What a splendid piece this is! Fair, perceptive and informative, I learned something new about Mr. Murdoch.
Good for Unherd – this is quite a coup.
Beaverbrook, Black, Murdoch: they were despised by the British establishment for being jumped-up little nobodies from the colonies who, irritatingly, knew how to run media empires. And they did not even have the decency to be lefties – disgraceful! They will never be forgiven for that.
I completely agree: this is an intelligent appreciation of one of the most extraordinary figures of our time…and it’s warts and all. It is a coup for UnHerd to have got Black’s piece. That’s what makes this site worth coming back to.
I thought it disappointing the glib dismissal of Northcliffe. Perhaps Conrad hasn’t read Andrew Roberts book. Not only did Northcliffe invent tabloid journalism but there are but two degrees of separation between Rupert and Northcliffe – via Rupert’s dad Keith, a confidant and disciple of Northcliffe. Dismissing Northcliffe because he went mad at the end of his life is to overlook the fascinating connection between the original press baron and his ultimate reincarnation in the person of Rupert . Sloppy.
Last edited 7 months ago by Jonathan Miller
UnHerd Reader
7 months ago
I am so proud of myself…I read the entire article without having to look up a single word…
That’s a very funny comment and one I can relate to. Honest of you to say that.
Last edited 7 months ago by Clare Knight
Roderick MacDonald
7 months ago
The Fleet Street unions 40 years ago were nothing less than gangsters. Eddie Shah courageously took them on, in the face of death threats to his children, but it took Murdoch to finish them off. No one will regret the loss, except, of course, all the “Donald Ducks” and “A.N.Onymouses” deprived of their weekly wads of untaxed cash.
Long term Murdoch’s work in broadcasting is even more important. This article doesn’t lay enough stress on the tremendous gamble this was. I thought of investing in Sky but when I saw the accounts I ran a mile. The adverse balances on P & L were almost incredibly large, looking more like the accounts of a nation than a company.
When the gamble came off it allowed Murdoch to change the whole broadcasting scene in the US, breaking the monopoly of the hard left. It has never recovered.
It would be worth mentioning Murdoch’s role setting up The Australian newspaper in 1964, which remains this country’s only national newspaper. Ironically, given the persistent demonization of Murdoch by right-thinking lefties, it is the only mainstream publication that takes seriously providing balanced coverage of the debate going on here about the establishment of an indigenous Voice to parliament and the executive government. By contrast the ABC, which is bound by its charter to provide balanced coverage of the debate, acts as little more than a green-left propagada mill.
David Lindsay
7 months ago
Why do some people spit at the mere mention of Rupert Murdoch? Which other media are any better? Likewise the people, some of whom are the same people, who abominate the very name of the BBC. Compared to what, exactly?
Andrew D
7 months ago
I can forgive RM everything except the destruction of The Times
You’re confusing changes necessary for survival with destruction.
Wait and see what happens now if you want destruction. Rupert was a newspaperman in his bones but I doubt Lachlan or James will feel the same way about the remaining legacy titles.
Quite why you’d alter the front page layout, font etc, so that The Times looks likes Tasmania’s second-best newspaper, beats me.
Paul MacDonnell
7 months ago
A marvellous article.
Clare Knight
7 months ago
A well rounded piece, however one wonders what it must be like to be a man who seems so joyless.
Laurence Eyton
7 months ago
If Black was the serious historian some claim, he would have checked his facts. Murdoch never “gained control of the mass circulation Sunday tabloid News of the World” in 1969 because it was a broadsheet until 1984.
j watson
7 months ago
Intriguing article and appreciated reading that perspective from a long time Business rival who clearly had considerable respect for RM
Whereas unashamedly I don’t. Murdoch is one of the primary reasons political discourse has become so toxic and short-termist. Many of our problems can be traced to the form of news reporting he has promulgated for decades.
And with $737m paid out and $2.7b still pending his support for the lies spouted by Fox shows he’d clearly lost his touch and his eventual comeuppance delightful. Much like it was when he had grovel an apology for allowing all the phone hacking.
As if CNN and MSNBC have never promulgated ‘lies’? Rachel Maddow banged on nightly for two years on a ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ conspiracy that in the end turned out to be just the hijinks of Hillary Clinton & Co. Great reporting that. And don’t get me going about CNN and it’s truly stupid tale spinner Don Lemon. As fate would have it though, its ratings last weekend, of no higher than 50k, the lowest since 1991 is a well-deserved comeuppance as well,
Bit of standard ‘what-aboutery’ there CC. Let’s see them in Court then if it’s of any equivalence?
