Curious that the Biz Times piece doesn't mention Murdoch, whose vast media holdings include Fox News Channel and the Wall St. Journal, among others.
Hearst corp., is of course the parent company of the SF Chronicle, which is noted in the story..
Presumably, if the post included Hearst was parent company of the Chronicle, would then it not be curious as to why it would not have noted that Murdoch runs News Corp.?
CLARIFICATION: A reader informs me that News. Corp. is actually a publicly-traded company and yes, technically, Murdoch doesn't own it outright, but his control and management/influence of its operation is well known.
**Follow me on Twitter
"Presumably, if the post included Hearst was parent company of the Chronicle, would then it not be curious as to why it would not have noted that Murdoch owns News Corp.?"
ReplyDeleteRich, very simple explanation for this: Rupert Murdoch does not own News Corp. He is the CEO. News Corp. is a publicly traded company, which means the shareholders- institutional investors, mutual funds, individual shareholders- own News Corp. Rupert Murdoch's shares that he owns of News Corp. represent the proverbial drop in the bucket.
Nothing "sinister" or even "curious" about it.
He "owns" a majority of the stock. Semantics here, DD.
ReplyDeleteNo, he doesn't "own" (why would you put own in quotation marks?) a majority of the stock.
ReplyDeleteThe Rupert family owns less than 1/2 of 1% of all outstanding shares of stock in News Corp. The majority of shares are owned by institutional investors including Vanguard, Franklin Templeton, Dodge & Cox, Janus, Blackrock, etc.
There are no semantics at work here. Just the facts.
Agreed, terrible facts Richard.
ReplyDeleteI was really trying not to rip you here but News Corp. ownership is a very well known fact and for someone who proclaims to be SO media-savvy to be unaware betrays a very large lack of fundamental knowledge.
Ownership and the board of News Corp. was discussed heavily when the WSJ was purchased in '07.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe internet: Serious business!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD7LEoMvp4A
No, Murdoch does not have absolute control. He answers to the board of directors, and they are held accountable by the shareholders.
ReplyDeleteIs he the CEO? Yes. If just a couple of the institutional investors chose to, they could have him ousted pretty quickly. Ultimately, they hold the power.
Does he guide the ship? Like any other CEO; no more, no less.
Yeah,Rich-Rupert has no say,isnt majority owner,and is at the mercy of minions-THAT'S why he bought in- to be a CEO at their mercy. Um,sarcasm.
ReplyDeleteRich,
ReplyDeleteGood form on admitting you were wrong and changing your blog post.