I'm hoping things will change. Things will not change.
His son Lachlan Murdoch is taking over. Lachlan has been co-chair of News Corp since 2014, and a director before that. Given that Rupert is 92, I'm sure that Lachlan has already been calling the shots for a long time. This is not really a change.
Unfortunately his other son who was against his dad's ways publicly attacked him so he's got put aside while the smart move would have been to play his game, take over the company and change it.
If you changed fox news, the people who watched fox news would go elsewhere, it wouldn't reprogram them.
The tail wags the dog in this case. Fox is lie based propaganda because its audience demands lie based propaganda.
Why would that have been the smart move? If given the choice of having money and no obligations or having money and inheriting a dumpster fire while lying about what you belief for decades which would you pick? Maybe he doesnt want to be king of the shit pile.
Is Lachlan a Kendall, a Roman, or a Connor?
Hopefully a Greg.
I am only through season 01 so far but I cannot say there is any choice that would be good.
After finishing the series you will have come to the same conclusion.
Shiv sucks too.
God, Shiv sucks. I felt so bad for Tom.
Shiv was arguably the worst of them all
Yep, complete hypocrite that doesn't stand behind a single thing she supposedly believes in.
I won't spoil anything but yeah, they all pretty much suck lol.
I'm assuming he's still running he company and this is just for appearances or financial reasons. There's no way he won't have control of what they do or say
Despair is the enemy of progress.
So is Robert Murdoch and he is almost a 100
Things always change. They just never get "perfect" because a new problem is always around the corner. Life is certainly no utopia though, nor will it be any time soon. We will not live to see the end of problems.
That's what it seems like people are hoping for anyway, some kind of problem-free world. It is unrealistic.
..... I think you're pretty ignorant to how murdoch has been spitting up the same problems for 40 years....
He’s been focusing on the same problems because it works. Why change a successful formula?
No, I just see 40 years on a scale bigger than my own lifetime. Again, I don't expect to live to see the end of these problems. I will probably die of old age before they are all completely solved. Just like many other problems were actually solved before I was ever born.
You sound like someone at a book club talking about the book they didn’t read. Murdoch was the one causing the problems. His son will likely continue to use his father’s media empire to lie and manipulate.
They sound like someone using AI to write their responses. Profile is interesting too.
No, he's not a cause. He's a symptom. This is an example of "great man history", where Murdoch is seen as somehow special, and if we had prevented him from fucking shit up, things would be fine.
I would argue that if he didn't do it, someone else would've, because it's a systemic problem, and he is just one example of it, just like Trump. They are not the cause of illness, but a symptom of illness.
Dude literally created the 24 hour news cycle and the dogshit that has been destroying the US for the last few decades. You think all those people would have gathered on January 6th without Faux News telling them the election was stolen?
Murdoch was responsible for a lot of horrible shit, Jan 6th for sure, but he did not create the 24 hr news cycle.
Why is everyone suddenly trying to pretend I'm defending Rupert Murdoch? I said things do change. That is not the same as liking Rupert Murdoch. I'm not in a kids sub, so wtf is going on...?
Rupert Murdoch is directly responsible for an overwhelmingly large amount of the bullshit that is American politics and cancel culture today. He is a cancer to society and I hope he dies a slow, miserable death. You are on here acting like he isn't one of the worst human beings to have existed in the past century.
People have already forgotten about Roger Ailes I guess
So what’s the illness? You’re frustratingly vague.
I'm not really confident enough to say. Like all things with society, its very complex, an equation with dozens or hundreds of variables, not just a few.
There's a lot of theories though, income inequality and expanding corporate influence are commonly attributed factors. It's really the rise of populism that we're looking at, and that's ultimately rooted in citizen dissatisfaction. That's what opens the door for people like Murdoch and Trump in the first place.
Yes Murdoch and Trump, two billionaires that use media to manipulate people into thinking billionaires are their friends; “job creators”. You’re right that if it wasn’t Murdoch it may have been someone else, but it was him and he objectively moved public discourse further towards the pro-business, pro-wealth hoarding, anti-union world we live in.
And none of these problems have been solved sense you were born. That's the issue.
We've solved a lot of problems in the past few decades, just not all of them, and we added new ones on top.
Stop hoping for a problem-free world. Your children, if you choose to have some, will see problems of their own. Some will be those we've failed to address. Others will be brand new.
I'd be happy to see a world where people don't actively create problems for others due to greed, ignorance, or bigotry.
We got enough problems from natural disasters, disease, accidents, etc. If people could just not be dicks and not fuck each other over constantly that would be cool.
Hear hear.
The gall to respond like that after all the your comments in this thread is insane
These are fake progressives. Real progressives don't espouse such hopeless narratives.
The only fake progrssive i see here is you
That’s what it seems like people are hoping for anyway, some kind of problem-free world. It is unrealistic.