Not the same is it, and being on the hook for $2.7b says it all.
Defending CNN, MSBC ? If pointing out they haven’t lost $700m already, and look like further Billions to come, for pedalling lies, then I guess by implication I may be defending them. The point though was an implied equivalence by CC. Facts do not show any such equivalence.
Let me put it this way, if you are getting your info from Fox News, CNN or MSNBC, you are grossly misinformed from partisan hacks pretending to be journalists. They all suck equally and should be avoided at all costs.
Extremely disingenuous, as a Blairite would be. Rachel Maddow spreading disinformation on the Covid vaccines and the Russian hoax is not less relevant because there wasn’t any settlement paid. The logic is not there and you know it.
Matthew Powell
7 months ago
Test
Jane Davis
7 months ago
I think the media figure he most resembles is a watered down Joseph Goebbels. Which indeed makes him a suitable figure for appreciation by Conrad Blackshirt. That of course is a reference to the ex mogul’s penchant for monochrome tailoring.
Well his paper did indulge in an endless stream of bigoted anti-Irish invective during his proprietorship. The Telegraph was deeply hostile to Irish Catholics on both sides of the border back in the 90’s. Thankfully it did abate in the aftermath of the Belfast Agreement but Black is an example of how Anglophilia can easily curdle into bigotry to countries that have a “complicated” history with the UK.
Well I love his writing. He writes occasional pieces for the National Post and they show a deep knowledge of Canadian history – both recent and past. He is also unafraid to challenge established views on issues like global warming or Indian residential schools in a fearless but well informed and argued way.
Yes, C Black elevates the National Post to high quality journalism, the kind you wished finding more often. So does Rex Murphy. We are privileged to read them.
On trumped up charges. Black’s experience of US justice showed that, in the USA, the legal system provides the real punishment. It has nothing to do with justice
What a splendid piece this is! Fair, perceptive and informative, I learned something new about Mr. Murdoch.
Good for Unherd – this is quite a coup.
Beaverbrook, Black, Murdoch: they were despised by the British establishment for being jumped-up little nobodies from the colonies who, irritatingly, knew how to run media empires. And they did not even have the decency to be lefties – disgraceful! They will never be forgiven for that.
Conrad Black is also a serious historian.
True. I read his history of FDR. V. interesting.
I completely agree: this is an intelligent appreciation of one of the most extraordinary figures of our time…and it’s warts and all. It is a coup for UnHerd to have got Black’s piece. That’s what makes this site worth coming back to.
say what you like about Conrad Black, but he has few equals as a historian and writer.
He’s a criminal.
His writing is much like his personality – long winded and tedious.
I thought it disappointing the glib dismissal of Northcliffe. Perhaps Conrad hasn’t read Andrew Roberts book. Not only did Northcliffe invent tabloid journalism but there are but two degrees of separation between Rupert and Northcliffe – via Rupert’s dad Keith, a confidant and disciple of Northcliffe. Dismissing Northcliffe because he went mad at the end of his life is to overlook the fascinating connection between the original press baron and his ultimate reincarnation in the person of Rupert . Sloppy.
I am so proud of myself…I read the entire article without having to look up a single word…
Wallowing in the Black books?
Mr Trump ‘pardoned’ him so what is there not to like? To lapse into the vernacular.
It was an unpredjudiced reference to Mr/Mrs Reader’s pride!
What does black books mean, please?
even the word ‘William Randolph Hearst’ ?
What?
Eh?
That’s a very funny comment and one I can relate to. Honest of you to say that.
The Fleet Street unions 40 years ago were nothing less than gangsters. Eddie Shah courageously took them on, in the face of death threats to his children, but it took Murdoch to finish them off. No one will regret the loss, except, of course, all the “Donald Ducks” and “A.N.Onymouses” deprived of their weekly wads of untaxed cash.
Long term Murdoch’s work in broadcasting is even more important. This article doesn’t lay enough stress on the tremendous gamble this was. I thought of investing in Sky but when I saw the accounts I ran a mile. The adverse balances on P & L were almost incredibly large, looking more like the accounts of a nation than a company.
When the gamble came off it allowed Murdoch to change the whole broadcasting scene in the US, breaking the monopoly of the hard left. It has never recovered.
What’s P & L?
Eddy Shah, not Eddie.
Profit and Loss.
It would be worth mentioning Murdoch’s role setting up The Australian newspaper in 1964, which remains this country’s only national newspaper. Ironically, given the persistent demonization of Murdoch by right-thinking lefties, it is the only mainstream publication that takes seriously providing balanced coverage of the debate going on here about the establishment of an indigenous Voice to parliament and the executive government. By contrast the ABC, which is bound by its charter to provide balanced coverage of the debate, acts as little more than a green-left propagada mill.
