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!

News Corp Australia Doesn't Want You To Look Closely At Their Financials

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the but-they're-australian-dollars dept.

The Media 132

Presto Vivace writes with news of an embarrassing discovery for Rupert Murdoch's News Corp about the company's financial state, which might draw less attention if News Corp hadn't tried to prevent people from using the information: "The existential crisis that has gripped Rupert Murdoch's Australian arm began with a rude discovery just after 2pm on Wednesday afternoon. The Crikey news website had stumbled across some of News Corp's most intimate lingerie, and had just put it all up on the the net. ... The 276-page document is called the Blue Book, a weekly and year-to-date rundown of results at June 30, 2013 for every News Corp business in the country. ... The great newspaper engine which was Rupert Murdoch's original springboard to take over the world was already under stress. In 2013, 70 per cent of its earnings disappeared, leaving operating income precariously balanced at $87.6 million. As Crikey pointed out, trying hard not to gloat, another year even half as bad as 2013 could put News Australia into the red." Crikey took the documents off line after legal threats, but it seems not before business reporters all over the world had a chance to download them."

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

Rupert Murdoch Streisand (4, Funny)

Dutchmaan (442553) | about 2 months ago | (#47744425)

"Don't look at my financials... nothing to see here!!!! seriously go away!"

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (4, Interesting)

Presto Vivace (882157) | about 2 months ago | (#47744503)

News Corp is a corrupt corporation [nakedcapitalism.com] .

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 months ago | (#47744879)

News Corp is a corrupt corporation [nakedcapitalism.com] .

It is also a public company (Nasdaq:NWS) and, as such, is required to publicly disclose financials. Hiding financial information, and misleading investors, is illegal.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 months ago | (#47744953)

News Corp is a corrupt corporation [nakedcapitalism.com] .

It is also a public company (Nasdaq:NWS) and, as such, is required to publicly disclose financials. Hiding financial information, and misleading investors, is illegal.

There are very specific rules they have to follow and simply claiming they need to reveal all financial information to the public is pretty much false. I'm not going to disagree with the idea that news corp isn't really news... they're an entertainment company that tells a certain group of people what they want to hear... and makes a lot of money doing it. But this whole notion that they're some sort of evil empire secretly controlling peoples minds? It's a joke... they don't need to convince their viewers of what they're showing them... that's how those viewers already saw the world and Newscorp is playing to that crowd.

All people, everywhere, no matter what political view they have, will search out information that re-enforces their own world view. And make no mistake, we are all wrong. Every single one of us. I've heard just as much ridiculous misguided nonsense come out of left as I've heard come out of the right.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (4, Informative)

crafty.munchkin (1220528) | about 2 months ago | (#47745097)

You clearly aren't aware that in Australia, News Corpse has about 70% market share.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (4, Insightful)

MobSwatter (2884921) | about 2 months ago | (#47745469)

If they have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear...

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (5, Informative)

rtb61 (674572) | about 2 months ago | (#47745517)

This is exactly why News Corporation got the Liberal Party and Tony Abbott elected on the basis that they would kill the NBN because broadband is killing News Corporation and you need look no further than MySpace to see what kind of internet fuckups they are, bought for $580 million and sold for $35 million. With the 70% dominance in news and a months long propaganda campaign the got corrupt politicians elected who immediately set out to kill broadband in Australia and the news competition it provides. However that blatant propaganda killed the trust of Australian public for Newscorp and Fox not-News et al and they are losing market share all over the place.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47746231)

I've yet to see evidence of this. Do you know how many news organisations there are in Australia and can you name who owns them. I'll bet 70% are not owned by Newscorp

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (3, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 months ago | (#47745197)

claiming they need to reveal all financial information to the public is pretty much false.

Nobody claimed that. They do need to disclose basic financial information, and hiding a 70% drop in earnings from public shareholders is almost certainly illegal.

All people, everywhere, no matter what political view they have, will search out information that re-enforces their own world view.

Not true. I make a specific effort to listen to news sources that conflict with my world view. I know others that do the same. I tend to lean libertarian, but get most of my news from PBS and NPR which tend to view government and collective social action as the solution to most problems.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (3, Funny)

cryptolemur (1247988) | about a month ago | (#47745897)

In a free market society they would have to disclose all information, of course. Otherwise the market would not work properly, because the consumers could not make well informed decision...

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745471)

But this whole notion that they're some sort of evil empire secretly controlling peoples minds?