I think you are mistaken. People are upset for a lack of progress. How the pace of improvement is endlessly kneecapped.
We won't live to see the end of our problems. But there are several problems in our lives that could be ended very, very quickly if we actually gave a damn.
While I understand there's been some very disappointing backsliding in the past decade or so, in order to see no progress anywhere you need to cherry pick your examples to actually avoid areas of improvement.
I blane clickbait media and its doomerism.
Do you not understand how people work or something?
Nobody is saying there has been "no progress anywhere". But they'll still be upset when there is little progress, or backsliding, on issues that affect them or that they are passionate about.
It's really quite condescending to waffle on about how suffering people need to look at the big picture, and how it's unreasonable to expect their suffering to be alleviated during their lifetimes, when there really isn't a good reason why they should be suffering as much as they are to begin with.
I was specifically responding to someone who said "things don't change". It sure sounded to me like "no progress anywhere". Sorry if my response upset people, but I simply cannot agree that things don't change.
I was specifically responding to someone who said “things don’t change”.
The actual message was:
I’m hoping things will change. Things will not change.
Yeah I think people are upset because you are attacking positions nobody is taking, and disparaging progressives in the same breath.
I'm not disparaging progressives in the slightest, I'm saying we get some wins sometimes. We do succeed in improving things sometimes.
So, what's the difference between "things don't change" and "things will not change"?
I’m not disparaging progressives in the slightest, I’m saying we get some wins sometimes. We do succeed in improving things sometimes.
Just telling you how you read to others. Especially with the weird "That’s what it seems like people are hoping for anyway, some kind of problem-free world. It is unrealistic." type comments.
You read like someone chastising people for being angry that their issues haven't received redress.
So, what’s the difference between “things don’t change” and “things will not change”?
Thinking that things won't change with Murdoch's retirement is not the same as things never change anywhere.
I can see that, but I think it should be pretty clear that the one disparaging progressives is the one saying things will not change, even though the mission of progressives is to change things.
My position is a more complicated one that requires some thinking about, but it is fully consistent with wishing for and fighting for an improved world.
Don't you think it might just be a little reasonable to wish for, not a perfect, problem-free world, but one that is simply improved over the one we have? I think by setting our expectations a little more realistically, we can help avoid a lot of the harmful, negative emotions that have gotten so common, and that don't really do much to help due to how de-motivating the sensation of hopelessness can be.
I'm hoping things will change. Things will not change.
His son Lachlan Murdoch is taking over. Lachlan has been co-chair of News Corp since 2014, and a director before that. Given that Rupert is 92, I'm sure that Lachlan has already been calling the shots for a long time. This is not really a change.
Unfortunately his other son who was against his dad's ways publicly attacked him so he's got put aside while the smart move would have been to play his game, take over the company and change it.
If you changed fox news, the people who watched fox news would go elsewhere, it wouldn't reprogram them.
The tail wags the dog in this case. Fox is lie based propaganda because its audience demands lie based propaganda.
Why would that have been the smart move? If given the choice of having money and no obligations or having money and inheriting a dumpster fire while lying about what you belief for decades which would you pick? Maybe he doesnt want to be king of the shit pile.
Is Lachlan a Kendall, a Roman, or a Connor?
Hopefully a Greg.
I am only through season 01 so far but I cannot say there is any choice that would be good.
After finishing the series you will have come to the same conclusion.
Shiv sucks too.
God, Shiv sucks. I felt so bad for Tom.
Shiv was arguably the worst of them all
Yep, complete hypocrite that doesn't stand behind a single thing she supposedly believes in.
I won't spoil anything but yeah, they all pretty much suck lol.
'I love you but you are not a serious people.'
Is that Kendall or Roman?
I'm assuming he's still running he company and this is just for appearances or financial reasons. There's no way he won't have control of what they do or say
Despair is the enemy of progress.
So is Robert Murdoch and he is almost a 100
Things always change. They just never get "perfect" because a new problem is always around the corner. Life is certainly no utopia though, nor will it be any time soon. We will not live to see the end of problems.
That's what it seems like people are hoping for anyway, some kind of problem-free world. It is unrealistic.
..... I think you're pretty ignorant to how murdoch has been spitting up the same problems for 40 years....
He’s been focusing on the same problems because it works. Why change a successful formula?
No, I just see 40 years on a scale bigger than my own lifetime. Again, I don't expect to live to see the end of these problems. I will probably die of old age before they are all completely solved. Just like many other problems were actually solved before I was ever born.
You sound like someone at a book club talking about the book they didn’t read. Murdoch was the one causing the problems. His son will likely continue to use his father’s media empire to lie and manipulate.
They sound like someone using AI to write their responses. Profile is interesting too.
