Have the Murdochs done a tacit deal with the Conservatives?
The Labour Party conference plays an important role in the Murdoch family. In 1952 Rupert Murdoch, then an active member of the Labour Club at Oxford, visted the Labour conference which followed the party's defeat in the 1951 election.
The conference was held, I think, in Bridlington, and proved to be one of the most acrimonious in Labour history. The young Rupert wrote a long letter back to his father, Sir Keith Murdoch, with a detailed account of all the machinations among the Labour brethren.
Until that point Sir Keith had regarded his son as a wayward character, too interested in horse-racing and gambling, and he feared Rupert would waste his life. The letter persuaded Sir Keith, however, that he'd got it wrong about Rupert - that he would in fact do well in life.
A few days after getting the letter, Sir Keith died, but he died feeling reassured that his legacy was safe. Rupert immediately returned to Australia to run the family newspaper business, and you pretty much know the rest.
Sir Keith Murdoch had been known in inter-war Australian politics as a king-maker, an editor who had made and broken two Australian Prime Ministers. His son Rupert acquired a similar reputation years later, of course, in Britain, through the perceived influence of his Sun newspaper in the elections on the 70s, 80s and 90s. And also as an influential player figure in the politics of Australia and New York.
The third generation of the family, James Murdoch, was in Brighton for a conference reception last night, just as The Sun announced it was ditching Labour and backing David Cameron at the next election.
Will James Murdoch, who is close to George Osborne and David Cameron. prove to be the third Murdoch kingmaker? Downing Street say they are utterly relaxed about the switch - I bet they are.
Many Labour people here in Brighton believe the Murdochs have done a tacit deal with the Conservatives - to promote the business interests of Murdoch, and especially their broadcasting outlets, at the expense of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú.
We simply don't know. But there may be another explanation for what's happened, which I don't think one can ignore. That the Murdoch family, like the schoolboy Rupert at the Melbourne racetrack, like picking winners.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 30th Sep 2009, dennisjunior1 wrote:Michael:
This is pure speculation and innuendo...The chance of the Murdochs did this deal with the Conservatives is pretty much on the right track....
What I wrote is MY OWN opinion....
NB: I am not associated and/or affiliated with the parties of Conservatives and/or Murdoch Media Services....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 30th Sep 2009, tpbeta wrote:Hmm guess the wish list went something like:
1) Aggressive regulator for Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú to replace the Trust.
2) Kick the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú off the Internet and make them shut down or sell off half their stations and channels
3) Slash the license fee down under a billion.
4) Scrap the sporting crown jewels.
5) Slash the DG's salary so you can't get anyone even remotely non-useless to do it.
Have I missed anything?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 30th Sep 2009, bookhimdano wrote:given the sun delivered a govt that got us into two unwinnable wars one based on a pack of 'intelligence' in a dossier no one has taken the blame for and a govt that believed in light touch regulation that has bankrupted the uk for a generation their track record in backing political movements is not a stunning success for the nation?
indeed anything they back should be viewed as something for the nation to avoid as there can be little likely good in it?
there is a whole generation that has probably never bought a newspaper even if it does have tits in it?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 30th Sep 2009, JunkkMale wrote:If a media entity tried to shape public opinion to suit its own agenda by being more supportive of a view it empathised with that would be unfortunate, but hardly surprising.
But only in some very select cases would it be unique. Objectively speaking.
Which I why I tend to prefer knowing where folk stand and supporting them with my funds, or not.
Reporting facts, without enhanced narratives, or interpreted events, to suit, would be a very good way to ensure folk of independent thought stay on side. If managed.
Or... pretty much keeping on digging an already pretty deep hole is another way to go...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 30th Sep 2009, barriesingleton wrote:IS THE POPE NOTHING LIKE A CUDDLY BEAR?
Why bother to ask the question.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 30th Sep 2009, bookhimdano wrote:given the 'gordon goading' going on by the yapparrazzi whatever they are doing its not 'journalism'?
when does a 'journalist' stop reporting news and becomes an agent in trying to make it?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 1st Oct 2009, Quietzapple wrote:The Sun follows what it hopes will be the decision of the British people in the next General election. Thery have left this one a bit late, doubting rightly that it is quite so straightforward as the Tory Trolls' bandwagoning has made it seem.
But they do have the power, as do the mail and Dully Tele, to time their propaganda against labour, and this they are doing.
We have only to look at Fox in the USA and their hasty announcement that Bush had won in 2000, which might easily have been false, and was clearly intended to serve their master's interests to see how dangerous to democracy billionaires can be.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)