You really don't know much about News Corp do you.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (1)

Presto Vivace (882157) | about 2 months ago | (#47744965)

goodness gracious me, I had not thought of that.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745401)

News Corp is corrupt because they cracked some encryption and made a legal profit from it?

Are you seriously peddling that to the slashdot crowd?

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47746179)

Sure, why not?
The complaint that usually shows up is that a teenager cracking encryption for lulz gets labeled as a cyberterrorist and is put in jail for longer than a murderer would be while multinational companies gets away with it.
While it can be discussed what a reasonable punishment should be the major problem is that the law isn't applied equally among people.
My claim is that it is unfair that the rich gets away with a crime that the poor gets punished for. For some reason people misinterpret that as me wanting it the other way around. If I was aiming for hypocrisy I would be content with things as they are.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47746279)

what big company isn't corrupt, or doesn't have at least some corrupt owners, executives or board members? in this u.s. that's easy answer... they all are. i would say odds are it's the same anywhere.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (3, Funny)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 2 months ago | (#47744607)

Personally, I would have gone with "Put another shrimp on the barbie Streisand, mate."

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744643)

"Put another shrimp on the barbie Streisand, mate."

Sorry mate, but what the bloody hell you mean by a "shrimp?"

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (3, Funny)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about 2 months ago | (#47744697)

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744841)

You link explains my quip nicely (and yes I got the original reference):

"Barbie" is Australian slang for barbecue and the phrase "slip a shrimp on the barbie", for Americans, often evokes images of a fun social gathering under the sun. Australians, however, invariably use the word prawn rather than shrimp. [emphasis added]

Re: Rupert Murdoch Streisand (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745013)

FOOKIN PRAWNS

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (2)

vivian (156520) | about a month ago | (#47745839)

Shrimp and prawns are infact two different and distinct beasties, though easily confused, because they look superficially similar.
This handy guude might help:
http://museumvictoria.com.au/discoverycentre/infosheets/what-is-the-difference-between-prawns-and-shrimp/ [museumvictoria.com.au]

Since the adds were run in the US, where shrimp was the delicious type of crustaceon ready to throw onto afore mentioned cooking surface, that was the right word to use.
No doubt, when back here in his native Oz, Hoges reverts back to the more locally appropriate 'prawn' nomenclature.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47745887)

Shrimp and prawns are infact two different and distinct beasties, though easily confused, because they look superficially similar.

The biological differences notwithstanding as words denoting food, Australians will call both prawns, with the possible (and rare) exception alluded to in your linked article. Seriously, the bods at the museum are not about to change usage here.

Since the adds were run in the US ... [shrimp] was the right word to use.

Despite that the fact that the footage, shot in Australia, shows a (biological) prawn? Well in fact, yes, it was the right word to use in the US, but for linguistic rather than biological imperatives. I dunno ... scientists!? Do they really think we care about all that sciency stuff?

No doubt, when back here in his native Oz, Hoges reverts back to the more locally appropriate 'prawn' nomenclature.

None whatsoever.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (2, Informative)

mjwx (966435) | about 2 months ago | (#47745029)

"Put another shrimp on the barbie Streisand, mate."

Sorry mate, but what the bloody hell you mean by a "shrimp?"

It's an Americanism that no Australian would use.

We call them prawns, we also dont barbecue them.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (3, Informative)

DeathElk (883654) | about 2 months ago | (#47745247)

Don't barbecue them?! Speak for yourself. Soak green king prawns in lemon juice and garlic until the lemon begins to cook them slightly, then throw on the barbecue. Fuckin' unreal.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745487)

Sure, some will cook them this way (certainly not unheard of), but as the parent post was indicating it is not the typical way to cook prawns here in Australia.

When we have a barbecue we'll stick anything on them, but typically, prawns are cooked in the kitchen and not on the barbecue.

I like mine pan fried in butter and garlic.

Shrimp is something we use for fish bait.

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745483)

Dont BBQ PRAWNS???

WTF are you going on about, yes we bloody well do!

Re:Rupert Murdoch Streisand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744811)

HEAR ALL ABOUT IT ON FOX NEWS!

Oh wait Nothing To See!, Nothing To See Move Along On Fox News!

Bad news is good news! (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 months ago | (#47745543)

Any news that is bad for Rupert Murdoch is good news for the world.

It would be really nice.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744435)

If News Corp went bust and Murdoch lost every cent. He utterly deserves that

Re: It would be really nice.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744587)

Except for the fact the Newscorp was split from Twentieth Century Fox (almost makes you think they were aware of impending doom at the time of the split) back in 2013...