No, he's not a cause. He's a symptom. This is an example of "great man history", where Murdoch is seen as somehow special, and if we had prevented him from fucking shit up, things would be fine.
I would argue that if he didn't do it, someone else would've, because it's a systemic problem, and he is just one example of it, just like Trump. They are not the cause of illness, but a symptom of illness.
Dude literally created the 24 hour news cycle and the dogshit that has been destroying the US for the last few decades. You think all those people would have gathered on January 6th without Faux News telling them the election was stolen?
Murdoch was responsible for a lot of horrible shit, Jan 6th for sure, but he did not create the 24 hr news cycle.
Why is everyone suddenly trying to pretend I'm defending Rupert Murdoch? I said things do change. That is not the same as liking Rupert Murdoch. I'm not in a kids sub, so wtf is going on...?
Rupert Murdoch is directly responsible for an overwhelmingly large amount of the bullshit that is American politics and cancel culture today. He is a cancer to society and I hope he dies a slow, miserable death. You are on here acting like he isn't one of the worst human beings to have existed in the past century.
People have already forgotten about Roger Ailes I guess
So what’s the illness? You’re frustratingly vague.
I'm not really confident enough to say. Like all things with society, its very complex, an equation with dozens or hundreds of variables, not just a few.
There's a lot of theories though, income inequality and expanding corporate influence are commonly attributed factors. It's really the rise of populism that we're looking at, and that's ultimately rooted in citizen dissatisfaction. That's what opens the door for people like Murdoch and Trump in the first place.
Yes Murdoch and Trump, two billionaires that use media to manipulate people into thinking billionaires are their friends; “job creators”. You’re right that if it wasn’t Murdoch it may have been someone else, but it was him and he objectively moved public discourse further towards the pro-business, pro-wealth hoarding, anti-union world we live in.
And none of these problems have been solved sense you were born. That's the issue.
We've solved a lot of problems in the past few decades, just not all of them, and we added new ones on top.
Stop hoping for a problem-free world. Your children, if you choose to have some, will see problems of their own. Some will be those we've failed to address. Others will be brand new.
The problem of people like Murdoch have been around since time memorial. Patently bad people have always and likely will always exist.
It's only how much influence they are able to have that ebbs and flows over time.
And we're back in a period where these people have a whole lot of power.
Excellent point. This is how I view it as well. The problems that they bring are not without solutions.
I'd be happy to see a world where people don't actively create problems for others due to greed, ignorance, or bigotry.
We got enough problems from natural disasters, disease, accidents, etc. If people could just not be dicks and not fuck each other over constantly that would be cool.
Hear hear.
The gall to respond like that after all the your comments in this thread is insane
These are fake progressives. Real progressives don't espouse such hopeless narratives.
The only fake progrssive i see here is you
I think you are mistaken. People are upset for a lack of progress. How the pace of improvement is endlessly kneecapped.
We won't live to see the end of our problems. But there are several problems in our lives that could be ended very, very quickly if we actually gave a damn.
While I understand there's been some very disappointing backsliding in the past decade or so, in order to see no progress anywhere you need to cherry pick your examples to actually avoid areas of improvement.
I blane clickbait media and its doomerism.
Do you not understand how people work or something?
Nobody is saying there has been "no progress anywhere". But they'll still be upset when there is little progress, or backsliding, on issues that affect them or that they are passionate about.
It's really quite condescending to waffle on about how suffering people need to look at the big picture, and how it's unreasonable to expect their suffering to be alleviated during their lifetimes, when there really isn't a good reason why they should be suffering as much as they are to begin with.
I was specifically responding to someone who said "things don't change". It sure sounded to me like "no progress anywhere". Sorry if my response upset people, but I simply cannot agree that things don't change.
The actual message was:
Yeah I think people are upset because you are attacking positions nobody is taking, and disparaging progressives in the same breath.
I'm not disparaging progressives in the slightest, I'm saying we get some wins sometimes. We do succeed in improving things sometimes.
So, what's the difference between "things don't change" and "things will not change"?
Just telling you how you read to others. Especially with the weird "That’s what it seems like people are hoping for anyway, some kind of problem-free world. It is unrealistic." type comments.
You read like someone chastising people for being angry that their issues haven't received redress.
Thinking that things won't change with Murdoch's retirement is not the same as things never change anywhere.
I can see that, but I think it should be pretty clear that the one disparaging progressives is the one saying things will not change, even though the mission of progressives is to change things.
My position is a more complicated one that requires some thinking about, but it is fully consistent with wishing for and fighting for an improved world.
Don't you think it might just be a little reasonable to wish for, not a perfect, problem-free world, but one that is simply improved over the one we have? I think by setting our expectations a little more realistically, we can help avoid a lot of the harmful, negative emotions that have gotten so common, and that don't really do much to help due to how de-motivating the sensation of hopelessness can be.