $ (at least until the "special offer" period runs out).

It's like two satan's arguing, "Okay, yes, we are hot here and your ass will indeed get burned off. BUT, we have better elevator music to listen to while you fry."

Re:We need competition, not mergers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47504763)

Umm, I'm confused. What does your choice of ISPs have to do with this article about Fox bidding for Time Warner?

Re:We need competition, not mergers (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 months ago | (#47505447)

If the merger is squelched, then maybe Murdoch would decide to form his own ISP to compete with TW, giving us more competition. After all, if you cannot buy X, you have the option of becoming X's competitor. That's what the system should encourage. When you have a fat wallet it's too easy to buy a near monopoly instead of compete head on.

Re:We need competition, not mergers (2)

alen (225700) | about 2 months ago | (#47504781)

we have a lot more news sources than 20 years ago. trouble is the kiddie bloggers rarely do more than link to an original news source and comment about it. These internet news sites need to start doing their own reporting. maybe start up something like AP or Reuters for investigative reporting and other hard news for internet news sites

Dear God, let real reporters report. (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47504813)

Have you been to Reddit or Hacker News lately? Dear Lord, the independent "reporting" linked to from those sites is some of the absolute worst around. While mainstream media is obviously biased in certain ways, at least their biases have an understandable basis in business, politics, and power. The bias we see from independent hipster "journalists" is of a much worse nature. They're obsessed with being politically correct, or advocating the pansy let's-not-offend-anyone-in-any-way-with-the-truth attitude we see from hipsters and Millenials when it comes to discussing issues of importance. Their "reporting" doesn't just have the bias inherent to real journalism, but rather it's rife with what might be best considered as outright amateurish propaganda. I don't want anyone at Reddit or HN trying to "report" on anything. At best, they make total fools of themselves. At worse, they produce crap that other hipsters/Millenials will stupidly buy into and accept as "fact".

Re:We need competition, not mergers (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 months ago | (#47504919)

What's wrong with AP and Reuters? Most news outlets (including Fox) get most of their news stories from the wire services.

Re:We need competition, not mergers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47505497)

Try dailykos. It's a blog but has far better reporting than the vast majority of the media. Sure the NY Times occasionally gets something, but "left wing" blogs plus Al Jazeera and The Guardian and you blow away 'merkin media like Godzilla meets Bambi.

I hope the merger goes through (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47505205)

I hope that they merge. I hope that Fox pays a lot of money for Time Warner. I hope that Fox mismanages Time Warner, and the shareholders lose money, Rupert included.

Re:We need competition, not mergers (1)

unitron (5733) | about 2 months ago | (#47506287)

You know that Time-Warner Cable got spun off from Time-Warner and is a separate company now, right?

Antitrust (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47504639)

So... When is this gonna happen?

need to move my email - where? (1)

dltaylor (7510) | about 2 months ago | (#47504647)

As a current TWC hostage, I need to move my email before this happens. Since the US government is unconcerned about collateral damage when taking down a hosting site, I'd like it to be in Europe (Germany, France, Netherlands, for example). I need POP/SMTP access, and a routable domain (name not yet selected) for incoming mail. If there MUST be a web service, a simple static "C" program returning "Access to this site not authorized." in a few languages (and, maybe, a suitable response for robots) should suffice.

Any suggestions for hosting provider/registrar there?

Re:need to move my email - where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47505093)

Relax Alice, the deal doesn't include TWC.

Re:need to move my email - where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47505571)

Yet...

Re:need to move my email - where? (1)

unitron (5733) | about 2 months ago | (#47506293)

TWC got spun off from Time-Warner and is a separate company.

If the proposed deals go through, Comcast won't be getting any of the company that owns CNN and HBO, and Rupert won't be getting any cable plants.

might still be worthwhile to avoid Comcast (1)

dltaylor (7510) | about 2 months ago | (#47506333)

There's still the Comcast deal pending, and email will change then, anyway, so I might as well explore the options.

Re:might still be worthwhile to avoid Comcast (1)

unitron (5733) | about 1 month ago | (#47536631)

That may well be true, but has nothing to do with Murdoch buying Time-Warner.

there goes any hope of standalone HBO and what is (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 months ago | (#47504775)

there goes any hope of standalone HBO and what is next stuff from fox and fox sports moves to HBO / MAX to get more subs to them?

My thoughts (-1, Flamebait)

Christopher Lee (3756843) | about 2 months ago | (#47504847)

Rupert Murdoch’s over all is an extremely bright person. We he started Fox news it was a new territory. He was extremely successful with this I remember with CNN dominated the news. With enough money and marketing you can take number one on in ratings.Now I guess he wants to buy Time Warner Chris Owner CEL Financial Services Please visit my website for all your Income Tax Santa Paula [taxprepfillmore.com] needs.

If the merger happens CNN must be spunoff. (2)

voss (52565) | about 2 months ago | (#47504909)

Allowing the fox news owner to take over turner networks is unthinkable.

Re:If the merger happens CNN must be spunoff. (1)

Comen (321331) | about 2 months ago | (#47505315)

Not to mention HBO, it has some of the most political shows on TV. Bill Maher, VICE, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.
They run tons of political documentaries, Movies and Mini Series that cover lots of political issues with in the themes of those movies.
Letting Fox News take that over is crazy.

Re:If the merger happens CNN must be spunoff. (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 2 months ago | (#47506807)

Murdoch wants money. If those shows make money, he'll keep them.

How many times does the Simpsons make fun of conservatives, Fox News, and even Fox itself?

Re:If the merger happens CNN must be spunoff. (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about 2 months ago | (#47506997)

I think you underestimate how many conservatives love The Simpsons and either don't get the joke, or just dont care. also lets not forget that Lisa's charicature of liberalism is continually played for laughs as well.

If the merger happens CNN must be spunoff. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47508347)

Agreeed, antitrust regulators will demand it.

The question is, what media megacorporation will take it over? Probably not Comcast/NBC, which is also too big. So either Viacom or Disney, probably.

Justice Liberty and Freedom (1)

hackus (159037) | about 2 months ago | (#47504957)

Mention any in the presence of Murdoch and his ilk will get you classified as a terrorist and likely SWAT'ed.

Well, either that or you could be driving your car and inexplicably jit a tree ay a very VERY high speed and wonder, "That is odd, where did that tree come from?"

http://www.sott.net/article/26... [sott.net]

Bizzleness as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47508215)

Look, this is just business as usual. If the merger happens, everyone in upper management and the major players will get big lump sums. They'll fire a bunch of people and management will get lump sum bonuses for saving the new company money. Then in a few years, they'll start splitting off parts of the new company. Everyone will get big lump sums for completing those deals. Then those parts will merge into bigger companies. This happens constantly, and it's because the people who do it can get big lump sums. They don't care about the companies they're buying, and they don't care about the viability of the new company they're creating. Heck, just look at Time Warner itself and its history. Remember how it used to be AOL Time Warner?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>