If Newscorp vaporized Murdoch would be left with a company with a market cap of 77.37B.

You almost feel sorry for him, almost...

Re:It would be really nice.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744627)

It'll never happen. The taxpayer will stump up the money to save him. Too big to fail, too many powerful friends, and all that. But yes, it would be very, very nice.

Re: It would be really nice.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744771)

There'd be riots in the streets if the government handed over funds to newscorp. There'd be no way it could be justified.

Re: It would be really nice.... (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 months ago | (#47744907)

Riot police would "calm" the protesters and money would be handed anyway. This happened when money was handed in much larger quantities to investment banks. This will be peanuts in comparison.

Oligarchy is well in control, and pretence of democracy isn't going to shield you from their wrath when you little people try to stomp all over their rights to fuck you over.

Re: It would be really nice.... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 months ago | (#47745011)

It wouldn't be that obvious. What would happen is dome government department would need to get a message out so they will purchade a lot of premium advertising space at thr new premium rates.

The public would never know.

Re: It would be really nice.... (2)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 months ago | (#47745167)

"It wouldn't be that obvious. What would happen is It wouldn't be that obvious. What would happen is dome government department

is this dome government department located near Chesters Mill ?

Re: It would be really nice.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745505)

You've got your domes mixed up, this is Australia so that would be Broken Hill.

And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744439)

And yet, News Corp's various media outlets here in the U.S. have enough adulating morons to support the company worldwide for years to come. They don't have to worry.

Re:And yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744941)

They live in an echo chamber. Let them waste their money.

Too little, too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744441)

Unfortunately, it's about 30 years too late for this news to spell real trouble for Rupert Murdoch.

Now, if the story covered News UK, Dow Jones and HarperCollins as well, then there'd be cause to rejoice.

Re:Too little, too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744977)

How do you know it doesn't?

New for Nerds? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744475)

Why is this on slashdot? It's nothing.

Here's why (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744495)

Because Slashdot is full of slavish Fox News lovers. Any criticism of them, or in this case, their parent company, generates NERD RAGE! And nerd rage generates page clicks. Profit!

Re:Here's why (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744661)

It's getting close to an election season in the US. Slashdot will be a left wing blog with posters screaming and swearing at each other for the next couple of months.

Re:Here's why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745059)

Admit it! You're the parent AC posting some fake rightist nerd rage just to prove you own point, yeah?

Re:New for Nerds? (4, Insightful)

WillKemp (1338605) | about 2 months ago | (#47744579)

It's not nothing. It's a glimmer of hope for us here in Australia, that that piece of shit Murdoch could eventually lose his near monopoly in Australian newspapers - and, therefore, a significant part of his ability to manipulate the government. And not before time.

Re:New for Nerds? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744689)

Indeed. Any bad news for Murdoch is good news for humanity. He's a walking, talking plague.

Re:New for Nerds? (4, Funny)

godel_56 (1287256) | about 2 months ago | (#47744769)

It's not nothing. It's a glimmer of hope for us here in Australia, that that piece of shit Murdoch could eventually lose his near monopoly in Australian newspapers - and, therefore, a significant part of his ability to manipulate the government. And not before time.

With our luck, he'd probably sell the papers to Gina Rinehart. :-(

Mods, mod parent up (-1, Redundant)

Presto Vivace (882157) | about 2 months ago | (#47745091)

With our luck, he'd probably sell the papers to Gina Rinehart. :-(

Re:New for Nerds? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745095)

you're full of shit. Murdoch owns approx 30% of newspapers in Australia - that is nothing like a monopoly. However, his newspapers make up for over 60% of sales. That is not a monopoly.

You are distorting facts to support your position.

Re:New for Nerds? (4, Informative)

WillKemp (1338605) | about 2 months ago | (#47745169)

News Ltd owns the only national daily paper, as well as the only daily paper in four state capitals, one territory capital, and a number of large regional centres - of the capitals, only Melbourne, Sydney, and Canberra have competing daily papers. Admittedly, that covers nearly half the population - but that leaves a massive proportion of Australia dominated by Murdoch.

Re: New for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47745977)

That doesn't change the facts - Murdoch does not have a monopoly. His papers sell better than others because people want to buy them. And because the left wing news in Australia has a massive tax payer funded competitor in the ABC. Pretty hard for Fairfax to compete against the ABC with its $1.1 billion budget.

So on the left we have Fairfax, which sells its news and the ABC which gives it away for free. Doesn't take a genius to work out why Fairfax is going broke. How the hell can they compete against the largest news organisation in the country (yes, the ABC) when the ABC doesn't have to turn a profit to keep going?

