Paul Dacre once asked a colleague what they thought of something. The Daily Mail journalist started to reply: “On the one hand…” The editor said: “Stop. We’re not The Independent, we don’t do on the one hand and on the other. We’re the Daily Mail. We have one hand.”
That same view is besetting Rupert Murdoch as he grapples with the succession of his newspapers and TV empire. Three of his adult children, James, Elisabeth and Prudence, are more to the centre in their views — definably “Leftie” in the eyes of the patriarch. The other, Lachlan, is firmly of the Right.
Murdoch’s opinion is that his group — which includes Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and a host of other titles and platforms around the world — would be better served being led by someone from the Right. He’s shaped his products in his own image, which is from that end of the spectrum; to move to a wishy-washy middle, managed by liberals, invites lack of identity and commercial ruin.
I can relate to that. I am a former editor of The Independent and frequently found myself wishing I was running the Daily Mail. Not because I agreed with its politics, but because I admired its certainty. Dacre knew his audience; he fed them what they wanted. They too were sufficiently large in number.
Over at the Indy we forever pursued balance. It literally was a case of one man’s terrorist, another’s freedom fighter. To Dacre they were terrorists. Full stop. We were happy enough and our consciences were clear.
A US court has heard a claim that would do the TV drama Succession proud. Murdoch is attempting to rewrite the terms of a family trust so that after his death, Lachlan is in charge. The other three will have the same single share each as their brother. But it is Lachlan who will call the shots.
Doing Succession proud, Murdoch will attempt to rewrite a family trust so that Lachlan is in charge
At present, all four will have a say in how the business is run and the direction it takes. It’s more than that, however. Kelvin Mackenzie, Murdoch’s ex-lieutenant, puts it well, saying that “in reality, he is fighting for all the viewers and readers of his media who believe in and enjoy, those Right of centre views — the very views that made them successful and commercially profitable.”
Murdoch has known throughout their lives what his children are like. Oldest daughter Prudence was less interested in the family firm and stayed in the background, James, Elisabeth and Lachlan were more involved. They’ve also had periods of distance. In a sense it didn’t matter, as Rupert was firmly in command, aided by his faithful senior managers.
Looking ahead, to the inevitable, it didn’t seem to be so crucial either as all four are capitalists. But all four in the chair, that was never going to work. So, Murdoch anointed the one he deemed nearest to himself and the group’s market. Lachlan was made chief executive across everything. That cued a backlash from James in particular, earning him the sobriquet of “the troublesome beneficiary” from Murdoch’s lawyers. All that did was to convince Murdoch that after he has gone, war would erupt, so better confront it head-on now. Hence, the trial to redraft the trust. The Murdoch line is that the other three would benefit from not changing the political outlook of their inheritance and having one conservative in sole command.
What must rankle is that it’s not as if James et al have not benefited already and shared in the ability of their father to build the world’s biggest media concern. In 2019, they were each given $2 billion. And yet they want more, yet they question his judgment. In the North of England, they have a saying: clogs to clogs in three generations. History is littered with examples of brilliant entrepreneurs whose children are simply not up to the task. Often, they lack the hunger and drive, while possessing a strong degree of entitlement.
Partly it is because they grow up in the lap of fabulous luxury. A classic case was Sir John Moores, founder of the Littlewoods football pools, mail order and stores combine. John was one of eight children, born over a pub in Eccles, Lancashire. He left school at 13. When it came to his own offspring, he had four, two boys and two girls. The sons went to Eton, the daughters to Cheltenham Ladies. None displayed his business acumen, with the result that when he retired and his son Peter took over, profits crashed. Aged 84, John resumed control.
With Murdoch you wonder if there is something deeper, pressing in his psyche, that he equates only the Right as bearing the ruthlessness concerning making money that he possesses. In Succession, there are two apposite scenes. One is Logan Roy, aka Murdoch, telling his children: “You’re not serious people.” The other is when he informs son Kendall: “You’re not a killer. You have to be a killer.”
Murdoch, presumably, sees in Lachlan sufficient killer instinct to justify his crowning. He may not be as much a killer as Murdoch himself, but he’s more of one than Lachlan’s siblings.
Some are questioning the timing of Murdoch’s move. In the UK, Labour has swept to power in a landslide; in the US, the entrance of Kamala Harris has made the presidential race closer. Donald Trump no longer looks a shoo-in. So, why do this, just when it would seem the Left is in the ascendant? Nor did it go unnoticed that Trump appears strong enough to manage entirely without Murdoch. At the Republican National Convention, Murdoch was relegated to a balcony seat, while Trump and his circle give the impression of caring more about wooing social media than the traditional outlets.
Lachlan may not be as much a killer as Murdoch himself, but he’s more of one than his siblings
The answer is that Murdoch believes there will always be a large enough market on the Right. It used to be said that his tactic was to only back winners. If that was the case, he would be hedging his bets and shifting Leftwards. It’s true, his UK newspapers did support Labour, but loaded with caveats — enough to say the endorsement was begrudging, that Murdoch is not entirely convinced. Their stance found an echo in the electorate where swathes of the Right swung Left, more in protest at the failings of the Conservatives than faith in Labour.
If James, Elisabeth and Prudence had been at the helm, then those provisos would not be present and the titles would move away from their readers, with predictably disastrous results.
Who won in court? The trio did, resoundingly. The Nevada commissioner, Edmund J. Gorman Jr, ruled Murdoch and Lachlan had acted in "bad faith" and called their efforts a "carefully crafted charade”. A spokesperson for Prudence, Elisabeth and James said: "We welcome Commissioner Gorman's decision and hope that we can move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members." Some chance. It was only the first round. The Commissioner’s ruling must be ratified by a district court judge; Murdoch and Lachlan will then have the chance to appeal. Will the three come to rue the day and regret not appreciating their father’s achievement? More to the point, will they regret not understanding what he understood? There is an argument that says for the sake of peace, they should swallow hard, make a Faustian pact and let Lachlan get on with it. That is what Murdoch wishes. And after all, should Lachlan fail, they’ve still got their $2 billion.