Why do some people spit at the mere mention of Rupert Murdoch? Which other media are any better? Likewise the people, some of whom are the same people, who abominate the very name of the BBC. Compared to what, exactly?
I can forgive RM everything except the destruction of The Times
You’re confusing changes necessary for survival with destruction.
Wait and see what happens now if you want destruction. Rupert was a newspaperman in his bones but I doubt Lachlan or James will feel the same way about the remaining legacy titles.
A quick bullet would have been kinder
Quite why you’d alter the front page layout, font etc, so that The Times looks likes Tasmania’s second-best newspaper, beats me.
A marvellous article.
A well rounded piece, however one wonders what it must be like to be a man who seems so joyless.
If Black was the serious historian some claim, he would have checked his facts. Murdoch never “gained control of the mass circulation Sunday tabloid News of the World” in 1969 because it was a broadsheet until 1984.
Intriguing article and appreciated reading that perspective from a long time Business rival who clearly had considerable respect for RM
Whereas unashamedly I don’t. Murdoch is one of the primary reasons political discourse has become so toxic and short-termist. Many of our problems can be traced to the form of news reporting he has promulgated for decades.
And with $737m paid out and $2.7b still pending his support for the lies spouted by Fox shows he’d clearly lost his touch and his eventual comeuppance delightful. Much like it was when he had grovel an apology for allowing all the phone hacking.
As if CNN and MSNBC have never promulgated ‘lies’? Rachel Maddow banged on nightly for two years on a ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ conspiracy that in the end turned out to be just the hijinks of Hillary Clinton & Co. Great reporting that. And don’t get me going about CNN and it’s truly stupid tale spinner Don Lemon. As fate would have it though, its ratings last weekend, of no higher than 50k, the lowest since 1991 is a well-deserved comeuppance as well,
Bit of standard ‘what-aboutery’ there CC. Let’s see them in Court then if it’s of any equivalence?
Not the same is it, and being on the hook for $2.7b says it all.
I can’t believe you’re defending CNN and MSNBC. Their business model was Donald Trump. There is no what aboutism? All of them are objectively garbage.
Defending CNN, MSBC ? If pointing out they haven’t lost $700m already, and look like further Billions to come, for pedalling lies, then I guess by implication I may be defending them. The point though was an implied equivalence by CC. Facts do not show any such equivalence.
Let me put it this way, if you are getting your info from Fox News, CNN or MSNBC, you are grossly misinformed from partisan hacks pretending to be journalists. They all suck equally and should be avoided at all costs.
I don’t think the sum awarded against Fox and the damages still being pursued are in dispute.
Any use of the word ‘whataboutery’ automatically loses the argument. It’s joined any reference to Hitler and the Nazis.
Nah.
Extremely disingenuous, as a Blairite would be. Rachel Maddow spreading disinformation on the Covid vaccines and the Russian hoax is not less relevant because there wasn’t any settlement paid. The logic is not there and you know it.
Test
I think the media figure he most resembles is a watered down Joseph Goebbels. Which indeed makes him a suitable figure for appreciation by Conrad Blackshirt. That of course is a reference to the ex mogul’s penchant for monochrome tailoring.
Please elucidate because this looks like a rather fatuous comment at first sight
He might be a fine journalist but there is something distasteful about Mr. Black.
Lord Black.
“Lord” haha!
Well his paper did indulge in an endless stream of bigoted anti-Irish invective during his proprietorship. The Telegraph was deeply hostile to Irish Catholics on both sides of the border back in the 90’s. Thankfully it did abate in the aftermath of the Belfast Agreement but Black is an example of how Anglophilia can easily curdle into bigotry to countries that have a “complicated” history with the UK.
Care to be more specific?
Well I love his writing. He writes occasional pieces for the National Post and they show a deep knowledge of Canadian history – both recent and past. He is also unafraid to challenge established views on issues like global warming or Indian residential schools in a fearless but well informed and argued way.
His wife is a great writer too
Joan Collins?
Barbara Amiel
Are you joking?!
They both come from the same stable!
Yes, C Black elevates the National Post to high quality journalism, the kind you wished finding more often. So does Rex Murphy. We are privileged to read them.
Extremely distasteful. He mostly reminds me of Donald Trump tbh. Their both criminals and Black has a prison term to boot.
On trumped up charges. Black’s experience of US justice showed that, in the USA, the legal system provides the real punishment. It has nothing to do with justice