On the right we have Murdoch and other smaller companies, all of whom compete on merit.

Until the ABC is forced to charge, or forced to not compete, the left media in Australia are stuffed.

Re:New for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47746243)

You can't blame him if he provides what people want. Maybe the other papers should get off their arses and produce something thats not crap

New for Nerds? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744823)

Why is this on slashdot?

Because it was posted by Timothy, and it involved a website, and websites are served by computers, so it must be "News for Nerds"

Re:New for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744849)

Why is this on slashdot? It's nothing.

Because we haven't all been Murdoctrinated.

Re:New for Nerds? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744979)

A good percent of the reason why there are repulsive idiots in power in Western democracies is due to Murdoch.

It's stuff that matters.

Re:New for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47746607)

Obama is in power because of Murdoch?

Re:New for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745561)

Because the Republicans hate technology and are starting to put engineers in prison. This moron rules Faux Knews and thus is responsible for many of the deaths. That is the way with their kind. This is most certainly news that we should all be concerned about. The more desperate he gets, the more likely he'll kill more of us.

Re:New for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47746543)

Citation needed. You're a moron greenwow.

Odd... (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 2 months ago | (#47744505)

Didn't they have enough money to try to purchase Time Warner just a few months ago?

Re:Odd... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744543)

Didn't they have enough money to try to purchase Time Warner just a few months ago?

They presumably were going to use available cheap credit to make the transaction.

Re:Odd... (5, Informative)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 months ago | (#47744569)

You don't buy companies with cash, you use stock.

That way it's all just funny money.

Not Unexpected (4, Interesting)

TranquilVoid (2444228) | about 2 months ago | (#47744523)

It's hardly surprising for a company to hold its financial results close to its chest, but this is made more delicious given how much time they spend pointing out the downsizing of rival Fairfax Media.

Fairfax papers, especially, have suffered from the internet while News Corp has soldiered on, but it was only a matter of time. Being more left-wing, Fairfax's demographic is younger and more inclined to embrace new technology. As they age, and likely become more conservative, they will still consume news online rather than return to dead tree papers.

Re:Not Unexpected (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47745979)

Being more left-wing, Fairfax's demographic is younger and more inclined to embrace new technology.

You mean less likely to pay for their news, hence Fairfax's woes...

Good! (3, Interesting)

GrahamCox (741991) | about 2 months ago | (#47744545)

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of cunts. The sooner they go down the toilet the better for the country.

Re:Good! (1)

WillKemp (1338605) | about 2 months ago | (#47744589)

I'm waiting for that arsehole Murdoch to die - but given that his mum lived to over 100, i'm not holding my breath!

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744633)

I'm waiting for that arsehole Murdoch to die - but given that his mum lived to over 100, i'm not holding my breath!

Are we sure "he" is even human? There's no telling how long it will live.

Re:Good! (2)

drfred79 (2936643) | about 2 months ago | (#47744687)

People who are angry live shorter lives. This with clean consciouses live longer.

Re:Good! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744705)

People who are angry live shorter lives. This with clean consciouses live longer.

If he is a sociopath, he does have a clean conscience.

Re:Good! (1)

WillKemp (1338605) | about 2 months ago | (#47744763)

I don't think Murdoch's got much cause to be angry - he gets his way in pretty much everything. He's just a cynical, manipulative, evil scumbag. And i'm quite sure he's more than happy to be that way.

Re:Good! (2)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about 2 months ago | (#47745377)

The problem is, if he's a sociopath he sleeps like a baby every night.

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745263)

It appears my nightly prayers that Shepard Smith lose his job might be coming true. Pray harder!

Not to be a grammar Nazi but... (0)

Cantankerous Cur (3435207) | about 2 months ago | (#47744583)

'Percent' is one word. '%' would've also been an acceptable answer.

Re:Not to be a grammar Nazi but... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744675)

'Percent' is one word.

That's a usage we should now probably have to concede. However per cent is surely the more correct, except perhaps in US English [grammarist.com] .

Grammar nazi fail (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744715)

*Properly* it would be per cent. with the period after. See that little thing? That's because it's an abbreviation. Full and proper form would be per centum. You can abbreviate it to per cent. (do not forget the period!) Never abbreviate it further. Under no circumstances whatsoever can you go around arbitrarily removing spaces! This is a phrase not a word, noob.

Grammar nazi fail^2 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744935)

See my previous reply to C. Cur.

  • 1. The abbreviation 'per cent' is so well established it no longer requires a stop (aka period).
  • 2. The word 'percent' is entirely acceptable. Indeed in the US it is the correct spelling, though that is not germane to how it should be spelt in the AFR, of course.
  • 3. On international fora, where different English writers may be frightfully correct within their own spelling/usage jurisdiction, it is always wise to consult the wisdom of the net (e.g. search 'spelt vs spelled'), before making an ass (Equus africanus asinus) of oneself. And no, I will not lower my standards on the basis either of where a server might happen to be hosted, or which particular use groups forms the majority in any particular forum.

I'll leave you with the Grammatist's, admittedly US-centric, but nonetheless wise words on the matter:

There is no difference between percent and per cent. Choosing between them is simply a matter of preference.

Re:Grammar nazi fail^2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47746467)

You are wrong, and so is the Grammatist, and so are pretty much all modern 'authorities.' While American dialects certainly are a reality, Daniel Websters efforts to fabricate and promote a 'standard' dialect were poisonously flawed and the result is the nonsense you see in the Grammatist.

What they and you keep forgetting is that 'percent' is not an actual English word, it is a *misreading* of an abbreviation. It's like the South African in the US who asked for the 25 labs bag - not recognizing lbs. as an abbreviation for pounds. He thought it was an awfully strange abbreviation for pounds when he found out!

But of course it's not actually an abbreviation for pounds. It's Latin, not English; well it's mangled Latin at least - lb is the proper abbreviation for both pound and pounds in Latin, but in the US we still like to tack that s on the end just to show off our ignorance. It's a very old custom in English - to write the Latin for certain phrases, but still pronounce the English.

And in the same vein we commonly substitute the Latin per centum or an abbreviation thereof where it should probably still be read with an English equivelant. So we would write '54 per cent.' and read '54 of 100' or write '100 per cent.' and read 'all.' But then, kind of like that South African in the US, a few generations of Americans encountered the phrase in writing, without having ever heard it spoken first, and understandably misunderstanding a relatively arcane aspect of the literary language, mistook this latin abbreviation 'per cent. ' for an actual English word, 'percent.' And for entirely political reasons Daniel Webster and others encouraged such mangling.

It's still no more correct than saying 'lab' instead of 'pound.'

What about Foxtel? (2)

jonwil (467024) | about 2 months ago | (#47744613)

Does this stuff say anything about the performance (good or otherwise) of Rupert's other big Australian media asset, Foxtel?

Re:What about Foxtel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744843)

Yes - Foxtel's profitability depended upon cancellation (or emasculation) of the National Broadband Network, and so the News Corp. papers were used as propaganda machines to ensure the election of a government that would see that happened.

Re:What about Foxtel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745591)

Yes, let's all say it together.

Fuck you Rupert.

Re: What about Foxtel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47746159)

Why would Foxtel's profitability be affected by the popularity of the NBN? NBN is just the network wholesaler, Foxtel can run over IP (like it does today with Foxtel for Xbox). If anything, wouldn't Foxtel be able to reach more customers over the NBN?

Re: What about Foxtel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47746261)

Don't bring logic into an argument with these idiots. All they can see is their blind hatred of Abbott because he smacked their arses in the last election

This is old news (1)

drfred79 (2936643) | about 2 months ago | (#47744677)

I'm pretty sure I heard this years ago. Murdoch has been subsidizing his original paper out of nostalgia. What a non-story though. They only made multi-millions and if they keep only making multi-millions, one day, in the far future, they could possibly go in the red. The government does that every day.

Re:This is old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744993)

Thats ok, no problem then Murdoch can just increase taxes, or simply print some more money. Whats that you say, he can't because he's not a government and only thinks he is because he controls one. Ummm ok then.....

What a SHAME! (0)

mikeiver1 (1630021) | about 2 months ago | (#47744773)

Couldn't have happened to a bigger asshole. Don't wish to see people out of work but I would love to see that prick poor.

Never look back. (2)

westlake (615356) | about 2 months ago | (#47744777)

Successful entrepreneurs are notoriously unsentimental.

To put things in perspective:

On May 2, 2014, News Corp acquired romance novel publisher Harlequin Enterprises from Torstar for $415 million. The deal closed On August 1 2014.

News Corp [wikipedia.org]

Harlequin Enterprises Limited engages in the publishing and sale of books for women worldwide. The company publishes printed and electronic books in various languages in the areas of romance, fiction, nonfiction, young adult novels, erotic literature, and fantasy. The company was founded in 1949 and is based in Don Mills, Canada with additional offices in Toronto, New York, London, Tokyo, Milan, Sydney, Paris, Madrid, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Athens, Budapest, Granges-Paccot*, Warsaw, Rio de Janeiro, Mumbai, and Istanbul.

Company Overview of Harlequin Enterprises Limited [businessweek.com]

Harlequin will become part of News Corp's HarperCollins group.

-----
* - Granges-Paccot is a municipality in the district of Sarine in the canton of Fribourg in Switzerland. [I just had to look this up,]

Re:Never look back. (2)

grcumb (781340) | about 2 months ago | (#47744921)

Harlequin Enterprises Limited engages in the publishing and sale of books for women worldwide. The company publishes printed and electronic books in various languages in the areas of romance, fiction, nonfiction, young adult novels, erotic literature, and fantasy. The company was founded in 1949 and is based in Don Mills, Canada with additional offices in Toronto, New York, London, Tokyo, Milan, Sydney, Paris, Madrid, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Athens, Budapest, Granges-Paccot*, Warsaw, Rio de Janeiro, Mumbai, and Istanbul.

Company Overview of Harlequin Enterprises Limited.... [businessweek.com]

-----
* - Granges-Paccot is a municipality in the district of Sarine in the canton of Fribourg in Switzerland. [I just had to look this up,]

I'm going to take a wild guess and speculate that the Swiss arm of the business is curiously profitable. Swiss people just LOVE romance novels. Profitable ones especially.

it doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744881)

they'll keep on ticking no matter the losses, the media is too valuable a tool for Zionist organised crime

Source Documents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744967)

Did anyone grab a copy of the hundreds of pages of original source documents of Crikey, before they were forced to pull them down [abc.net.au] ?

Somebody 'esplain this to me (2, Insightful)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | about 2 months ago | (#47745003)

Pretty much every comment on this story is troll-worthy flamebait. Shouldn't the story itself be modded down accordingly?

This is an effect of the News Corp restructure (3, Interesting)

Harlequin80 (1671040) | about 2 months ago | (#47745105)

This is neither really news or particularly surprising. The News behemoth went through a restructure recently which pushed all its low performing assets into a different vehicle. Basically Rupert is in love with newspapers and he continues to support them even though the ROI is not there. When he leaves expect the papers to disappear as well.

When are you leaving, Rupert? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745219)

The day this worm is gone the world will automatically become a better place.

Murdoch's Pirates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745355)

One of the best books I've read.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B009VA1NVU?pc_redir=1408143782&robot_redir=1

Not anymore Beta! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745435)

How can I escape this silly sistem?

CRIKEY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745481)

My first thought: It's still too soon to see that word in a context other "the crocodile hunter" parodies. RIP, Steve Irwin.

See: Citizen Kane (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745529)

I'm sure at least 98 per cent of the newspapers would like to have numbers this good. Newspapers are a vanity play and political contribution sleight at this point in time for the most part. People will keep them running until they can't afford it any more.

Either way... (1)

Rick in China (2934527) | about 2 months ago | (#47745565)

I'd love to see Murdoch go down in flames, but this wont be the cause.

However, he's ancient, he'll be dead soon anyways. He looks like a turtle that has crawled out of its shell, tick tock Murdoch, TICK....TOCK.

Advertisers dont want to be associated with... (4, Informative)

BeCre8iv (563502) | about 2 months ago | (#47745613)

Journos that would hack the voicemail of a child murder victim.

Couldn't happen to a nicer Zionist... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47746419)

Murdoch is a neurotic, psychopathic piece of shit. Look at his face. This douchebag thinks he can 'rule the world' by telling us all what to think. What are the poor Jews to do? Nobody wants to listen to, nor read their anti-white, anti-normal bullshit day in, day out... and are turning to OTHER NORMAL PEOPLE on the internet, to find out the truth about the world around us. How dare we!

Shame on you! cries the Jew...

"The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you."

"Do not trust the fox on the heath, nor the oath of a Jew..."

"The Jew is our misfortune."

Paywalls (2)

Zarath (1743202) | about a month ago | (#47746601)

I'm surprised no one else pointed out, but this coincides directly with the timing of their paywalls. The paywalls on Murdoch's sites went up early 2013. TFA says that it's primarily a drop in advertising revenue, so is this proof that paywalls result in a loss of money, due to a loss of advertising incoming. I know personally I have stopped visiting the Courier Mail website due to the paywall.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?